'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate

"Fox News Sunday" is heading to Louisville, Ky. Jack Conway, Kentucky's attorney general and the Democratic candidate for Senate , and Rand Paul, the Republican nominee and son of Representative Ron Paul, Republican of Texas, have agreed to a live debate on "Fox News Sunday" on Oct.3 at 9 a.m. (Eastern time).

Full Story
American Lady

Danville, KY

#42148 Jun 16, 2012
Hello wrote:
How much money did we loose again on the GM bail outs????
I believe it was 365 million shares bought by the tax payers at a loss of 20 sum dollars a piece, How many billion is that??
Na Na Na Na, Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey...
Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye


;-)
Sam Waters

Cincinnati, OH

#42149 Jun 16, 2012
American Lady wrote:
America is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy!
http://www.scwteaparty.com/ConstRepublic.html
I Pledge Allegiance To The Flag,
Of the United States of America,
And To the Republic For Which It Stands,
One Nation, Under God, Indivisible,
With Liberty And Justice For All
http://www.delusionresistance.org/christian/p...
Nice research! Yes, we are indeed a constitutional republic, but we are also a democracy. They are not mutually exclusive. Our democracy, an egalitarian form of government in which we all participate in establishing policy, is executed as a republic, meaning that we participate in establishing policy through electing officials to represent our interests in shaping policy. The constitution is, of course, the defining document.
WakeUp

Campbellsville, KY

#42150 Jun 16, 2012
Sam Waters wrote:
<quoted text>
...
2. Having “nothing on economics to brag or even mention” is not a valid criticism. His goal is not to brag. He and we all would have liked for him to have made even better progress on economic recovery than he has made in 3 ½ years, but there is no way to know if Romney could do it any better. Romney’s plan is not known other than his promise to undo what Obama has done that has actually worked.
3. Wanting to confuse high school and college students is only a straw man (your belief apparently) and hence not a valid criticism.
4. I’m not clear what you mean by this statement, Obama can do nothing to make Republicans look bad. Of course, only Republicans can do that, but that doesn’t mean they should try because it would be self-defeating.
5. I agree completely with you on this one, based solely on logic. While I suspect that congress would continue to be totally obstructionistic when it comes to Obama’s efforts, I suspect that Romney if elected would not really blast a hole in everything Obama. I suspect he would shake/shake/shake and become more moderate, but yes, return favors to the “job creators”(Wall Street, aka bankers) as necessary payback. If elected, I believe he would stop pandering to the Tea Party. I don’t think he is an idiot, just weak and willing to pander to anyone to get elected. I think he’s actually a moderate, which we need, but I worry that he’s become too obligated to big money to serve the interests of building a strong middle class. The fact is that CEO’s are making more than enough money already to create jobs in America if they didn’t want to keep it all for themselves. Unfortunately, he danger is that the suffering broad middle class will believe that giving more money to “job creators” will result in them actually creating more jobs IN AMERICA (pardon my shouting) so that money will “trickle down” to them. My guess is that giving them more money (tax breaks and deregulation) will not make this happen, as their greed has no limits.
Thank you for contributing to this discussion.
The money that CEO's make is not even an issue. What right does the government have to say what a CEO or any profession should make?

Cutting tax rates alone won't increase the competitively of American companies here in the states. Though it would help. We need to remove the ridiculous regulations that are stifling our domestic energy production, stop with the devaluation of the dollar by the FED buying gov't T-bills, and remove the uncertainty of the business climate by stopping Obamacare and other government over reaches.

What progress has Obama and the Democrats made on the economy?(don't forget, Dems controlled congress after the '06 elections) We now have the smallest participation rates of Americans in the work force since Jimmy Carter-true unemployment under Obama (discouraged workers, those who used up their unemployment befits, etc) is somewhere around 12%-13%.
Considering the only positive job growth we've had is due to record breaking part time hires (200,000+), even the "job growth" that's been touted is a farce.

"President Obama has reiterated the principle that he can pick and choose which U.S. laws he wishes to enforce (see his decision to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, his decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and his administration’s contempt for national-security confidentiality and Senate and House subpoenas to the attorney general). If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do?"

As for your statement that no one can know if Romney could do any better, well, that may be true, BUT if Romney took the same approach as Calvin Coolidge, JF Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and even Clinton of reducing taxes, reducing burdensome regulations...it worked for them.
Sam Waters

Cincinnati, OH

#42152 Jun 16, 2012
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =jsaTElBljOEXX
;-)
How much money did we “lost” on the automobile company bail outs is not the relevant question. What matters is how much money we had to invest to save the automobile industry from failure, a painful investment, but one that was necessary to save the jobs and insure continued income for everyone employed in the automobile and related parts industries. The same pain and necessity applied to the bank bail outs after they squandered and lost all of OUR money that we couldn’t just let them fail. Romney, at least Romney 2.0, would have done the same as Obama.

Thanks for the link to NaNaNaSayGoodbye, which was already one of my favorite vids. There’s something very compelling about it for such a silly song, in part because the visuals are so funny.
The greed

Nancy, KY

#42153 Jun 16, 2012
Sam Waters wrote:
<quoted text>
1. When did he say that?
2. Having “nothing on economics to brag or even mention” is not a valid criticism. His goal is not to brag. He and we all would have liked for him to have made even better progress on economic recovery than he has made in 3 ½ years, but there is no way to know if Romney could do it any better. Romney’s plan is not known other than his promise to undo what Obama has done that has actually worked.
3. Wanting to confuse high school and college students is only a straw man (your belief apparently) and hence not a valid criticism.
4. I’m not clear what you mean by this statement, Obama can do nothing to make Republicans look bad. Of course, only Republicans can do that, but that doesn’t mean they should try because it would be self-defeating.
5. I agree completely with you on this one, based solely on logic. While I suspect that congress would continue to be totally obstructionistic when it comes to Obama’s efforts, I suspect that Romney if elected would not really blast a hole in everything Obama. I suspect he would shake/shake/shake and become more moderate, but yes, return favors to the “job creators”(Wall Street, aka bankers) as necessary payback. If elected, I believe he would stop pandering to the Tea Party. I don’t think he is an idiot, just weak and willing to pander to anyone to get elected. I think he’s actually a moderate, which we need, but I worry that he’s become too obligated to big money to serve the interests of building a strong middle class. The fact is that CEO’s are making more than enough money already to create jobs in America if they didn’t want to keep it all for themselves. Unfortunately, he danger is that the suffering broad middle class will believe that giving more money to “job creators” will result in them actually creating more jobs IN AMERICA (pardon my shouting) so that money will “trickle down” to them. My guess is that giving them more money (tax breaks and deregulation) will not make this happen, as their greed has no limits.
Thank you for contributing to this discussion.
of CEOs pales in comparison to the greed of government As Thomas Paine said,“We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute.”

WakeUp

Campbellsville, KY

#42154 Jun 16, 2012
Sam Waters wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not aware that Obama has blown a whale of a lot of money to crony contributors, or put America in more debt than our grandchildren may be able to pay off, or his “decree” to which you refer was unconstitutional. Basically it just feels that way to Obama haters, who flame their accusations to more rational folks who don’t always have time to fact-check.
Indeed, America is in more debt than our grandchildren may be able to pay off, but the issue is not per se that the debt is increasing. It has been increasing, but the rate of increase has greatly decreased since G.W. left office after starting wars that he did not finance. Our national debt must be viewed in the context of the world economy because the debt is to other countries. Europe (The Union) is on the brink of economic collapse, so the world lacks confidence and the economy is based on confidence. So things could get a lot worse very quickly in the near future. America needs responsible leadership in the White House and in Congress to navigate with bipartisan balance through turbulent times.
We need responsibility, not hyperbole!
By the way, I find “Obummer” less offensive than, oh say,“President Poopy Pants,” but we’re adults so let’s just go with “Obama” or “President Obama” our of respect, even if we disagree with his policies.
If you are "not aware" of the corruption and political paybacks of the stimulus funds as well as how the DOE and other federal agencies have given government "loans" and tax payer grants ( neither that have to be paid back) to companies that are run by big Obama campaign donors-well, the term "willful ignorance" comes to mind.
The GM bailouts were a sop to the union autoworkers, Solyndra and other "green" companies have received billions in taxpayer funds that were used to pay off the executives (who were the campaign donors) before the companies went belly up.
Obama has decided that he will not only create laws (the perview of Congress) but also decide which laws are constitutional and that he will, or will not enforce (usurping the Supreme Court)-so much for "checks and balances"
Under Obama, we have set multiple month over month deficits, and the year end deficits have also been records-Obama is spending more in his 3 years than Bush did in 8.
And you're right, it's going to get worse before it gets better. A lot worse. Obama and the liberal policies are not going to work. Look at Europe and the EU and how well their liberal Keynesian policies have worked out for them.
Obama has zip, zero, nada, leadership. If he had, we'd be discussing a guest worker program, the impact illegal immigration has on lowering wages for American workers, the need to regulate our own borders and how to get the illegals here to leave the country on their own (as many are doing now that the economy is so poor) or put in place a "path to green card".
As long as we allow more illegals in, we'll make no progress on the issue.
So ya, a little leadership would be nice on this, and the other major issues of our time.
culture vulture

Russell Springs, KY

#42155 Jun 16, 2012
WakeUp wrote:
<quoted text>
The money that CEO's make is not even an issue. What right does the government have to say what a CEO or any profession should make?
Cutting tax rates alone won't increase the competitively of American companies here in the states. Though it would help. We need to remove the ridiculous regulations that are stifling our domestic energy production, stop with the devaluation of the dollar by the FED buying gov't T-bills, and remove the uncertainty of the business climate by stopping Obamacare and other government over reaches.
What progress has Obama and the Democrats made on the economy?(don't forget, Dems controlled congress after the '06 elections) We now have the smallest participation rates of Americans in the work force since Jimmy Carter-true unemployment under Obama (discouraged workers, those who used up their unemployment befits, etc) is somewhere around 12%-13%.
Considering the only positive job growth we've had is due to record breaking part time hires (200,000+), even the "job growth" that's been touted is a farce.
"President Obama has reiterated the principle that he can pick and choose which U.S. laws he wishes to enforce (see his decision to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, his decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and his administration’s contempt for national-security confidentiality and Senate and House subpoenas to the attorney general). If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do?"
As for your statement that no one can know if Romney could do any better, well, that may be true, BUT if Romney took the same approach as Calvin Coolidge, JF Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and even Clinton of reducing taxes, reducing burdensome regulations...it worked for them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Ronald Reagan raise taxes 11 times? And the national deficit went up triple and-a-half under his guidance. So..........
Sam Waters

Cincinnati, OH

#42156 Jun 16, 2012
The greed wrote:
<quoted text>of CEOs pales in comparison to the greed of government As Thomas Paine said,“We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute.”
Amen brother (or sister, as may be the case).

I always pay my bills and I never mind paying taxes to pay our national bills, as long as our elected representatives are managing our money wisely. I even allow a lot of latitude as to what is considered wise, since opinions vary. I like my roads without potholes and I want to know America will not leave me out to dry if I’m ever hurting for medical treatment or homeless and starving if I’m ever unable to provide for myself. Just basic stuff really. Oh yeah, national defense and I’m sure a bunch of other things too.

However, I’m totally against misappropriation of our money. Here, I’m more rigid and don’t allow much latitude defining misappropriation. I’m completely closed to the legitimacy of politicians pandering to private interests and channeling funds to them in return for favors.
Sam Waters

Cincinnati, OH

#42157 Jun 16, 2012
WakeUp wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are "not aware" of the corruption and political paybacks of the stimulus funds as well as how the DOE and other federal agencies have given government "loans" and tax payer grants ( neither that have to be paid back) to companies that are run by big Obama campaign donors-well, the term "willful ignorance" comes to mind.
The GM bailouts were a sop to the union autoworkers, Solyndra and other "green" companies have received billions in taxpayer funds that were used to pay off the executives (who were the campaign donors) before the companies went belly up.
Obama has decided that he will not only create laws (the perview of Congress) but also decide which laws are constitutional and that he will, or will not enforce (usurping the Supreme Court)-so much for "checks and balances"
Under Obama, we have set multiple month over month deficits, and the year end deficits have also been records-Obama is spending more in his 3 years than Bush did in 8.
And you're right, it's going to get worse before it gets better. A lot worse. Obama and the liberal policies are not going to work. Look at Europe and the EU and how well their liberal Keynesian policies have worked out for them.
Obama has zip, zero, nada, leadership. If he had, we'd be discussing a guest worker program, the impact illegal immigration has on lowering wages for American workers, the need to regulate our own borders and how to get the illegals here to leave the country on their own (as many are doing now that the economy is so poor) or put in place a "path to green card".
As long as we allow more illegals in, we'll make no progress on the issue.
So ya, a little leadership would be nice on this, and the other major issues of our time.
I get it. You don’t like Obama and I can’t change that. But why have such an edge?

There’s a lot of corruption in the government, but I am not aware that Obama is directly responsible for any of it. It’s bigger than Obama.

I appreciate the way Obama has done his job and have no reason to believe Romney would do it as well. I have no problem believing that you probably disagree completely.

The point is that the president, whomever it might be, needs to be reasonably moderate and be prepared to apply a balance of Keynesian, Austrian School and other principles as necessary to manage the economy as time passes. He/She also needs to have a Congress willing to negotiate a balance of bipartisan principles to govern responsibly.
Sam Waters

Cincinnati, OH

#42158 Jun 16, 2012
culture vulture wrote:
<quoted text>Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Ronald Reagan raise taxes 11 times? And the national deficit went up triple and-a-half under his guidance. So..........
I know he did multiple times. Thanks for setting the record straight.

I’m an educated progressive with basic understanding of economic theories and I think Obama has been doing a great job as president, but I don’t see the value in trying to argue with with all the Obama haters. I do enjoy debating with those who respectfully disagree with his politics, as time permits.
WakeUp

Campbellsville, KY

#42159 Jun 16, 2012
culture vulture wrote:
<quoted text>Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Ronald Reagan raise taxes 11 times? And the national deficit went up triple and-a-half under his guidance. So..........
Reagan cut the overall income rates while ending "loop holes" that you liberals always say you're against. Effectively he lowered the tax rate for everyone while ensuring that everyone was paying something.
As for this "tax raises", things like the payroll tax was required to keep social security solvent,(think Governor Walker requiring unions to contribute 6% of their salaries to their pensions so that, ya know, there actually was money in the pensions for their retirement) he also raised gas taxes-which falls in line with, if you're the one using the roads you should be the ones paying for it.

A far cry from the class warfare of "tax the rich" and the "evil corporations". Which reminds me, no corporation has ever paid taxes in the history of the world. Governments use "corporate taxes" simply as a politically efficient means of having the companies collect taxes from the people.

As for Reagan's deficits. When he came into office, deficits as a % of GDP was a little over 3%. When he left office... it was a little over 3%.
Of course, he was able to bring unemployment way down, drastically reduce inflation (remember "stagflation"?), expand our military and economic influence that ended the Cold War with the economic and political implosion of Russia. His reduction of government red tape and regulations led to what, 8%+ gains of GDP growth as well as record breaking small business start ups?

What exactly have we gained under the record breaking deficits of Obama?

What his policies of lower taxes
Well

Nancy, KY

#42160 Jun 16, 2012
Sam Waters wrote:
<quoted text>
Amen brother (or sister, as may be the case).
I always pay my bills and I never mind paying taxes to pay our national bills, as long as our elected representatives are managing our money wisely. I even allow a lot of latitude as to what is considered wise, since opinions vary. I like my roads without potholes and I want to know America will not leave me out to dry if I’m ever hurting for medical treatment or homeless and starving if I’m ever unable to provide for myself. Just basic stuff really. Oh yeah, national defense and I’m sure a bunch of other things too.
However, I’m totally against misappropriation of our money. Here, I’m more rigid and don’t allow much latitude defining misappropriation. I’m completely closed to the legitimacy of politicians pandering to private interests and channeling funds to them in return for favors.
I agree with you about the potholes. However, my belief is the federal government has no constitutional authority to provide healthcare, welfare, or food stamps. The States have more latitude in dealing with those issues.
WakeUp

Campbellsville, KY

#42161 Jun 16, 2012
Sam Waters wrote:
<quoted text>
I get it. You don’t like Obama and I can’t change that. But why have such an edge?
There’s a lot of corruption in the government, but I am not aware that Obama is directly responsible for any of it. It’s bigger than Obama.
I appreciate the way Obama has done his job and have no reason to believe Romney would do it as well. I have no problem believing that you probably disagree completely.
The point is that the president, whomever it might be, needs to be reasonably moderate and be prepared to apply a balance of Keynesian, Austrian School and other principles as necessary to manage the economy as time passes. He/She also needs to have a Congress willing to negotiate a balance of bipartisan principles to govern responsibly.
Like Obama? I don't like him, but I don't dislike him. It's simply a disagreement over the principles and policies he puts forth and those of his party (though plenty I disagree with when it comes to Republicans).

The "edge" as you call it is do to the needless pain, suffering and wasted sacrifice of the American people that comes from the government curtailing our freedoms for a false sense of security, the "nanny state" ideology that they know what's better for us than we do. The "edge" is that the policies put for by Obama and the Democrats are not going to succeed in effectively changing (and often make it worse) the issues that we're facing as a country. They never have.

Moderation is not the key to solving these problems. There is not always a middle ground, one side must prevail and one side must fall. There's no way we can continue on the path we're on. Paul Ryan's budget would be a start, yet we got tv ads of Ryan throwing grandma in a wheelchair off a cliff. Ya, bipartisanship and moderation. These past few years, even when Republicans had control of Congress and the Presidency under Bush, "bipartisanship" always meant Republicans caving into Democrats.

Would you mind pointing to one thing, just one thing that Obama has done that you feel is an example of the "good" things of his Presidency? Any of that going to do with economics?
LMS

Elizabethtown, KY

#42162 Jun 16, 2012
My God, you should all run for President!!!! Such brains!!!!
Jay

Paris, TN

#42163 Jun 16, 2012
How is it that Obama, wife and entourage can attend two fundraisers - one at Sarah Jessica Parker's house and one at the five star Plaza Hotel, and stick taxpayer's with the bill because he paid a short visit to the WTC?

So, he raises $4.5 million dollars and combines the trip with a visit to the WTC and we get charged for this fundraising event....as well as the whole bill for his entourage.

I don't care to hear how many other president's did the same thing, etc., etc! The whole thing is a joke on us and is wrong no matter who it is!

I'd sure like to know how many millions these "combined" fundraisers are costing us!
Sam Waters

Cincinnati, OH

#42164 Jun 16, 2012
WakeUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Like Obama? I don't like him, but I don't dislike him. It's simply a disagreement over the principles and policies he puts forth and those of his party (though plenty I disagree with when it comes to Republicans).
The "edge" as you call it is do to the needless pain, suffering and wasted sacrifice of the American people that comes from the government curtailing our freedoms for a false sense of security, the "nanny state" ideology that they know what's better for us than we do. The "edge" is that the policies put for by Obama and the Democrats are not going to succeed in effectively changing (and often make it worse) the issues that we're facing as a country. They never have.
Moderation is not the key to solving these problems. There is not always a middle ground, one side must prevail and one side must fall. There's no way we can continue on the path we're on. Paul Ryan's budget would be a start, yet we got tv ads of Ryan throwing grandma in a wheelchair off a cliff. Ya, bipartisanship and moderation. These past few years, even when Republicans had control of Congress and the Presidency under Bush, "bipartisanship" always meant Republicans caving into Democrats.
Would you mind pointing to one thing, just one thing that Obama has done that you feel is an example of the "good" things of his Presidency? Any of that going to do with economics?
Much better. Now that we know what you’re against, I’d be interested in learning what you would advocate instead (other than simply repealing everything you are against).
Sam Waters

Cincinnati, OH

#42165 Jun 16, 2012
LMS wrote:
My God, you should all run for President!!!! Such brains!!!!
Having brains does not necessitate drastic action.
Sam Waters

Cincinnati, OH

#42166 Jun 16, 2012
Jay wrote:
How is it that Obama, wife and entourage can attend two fundraisers - one at Sarah Jessica Parker's house and one at the five star Plaza Hotel, and stick taxpayer's with the bill because he paid a short visit to the WTC?
So, he raises $4.5 million dollars and combines the trip with a visit to the WTC and we get charged for this fundraising event....as well as the whole bill for his entourage.
I don't care to hear how many other president's did the same thing, etc., etc! The whole thing is a joke on us and is wrong no matter who it is!
I'd sure like to know how many millions these "combined" fundraisers are costing us!
Rough edge, but good question. Please investigate and report back with your findings. Fox News may be a good place to start the journey.
Hello

Morehead, KY

#42167 Jun 16, 2012
Sam Waters wrote:
<quoted text>
Much better. Now that we know what you’re against, I’d be interested in learning what you would advocate instead (other than simply repealing everything you are against).
What's the matter Sammy, Can't think of one good thing either,LOL!!!!
Hello

Morehead, KY

#42168 Jun 16, 2012
Wait a min. He did get the secret service laid by a bunch of Columbian prostitutes, But that's it, No other good deeds I can think of...LOL!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Providence Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
TEA Party targets Public Libraries for shutdown 1 hr Claude Balls 4
are they cheating? 2 hr Smallz 2
Randi Hale 6 hr please 1
Providence water, bills, and local gov 9 hr Elf 2
Add A W ord......Drop A Word (Apr '12) 11 hr Pukwudgie 221
i seen it all Dec 21 Reverend 16
hello Dec 18 Jughead 2
Providence Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Providence People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Providence News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Providence

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:06 am PST

NBC Sports11:06AM
Preston Parker fined $15,000 for role in brawl with Rams
ESPN12:17 PM
Giants' Jenkins irked after getting $16K fine
NBC Sports12:17 PM
Jurrell Casey won't go to Pro Bowl as an alternate
NBC Sports12:47 PM
6 Giants fined by NFL for actions in Rams game - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 2:23 PM
Ogletree, Laurinaitis 1-2 in tackles entering finale - NBC Sports