'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Se...

'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate

There are 275069 comments on the thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com story from Oct 1, 2010, titled 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate. In it, thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com reports that:

"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).

Join the discussion below, or Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com.

WakeUp

Murfreesboro, TN

#43623 Jul 12, 2012
Uncle Tab wrote:
Its funny when crap like this is posted and when you really know the truth.
Assault rifles are deadly, not used for hunting thry are used for killing large groups eaily.
The same group thats ok wirh these weapons are againts abortion. weird to me.
SAVE THEM AT BIRTH SO YOU CAN KILL EM LATER. Repubs are just dumb!
<quoted text>
Uncle Tab, perhaps it will assuage your anger if you simply think of the lives ended by "assault weapons" as "really late term abortions"

Firearms (all kinds) like any tool, have many uses. Primarily, they are used as tools of self-defense, from someone threatening you or your loved ones lives-whether the threat is an individual, or the government.
WakeUp

Murfreesboro, TN

#43624 Jul 12, 2012
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
You're quite the healthcare expert ain't ya moron -- don't you just love the GOPer plan "Don't get sick"!
Actually, one of the largest factors in increasing health care costs is the lack of tort reform. Instituting "loser pay" reform for lawsuits would drop health care costs over night.
Allowing competition across state lines...removing GOVERNMENT regulations such as requiring insurance companies to cover things like invitro-fertilization or accupuncture would allow me to save $ on my premiums by removing the "risk" of those costs from my plan...allowing individuals to pay for insurance with PRE-tax dollars (like businesses do), and give vouchers to those who need financial assistance, which would force insurance to compete on benefits and price to obtain their business....that's just a few off the top of my head.
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it that you mindless idiots can't understand the simple premise: the more uninsured the bigger the cost to the Gov't.
Oh, that's true. Where we differ is on the solution to actually solving the problem. The number one thing to helping the uninsured? Getting the economy growing and providing opportunities for our countrymen to obtain JOBS that have benefits...not the TEMP jobs Obama's creating that come with no benefits.
(please see above for other helpful ways of the uninsured having access to insurance and health care)
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
The sick going to the ER comes at a tremendous cost to the tax payer, the cost grows and so do the waiting lines as more people lose their health insurance!
Well, you've at least properly identified the problem. That's a step in the right direction. Obamacare isn't the solution. In fact, it's going to expand upon the problem.
WakeUp

Murfreesboro, TN

#43625 Jul 12, 2012
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
The whole GOPer idea that there are some magic beings called the “Job Creators” is complete bunk and nothing more than a (tiresome) talking point. Anyone who has ever run a business, as owner or manager, knows that hiring employees is very expensive and is done as a last resort when the demand for your product or service is pushing productivity to a tipping point.
Again, it's amazing how you can identify something so clearly....but then you just miss the important part of it by a mile...
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
A business only grows with increased demand and you, as the manager, care very little about taxes or uncertainty, once that demand is there you jump on the opportunity, after all, that’s why you started the business!
Actually, taxes and other uncertainty (such as how implementing Obamacare will affect my costs, or the income and discretionary spending of my customers will effect demand for my product/service) is a HUGE factor in whether a business owner decides to RISK more of his money to expand his business, whether with hiring or other capital expenditures (such as building a larger facility)
How can I hire an employee if I don't even know what that employee will costs me? So what if hiring that employee will produce $40,000 worth of product if the costs of that employee is $40,000 or more? It's not worth hiring them.
Not to mention the uncertainty surrounding all the government regulations is one of the largest factors in the decisions businesses make.
Jay

Springville, TN

#43626 Jul 12, 2012
Republicans control 32 governorships. At least 24 of these state leaders have announced they will not implement Mr. Obama's and Chief Justice Roberts' Affordable Care Act or are on the fence about what parts of it to implement and what to ignore.

The list of those saying in clear language that they will refuse to implement Obamacare in their states includes Ohio's John Kasich, Louisiana's Bobby Jindal, Kansan Sam Brownback, Georgia's Nathan Deal and Alaska's Sean Parnell. Those who are pushing back against certain parts or are supporting legislative repeal are New Jersey's Chris Christie, Arizona's Jan Brewer, Mississippi's Phil Bryant, Tennessee's Bill Haslam, Alabama's Robert Bentley, Idaho's Butch Otter, Iowa's Terry Branstad, Texan Rick Perry, Virginia's Bob McDonnell, Utah's Gary Herbert, Wyoming's Matt Mead, Nevada's Brian Sandoval, Pennsylvania's Tom Corbett and Maine's Paul LePage. These states represent over 117 million Americans. This overwhelming show of defiance to a federal dictate sets up a states' rights war not seen in decades."

“Sunshine State Gov. Rick Scott is leading the charge [along with Senator Jim DeMint from SC, to not implement the law]. He told The Washington Times over the weekend,‘Florida will not implement Obamacare.’ Palmetto State Gov. Nikki Haley [SC] is standing firm as well.‘We're not going to shove more South Carolinians into a broken system,’ her office said of the health care law's planned Medicaid extension to those over the poverty line, according to the Nation magazine.
frank

Oakland, CA

#43627 Jul 12, 2012
WakeUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, it's amazing how you can identify something so clearly....but then you just miss the important part of it by a mile...
<quoted text>
Actually, taxes and other uncertainty (such as how implementing Obamacare will affect my costs, or the income and discretionary spending of my customers will effect demand for my product/service) is a HUGE factor in whether a business owner decides to RISK more of his money to expand his business, whether with hiring or other capital expenditures (such as building a larger facility)
How can I hire an employee if I don't even know what that employee will costs me? So what if hiring that employee will produce $40,000 worth of product if the costs of that employee is $40,000 or more? It's not worth hiring them.
Not to mention the uncertainty surrounding all the government regulations is one of the largest factors in the decisions businesses make.
Oh fur chrissake man, I would advice you to stay away from running your own biz, producing a product without profit is, well, not good for business. If your product is running such a small margin that you have to worry about taxes and healthcare, again, it's not good for business -- go work for a paycheck and keep your wife happy!
whitehair

Fort Thomas, KY

#43629 Jul 12, 2012
WakeUp---Thank you--a good explanation well put.My wording could not do as well!!

Don`t put much faith in Frank being impressed--he will probably just deny or ignore.It is difficult to understand why the truth is so difficult for them to comprehend.
WakeUp

Murfreesboro, TN

#43630 Jul 12, 2012
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh fur chrissake man, I would advice you to stay away from running your own biz, producing a product without profit is, well, not good for business. If your product is running such a small margin that you have to worry about taxes and healthcare, again, it's not good for business -- go work for a paycheck and keep your wife happy!
Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, warned that the uncertainty could stifle gross domestic product growth by as much as 0.5 percent this year.

“By reaching into virtually every sector of economic life, government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses,” said Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg at a speech in Washington in late June.
But what does Seidenberg know? He only employs roughly 85,000 people.

As the price of electricity rises in Kentucky due to the EPA's GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS, we will lose a competitive advantage with not only other states, but other countries around the world.

You sir, know nothing about what it takes to run a business, especially a small business. ESPECIALLY in this disastrous economy (remember how you failed to respond to the 1.4% GDP growth, the 19% faster growth in disability than employment, and the last two or three months of employment not even keeping up with population growth, etc etc?)

This past Christmas stores had record breaking sales! Sears had the highest sales ever...and closed 100 stores immediately after. B/c we're ALL operating on the thinnest profit margin we can in order to retain employees, keep up with inflation (that reported and the 9%-10% actual) and hang on to market share.

Government regulations, increased taxes, obamacare and the costs and time wasted in trying to comply with all the red tape is STAGGERING.

Your ignorance is palpable. And scary.
Simpleminds

Rochester, KY

#43631 Jul 12, 2012
Funny no one ever heard Sam Walton bitch about taxes when he started making his first million and then billions. He was at his start in the 75% Tax Bracket. Funny how so many Billionaires were made in the 50s and 60s when taxes were MORE than double the rate they are now..

As for today I never heard one of the richest person in America, Bill Gates, bitch about taxes. Never heard him say he wasn't going to make another million per day because taxes are too high.
frank

Oakland, CA

#43632 Jul 12, 2012
WakeUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, warned that the uncertainty could stifle gross domestic product growth by as much as 0.5 percent this year.
“By reaching into virtually every sector of economic life, government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses,” said Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg at a speech in Washington in late June.
But what does Seidenberg know? He only employs roughly 85,000 people.
As the price of electricity rises in Kentucky due to the EPA's GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS, we will lose a competitive advantage with not only other states, but other countries around the world.
You sir, know nothing about what it takes to run a business, especially a small business. ESPECIALLY in this disastrous economy (remember how you failed to respond to the 1.4% GDP growth, the 19% faster growth in disability than employment, and the last two or three months of employment not even keeping up with population growth, etc etc?)
This past Christmas stores had record breaking sales! Sears had the highest sales ever...and closed 100 stores immediately after. B/c we're ALL operating on the thinnest profit margin we can in order to retain employees, keep up with inflation (that reported and the 9%-10% actual) and hang on to market share.
Government regulations, increased taxes, obamacare and the costs and time wasted in trying to comply with all the red tape is STAGGERING.
Your ignorance is palpable. And scary.
LOL ... probably not the smartest thing you ever said! Do you at least manage to return your library books on time?
Jay

Springville, TN

#43633 Jul 12, 2012
Simpleminds wrote:
Funny no one ever heard Sam Walton bitch about taxes when he started making his first million and then billions. He was at his start in the 75% Tax Bracket. Funny how so many Billionaires were made in the 50s and 60s when taxes were MORE than double the rate they are now..
As for today I never heard one of the richest person in America, Bill Gates, bitch about taxes. Never heard him say he wasn't going to make another million per day because taxes are too high.
****

I never heard Sam Walton say anything. And I haven't talked to Bill Gates in ages.
lol

Glasgow, KY

#43634 Jul 12, 2012
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL ... probably not the smartest thing you ever said! Do you at least manage to return your library books on time?
I'm disappointed in you fwankie! Is that the best reply you could come up with? Really? No, seriously? Poor guy, evidently you scraped the last drip-drop from the bottom of your barrel. You do know that we noticed you couldn't reply with even one small fact to dispute anything in WakeUp's post, right? Just a silly kiddie reply. No facts. No debate. Just your typical fwankie "I know you are but what am I, neener, neener, neener, library books, blah, blah, blah, boring attempt at distracting from the issues and facts. Does your obvious ignorance ever embarrass you at all? Don't you get tired of getting spanked on here day after day? Are you some kind of beat-freak and enjoy getting your old ass spanked every day? Oh well, wittle fwankie, whatever gets you through the nite. LMMFAO!
john

Victorville, CA

#43635 Jul 12, 2012
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
The whole GOPer idea that there are some magic beings called the “Job Creators” is complete bunk and nothing more than a (tiresome) talking point. Anyone who has ever run a business, as owner or manager, knows that hiring employees is very expensive and is done as a last resort when the demand for your product or service is pushing productivity to a tipping point. A business only grows with increased demand and you, as the manager, care very little about taxes or uncertainty, once that demand is there you jump on the opportunity, after all, that’s why you started the business!
of couarse demand!! but if my overhead go up, there wont be new employees, new demand. obama has done a good job creating jobs! the destroyer, the foodstamp king, master of diaster etc.
WakeUp

Murfreesboro, TN

#43636 Jul 12, 2012
Simpleminds wrote:
Funny no one ever heard Sam Walton bitch about taxes when he started making his first million and then billions. He was at his start in the 75% Tax Bracket. Funny how so many Billionaires were made in the 50s and 60s when taxes were MORE than double the rate they are now..
As for today I never heard one of the richest person in America, Bill Gates, bitch about taxes. Never heard him say he wasn't going to make another million per day because taxes are too high.
Perhaps because even when the top tier tax bracket was 90% or even 75% it applies to earned income, not invested income? The reality is that the effective tax rate has rarely been over 40% on the Federal level.

Or that the big corporations, along with big money individuals and families (think John Kerry NOT registering his boat in Massachusetts) can afford the pricey lawyers, and the multiple corporations and trusts required to be able to shield their assets and income from taxes?

If you want a more effective comparison, look at taxes as a % of GDP. the U.S usually averages around 19.5% of GDP to taxes. Whether the tax rate is 90% or 35% we rarely collect more than 20%-21% of GDP in taxes.

We're on target for Government spending to hit 23.4% of GDP in 2012.

Average tax revenue: 19.5%(see Hauser's Law.)
Highest tax revenue: 20.6%(2000)

We are unable to pay for what we're spending.
Simpleminds

Rochester, KY

#43638 Jul 13, 2012
WakeUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps because even when the top tier tax bracket was 90% or even 75% it applies to earned income, not invested income? The reality is that the effective tax rate has rarely been over 40% on the Federal level.
Or that the big corporations, along with big money individuals and families (think John Kerry NOT registering his boat in Massachusetts) can afford the pricey lawyers, and the multiple corporations and trusts required to be able to shield their assets and income from taxes?
If you want a more effective comparison, look at taxes as a % of GDP. the U.S usually averages around 19.5% of GDP to taxes. Whether the tax rate is 90% or 35% we rarely collect more than 20%-21% of GDP in taxes.
We're on target for Government spending to hit 23.4% of GDP in 2012.
Average tax revenue: 19.5%(see Hauser's Law.)
Highest tax revenue: 20.6%(2000)
We are unable to pay for what we're spending.
All you Repubs need is to convince the 53% of American Obama voters how lower taxes on the rich will create jobs for everyone. Since you have NO historic proof of it, I don't know how you'll be able to however. The major problem is Democrats remember longer than Repubs do. We remember Reagan telling us if we just let the rich have more things will be better when it Trickles Down. Were they? Trickle was the right word for the middle class. Since Reagan middle class earnings have increased 18%. The top has increased 287%. We remember Bush and McConnell telling us we must lower taxes on the rich to create jobs. What happened with that? In the decade of Bush the US saw the worst job growth in the past 50 years.
So unless there is someway you Repubs can show you have a valid point about give to the rich and we'll all be better for it prepare for Obama's next 4 years.
POOP SHOOT

Canton, OH

#43639 Jul 13, 2012
Simpleminds wrote:
<quoted text>All you Repubs need is to convince the 53% of American Obama voters how lower taxes on the rich will create jobs for everyone. Since you have NO historic proof of it, I don't know how you'll be able to however. The major problem is Democrats remember longer than Repubs do. We remember Reagan telling us if we just let the rich have more things will be better when it Trickles Down. Were they? Trickle was the right word for the middle class. Since Reagan middle class earnings have increased 18%. The top has increased 287%. We remember Bush and McConnell telling us we must lower taxes on the rich to create jobs. What happened with that? In the decade of Bush the US saw the worst job growth in the past 50 years.
So unless there is someway you Repubs can show you have a valid point about give to the rich and we'll all be better for it prepare for Obama's next 4 years.
I heard john kerry like to smell his own FARTS?
Gosch Foundation

Gwinn, MI

#43640 Jul 13, 2012
POOP SHOOT wrote:
<quoted text>
I heard john kerry like to smell his own FARTS?
Great read! The Last Circle - Table of Contents
The LAST CIRCLE, by Cherie Seymour aka Carol Marshall is helpful to everyone
who is trying to get an understanding of where this came from and how the ...

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopoliti ...- 10k -
WOO

Nortonville, KY

#43641 Jul 13, 2012
YOU ALL MAKE ME SICK GET A LIFE.
meth or math

Lexington, KY

#43642 Jul 13, 2012
both bad
WakeUp

Murfreesboro, TN

#43643 Jul 13, 2012
Simpleminds wrote:
<quoted text>All you Repubs need is to convince the 53% of American Obama voters how lower taxes on the rich will create jobs for everyone. Since you have NO historic proof of it, I don't know how you'll be able to however.
Um...let's see: Kennedy's tax rate cuts were adopted in 1964, cutting the top tax rate from 91% to 70%, as well as reducing the lower rates. Over the next year, economic growth soared by 50%, and income tax revenues increased by 41%! By 1966, unemployment had fallen to its lowest peacetime level in almost 40 years.

Coolidge cut taxes: the U.S. economy to grow rapidly during the mid- and late-1920s. Between 1922 and 1929, real gross national product grew at an annual average rate of 4.7 percent and the unemployment rate fell from 6.7 percent to 3.2 percent. The tax cuts restored incentives to work, save, and invest, and discouraged the use of tax shelters.

Reagan:
1)when JimmyCarter's economic policies were in effect, family incomes plummeted by 9 percent, but that after Reagan's economic policies took effect (1982-89), family incomes rose by 11 percent.

2)The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995. The 3.2percent growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s, which was a side effect of reversing Carter's high-inflation policies, and the seven expansion years, 1983-89. During the economicexpansion alone, the economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the Reagan years, theAmerican economy was almost one-third larger than it was when they began.

3) employment rate went from 7.6% to the high of almost 10% when aggressively combating inflation, but dropped to 5.5% by the time he left office. Not to mention the record breaking numbers of new small business starts under Reagan thanks to his pro-business taxes, regulations and overall environment.
Simpleminds wrote:
<quoted text>
The major problem is Democrats remember longer than Repubs do. We remember Reagan telling us if we just let the rich have more things will be better when it Trickles Down. Were they? Trickle was the right word for the middle class. Since Reagan middle class earnings have increased 18%. The top has increased 287%.
You mean that since NAFTA was signed, and giving China "favored trade status" our middle class has been declining? How do you expect to grow wealth and the middle class when you have corporate cronyism and allowing our markets to be inundated with non-free market goods from China and other countries? We don't produce hardly anything in this country b/c the government makes it too damn expensive and the government doesn't call China out on their money manipulation b/c we owe them a trillion bucks...and we're manipulating our money even worse.
Simpleminds wrote:
<quoted text>
We remember Bush and McConnell telling us we must lower taxes on the rich to create jobs. What happened with that? In the decade of Bush the US saw the worst job growth in the past 50 years.
GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1%.

The S&P 500 dropped 18% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32% over the next six quarters.

The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
Simpleminds wrote:
<quoted text>
So unless there is someway you Repubs can show you have a valid point about give to the rich and we'll all be better for it prepare for Obama's next 4 years.
Have you noticed how Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, have become tax cuts for the Middle Class as referred to by Obama? lol As for the rest, see above
frank

Oakland, CA

#43644 Jul 13, 2012
WakeUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Um...let's see: Kennedy's tax rate cuts were adopted in 1964, cutting the top tax rate from 91% to 70%, as well as reducing the lower rates. Over the next year, economic growth soared by 50%, and income tax revenues increased by 41%! By 1966, unemployment had fallen to its lowest peacetime level in almost 40 years.
Coolidge cut taxes: the U.S. economy to grow rapidly during the mid- and late-1920s. Between 1922 and 1929, real gross national product grew at an annual average rate of 4.7 percent and the unemployment rate fell from 6.7 percent to 3.2 percent. The tax cuts restored incentives to work, save, and invest, and discouraged the use of tax shelters.
Reagan:
1)when JimmyCarter's economic policies were in effect, family incomes plummeted by 9 percent, but that after Reagan's economic policies took effect (1982-89), family incomes rose by 11 percent.
2)The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995. The 3.2percent growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s, which was a side effect of reversing Carter's high-inflation policies, and the seven expansion years, 1983-89. During the economicexpansion alone, the economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the Reagan years, theAmerican economy was almost one-third larger than it was when they began.
3) employment rate went from 7.6% to the high of almost 10% when aggressively combating inflation, but dropped to 5.5% by the time he left office. Not to mention the record breaking numbers of new small business starts under Reagan thanks to his pro-business taxes, regulations and overall environment.
<quoted text>
You mean that since NAFTA was signed, and giving China "favored trade status" our middle class has been declining? How do you expect to grow wealth and the middle class when you have corporate cronyism and allowing our markets to be inundated with non-free market goods from China and other countries? We don't produce hardly anything in this country b/c the government makes it too damn expensive and the government doesn't call China out on their money manipulation b/c we owe them a trillion bucks...and we're manipulating our money even worse.
<quoted text>
GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1%.
The S&P 500 dropped 18% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32% over the next six quarters.
The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
<quoted text>
Have you noticed how Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, have become tax cuts for the Middle Class as referred to by Obama? lol As for the rest, see above
Have you notices how the Bush tax cuts have added $3 trillion in red ink, yet the party wants to double down on its failed policy. I don’t suppose you could document your rant of inflated figures and misleading numbers?

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.

Kentucky Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 2 hr its like this 164,801
Hylton Homes Jun 23 Genuinely concerned 1
Gay in Gray Ky Jun 23 Allen 2
News Kentucky businesses urged to prepare for influx... Jun 22 CEO 8
NASA Completes Study of Future ‘Ice Giant’ Miss... Jun 22 Guy from Latonia 1
NASA Mars Orbiter Views Rover Climbing Mount Sharp Jun 22 Guy from Latonia 1
NASA Releases Kepler Survey Catalog with Hundre... Jun 22 Guy from Latonia 1
More from around the web