I saw Gary Johnson for the first time on C-Span this morning for 40 minutes. FIRST: He needs to get his HAIR under control....and his Facial Tick. SECOND: JMHO: He's a Wacko. If you vote for him..... you may as well just vote for Barrack Hussein. Just Sayin..

You might as well vote for Johnson. Romney doesn't have a chance here in RI. Obama will win RI, very easily. The WPRI poll earlier in the week was 33.1% Romney vs 57.3% Obama. Johnson can't win but neither can Romney and since we are voting for the electoral college and not for the president directly you might as well vote for whoever you feel comfortable with.

http://www.wpri.com/generic/elections/polls/campaign-2012-exclusive-poll-results-sept-2012?chartid=1

An interesting point from that same poll is people were asked if they would throw out all of the general assembly. The majority said they wouldn't. But nearly 60% also said RI is headed in the wrong direction. Gotta love RI.

And more than 1 in 5 people think we are headed in the right direction here in RI.

Ted..that means 4 out of 5 don't..correct?

I just retired from the military and had a son in Trashcanistan. Barry O'Drama is the weakness in this country. I'd rather vote for Biden as President. At least he's honest AND funny. Promises..bwahahaa

LeaveRI the statement you just made was uncalled for and rude

"Barry O'Drama is the weakness in this country."

So nice to see you have taken advantage of generous benefits for veterans to
advance their ed-yu-ma-kashun. Retired people that actively undermine the same
government institutions that provided them an opportunity have lived too long.

Can't go forward for 4 more years when we haven't gone forward at all yet.
"STAGNANT FOR 4 MORE YEARS"

Government spending is down, employment is up - what's your measure of forward?

A roof over every head? A chicken in every pot? Personal jet-packs?
No matter what the Obama administration manages to squeeze out of a tax-dodging
corporate sector and sneak past a Congress intent on thwarting all efforts; detractors like LRI will just move the goal posts back and say, "Not good enough"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577450910257188398.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

Think of it this way, if Obama leaves what will the America's dead weight complain about while waiting for their next Medicare paid appointment?

hahahahaha..I did AND I'm living it.."STAGNANT FOR 4 MORE YEARS" of spouting off

LeaveRI show me facts that back your arguement just because you were in the military doesnt mean you know it all about what america believes Pres Obama leads in every swing state and on all the key issues facing this country.

Rhode Island is much like Iceland, pretty small, not very productive and home
to a high concentration of geysers (which we spell Geezer).

Good for you Steve..no need for crazy stuff

Godwin's law! Close the thread, already.

Jim..I can't believe the extreme posts..holy smokes..you're right

Funny how little this notion is analyzed, here.

I think the propaganda machine has very effectively masked the real issues;
money polluting the legislative process, tax evasion, and the Predator State.

The tall guys with nice haircuts are election Kabuki theater...

It was Bush who bailed out the Banks in the Fall of 2008.

"I must give Mr Obama credit,he is a good talker or con artist..."

That's idiotic. Do you suffer from Fox Geezer syndrome? Do you realize that the largest unfunded costs to the Federal budget are checks to old people and DoD?

You're saying on one hand, we can't afford to spend like this and on the other,
we have to keep these programs intact. Can you do math, Granpa?

"Fox Geezer syndrome"? That's idiotic.

" Do you realize that the largest unfunded costs to the Federal budget are checks to old people and DoD?" Sources, we need sources Naome. ;)

Fox Geezer syndrome is real enough that The New Republic covers the notion.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/82522/angry-fox-geezer-syndrome#

What follows is an enumeration of the obvious transfer of wealth from the young to the old, net transfers primarily in the form of subsidized medical care. Of all the faluts contained within the Affordable health care act the most onerous is the requirement of young people to buy insurance from for-profit entities.

Given that most of them will never set foot in a doctor's office until their own children are born, that fills the pockets of insurers - who then cover the elderly.

It just adds a layer of graft to the scheme.

Given that you'll likely brush off my sources as biased, I doubt you'll consider the following Federal spending numbers:

2012 budget (all numbers in billions of dollars)

Social security (funded by payroll deductions, not taxes) 781B
National defense 676B
Medicare 500B
Medicaid, CHIP and other 327B
Food stamps 114B (means-tested Seniors are eligible)
Unemployment 107B (paid for by compulsory payroll deductions)
General retirement and Disability 8.4B

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012

If you prefer a graphic representation - http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012

Of note is the huge amount of borrowing required to provide these benefits.

Like I said - the math isn't pretty.

Naome am I mistaken or are you really in agreement with The Heritage Foundation?

@ Pam - I used the Heritage foundation as a resource least likely to be considered
as "biased" by Dr. Seuss and GettoutaRI, already.

I fear the picture is considerably more slanted, as shown by the following interactive table from USGovernment spending -
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget_detail_fy12bs12012n_4041_609#usgs302

By their estimation, DoD expenditures approach $1T ($964.8B) and Health care
$882B - worse than the Heritage foundation assessment.

I'm still unclear on how the Social Security fund can be considered a part of the Federal outlays, as it is paid for by the participants themselves.

Far more troubling is the various Federal entities owning Treasury debt.
That just seems like keeping two ledgers, to me.

My umbrage is raised over the conceit that there are "good" entitlements and those
lazy welfare cheats, when the balance sheet says Boomers get the largest share.

Hence, the "Fox Geezer" reference. This demographic is being used by the same
forces that got us into this mess in the first place, and their unfunded programs are used to buy their cooperation at the polls.

Revelations of Romney profiting from the Taxpayer bailout of GM further deepen
my disregard for those that claim the GOP would put us "back on track".
http://www.thenation.com/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza#

Romney represents the ascendant Predator State.
Obama represents the Goldman-Sachs octopus.

Ted and LRI? They're the sideshow.

"I think if Lix gets her midol and a nap she's ok..."

This is a common ploy amongst the intellectually bankrupt - dismiss the opposition.
If you have a vestige of curiousity and look to the data for convergence, you'll find a few striking things -

Old people get the bulk of discretionary spending, more than half of all entitlement spending flows to the elderly, 13% of the population consumes more than they
pay into the Treasury, which is a net transfer of funds.

(Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities as quoted in the Economist)

Old people receive more in government benefits, as a sop to vote along Republican party lines - lately with a Tea Party twist. It's only considered Socialist if someone else cashes the Gummint check.

The outrage in this is that under the rubric of "fiscal responsibility" these seem recipients of entitlements funded by borrowing actively oppose the education of young people and maintenance of local public works projects that are funded by
property taxes. It's hypocrisy in a blatant form.

It's idiocy to claim that poor people, particularly children don't deserve the same
conditions, formed under the social contract, that gave boomers their shot.

When old people whinge on about "Tea Party ideals" and "Conservative values"
yet can't recognize their own contribution to the fiscal mess, that's idiocy.

Perhaps in "Dr. Seuss world" this makes sense. Even if you're leaving RI - not so.

Wow, naome. Love the second paragraph. No one is better at dismissing the opposition than you, naome...intellectually bankrupt????

Lix -
you must know some of these people as old or Tea Party members. I don't know how old any of them are unless they refer to an old song etc.. I certainly don't know any of their affiliations (yours I can guess though)...and I personally don't know anyone in the Tea Party (unless I know them and they don't say it)..and if you're referring to me it's very funny..I'm not even eligible for a RIPTA bus pass and way more than 10 years away from SS or medi-anything. Remember I have 30+ years military and graduated HS at 17..you can come close I bet. See you at Church and I too don't proselytize.

"This is a common ploy amongst the intellectually bankrupt - dismiss the opposition." Naome, How many times have you called people names on here and dismissed them? You said these right?

"Better check your thorazine drip, you've gone dry. "
"Nice to have free therapy session for the delusional, innit?"
"You lot have lived too long to be useful."

Let's assume you're right about old people and entitlements, great. Why is it the governments job to take care of people? You and I might actually agree on something here but does the government do many things well? Why would you advocate to take the weak, children, elderly and put them into systems run by the government. You're not helping them. You're saying to them, 'I've got better things to do than to contribute and volunteer'. People have the responsibility to take care of other people, Not the government. That's a conservative value.

Let me ask you this Naome: RI has been controlled by democrats for decades now, how did we get into the mess we are in? RI is exactly how the democrats want it to be, they have had decades to perfect it.

This is a fair question, and it may surprise some to hear my view on this -
I believe that the cycle of dependency and having State support of children without fathers has lead to more children without fathers.

Bristol County Massachusetts Sheriff Hodgson has suggested a recreated version of Boy's Town for young men without positive male influence to learn an alternative to what they see in movies, or hear in their music.

That's social engineering, and probably more effective than incarceration.

I raise my kids with traditional values (church every Sunday) and try to provide
a model of living within our means. We don't proselytize - I consider that proud.

What I can't abide is the claim from Tea Party adherents that they're exclusively
engaged in fiscal issues, but constantly banging on about the same intolerance
voiced by the Moral Majority when I was a child myself.

The fact that this most strident refrain has taken center stage in the GOP should be very troubling to anyone with a passing familiarity with the history of Fascism.

I think it much more likely that we retain strong families when we have meaningful paid work for men, and opportunity for their children to reach their potential.

To have a vocal minority of an older generation actively opposing this is foul.
To have them claim it as virtuous, appalling.

Naome where was the question. It was a decent post but I didn't see the question re:.."this is a fair question.."

"Guess what...Obuma took $716 billion out of SS."

No, he didn't. You're referring to the disputed savings projection in Medicare
as a result of implementing ACA.

Exerpted from Politifact:

In this instance, Romney’s claim gives the impression that the law takes money that was already allocated to Medicare and funds the new health care law with it.

In fact, the law uses a number of measures to try to reduce the rapid growth of future Medicare spending. Those savings are then used to offset costs created by the law -- especially coverage for the uninsured -- so that the overall law doesn't add to the deficit. We rate his statement Half True.

Social security and Medicare are two different progams. Social security is self funded, and was raided in 1983 - it's full of Treasury securities (debt).

Medicare is funded by payroll taxation, and the current outlays exceed receipts.
(It's running at a deficit.) More people enrolled than anticipated an they're consuming more than they paid in.

It's a Ponzi scheme, and young people foot the bill.
http://www.economist.com/node/21563725

People where here recognize the hand of older voters in attempts to reduce teacher pay in the public schools and bring in a voucher system; preludes to ending public education as we know it.

http://horizon.unc.edu/projects/issues/papers/Nolan.html
http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/predatory-privatization-exploiting-financial-hardship-enriching-1-percent-undermining-d

I can't abide by what you've expressed, as it is in stark contrast to what I see here.

I'll say it again, the same group of people receiving more in net transfers from the Federal government (mainly in the form of healthcare) is actively voting against
property taxes to support local schools.

This effectively saddles another generation with debt to pay their benefits and removes the clearest path to make the best for yourself - through education.

There's what the Boomers say, and there's what they do.
That meets the definition of hypocrisy.

Yes, you do need to explain how the exodus of manufacturing jobs has kept democrats from moving out state forward (to the same extent as other states) while they controlled both chambers for the past 45 years (and at least 1 since the 40s). As you would say, that's a big statement, care to back it up?

You danced around the question. Our population is what it is. The government of that population has failed them. If, like it seems you are saying, the problem is beyond their control then they need to acknowledge that and seek the resources they need to move forward. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Naome, you're assuming the government is the only way to help the weak and desperate and that's where I think you are wrong. Sending them to the government is the lazy and lacks true compassion.

As for your post below that's a double standard. Many of your insults have just been open ended to anyone who doesn't share your beliefs. Listening to you on here has me concerned that you've confused the boundary between thinking your ideas are superior and just thinking that you're superior.

Stunned? Confused? Weirded out?

You may have to flesh this out, a little skunk - those of us older than 30 detest mimes.