Ron Paul is the best choice. If America had been Ron Pauls ideals when I was growing up, it would have taken me much longer to come to my anti-government stance I am now

Tettleton....whether or not you think you are right....only a COWARD mutes his foes. Only a child with no answers to his critics mutes his foes. You make yourself a fool and a jackass. sas thing is, i agree with most of what you say. But I would rather shoot you dead then support you becuase your assholish behavior of NON-response makes it clear you do NOT really believe what you say. If you DID believe your own brand of bullshit, then you would ACCEPT replies, and responsd to your critics. That you only respond to yourself....says that you are full of shit.

Get a fucking life, asshole.

As krellin clearly points out here. DELIVERY is important for effective discussion and productive debate. Not to say, I am going to join him in his choice of words but just to say it is often as important how I deliver a message as the message itself.

Without a doubt Meher.
I do the research and analytics.
My partner does the presentations.

Jim Powell's article at Forbes, Why Government Spending Is Bad For Our Economy, is chalked full of basic concepts that more Americans would benefit from being familiar with.

Government spending makes things more expensive, causes chronic inefficiencies and leads to more debt and financial bubbles.

Though President Barack Obama has spent trillions of dollars, the U.S. economy is stagnant, fewer people are employed than when he became president, the percentage of people unemployed for over a year has doubled since then, the poverty rate is the worst in two decades, and more than 40 million Americans — a record — are on food stamps.

The private sector pays all the bills. Government basically doesn’t have any money other than what it extracts from the private sector.

There isn’t any net gain from government spending since it’s offset by the taxes needed to pay for it, taxes that reduce private sector spending.

If the aim was really to stimulate recovery of the private sector, the most effective way of doing that would have been to leave the money in the private sector. After all, people tend to be more careful with their own money than they are with other people’s money. Undoubtedly people would have spent their money on all sorts of things to help themselves, things worth stimulating like food, clothing, gasoline, downloads, cell phones and household repairs.

Since the modern era of big government began in 1930, annual spending has gone up 88% of the time. If we exclude the demobilization periods following the end of World War II (three years) and the Korean War (two years) when spending declined, it has gone up 95% of the time.

"The fee reductions took effect in September and are projected to cost the state $5.7 million for fiscal year 2012"
5.7 million...
Is anyone aware that it costs each individual tax payer 1.8 cents to pay for that...

Speaking of ignorant, liberal Democrats.

Harry Reid today told America that "Private sector jobs are doing just fine."

Oh thank you HR for supplying such a ludicrous comment to bring Nevada into the proper electoral column next November.

The House should demand that this quote be plastered on walls at unemployment offices filled by the 9+% Obama rate.

Wasn't it supposed to top out at 8% after the "stimulus.?"

Here is a great example of how the government and all the insane morons that have more faith in a handful of lunatic bureaucrats than they do in the wonderful creativity of the mob.

http://www.freep.com/article/20111020/ENT08/110200319/Concrete-Cuisine-owners-enjoy-food-truck-business?odyssey=nav|head

So you think you'd like to open a food truck.

As Jeff Aquilina and Justin Kava can attest, there's more to it than buying some wheels, bolting a flat-top to the floor and hitting the streets as vagabond chefs with a Twitter account.

There are excruciatingly detailed licensing requirements, quirky problems that real restaurants don't have -- like sloping counters when you park on a hill -- and the challenges of staying open in winter.

But five months after rolling out their Concrete Cuisine gourmet food truck in Detroit's western suburbs, the two veteran chefs look back on their experience -- even the licensing gauntlet -- with satisfaction and a sense of humor. They're enjoying rave reviews for their diverse, restaurant-quality menu. And they've gotten used to people e-mailing to ask, "How do we open a food truck?"

"We say, 'Start at the Health Department,' " says Kava.

But last week, as they prepared for the lunchtime crowd at Valassis headquarters in Livonia, they dished about what it took to get their vehicle -- a former Cleveland transit bus turned ice cream truck -- on the road and what they've learned along the way.

They started working to get their license from the Wayne County Health Department -- known for its tough standards -- in the spring.

"It took us three or four months," says Kava, 32, of Livonia. "You had to come up with a plan review, the same as you would with a bricks-and-mortar restaurant. They wanted to see your whole layout. They wanted to know every single piece of equipment -- dimensions, specs, where you're buying it. You have to have a spec sheet for every single thing -- the exact model.

"They wanted to know your food sources and the entire flow of the food. ... We had to say we were getting the chicken, for instance, from U.S. Foods. And then it's, 'OK, you buy your chicken frozen. What's your thawing-out process? How do you cook it? How do you hold it? How do you serve it?' We had to go through every single menu item and do the exact food flow."

And those were only a few of the requirements.

"They say you have to do this, this, this and this," says Aquilina, 35, of Plymouth. "So you go back and do that, and keep redoing it. The final step was the lighting. We didn't have a lighting chart. They wanted to know where the lights are going to be and what's covering the lights."

Now the stupendously ignorant self-anointed "experts" will be defended to the end by the sheep on account of the endless hoops to jump through to "protect" the public.

People need jobs and Big Government prevents job growth.
Think about that when you vote in November 2012.

A lot of those things - how to thaw the chicken, the cooking process, the plans - have an enormous impact on the health of the customers. I wouldn't want to have someone be able to open a restaurant or even a food truck without having to go through that inspection process. If there was a shorter process, or a limited one, it would be skimping on the health of the consumer, which not only would increase the burden on the health care system, but would also cause undue discomfort and pain to the consumer. Thats why we need to investigate food safety at restaurants and supermarkets. If you want to have more health food scares or fire hazards in restaurants, thats your opinion, but personally, I'd rather have significant regulations.

Except Reid is right. Private sector jobs continue to grow, while the government jobs continue to be slashed. Look at the employment numbers.

What is the wealthiest metropolitan area in the United States?
Washington D.C. of course.

Former Slate reporter Jack Shafer once said, "Washington doesn't make anything except scandals." But its "regulatory powers, its executive orders, its judicial decisions, its ability to conjure money out of thin air, and its budget-making authority," give D.C. the ability to dictate "who can do business and how."

D.C.'s wealth is largely based on what public choice economists call "rent-seeking," using the political process to rig the game in one's favor -- through subsidies, tariffs, regulatory advantages, and other benefits unavailable via free and fair competition.

You don't have to be creative, energetic, or innovative to make it in Washington's business climate. You simply need to spend money on lobbyists.
Spending on lobbyists set another record last year, at $3.5 billion, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

D.C.'s workforce is the most expensive in the nation. federal employees whose compensation averages more than $126,000, but that is hardly a problem when you pay the bills with other people's money. The unemployment rate in D.C. is a whole three points lower than the national average.

It helps when Obama stimulates D.C. with more money than any other area of the country. the District and neighboring congressional districts in Maryland and Virginia soaked up over $3.7 billion of President Obama's stimulus package--almost $2,000 per resident, "nearly three times the national average.

The District and neighboring congressional districts in Maryland and Virginia soaked up over $3.7 billion of President Obama's stimulus package--almost $2,000 per resident, "nearly three times the national average.

Government is sure different from the private sector.

Did the people of New Jersey make the right choice or what.
Chris Christie won the last election for Governor over Jon Corzine.

Jon Corzine didn't succeed in the government where he nearly bankrupted the state of New Jersey.
Jon Corzine didn't succeed in the market either where he did bankrupt MF Global Investments.

Hats off to the people of New Jersey for making a wise decision to throw Jon Corzine out of the governor's mansion.

Another example of the stupidity of previously intelligent human beings occupying elective office, and the exposure of the true idiocy of supposedly educated academia.

Designating interstate lanes as HOV and charging fees for traveling in them is an idea born in academia's ivory tower and implemented by big government statists all over the nation who cannot cut spending to deal with budget shortfalls.

Washington state's example is the worst. In three years their HOV program has generated over $400,000 but at a cost of $600,000.

So not only did Washington politicians make commutes longer by taking a lane or regular traffic away and designating it HOV they lost money doing it.

No doubt they politicians in Washington were inspired by a study coming out of some European think tank.

In order to create jobs the private sector lets failed companies with bad business models and poor management fail in order than better companies can fill the void.

Government on the other hand takes money from productive companies through taxation and attempts to create jobs by distributing money to companies identified in a political process.

President Obama wasted nearly a trillion dollars in his stimulus, but that pales in comparison to what China wasted.

According to one estimate, the Chinese stimulus launched in 2008 to counteract the effect of the global recession was $586 billion in spending by the central government, plus as much as $2.7 trillion in new loans by state-controlled banks. In absolute terms, this is comparable in size to our combined fiscal and monetary stimulus, except that the Chinese actually managed to increase lending, whereas the dollars pumped into our system by the Fed never actually made it into new loans. (Which might be a blessing, when you see what happened in China.) But China's economy is about one third the size of ours, so in relative terms, this implies about three times the stimulus, as if President Obama had passed a $2 trillion stimulus bill and the Fed has pumped $8 trillion into the economy.

In short, this was precisely the kind of massive Keynesian stimulus that folks like Paul Krugman were pining for. So it is interesting to look at what it actually accomplished.

On the surface, it has been a success: China kept posting growth rates in the high single digits, while everyone else had a downturn. But now the reality behind those figures is catching up to them.

It's now pretty clear that a huge amount of that money went into a real-estate bubble and into big, empty vanity projects, including gleaming new government complexes in some of China's most impoverished areas.

And here's the big, revealing fact about how Keynesianism actually works in practice. These big "stimulus" projects were eagerly promoted partly because local officials got a cut from corrupt deals with politically connected developers. But this incentive was merely reinforced by official central government policy, in which officials were judged by the nominal GDP numbers for their region, and any economic activity, whether or not it made long-term economic sense, was promoted to pad out those numbers.

All that money wasted with no permanent economic growth achieved. Anyone can look good writing hot checks on the future, but the problem is that Keynesian stimulus in China and the United States was underwritten by hot checks that achieved nothing permanent.

So you're attempting to compare government spending in a pseudo-Communist state with government spending in the United States? When has any nation used the Chinese government as a model of efficiency and excellence?

The government of Jefferson County Alabama declared bankruptcy today.

Meredith Whitney told you this was coming.

President Obama has tremendous faith in one thing-the ability of government bureaucrats to make the best decisions.

Cases in point.

The government has decided what kind of investment will create jobs.
Investment in solar panel manufacturers will create jobs.
Requiring individual home owners to install smart meters as part of a smart electrical grid will create jobs.
Building high speed rail will create jobs.

The Obama administration also thinks that the market has no idea how and where to invest to create jobs.

The Obama administration has told Boeing that it cannot open a plant in South Carolina that it invested in, and that it must construct its plane parts in Washington.
More jobs will result?
The Obama administration told AT&T they could not invest in T-Mobile by acquiring the company because government knows best.
More jobs will result? T-Mobile won't go bankrupt in the next year or two trying to compete with Sprint, Verizon, and AT& T and cause a loss in jobs?
The Obama administration says that an almost $14 Billion dollar investment in the Keystone Pipeline project is a bad investment and won't create jobs.

Thank goodness the shrewd decisions by the Obama administration to invest in Solar Panels, High Speed Rail, and smart electrical grids created so many jobs that unemployment is below 8% and the economy has returned to a healthy rate of growth.

All of this thanks to the brilliance of the Obama administrations control over investment through government control and planning.

"President Obama has tremendous faith in one thing-the ability of government bureaucrats to make the best decisions.... All of this thanks to the brilliance of the Obama administrations control over investment through government control and planning."

And you say WE spurt liberal/democrat propaganda...

Democrat Denial Of Impact Of Regulations On Economy Holds Back Robust U.S. Recovery

Senate leader Harry Reid claims there isn't "a single shred of evidence" regulations cause big economic harm. Even President Obama disagrees.

It is self-evident that regulations on business kill jobs. Rules add costs. And the simplest way for a firm to recoup big expenses is by cutting salaries or by not adding new salaries.

With unemployment at 9%, it makes sense that Republicans are pointing to the Obama administration's over-regulation as one of the culprits. As the Heritage Foundation noted in July:

"In the first six months of the 2011 fiscal year, 15 major regulations were issued, with annual costs exceeding $5.8 billion and one-time implementation costs approaching $6.5 billion. ... Overall, the Obama administration imposed 75 new major regulations from January 2009 to mid-FY 2011, with annual costs of $38 billion."

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.,said on the Senate floor last Wednesday: "My Republican friends have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that the regulations they hate so much do the broad economic harms they claim. That's because there aren't any."
The regulatory millstone is now so inarguably heavy that even President Obama admits it.

"Rules have gotten out of balance," he said last January, "placing unreasonable burdens on business — burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs." An "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review" executive order he issued asks us to believe a serial offender can be trusted with the policing.

Obama's Small Business Administration recently estimated that federal regulations cost each U.S. household $15,586 on average every year.

Meanwhile, a recent U.S. Chamber study of all 50 states' regulatory policies' effects on job growth using econometric models found that "states with the heaviest regulatory burdens are sacrificing opportunities to reduce their unemployment rate and generate new business startups."

The chamber has fashioned an "Employment Regulation Index (ERI) that summarizes the overall level of state labor and employment regulations." It found that a perfect ERI score would mean "a one-time boost of approximately 746,000 net new jobs nationwide," plus business formation increasing by over 12%, translating into 50,000 new firms in the country each year.