Wrong. He successfully organized many angry black members of Acorn and trained them in the techniques of the communist Saul Alinsky, with the avowed goal of bringing down capitalism and redistributing the wealth to the "deserving poor". While with Acorn, he materially contributed to the shakedown of U.S. banks and the enforcing of the Community Reinvestment Act, which were root causes of the housing bubble and inevitable collapse. I'd call that very strong success. It just happens to be all aimed at the total destruction of the United States. He's had considerable more success as President towards that goal. He's been a very successful communist organizer. He just seems to have problems spelling communist - he spells it "community".

Are you sure she wasn't majoring in Gay Studies? That is the more traditional route to the exciting proression of hairdressing (or cross-dressing, sometimes).

It should be called "UNEARNED income credit", as it IS a TRANSFER PAYMENT (redistribution of wealth from one set of people to another). To add grievous insult to injury, the IRS calls money that I make from putting my precious, hard earned capital at risk "UNEARNED INCOME". We have finally reached 1984, with it's DEPARTMENT OF PEACE and other mutilations of the language. EITC is DOUBLEPLUSUNGOOD.

No, no and NO! There is nothing "fair" about the "fair tax". I've already paid massive amounts of tax on money I've earned, now I get to pay it ALL OVER AGAIN as I spend money. The "fair" tax is still progressive (people who work harder pay more, because of the "offsetting" reimbursements). It is revenue neutral (still brings in just as much money as current scheme) when what we desperately need is a tax scheme that STARVES the government. Everytime my children whine about something not being "fair" I tell them that life ISN'T fair, and to get over it. If they never learn anything else from me, that will help protect them from an inherently unfair world. Most of the evils of socialism and communism are couched in terms of "fairness"...

Well, 4 years is definitely better than 6, but WHY CAN'T WE HAVE THE VOTE OF CONFIDENCE? There have already been several times that he CLEARLY would have lost such a vote.

BS. The U.S. nationalized rail system has required massive subsides ever since the government took them over. Before that they were among the most profitable ventures anywhere. Only the government could lose MASSIVE amounts of money running a rail system. YOU ARE STEALING FROM ME EVERY TIME YOU USE SUBSIDIZED RAIL. AMSCAM (I mean AMTRACK) is a total crock. I happen to think that the government should not subsidize ROADS either. It should be paid for by the people who use them, not the general taxpayer. Same thing with schools. Actually there, it would be better to get the government COMPLETELY OUT of the education industry. NO MORE PUBLIC SCHOOLS! I could care less if the person sitting next to me looks EXACTLY like me - frightening...

Thomas Jefferson wrote in some detail about exactly how to handle this very situation. Check out his writings for some real inspiration. We are WAY overdue for his solution. Jefferson KNEW that the country he was helping create had been fundamentally undermined by his arch-nemesis Hamilton. The second amendment was never intended to make it possible for hunters and sportsmen to pursue their favorite pastime. It was intended as the final defense for the population from the depredations of their government.

BTW, sorry to leave off the DOLLAR SIGN on all the amounts in the previous post, for some reason they are considered to be "inappropriate language" by the posting code. Sad when a conservative site considers the DOLLAR SIGN (which is after all, a stylized, superimposed U and S, for United States). It is also the mark of the real capitalist (no accident that Galt's Gulch had a giant, gold colored DOLLAR SIGN standing proud over it, or that that sign was on many of the products created in Galt's Gulch). What is OBSCENE is this site considering the DOLLAR SIGN as OBSCENE.

anonymous - look it up in Google - MANY references. A good starting point is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve. It is a simple concept - at 0% tax rate, the government brings in 0 (obvious). At 100% tax rate the government brings in 0 (not so obvious, but think about it). There is clearly an OPTIMAL tax rate which MAXIMIZES government revenue from taxes. Any change in rate to one HIGHER or LOWER than the optimal rate will bring in LESS revenue to the government. The part that liberals just never get is that we are already WAY over the optimal rate. Further increases always result in LESS revenue. Decreases in the rate result in MORE revenue (until the rate gets down to the optimal rate). What is NOT addressed by the Laffer...

It seems certain of the more unhinged COUGH-COUGH-(michael moore)-COUGH members of the extreme left now want to (I kid you not) IMPEACH Obama for starting Yet Another War. To tell the truth, I don't really give a flip WHAT you impeach the fool for - wetting the bed if you can make it stick - JUST GET RID OF HIM BEFORE HE CAUSES EVEN MORE DAMAGE.