So, I'm a working person and pay my income taxes on my earnings. I am in a position to save some of those earnings and pay taxes on the interest I receive. Eventually I have almost enough in savings to start my own business. I seek out a venture capital company to secure the balance that I need. Then, through hard work and some luck, my business takes off. I'm paying off the loan I took out with interest. I take a salary on which I pay income taxes but put more money into my business which is paying income taxes on the profit it makes. I've been able to take some of my earnings, on which I paid taxes, and save those earnings. I pay taxes on the interest I earn on those savings. Eventually, I decide I can earn a greater rate of return and help other individuals start businesses if I invest in the venture capital company that helped me. Now I am getting a substantial amount of my income from the capital gains earned from my investment and pay tax on that gain at a lower level.

I paid taxes on my original income. I paid taxes on the interest I earned on my savings. I paid interest on the money I borrowed to start my business. I paid taxes on the profits my company made and the income I received from the company I paid taxes on the further savings I was able to accumulate. Now, having been able to establish an income stream at a lower tax rate, people like Rep. Shakowsky say I'm not contributing my “fair share.”

What do glaucoma and religious "values" political agendas have in common? A story on p7 of yesterday's NYT biz section "Stem Cell Treatment for Eye Diseases Shows Promise" caused me to stop and reflect. Future generations-our grandchildren-will be looking back 30 yrs from now while they are slowly going blind from some inherited form of macular degeneration and wonder why my generation obstructed hope for healing blindness. Atta-boys all around for religion-the leading cause of death and mental blindness. Religious "values" voters + tea party in congress has almost killed every form of advanced medical research industry in US, and are delivering ownership of medical cures, distribution chains, and intellectual property everywhere offshore. It's so ironic and sad that these "values" dictate this across-the-board lack of vision. Right here in my district, a dolt will tell me what I want hear when I speak with him face-to-face. Then he'll go back to DC and vote with the "values" pak. Look at what we have right here in this dolt's district. We are a medical industry mega-center. dolt! Have one of your people talk to one of my people so we can set up a re-election photo-op of you coming out of a meeting at Takeda, or Baxter, or Abbott where you just held a forum on medical technology and its potential to create cures and jobs in your district. Be a good dolt. I want to see it reported here in the patch next week. Better yet? Hold your photo-op at the VA hospital.

Did anyone notice the light beams coming from above Obama during his speech. Since there is no smoke in the House chamber, i suggest it was filtered light made to look like heavenly blessings on the messiah. Here we go again! The chosen one will remedy all.
Schakowsky of course is a leftist utopian of the first degree. She never has understood anything about human nature and the pernicious effects of utopian government on civil society. She will support any program which takes from successful people and gives to less successful thus creating the dependent entitlement state. If you are interested in what is happening in The United States and why, take the time to read Stanberry's article at the link below and then read the short book, "Ameritopia" by Mark Levin. If you then wish to understand Obama's think further, read his favorite book, "A theory of Justice" by John Rawls. One thing about an uneducated democracy; you get exactly what you deserve.

http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pub/reports/201112/html

Oops, here is the correct link to Stansberry

http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pub/reports/201112PSI_issue.html

And oh yes, with the state of Illinois bankrupt and it's pols too timid to cut enough spending to make a difference, a suburban family of four making $59,000 a year will pay an estimated $1,700 a year more with the increases in state taxes and fees including state income tax increase, property tax increase, Tollway increase, commuter congestion fee, increase in alcohol tax, metra rate increase, water rate increase and on and on. Did I hear a peep out of Schakowsky? Not. Ah the champion of ther little man!

Subject: What a photo! The caption is something else!

Mr Krudop. Why did you leave out the most compelling background within the first few paragraphs? A vital medical research industry is vanishing, and companies like this one in the story are left to survive in any way they can. The dolt's "value" pak - his posse, stands to block all hope I have for remedies for my grandchildren's generation. There are many potential stem cell technologies in the process of being sorted out and researched, and the conservative religious "values" pak has sworn to shut them down, jobs, research, cures, and all - leaving America for overseas places where freedom of religion does not leverage "morality" to obstruct research, cures for a wide range of human afflictions, and job creation. C'mon you dolt. I know you stand for something beside re-election every 2 yrs. Stand on your own. Stand for your constituents, and the economic vibrance of the district you serve. Stand for something, anything but the creepy stuff you apparently pay to your staff to write and post in forums like Patch.

If Mr. Hall wishes to engage in intelligent discussion on this issue, I would strongly suggest he stop with the name calling. I know some fiercely partisan Democrats love to call Congressman Dold "Dolt" and think they are being clever, but the reality is you are degrading yourself and your arguments with such behavior.

This video shows you everything you need to know about Obama's speech:

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

I truly feel sorry for people so mentally feeble that they believe government, let alone a lifetime politician, knows how to manage complex companies and create jobs. Here's Obama's 2010 State of the Union where he brags about one of his first business ventures with our money (to the tune of $500,000,000):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzNP37XMmX0

The NYT story Mr. Hall mentioned is interesting. It says, "Competing for research financing serves a purpose, helping identify worthwhile projects. The United States remains by far the preeminent scientific research locale, financing more than one third of research and development worldwide last year, according to the Battelle Memorial Institute, which is based in Columbus, Ohio, and manages 14 American research laboratories and one in Switzerland.

But a 2010 Battelle report stated that American spending on research was reaching a plateau, while China was overtaking Japan as the second-largest financier of scientific work. Over all, the report stated, the United States spent close to $396 billion on research and development in 2010, compared to about $141 billion in China."

Wow! they're spending 35.6% compared to us. But then, they only have 22 times the population we have. They spend 0.5 cents per person on the R&D. We only spend 0.79 cents per person. Wait, isn't that 158 times as much?

The issue for me is; I want to know what our do-nothing representative is planning for himself in order to learn how we can leverage the already strong health care executive environment in his district to expand profitably and employ more people in Lake County and elsewhere in America. The lack of any evidence of his activity (other than pandering those execs for contributions) suggests that he's not interested in highlighting any topic where he will be forced into voting with his "values" pak.

Values pak. Isn't that some chintzy coupon mailer cluttering my mailbox?

The Dem. big lie is that the rich don't pay their fair share in taxes. A statistic I saw said that the top 1% paid 29% of the total federal income tax. And the bottom 49% paid no federal income taxes. I have no complaint about the rich paying a lot more than the poor but I am sure the top 1% don't consume 29% of governmnet services. So what is "fair"? I suspect for most Dems. the rich is defined as anyone with more money than them so the "rich" should pay more. And the Dem. political leaders will agree, in effect buying votes-pay nothing and get services!

If I'm not mistaken, it was the Bush era congress and president dum down's executive order(s) which cut off funding for most research involving stem cells. Government employees aren't doing research on the level we're talking about, and it strikes me as sort of disingenuous to suggest that Obamacare has had anything to do with this. Do you stand against stem cell medical research on religious grounds? Is it unreasonable to expect my Congressman to be ahead of the curve given the enormous presence of the healthcare industry in his district? Is it unreasonable to suggest he has a responsibility to explore every facet of creating more venture and jobs here? Especially now that he signed a kosher pledge and won't be bringing any pork into our realm.

Federalist No. 45

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

I am old-school. I have never voted for a Representative for what that individual would bring to the District in which I live. I firmly believe that doing so is why we are in such dire straits in regard to the National Debt. I also believe that since our current federal government is trying to operate outside the bounds of the Constitution without amending it to match what they're trying to do, it just will not work. Besides, you also end up with individuals who latch onto single issues that become paramount to their concerns and insist that their Representative act on nothing else.

And now we should turn all of this over to Newt. Yep that will clean up the mess.

I read that book in college too. Old reliable stuff. Did you read Age Wave? If you know how to read simple tea leaves, then that primer should be a snap. Ask your dolt, how can we leverage an aging population boom to employ more people in their service economy right here in his district? If you don't leverage and pressure these dolts to work harder for their district when running for re-election every 2 years, you're only cheating yourself. Look, I know the dolt is probably going to be my rep for many terms. So far he demonstrated the ability to appear as if he is doing little and speaks nothing that indicates that he knows anything, except perhaps since he lives near the lake - a windsock comes to mind). A different president isn't going to change that. It will predictably stay the same unless we performance review him at election time. John Porter was good at this, a role model desecrated by his dumbed down predecessors' and their aloofness. Every voter has a job to do. I'm doing mine. He's a dolt. The poor performance appraisal comes with a performance improvement plan. Geez I'm trying to help the guy.

Thanks for the political cliche. I'd say that on the national level, the number one problem we have here locally is that our Congressman isn't up to meeting the dire consequences of the impact that your broadside strategy suggests. Can we teach a dolt to walk and chew gum at the same time? He is performing terribly. He needs your help also and so do our local government bodies who tax our properties.

At least, some in the media are beginning to question Obama's motives and competence. This is good. Maybe 2012 will be the end of a error. Still again, read Stansberry's piece at http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pub/reports/201112PSI_issue.html

The problem, Fred, is that there are too many voters who like the idea of taking from others and giving to them. And now those voters are accustommed to that. The politicians pander to it to stay in office and continue to feed at the public trough. Does anyone wonder how so many politicians who have never had a real job and who started out with little or nothing get filthy rich. The Clintons, the Obamas, the Emmanuels and on and on.

There is such a simple answer to all this. Get rid of "Citizens United" put a limit on how much can be spent on any campaign and set term limits for all politicians. It seems to me that a political office should not be a career. We have a term limit for Presidents why not the rest.

Dan C,

It is a right which the state gives to itself, presumably with the consent of the governed. However that consent is quickly turned on the electorate with the good intent of creating a utopian society. Read Plato's "Republic" and/or Thomas More's "Utopia" for a further explanation. Then if there are folks who are opposed to the master plan because they wish to be individualistic, the state eliminates them one way or another. There are many historical examples which I should not have to mention

Joh Hall: "Mr. Schulte. So I presume that you don't like it when the tactics used every day by both political parties to stalemate government are turned around and unleashed towards you."

Mr. Hall, I could care less what you or anybody else calls me (or thinks of me), but when one side in a debate resorts to name-calling, it means that they lost the debate. I concur that much in your posts is childish and immature. If you prefer to be childish and immature, be my guest.

The white elephant in the room continues to be right wing hatred for anything Obama. The Republican party sold out to Wall Street and the South to regain the White House after Mr. Clinton. It's a real shame. They claim class warfare if progressive complain about low taxes for the extremely wealthy. Well, the tax rate were steady until Bush lowered them. We seemed to be doing okay in the 90's!

"The white elephant in the room continues to be right wing hatred for anything Obama."

No, the white elephant in the room is that President Obama's economic policies have failed to turn the economy around. (13 million unemployed; 46 million using food stamps) Obamacare is a failure. The Stimulus of 2009 is a failure. The President just turned down the Keystone XL pipeline, even though there are no environmental problems with the pipeline. (The State of Nebraska has oil pipelines all over it right now-any environmental problems with those existing pipelines? Nope.)

Some folks like to use the word "hatred" for conservatives' views of President Obama. It's not "hatred", it's because the President's policies are failures. President Carter is quite pleased with President Obama-President Carter no longer holds the title of the worst president and President Obama has only been in office for 3 years.

President Obama is governing against the will of the people. Simply because you win an election doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want. The president is the CEO of the country-if you can't get the job done, "you're fired". President Obama has no executive skills-all he does is say one thing and then does another.

The Chicago-style of governing is a failure-Chicago is going the way of Detroit. Why would we want to bring Chicago-style gov't to the entire nation?

Stalin, atheist, killed 20 Million. Hitler, atheist, responsible in one way or another for the deaths of 42 Million? Mao, atheist, killed 40 Million. Pol Pot, atheist, killed 2.5 Million. Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, atheists, app. 3.5 Million killed.

Mr. Hall, please list those killed in the name of religion.

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free." unknown

Yet you Richard, conveniently ignore any facts that don't fit your preconceived bias or spin. Somehow, you have all the "right" facts, while others have the "wrong" facts. Yes, Rich, facts are facts and spin is spin.

Oh really Mr Schulte. The 2010 election is over. It wasn't a Presidential election which you must know since so much of your rhetoric is based on fear that the 2012 Presidential election may turn out the same as 2008 without your help. The only thing 2010 demonstrated to me was that hate mongering may have reached its peak and emboldened the likes of haters like you to express more hatred and zero ideas. No I'm not going to come into any forum with a fresh idea (to wit our Congressman is a dolt who is not serving the interest of his district's constituents) and be met with belligerent broadsides filled with worn out political rhetoric. Did your mother love you Mr Schulte? Or did you nurture yourself to behave so rigidly intolerant so as to be able to not express yourself appropriately....or even intelligently. I mean really, bashing others for name calling by name calling doesn't make you any better than me, I just have a lot more creativity, resourcefulness, and skill. You haven't even taken back your own district yet, and I'll bet that the rhetoric you use hear isn't going to budge Jan.

How does the read of the morning, (NYT p1, "for $2 a Star...") relate to Patch Forums? Phony review hype cramming and scamming has been around since the late 90s. These marketing strategies have migrated and embedded themselves into politics. Patch forums are stimulating because they offer an opportunity to express oneself and watch the right to free speech play out among the participants. Scammed-up user reviews on Angie's List and Trip Advisor are easily detectable with experience. Same for stock message boards, and now for both elected and aspiring-to-be-elected officials. If dolt's and his opponents people aren't here monitoring, that would be poor campaign management. If they are, and they are contributing comments, that also stands on its own to be judged in an anti-social (as opposed to face-to-face) free speech slug fest. And I'll add this. I find that dolt's opponents are also dolt's, and worse, unknown for their abilities as dolt's. All I want is build a better dolt.

Mr K. Thanks for the clue at the scene of the crime.

24. Antietam, Pennsylvania (American Civil War: 1-3 July 1863): 6 300

Last I checked, isn't Sharpsburg still in Maryland, and that battle about a year earlier than Gettyburg? You've told me a lot about how you acquired your professorial arrogance. Ooops.

“That's how religion became the leading cause of death worldwide.”
“Ever heard of the Crusades, Mr Krudop? Hitler killed Jews, Mr. Krudop- those deaths weren't motivated by religious intolerance? I hope you are not saying no one has died over religious ideology.”
“Pius....Pope.....Holocaust. How convenient you have a blind spot for assessing moral responsibility. I'll repeat. Religion. the leading cause of death.”
“PS - 3,000 or so killed on our soil on 9/11. Revenge for religious war which began with the Crusades. Salem Witch Trials should be right up there in any political polemicist's dark alley. Ever hear of the Inquisition? How about that Mountain Meadows Massacre?”

There have been millions of individuals killed in the name of religion over the centuries. Probably 3 million in the Crusades, approximately 2,000 to 30,000 during the Spanish Inquisition depending on whose number you use. The link I gave you spells out very clearly that religious wars have been devastating. Where we disagree is that religion is the leading cause of death worldwide. I would suggest that disease and non-religious based wars have probably been a greater cause of death than religious wars or religious based acts.

WWII – 66 million killed. Not a religious war.
Mao – 40 million killed. Not religion based.
Genghis Khan – 40 million killed. Not religion based.
Joseph Stalin – 20 million killed. Not religion based.
WWI – 15 million killed. Not a religious war.

The right can never agree to the facts. All you have to do is watch any of the debates and see how the truth seems to never get in the way of their rhetoric. I say again as I did yesterday. Overturn "Citizens United" put a cap on campaign spending and enact term limits for all political offices. Why is the office of President of the USA the only one with a term limit.

Larry The LEFT doesn't want term limits.

Reformers during the early 1990s used the initiative and referendum to put congressional term limits on the ballot in 24 states. Voters in eight of these states approved the congressional term limits by an average electoral margin of two to one.[23] In the elections of 1994, part of the Republican platform was to pass legislation setting term limits in Congress. After winning the majority, they brought a constitutional amendment to the House floor.

It limited members of the Senate to two six-year terms and members of the House to six two-year terms. Because the Republicans held 230 seats in the House, they were able to get a simple majority. However, constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority, or 290 votes (in the House), and the votes to impose term limits on Congress fell short of that number.

Daniel.

1) You linked me to a site you apparently use as one of your resources, and in 90 seconds I connect to a list which is factually confused and incorrect.

2) And then you save face by admitting perhaps religion is the second leading cause of death, based on numbers from your tainted source?

OK, compromise (you remember what that is don't you?)...

"Religion, a leading cause of death".

Your source has two Confederacy high water mark battles garbled into one at the wrong time in the wrong place. That doesn't say much for your authenticity. The more meticulous your attempts, the looser you want to play with facts. I didn't say you agree, I suggested that you compromise, but not surprisingly you overlooked that. So pound sand please my blowhard friend. Religion, the leading cause of death. Worldwide, for at least 15 centuries. You are on the wrong side of history.

Don't you look silly. Big Guffaw. Was it Sharpsburg? Or was it Gettysburg? Or was it Antietam? Was it 1862? Or was it 1863? Your sources of information are confused. No wonder you haven't figured out the how realpolitik works. You've set yourself up to learn the hard way, and that's right up my bloody road. Take your spanking, stop your sniveling Abner. I learned a long time ago that no facts are better than wrong facts. If you know better then you're a liar. If you don't, then you're just another dolt.

And also... thanks for flattering me with the Mammy Yokum compliment. According to one of my coveted sources comparing me to Mammy and you to Granny Clampett, "Mammy is probably stronger than Granny, but I think Granny has more of a mean streak. Mammy believes that "good is better'n evil becuz it's nicer," and has a certain amount of affection for her son and daughter-in-law, while Granny lives in a constant state of rage and fury against everyone, even those closest to her".

Describes you and Schulte to a T. Good night Granny.

You're in my pipe, and I'm smokin'

I made the mistake of trying to refute Mr. Hall's statement that religion has killed more people than any other cause. I gave a link to a source that began with the following caveat "On these pages, I have collected a variety of body counts for all the major atrocities of the 20th Century and set them out for you to examine. I have tried to keep commentary to a minimum, although I would have to be a robot to avoid passing occasional judgement on the accuracy of some of these estimates. (You might want to read my introduction on the uncertainty of atrocity statistics, and my footnote on the morality of atrocity statistics, if you haven't already.)

Some of these sources inspire more confidence than others. Often the least authoritative sources (such as dilettantes like me or partisan propagandists) are the most accessible, while the most authoritative (serious scholars with no vested interest) are the most obscure, but I have generally accorded all sources equal weight. My intention here is not to dictate that you believe one chosen number; instead, I'm more interested in letting you see the limits of the debate -- the upper and lower estimates and the spectrum that runs between them. A useful rule of thumb is that if you are faced with a wide spread of differing estimates, it's safer to believe one from the cluster in the middle than one alone at the upper or lower edge."