Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Bachman Rhetoric Overdrive
Posted by:
ferfux
()
Date: August 16, 2011 10:28AM
“Well, I think the one thing we have to do is reject the new normal level of spending under the Obama administration, because President Obama amped up spending to never-seen-before levels. .?.?. I mean, one example I'll give you is, we had one employee at the federal Department of Transportation that made $170,000 a year at the beginning of the recession. We had the trillion-dollar stimulus, and 18 months into the recession, we had 1,690 employees making over $170,000. Government has really been growing at — a lot of largesse, but the people in the real world aren’t. And that’s what has to change. Government has no conformity at all with the real world.”
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Aug. 14, 2011
By popular demand, we are going to vet a statement in the column that we had previously discussed in an online chat. We probably did not do it full justice then, and Bachmann continues to say it — including on the Sunday morning TV shows this past weekend. A number of readers sent e-mails curious to know the truth, so we are happy to oblige.
On the surface, the fact appears astonishing — a huge increase in big-paying government jobs under Obama. But this is one of those statements one has to unpack very carefully, because Bachmann uses what is essentially a correct statistic regarding government salaries in a very misleading way.
The Facts
Note that although the GOP presidential aspirant starts out by talking about the “never-seen-before levels” of spending under Obama and then mentions “the trillion-dollar stimulus,” the example she cites — the number of Transportation Department employees making more than $170,000 — uses the metric of “the beginning of the recession.” There’s a reason for that phrase: The recession started in December 2007, 13 months before Obama became president.
In other words, Bachmann gives the impression that she is talking about something that Obama did, but in fact, the big increase in government pay that she denounces started under Obama’s Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.
In fact, the apparent source of Bachmann’s claim, a 2009 article in USA Today, made it clear that Bush recommended across-the-board raises that, after they got through Congress, resulted in boosts of 3 percent in January 2008 and 3.9 percent in January 2009. By contrast, Obama in 2010 recommended the smallest federal pay raise since 1975 — 2 percent — and then froze salaries in 2011.
USA Today also noted that civil servants are generally prevented from earning more than their agency’s leader, so when the salary of the Federal Aviation Administration chief was raised, nearly 1,700 employees had their salaries lifted as well.
The fact that these salary shifts occurred before Obama became president is easily confirmed by fiddling with the data displayed on the Web site of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. If you check the data before Obama became president, it is clear that the bulk of the new salaries were instituted before he took office.
The Pinocchio Test
Bachmann’s use of the phrase “beginning of the recession” suggests she knows full well that the pay raises did not occur under Obama, and yet she persists in leaving the impression that Obama is directly responsible for boosting the number of employees making more than $170,000.
That makes her statistic, while technically correct, deliberately misleading, especially since Obama has actually frozen federal salaries.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/michele-bachmanns-too-good-to-be-true-stat-on-federal-workers/2011/08/15/gIQAZaqbHJ_blog.html?hpid=z2
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2011 10:30AM by ferfux.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Aug. 14, 2011
By popular demand, we are going to vet a statement in the column that we had previously discussed in an online chat. We probably did not do it full justice then, and Bachmann continues to say it — including on the Sunday morning TV shows this past weekend. A number of readers sent e-mails curious to know the truth, so we are happy to oblige.
On the surface, the fact appears astonishing — a huge increase in big-paying government jobs under Obama. But this is one of those statements one has to unpack very carefully, because Bachmann uses what is essentially a correct statistic regarding government salaries in a very misleading way.
The Facts
Note that although the GOP presidential aspirant starts out by talking about the “never-seen-before levels” of spending under Obama and then mentions “the trillion-dollar stimulus,” the example she cites — the number of Transportation Department employees making more than $170,000 — uses the metric of “the beginning of the recession.” There’s a reason for that phrase: The recession started in December 2007, 13 months before Obama became president.
In other words, Bachmann gives the impression that she is talking about something that Obama did, but in fact, the big increase in government pay that she denounces started under Obama’s Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.
In fact, the apparent source of Bachmann’s claim, a 2009 article in USA Today, made it clear that Bush recommended across-the-board raises that, after they got through Congress, resulted in boosts of 3 percent in January 2008 and 3.9 percent in January 2009. By contrast, Obama in 2010 recommended the smallest federal pay raise since 1975 — 2 percent — and then froze salaries in 2011.
USA Today also noted that civil servants are generally prevented from earning more than their agency’s leader, so when the salary of the Federal Aviation Administration chief was raised, nearly 1,700 employees had their salaries lifted as well.
The fact that these salary shifts occurred before Obama became president is easily confirmed by fiddling with the data displayed on the Web site of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. If you check the data before Obama became president, it is clear that the bulk of the new salaries were instituted before he took office.
The Pinocchio Test
Bachmann’s use of the phrase “beginning of the recession” suggests she knows full well that the pay raises did not occur under Obama, and yet she persists in leaving the impression that Obama is directly responsible for boosting the number of employees making more than $170,000.
That makes her statistic, while technically correct, deliberately misleading, especially since Obama has actually frozen federal salaries.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/michele-bachmanns-too-good-to-be-true-stat-on-federal-workers/2011/08/15/gIQAZaqbHJ_blog.html?hpid=z2
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2011 10:30AM by ferfux.
Re: Bachman Rhetoric Overdrive
Posted by:
brain dead
()
Date: August 16, 2011 10:35AM
She probably isn't aware of this - her handlers/speech writers give her what to say.
Re: Bachman Rhetoric Overdrive
Posted by:
Starbuck-a-roo
()
Date: August 16, 2011 11:40AM
Yep, Bachmann sure is a deceitful bitch. Really, every mouthpiece of the wingnut right, those poor frightened, reactionary souls too stupid to think for themselves, simply makes up talking points, often from whole cloth. There is very little truth to what the wingnuts believe.
Re: Bachman Rhetoric Overdrive
Posted by:
Johnny Walker
()
Date: August 16, 2011 12:28PM
Starbuck-a-roo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep, Bachmann sure is a deceitful bitch. Really,
> every mouthpiece of the wingnut right, those poor
> frightened, reactionary souls too stupid to think
> for themselves, simply makes up talking points,
> often from whole cloth. There is very little
> truth to what the wingnuts believe.
Or they are being purposefully deceitful, such as the "Poor people pay no taxes!" argument.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep, Bachmann sure is a deceitful bitch. Really,
> every mouthpiece of the wingnut right, those poor
> frightened, reactionary souls too stupid to think
> for themselves, simply makes up talking points,
> often from whole cloth. There is very little
> truth to what the wingnuts believe.
Or they are being purposefully deceitful, such as the "Poor people pay no taxes!" argument.
Re: Bachman Rhetoric Overdrive
Posted by:
ferfux
()
Date: August 16, 2011 12:41PM
Its just the usual BS political game. Trying to pin talking points on the other party rather than show leadership, come up with ideas to improve the Countries fortunes. Its just how much damage can we do to the opposing party BS.
Re: Bachman Rhetoric Overdrive
Posted by:
48%
()
Date: August 16, 2011 12:46PM
Almost half of all Americans pay no federal tax.
Re: Bachman Rhetoric Overdrive
Posted by:
Johnny Walker
()
Date: August 16, 2011 12:58PM
All people without cars pay no gasoline tax too.
Re: Bachman Rhetoric Overdrive
Posted by:
Les
()
Date: August 16, 2011 01:03PM
income tax, not total tax.
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/effective_rates.pdf
Once in the very upper tier of the highest quintile, the effective tax rates start to fall and eventually drop below those of the 3rd and 4th quntiles since the wage ceiling for payroll tax is exceeded.
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/effective_rates.pdf
Once in the very upper tier of the highest quintile, the effective tax rates start to fall and eventually drop below those of the 3rd and 4th quntiles since the wage ceiling for payroll tax is exceeded.
Re: Bachman Rhetoric Overdrive
Posted by:
ferfux
()
Date: August 16, 2011 02:05PM
48% Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Almost half of all Americans pay no federal tax.
The number one reason should come as no surprise. It’s because they have low incomes. As my colleague Bob Williams notes:
A couple with two children earning less than $26,400 will pay no federal income tax this year because their $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero. The basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax.
Low incomes (or, if you prefer, the standard deduction and personal exemptions) account for fully half of the people who pay no federal income tax.
The second reason is that for many senior citizens, Social Security benefits are exempt from federal income taxes. That accounts for about 22% of the people who pay no federal income tax.
The third reason is that America uses the tax code to provide benefits to low-income families, particularly those with children. Taken together, the earned income tax credit, the child credit, and the childcare credit account for about 15% of the people who pay no federal income tax.
Taken together, those three factors — incomes that fall below the standard deduction and personal exemptions; the exemption for most Social Security benefits; and tax benefits aimed at low-income families and children — account for almost 90% of the Americans who pay no federal income tax.
For further details and info about the other 10%, please see the study.
P.S.: The true fact — about half of Americans do not pay federal income taxes – often gets transmogrified in public discourse into the decidedly untrue claim that half of Americans pay no taxes. That simply isn’t so. There are many other taxes in our fair land, including payroll taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes, and property taxes. Most people who don’t pay federal income taxes still encounter some of these other taxes.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Donald-Marron/2011/0728/Why-do-half-of-Americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2011 02:06PM by ferfux.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Almost half of all Americans pay no federal tax.
The number one reason should come as no surprise. It’s because they have low incomes. As my colleague Bob Williams notes:
A couple with two children earning less than $26,400 will pay no federal income tax this year because their $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero. The basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax.
Low incomes (or, if you prefer, the standard deduction and personal exemptions) account for fully half of the people who pay no federal income tax.
The second reason is that for many senior citizens, Social Security benefits are exempt from federal income taxes. That accounts for about 22% of the people who pay no federal income tax.
The third reason is that America uses the tax code to provide benefits to low-income families, particularly those with children. Taken together, the earned income tax credit, the child credit, and the childcare credit account for about 15% of the people who pay no federal income tax.
Taken together, those three factors — incomes that fall below the standard deduction and personal exemptions; the exemption for most Social Security benefits; and tax benefits aimed at low-income families and children — account for almost 90% of the Americans who pay no federal income tax.
For further details and info about the other 10%, please see the study.
P.S.: The true fact — about half of Americans do not pay federal income taxes – often gets transmogrified in public discourse into the decidedly untrue claim that half of Americans pay no taxes. That simply isn’t so. There are many other taxes in our fair land, including payroll taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes, and property taxes. Most people who don’t pay federal income taxes still encounter some of these other taxes.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Donald-Marron/2011/0728/Why-do-half-of-Americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2011 02:06PM by ferfux.
Re: Bachman Rhetoric Overdrive
Posted by:
heck
()
Date: August 16, 2011 02:09PM
And dont forget, when Republicans say "people" they mean corporations also..."people" like Exxon, GE and a mutitude of other "people". So, I guess they are proposing to raise corporate taxes after all.
Re: Bachman Rhetoric Overdrive
Posted by:
Taking care of bidness
()
Date: August 16, 2011 02:11PM
Bachman Rhetoric Overdrive..
I get it...that makes me old I guess...
Now get off my damn lawn!
I get it...that makes me old I guess...
Now get off my damn lawn!
Re: Bachman Rhetoric Overdrive
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: August 16, 2011 03:14PM
Obama announces 2-year pay freeze for federal workers
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/11/obama_announces_pay_freeze_for.html
But it turns out...
Obama's pay freeze for federal workers only limits raises
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-12-01-fedpay01_ST_N.htm
...Many federal workers would still get pay raises the next two years despite the limited salary freeze President Obama proposed this week for 2.2 million government employees.
The president's proposal, if approved by Congress, would stop across-the-board pay hikes set for January 2011 and January 2012.
But many federal workers will receive other pay hikes — longevity increases (called steps), promotions in grade, bonuses, overtime and other cash payments....
So they don't even get Step increases frozen. Those still happen regardless.
But even that has another work around - reclassification.
Did Obama lie about White House salaries in Twitter town hall?
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/07/did-obama-lie-about-white-house-salaries-in-twitter-town-hall/
Records Show Obama Lied about Pay Freeze: White House Staff Gets $20,000 to $59,000/yr Raises
http://www.uncoverage.net/2011/07/records-show-obama-lied-about-pay-freeze-white-house-staff-gets-20000-to-59000yr-raises/
White House Staffers Got a Raise Last Year, And You Did Not
http://gawker.com/5818310/white-house-staffers-got-a-raise-last-year-and-you-did-not
...The White House released its annual salary report last week, and as usual, it's nice to work for Barack Obama: Most staffers who were there for more than a year got a salary bump. A bigger one than you did.
The last time we checked in on White House salaries, we found that an astonishing 75% of continuing staffers got raises from 2009 to 2010—a huge number given the fact that, according to compensation experts, most companies had skipped routine raises that year in reaction to the economic crisis that the White House was busy failing to solve. This time around—from 2010 to 2011—the ratio is a little less dramatic. Of the 270 White House staffers who have been there for more than a year, 146—or 54%—received raises. The average salary increase was 8%. If you look at only staffers who got raises, the average increase was twice that....
Yeah, really? And somehow Bachmann's "rhetoric" is more astonishing? LOL.
Obama seems to have a serious "truth" problem.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/11/obama_announces_pay_freeze_for.html
But it turns out...
Obama's pay freeze for federal workers only limits raises
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-12-01-fedpay01_ST_N.htm
...Many federal workers would still get pay raises the next two years despite the limited salary freeze President Obama proposed this week for 2.2 million government employees.
The president's proposal, if approved by Congress, would stop across-the-board pay hikes set for January 2011 and January 2012.
But many federal workers will receive other pay hikes — longevity increases (called steps), promotions in grade, bonuses, overtime and other cash payments....
So they don't even get Step increases frozen. Those still happen regardless.
But even that has another work around - reclassification.
Did Obama lie about White House salaries in Twitter town hall?
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/07/did-obama-lie-about-white-house-salaries-in-twitter-town-hall/
Records Show Obama Lied about Pay Freeze: White House Staff Gets $20,000 to $59,000/yr Raises
http://www.uncoverage.net/2011/07/records-show-obama-lied-about-pay-freeze-white-house-staff-gets-20000-to-59000yr-raises/
White House Staffers Got a Raise Last Year, And You Did Not
http://gawker.com/5818310/white-house-staffers-got-a-raise-last-year-and-you-did-not
...The White House released its annual salary report last week, and as usual, it's nice to work for Barack Obama: Most staffers who were there for more than a year got a salary bump. A bigger one than you did.
The last time we checked in on White House salaries, we found that an astonishing 75% of continuing staffers got raises from 2009 to 2010—a huge number given the fact that, according to compensation experts, most companies had skipped routine raises that year in reaction to the economic crisis that the White House was busy failing to solve. This time around—from 2010 to 2011—the ratio is a little less dramatic. Of the 270 White House staffers who have been there for more than a year, 146—or 54%—received raises. The average salary increase was 8%. If you look at only staffers who got raises, the average increase was twice that....
Yeah, really? And somehow Bachmann's "rhetoric" is more astonishing? LOL.
Obama seems to have a serious "truth" problem.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: Bachman Rhetoric Overdrive
Posted by:
jackboots
()
Date: August 16, 2011 03:16PM
Anything is better than that uppity nigger we got in there now
Re: Bachman Rhetoric Overdrive
Posted by:
ferfux
()
Date: August 16, 2011 05:09PM
Wow registered Voter THANKS for MISSING the POINT AGAIN!!!!!! (EMPHASIS MINE)
political parties are good for one thing. LYING and taking POT shots at each other RATHER than coming up with comprehensive plans and leadership!!!!! you would fit RIGHT IN as a POLITICIAN! seeing as how you have NO idea how to LEAD but you are REALLY REALLY GOOD at slinging mud at whatever party you DONT LIKE!!!!!!!
Anyone else tired of our (none) Leadership? I know I am.
political parties are good for one thing. LYING and taking POT shots at each other RATHER than coming up with comprehensive plans and leadership!!!!! you would fit RIGHT IN as a POLITICIAN! seeing as how you have NO idea how to LEAD but you are REALLY REALLY GOOD at slinging mud at whatever party you DONT LIKE!!!!!!!
Anyone else tired of our (none) Leadership? I know I am.
Re: Bachman Rhetoric Overdrive
Posted by:
Hatemotor
()
Date: August 17, 2011 12:30AM
"Anyone else tired of our (none) Leadership? I know I am."
Oh God yes,,,
The presidential campaign now is like fuckin American idol, no one cares about substance, a large part of the population has turned into rhetoric machines for their side,,,
Oh God yes,,,
The presidential campaign now is like fuckin American idol, no one cares about substance, a large part of the population has turned into rhetoric machines for their side,,,
Re: Bachman Rhetoric Overdrive
Posted by:
Mike Hopkins
()
Date: August 17, 2011 10:06AM
Dear Sir/Madam,
I also heard Mrs. Bachmann make this statement on Sunday morning and I was astonished so I was trying to verify it.
Your explanation sounds credible.
However, regardless of the "when" and "why" and all the other facts surrounding her statement, you did not dispute the basic fact that today there are 1,690 employees at the Dept of Transportation making more than $170K.
If that one singular fact is true, then I am astonished and I applaud Mrs. Bachmann for bringing it to light.
I am aware that DC is an expensive area in which to live.
However, you must know how talented and hard working a person in the private sector has to be in order to command a salary of $170K.
And I am supposed to believe that there are one thousand six hundred and ninety people in one dept of the federal government that are that essential, talented and hard working?
Sorry but no!
I also heard Mrs. Bachmann make this statement on Sunday morning and I was astonished so I was trying to verify it.
Your explanation sounds credible.
However, regardless of the "when" and "why" and all the other facts surrounding her statement, you did not dispute the basic fact that today there are 1,690 employees at the Dept of Transportation making more than $170K.
If that one singular fact is true, then I am astonished and I applaud Mrs. Bachmann for bringing it to light.
I am aware that DC is an expensive area in which to live.
However, you must know how talented and hard working a person in the private sector has to be in order to command a salary of $170K.
And I am supposed to believe that there are one thousand six hundred and ninety people in one dept of the federal government that are that essential, talented and hard working?
Sorry but no!
Re: Bachman Rhetoric Overdrive
Posted by:
JustSayin_Too
()
Date: August 17, 2011 12:14PM
Mike Hopkins Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am supposed to believe that there are one
> thousand six hundred and ninety people in one dept
> of the federal government that are that essential,
> talented and hard working?
> Sorry but no!
It is you, Mr. Hopkins, and your fellow ignorant nutjobs, who is the problem. You have no idea how the government works, what government workers do, their skill levels, education, etc. In fact, you have absolutely no basis for your belief the DOT doesn't not need 1,690 employees (out of 58,622, or 2.9%) who earn $170,000+ per annum. Yet you complain INSESSENTLY about the “size of government”, public employee salaries, and “government spending” .
You are a knee-jerk, reactionary moron, as are your ilk. Perhaps there should be some sort of competency test for voters...
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am supposed to believe that there are one
> thousand six hundred and ninety people in one dept
> of the federal government that are that essential,
> talented and hard working?
> Sorry but no!
It is you, Mr. Hopkins, and your fellow ignorant nutjobs, who is the problem. You have no idea how the government works, what government workers do, their skill levels, education, etc. In fact, you have absolutely no basis for your belief the DOT doesn't not need 1,690 employees (out of 58,622, or 2.9%) who earn $170,000+ per annum. Yet you complain INSESSENTLY about the “size of government”, public employee salaries, and “government spending” .
You are a knee-jerk, reactionary moron, as are your ilk. Perhaps there should be some sort of competency test for voters...
Re: Bachman Rhetoric Overdrive
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: August 17, 2011 01:05PM
ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow registered Voter THANKS for MISSING the POINT
> AGAIN!!!!!! (EMPHASIS MINE)
>
> political parties are good for one thing. LYING
> and taking POT shots at each other RATHER than
> coming up with comprehensive plans and
> leadership!!!!! you would fit RIGHT IN as a
> POLITICIAN! seeing as how you have NO idea how to
> LEAD but you are REALLY REALLY GOOD at slinging
> mud at whatever party you DONT LIKE!!!!!!!
>
> Anyone else tired of our (none) Leadership? I
> know I am.
Actually you missed the point douche.
You were the one flinging mud at Bachmann - I merely pointed out your rampant hypocrisy. But it figures you couldn't understand that with your 1 dimensional view of the world. The point being, Obama didn't really freeze government salaries - but I am sure it sounds good as rhetoric. Sorry the WAPO talking point was lost on you and reality.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow registered Voter THANKS for MISSING the POINT
> AGAIN!!!!!! (EMPHASIS MINE)
>
> political parties are good for one thing. LYING
> and taking POT shots at each other RATHER than
> coming up with comprehensive plans and
> leadership!!!!! you would fit RIGHT IN as a
> POLITICIAN! seeing as how you have NO idea how to
> LEAD but you are REALLY REALLY GOOD at slinging
> mud at whatever party you DONT LIKE!!!!!!!
>
> Anyone else tired of our (none) Leadership? I
> know I am.
Actually you missed the point douche.
You were the one flinging mud at Bachmann - I merely pointed out your rampant hypocrisy. But it figures you couldn't understand that with your 1 dimensional view of the world. The point being, Obama didn't really freeze government salaries - but I am sure it sounds good as rhetoric. Sorry the WAPO talking point was lost on you and reality.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: Bachman Rhetoric Overdrive
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: August 17, 2011 01:07PM
Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Anyone else tired of our (none) Leadership? I
> know I am."
>
> Oh God yes,,,
>
> The presidential campaign now is like fuckin
> American idol, no one cares about substance, a
> large part of the population has turned into
> rhetoric machines for their side,,,
By the way I don't support Bachmann - although I will vote for her if she wins the nomination. I just don't think she will - although she will probably be highly considered for the VP slot.
With the field as it is right now the only one making any sense is Ron Paul - scary to say. Sure, he has his giggle points, but the majority of his message is spot on.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Anyone else tired of our (none) Leadership? I
> know I am."
>
> Oh God yes,,,
>
> The presidential campaign now is like fuckin
> American idol, no one cares about substance, a
> large part of the population has turned into
> rhetoric machines for their side,,,
By the way I don't support Bachmann - although I will vote for her if she wins the nomination. I just don't think she will - although she will probably be highly considered for the VP slot.
With the field as it is right now the only one making any sense is Ron Paul - scary to say. Sure, he has his giggle points, but the majority of his message is spot on.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University