RB is telling us that he wants a representative who will go to congress and raise our taxes. Apparently he thinks a Democrat will go to congress and raise our taxes so we can live the good life.

Hey Gary - Taxes are LOWER with Obama.

Did you know that the Stimulus Plan that the GOP hates so much was made up of mostly tax cuts? Of course you didn't. Cons have been too busy complaining about how much it cost.

And here I thought cons didn't think tax cuts cost anything. The Teapublican hypocrisy is being ladeled on thick these past few years.

It sounds like Dold has been doing a good job.

Radical? What do you call it when our government spends around $3.5 trillion when we're only taking in around $2 trillion?

Dold has voted for a wish list of Repub radicalism & glossed it over with words like "moderate" and "bipartisan" when his record is neither:

- Before he was even elected Dold was against the biggest middle class tax cut in history because he said it cost too much (aka, the Stimulus Plan which is working w/ unemployment going down since it started taking effect)

- Dold voted to redefine rape so it's more difficult for victims to get help

- He made a big speech, sent tons of press releases and then cast a meaningless preliminary vote to "save" women's healthcare... that was all right before he voted to DEFUND women's healthcare on the roll call that actually mattered.

In other words, he voted for it before he voted against it. Can you say flip-flop?

- Dold supported & voted for the radical Republican budget plan to kill Medicare as we know it by completely turning it upside down and forcing senior citizens to use coupons and pray that executive room death panels let them get the meds they need. (Sarah Palin was silent on this massive hypocrisy.)

- More recently Dold dragged his feet on extending the middle class tax cut. He kept telling anyone who would listen that he really wanted to extend it but he voted to go on break 3x instead of voting to extend it. Then he voted against extending it. Then finally, right before Christmas, he voted to extend it.

Dold's just a Teapublican lemming who says "moderate" a lot.

What do you want him to do for the district?

... other than get rid of pests of course.

We have a frightful amount of street and highway infrastructure which urgently needs rebuilding and/or renovation. If he's done anything, his constituents don't know about it. Is he involved in long-term transportation infrastructure planning with appropriate agencies here at home? What is he or Kirk doing to save us from the coming of the ridiculous new light bulb laws?

Well I'm certainly on board with keeping the incandescent light bulb legal! While we're at it, could we get the Federal Government out of our toilets so we can buy a commode that actually works?

That would be my campaign slogan... "Get Washington out of our toilets"... I think it's a winner.

Hey Gary - That whole light bulb issue was George Bush's doing and a ton of GOPs in Congress supported it and voted for it under Bush.

While I agree that Repubs often act as dim bulbs if you want to yell at anyone about that yell at the GOP.

Really Bill?

Why does Dold continue to fight tooth and nail to shovel our tax dollars into the pockets of Big Oil and other highly profitable companies through massive, wasteful Corporate Welfare subsidies????

But then he turns around to kill home-grown green technology -- one of the fastest growing industries in the Midwest -- because "it costs too much".

Of course, Dold did that a few weeks after he had a press conference w/ Kirk saying we need to start doing toxic fracking right here in Illinois. He forgot to ask New York and Pennsylvania residents why their drinking water is now flammable and their cancer rates are climbing.

More recently Dold decided we needed to have the Canadian Keystone pipeline run through the US in order for Canada to ship more of their oil to China. Dold did strongly imply that the Canadian sludge would go to the US which is a lie.

But, again, according to Dold we can subsidize those fossil fuel projects w/ tax dollars but we can't let the home-grown green technology field grow because it's too expensive.

If we could turn hypocrisy into energy Dold would have the US energy needs covered for a generation.

Dold a moderate?????Turn off Fox News and start delving into reality my friend. Dold's voting record has aligned more with the Tea Party Caucus than the usual moderate republicans. He has a record of being in favor before a record of

And CF light bulbs throughout your house. If ever there was a made-for-the-tea party issue, the light bulb legislation is it, but as with so many other things brainless hypocrites can't focus in bad light. Read the instructions on a new light bulb's packaging for how to clean up after breaking a CF bulb in any room of your home. This is a simple "too much government" issue, but just as the light bulb is a symbol of a bright idea, the tea party is lost, silent like Dold. Shame. No bright ideas at all and a sign on the lawn to prove it!

Jon Hall - The light bulb law was signed by George Bush. Republicans supported it til some right-wing radio shock talker decided to be against it.

Then they couldn't even get the votes to overturn it despite running the House and holding the Senate hostage to constant filibusters.

Gary...very typical of the "what's in it for me" crowd. Just like the analogy "there is an exception to every rule" your INDIVIDUAL case might be relevant to investors taking a chance. They didn't do it for you, but a means to earn more money. Economist now know trickle down does not work. Great theory, but when put into action greed generally spoils the theory. Darn.....you just can't trust that human being to make the trickle down theory a reality that is for everyone.

Absolutely right. Demand equals growth. In many instances companies have 'right sized' to meet less demand. If the demands not there, why would they hire more people? Because their taxes are lower? Don't think so. I'm a small business owner and if my taxes get lowered the money goes in my pocket since many times I go without a paycheck so I can keep what employees I have. When demand picks up, I'll certainly consider adding overhead to meet the demand.

Demand equals growth? Nope. It's all about incentives.

Here's a quick thought experiment. What if 150 people were stranded on an island with abundant resources.

What would happen if they immediately set up a socialist government and agreed to share in each others' production, and then all sat around and demanded to be fed, housed, and clothed? They would die. Their demand would create nothing without the incentive to produce.

Now what if they immediately set up a free market system and declared that each could keep or trade the fruits of their labor? Everyone would start planting food and building houses as fast as they could so they could sell or trade whatever they didn't need for the things they did need. They would be wildly successful.

Of course my example isn't theoretical. I just described the Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock. They started as staunch socialists in the purest sense; watched half their group die in the first year; switched to free market capitalism; which led to the first Thanksgiving the following year.

You can read about it in William Bradford's history of the Plymouth plantation. I have history on my side. What do you have?

Gary....that kind of analogy would lead to the absolute downfall of this country. I recommend you get out in the community and do some volunteer work in areas of need and I am not talking faith based volunteerism. Get out and work a food pantry or volunteer work at a Department of Human Service organization...listen to the story of the people who are mortified they have to use these services because some corporation looked at them as a number and not a person. Even at the turn of the 20th century manufacturing realized they would have to build a community and provide benefits in order to run a successful business. Pittsburg is a classic example for steel, Akron for tires, Peoria for Caterpillar.

Hey Gary - your island sounds like Teapublican headquarters.

What's going to happen to America when the middle class runs out of money to fund all the Republican giveaways (ahem "incentives") to all those poor, downtrodden wealthiest families and defenseless, lazy most profitable corporations in America?

The only uncertainty here is the constant threat of complete US shutdown at the hands of the Tea Party.

The US already suffered one Tea Party downgrade last fall.

That's where your uncertainty is coming from.

PS - If you think what's been happening the last few years is Keynesian economics you need a dictionary. Giving highly-profitable corporations tax incentives to ship US jobs overseas is not from Keynes, it's straight from Benedict Arnold.

Somebody's gotta clean up all the elephant manure that Bush and the GOP left behind...

RC...you are a classic example of why we need to bring civics back to this educational process of this nation. Yes the Dems had control during the last two years of eight President Bush years, but the train was already derailed, the media just wasn't reporting it. President Obama is elected and immediately the Republicans announce they main goal is to ensure this president is a one term president and begin slowing down the legislative process. Then comes 2010 and the majority of the country's electorate sit home and don't vote (53% of Lake County voters do not vote). Then we have a drastic shift to the right and end fighting within the GOP. Meanwhile the 112th Congress is doing nothing of significance. Just compare the legislation passed into law the first year of the 111th Congress as compared to the first year of the 112th.
Back to civics....we are not a monarchy or a dictatorship. The president is not the end all be all. It takes three branches of government to enact legislation.
As far as our governor stealing our money...your take home has not changed since the tax increase because in 2011 when state tax went from 3.5 to 5.5 percent, your FICA contribution dropped from 6.2% to 4.2%. No change!
and yes we blame FOX News for their agenda...
BTW....the Affordable Health Care Act is working.

RC never heard of the filibuster.

You can't control the Senate without 60+ Senators who ALL agree.

The Senate has not had 60+ Senators from any single party in a long time. Even between 2009-11 the Dems didn't have 60. They had 58 and two independents including a guy (Lieberman) who endorsed McCain.

Con-artist conservatives really need to stop lying like this.

Let me get this straight- you say "Your Party has held the senate and the House for the last two years of the Bush Admin and held the White House Senate and House the last Two years." Are you saying the democrats have had control of the two houses of congress for the past two years? Are you saying neither the tea party nor the republicans have affected any policy in the last two years? Really? Is that what you are trying to say?

Sully,
The Tea Party has very little power, and was being completely ignored until the dept ceiling debate started. Then the Democrats decided they needed a boogie man to demonize... and suddenly the Tea Party is running the whole world.

You have to pay closer attention to what's going on. It's easy to see the chess pieces moving if push the propaganda to the side.

Excellent piece.

Agree...but we must take advantage of any forum to begin bringing reality (i.e. the truth) into the fray. American's in many respects have lost their ability to critically think. We are a nine second sound bite nation. We believe what we hear if it matches our self made filters. The GOP are masters at realizing this and have spent decades crafting how to take fiction and make it sound like it is reality. How else could a man like Joe Walsh, a man who foreclosed on his home, moved into another million dollar home, declared bankruptcy, skipped out on over 100K in child support ascend to a congressional seat?

Democrats are the master of spin.

Bush signed the light bulb law. GOPs supported it.

More recently, GOPs haven't even been able to muster the votes to overturn it despite a big House majority and a solid Senate filibuster.

Ron Paul is the last choice before America's certain demise.

The only bulb shining for America right now is Ron Paul.

No President in modern history has been re-elected with unemployment over 7.2% - this lap around will be no different than the past.

Donny...I still consider 1972 modern history.....Nixon won re-election with 7.8% unemployment rate.

Hey DMAC - I'm generally on your side in this colorful exchange, but your stats appear to be wrong here. The figure I'm finding for November of '72 is 5.3% - a big jump from the 3.4% when Nixon took office in January '69 but well below Donny's "modern history" record of 7.2%, in 11/84 when Reagan was re-elected. What I find more interesting are the very similar first-term unemployment records of Reagan and Obama. Both took office with the figure at 7.8%; and both saw huge increases during their first 2-3 years, to peaks of 10.8% for Reagan (11/82-12/82) and 10.1% for Obama (10/91).

I do stand corrected. I looked at multiple sources this morning and find your data correct Nightcrawler. Still history says that when unemployment in declining, Americans tend to view that as we are turning the corner to recovery and optimism prevails..

Oops it is 7.8%. So change my statement to reflect 7.8%. everything else in my statement stays the same.

One of the signs that the economy is really picking up steam is that unemployment will jump dramatically for a short time. Once people start to believe that things are turning around, everyone sitting on the sidelines gets back in the game, and that drives the number back up. It happened to Reagan.

We still have to weather the parts of Obamacare that haven't switched on yet, and the parts of the bank bill I know about are sure to slow things down even more.

We are still headed in the wrong direction.

For one, we would have a longer term budget deal with large spending cuts. The refusal to fairly negotiate a reasonable revenue increase for the wealthy by the Republican Tea Party resulted in what we had at year end. Two, we would have a better healthcare bill. Three, we would have a functioning consumer agency. Four, we would have less back log in the courts......many more. The Tea Party has frozen the Republican party into the party of no to anything.

What spending cuts? The Dems got the dept ceiling raised, and then our rating was cut. The health care bill passed "before we knew what was in it", and health care costs have gone up, not down. How does the consumer agency or back ups in the courts make any difference in job market.

The Dems got everything they wanted for two years. They own the economy now. If you don't like it then you better change the leadership. By this time in Reagan's first term the economy had fully recovered. What's different now?

Com' on, Gary. You must work for the Patch to ask such a silly question that would draw so many responses. What policies have been stopped? I wish I really had to Google that, but let's start with Obama attempts to actually cut the deficit by taxing people with incomes over $250K.

And spare me the line about the Dems economy. This is still Cheney's economy - paying for a useless war in Iraq, tax cuts that stimulated nothing, a dead housing market ... oh at let's not forget the largest spending of any American President (not including the war) according to the Office of Congressional Budget Management.

Funny how the Repubs are so strictly against spending on Obama, but it wasn't a problem with Bush.

One only need go to Thomas.gov to see the accomplishments in the first year of the 111th under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi versus a very dismal first year of the 112th under the leadership of Speaker Boehner. Tony....you have a problem with strong women?

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04

If the Republicans spin, the media will call them on it. If the Democrats spin, the media will promote it.

You might want to read up on the "Journolist Scanal". We now have proof that there actually is a vast left wing conspiracy.

Uh-oh. Here we are at the media bias debate.

Wait a second Briarwood. You said earlier "If Dold and others don't want to work together to figure out something that works best for the country, then just get out of the way while real people do the work - and that includes the myopic tea-partiers who have a one-item agenda for something complex that requires creative thought for a wide array of people."

You wanted what's best for the country, but now all you care about is what goodies our district can get from Washington. Which is it?

While you're thinking about that it would be nice to know more about the complex solutions that would help a wide array of people. Or is it as simple as paying off the voters of District 10?

You got some splainin' to do!

Well your honesty is certainly refreshing, though you need to work on your consistency.

... and quit calling yourself names. That doesn't work any better than calling me names.

I won't make any attempt to convince you that Representative Dold will bring the bacon back to District 10. If he does, I will work to get him out. If that's your standard for representation then you should vote a straight Democrat ticket and quit worrying about any of this.

There is no pool of federal money. It's all been spent and our children are already facing an estimated $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities due to the social program Ponzi schemes. Adding additional debt on top of that is irresponsible.

Exactly, and that is oblivious to the dolt.

No pool of federal money??

Well, I appreciate your honesty that you don't know what you're talking about. Thank you for saving my time.

Tax the uber-rich? Please enlighten us with actual numbers - how much additional revenue will be generated from whatever tax rate you feel is fair? Enough to close the deficit and start paying down the national debt? The US Government is spending $10 billion every day. The richest man - Bill Gates - is worth about $60 billion. If the government confiscated ALL of his wealth it would be spent in 6 days. In fact, if the government confiscated 100% of the combined wealth of the Forbes 400 ($1 trillion), it would be spent in 100 days. What then?

If you want to increase revenue to the Federal Government then you should lower taxes.

The top marginal rate is now 35% of for both income and corporate taxes.

Reagan cut the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%. The economy boomed for people at all levels of income. Tax revenues to the Federal Government doubled during Reagan's term.

You need to familiarize yourself with the Laffer curve. Reagan's tax cuts proved this theory to be correct. Sadly this forum doesn't allow images or I could show you how it works. The basic concept is that at 0% tax rate you will get no revenue other than donations, and at 100% tax rate you will get close to no revenue because no one would have any incentive to work, so logically there must be a tax rate between 0% and 100% that would maximize revenue.

I've studied this and I believe that peak revenue would occur between 5%-15%, but that doesn't work in the class-warfare political game the Democrats are playing right now, does it?

Getting the budget corrected will take sensible spending cuts and sensible revenue increases. Dold (by signing the Grover Norquist pledge) refuses to consider revenue increases. This country after 911 has engaged in two wars and increased security at great cost. That alone justified a tax increase for some. Mr. Bush decided to increase the debt to pay for it. Republicans have decided to ask those citizens least able to afford it to pay for it only through Federal spending cuts. An economic and social safety net is a backbone of our society and expecting that cutting out the safety net to pay for war is the way to go is not reasonable. Many people do need the assurance of a safety net. 'stuff' happens. Simple as that.

RB - If it is "simple as that" then how about providing some ballpark "sensible" figures? I realize that you probably haven't done the math yourself so feel free to use the numbers from an admired politician or economist. Now I'm no fan of Dold - not becuase he signed some non-binding pledge - but because he has violated his oath to the US Constitution (for example, voting Yes on the NDAA). And yes, wars are expensive - which is why the Constitution limits the declaration of war to Congress, not the whim of a President. Bush started two wars, Obama continued both and authorized military action (aka war) against 3 or 4 other countries and we continue to act as the world's policeman. And we all pay - not only in treasure but with the blood of our loved ones. As for the social "safety net" - what percentage of the population shall we deem eligible for this charity - 10%, 20%, 50%, more? From what I've seen, voluntary charity from the private sector is far more effective, efficient, and sustainable than any federal (and most state) programs. So my starting position for federal eligibility is 0% but I'm willing to negotiate...

Relentless. I would add Social Security and Medicare to your 0% and I also would not call them charity. Let's see. Oh, I would add FEMA or similar programs....unless General Electric is coming in to clean up after Hurricanes. I would add programs that clean up contamination. Food assistance, unemployment compensation? Yep! If you think your 0% would put food on the table if by some chance you lost our job and did not have any savings built up, you're wrong...is General Electric going to fund this 'charity'?
My point is simple. Wars cost money and to pull the money to pay for war from those that are in need of assistance is just wrong. Everyone should help pay for wars.