Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ELECTION: Thanks a lot, Republicans

Letter by Carol Kulaszewski, Lakewood on Nov. 19, 2010 at 11:08 am with 72 Comments »
November 19, 2010 11:08 am

I would like to thank all the people who voted for the new House and Congress. Being middle class, I find it wonderful to see this new group of elected Republican officials wanting to vote against the lower- and middle-class tax breaks because the wealthy aren’t getting a bigger tax break.

Let us not forget them wanting to stop unemployment for the many jobless individuals before the holidays, but let’s give those wealthy people that big tax break.

Thank you once again for proving which Americans you truly stand for.

Leave a comment Comments → 72
  1. aislander says:

    Looks like the talking-points theme of the week has been broadcast from CAP…

  2. Carol, the R’s want to extend the tax cuts for everyone, including the so called rich. No one is voting against tax cuts for the middle class. It cost the government nothing to allow people to keep the money they have earned.. There is no $ to extend unemployment benefits Those funds have been exhausted.

  3. BlaineCGarver says:

    If Carol feels guilty about keeping more of her own money, she’s welcome to send the Gubment a check for the National Dept. They will accept it with open arms.

  4. BlaineCGarver says:

    Oops, no edit feature…..That’s National Debt, not dept….stupid fingers.

  5. A. The R’s are willing to sacrifice the middle class tax extensions if the rich don’ get theirs. Especially if they can sell their bubba zombie base the belief that it is Obama and the Dems’ fault.

    B. Both unemployment and keeping the tax breaks for the rich will cost about $65 billion a year. But R’s claim the unemployment assistance is bad for the economy/debt while the tax breaks are good. And this is in spite of the know facts that the unemployment funs get spent thus helping the economy and the tax breaks are horded or sent overseas.

  6. nonstopjoe says:

    Let all the tax cuts expire on 12/31/10 as scheduled. That way no group is favored over another.

  7. the so called rich

  8. “It cost the government nothing to allow people to keep the money they have earned..”


  9. huffington says:

    The dems ARE promising to force a vote on tax cuts for the “middle” and “lower” class. And the repubs ARE promising to vote no. What will you repubs be saying next month when that likely scenario happens?

  10. sumner402 says:

    When was the last time the republicans voted to help the working man or even the middle class?
    Can anyone name one time in the last 40 years?

  11. redneckbuck says:

    Lower taxes help the middle class. How about the child tax credit?

  12. the3rdpigshouse says:

    Leave the tax rates as they are – recommended by the majority of economists! Those with a brain do not raise taxes in a recession!! And for the extension of unemployment – the socialist democrats want to borrow more money to pay for it – not reduce spending – which is the real problem!!

    The socialist democrats really have the countries interests at heart – their priorities are the “Dream Act” & “Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell” while millions remain out of work. Additionally, “OH-Bummer” is about to sell your country down the drain in the START talks with the Russians – I would recommend contacting your Senators and thell them to stop the START talks until the other side wants to come to the table!!!

  13. bobcat1a says:

    3ph, how’s the weather over there in Paranoiaville?

  14. donjames says:

    huffington says:

    “The dems ARE promising to force a vote on tax cuts for the “middle” and “lower” class. And the repubs ARE promising to vote no. What will you repubs be saying next month when that likely scenario happens?”

    Uhhmm… the dems failed to pass legislation – AGAIN – even with huge majorities in the House and Senate?

    Really, it doesn’t take a genius to figure that one out.

    “I think there’s a reality here which is that while it might be best to continue the middle-class tax cuts and raise taxes on higher income people, the votes are not there to do that,” said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

    Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress want to extend the tax cuts for individuals making less than $200,000 and married couples making less than $250,000. Republicans and a growing number of rank-and-file Democrats want to extend them all.

    “While some in Congress have a strange desire to raise taxes on hundreds of thousands of small businesses across the country, Republicans and a growing chorus of Democrats believe that no one should have the government take even more out of their paycheck next year,” (Senate Minority Leader Mitch) McConnell said.


  15. 3pig – START II is a continuation of START I that was negotiated by Saint Ronnie.

    START II is another example of bills that had wide spread Republican support BEFORE the Party of No decided doing what was good for the country was less important than preventing Mr. Obama from having any political successes.

  16. klthompson says:

    The last 40 years has been brought up. Without looking it up I can only recall the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress once and then only for two years. And for those who continue to miss the obvious, the Congress appropriates and spends the money. The President has little to say about it and that is the way it should be. Several national organizations give copies of the Constitution away for the asking. A little reading goes a long way to understanding.

  17. eagle_beak says:

    i believe the tax cuts will be extended 1-2 years. but a long term fix for the way all levels of government are funded needs to happen. i would like to see a flat tax or better yet a stopping of all income tax.
    there are other ways if only we would try them. “the fair tax book” – by neal boortz gives other solutions. if funding for government was from purchases it would be harder for the extreme rich to get out of paying taxes because the taxes would be on what is bought and they buy a lot! people that are getting paid “under the table” would pay taxes on what they buy. even illegal immigrants would pay taxes with purchases. and, if you read the book, there are provisions so the poor are not penalized with their purchases and no tax on food and basic necessities.
    it would be good to see a completely different way other than income taxes.
    and businesses would not be taxed, thereby being able to grow, provide jobs
    and lower costs.

    God bless America and help us keep our country free!

  18. donjames – due to the use of non-Constitutional Senate rules, a single Senator can block legislation which then takes a 2/3 majority to overrule.

    The abuse of these various rules demonstrates that the time has come for some serious rule changes in the Senate.

  19. sumner402 says:

    I can only recall the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress once and then only for two years

    You need to read more or get checked for Alzheimers.

  20. sumner402 says:

    Still waiting for something the republicans have done to help the working man and the middle class in the last 40 years.
    The list of what they have done to harm and eliminate the middle class is a long one, but what has the anti-American party done to help?

  21. Summner402? Has 401 graduated? I do believe your definition of “helping the middle class” and mine are at odds.

    About 4 million lower income folks were removed from the tax rolls under the Bush tax cuts. Will those 4 million be returned to the paying side of the ledger? If so, I am all for letting the Bush tax rates expire.

  22. sumner402 says:

    Over 8 million lost their jobs under bush too, are you claiming they have been helped?
    Losing enough of your income to no longer pay taxes is not being ‘helped’.

    The republicans have not done anything to help the middle class or the poor…..ever.
    Tax cuts do more harm to the poor then they help, just look at where you all want to make up the short fall they cause.
    How do you fall for stuff like that anyway?

  23. Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthy but continue the cuts for the struggling middle class. This may be possible only while the Dems control both branches of Congress.

    After the Republicans take over the House, no agreement is possible and the Bush tax cuts will likely expire in their entirety.

    Obama can take credit for trying to continue the cuts for the middle class and the Republicans will be blamed for not letting that happen.

  24. sumner402 says:

    Let them expire, it’s what the republicans wanted and intended.
    They can only blame themselves, which of course they won’t.

  25. Carol, you’re welcome, and thanks for proving you are incapable of rational thought.

  26. redneckbuck says:

    Remember the dems are in control here. If the tax cuts expire we get to blame them. And that leave the Prideful one as a one term president.

  27. sumner402 says:

    If the tax cuts expire we get to blame them.

    No you don’t, because they are calling for a vote, it’s your party that is, as always blocking any progress and movement to better the nation.
    With you and your party it’s money first, party second and country dead last.
    Not that the truth and reality will stop you lemmings from blaming the evil Democrats, hell you blame them for everything anyway.

  28. redneckbuck says:

    Sumner the dems are not proposing the same cuts. They might be in name but not in principle. The dems are making several changes and then claiming that the republicans are “only looking out for the rich”.

  29. redneckbuck says:

    Whatever happens here is Obama’s doing. He is the president he is in charge. How does that feel Sumner. Why it was just two years ago that the same was said of GW.

  30. sumner402 says:

    Sumner the dems are not proposing the same cuts.

    Other than glen beck and the other far right whining heads do you have something to back that up or are you another of aislanders suck puppets?

    So you admit that most of problems are bush’s fault?

  31. redneckbuck says:

    Ultimately the president is blamed or rewarded for the decisions he does not veto.

  32. Roncella says:

    Carol the bank is broke in Washington D.C. By the way unemployment checks have been going out for 99 weeks straight, isn’t enough already ??

    The only reason Republicans voted not to extend the unemployment longer was because Obama and the Dems. refused to use the excess stimulus money to fund the extended unemployment checks.

    The top 2% will be the ones providing additional jobs if Buses tax cuts are extended beyond Dec 31st.

    I don’t remember ever getting a job from a homeless person or a lower middle class person. I worked many years for a number of different companies and owned my own business.

    The gravy train has got to end to stop the bleeding of our whole economy.

    Hopefully the New Congressmen and Women will bring the necessary votes to stop Obama and the dems. in Congress from spending us all into bankruptcy.

    Obama and the dems. are planning to use excutive orders before the end of the year to damage our economy even more, by bypassing Congressional oversite and imput.

  33. bobcat1a says:

    Roncella, how many jobs have those 2%ers created in the last 4 years?

  34. LOL…

  35. Speaking of moral high ground :
    “Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress want to extend the tax cuts for individuals making less than $200,000 and married couples making less than $250,000.”
    Let’s see, If I’m just living with someone, we can earn a combined 400 K, right?
    But if we’re married, we are limited to 250 K ?
    The Gov. gets more of what it rewards and less of what it punishes…

    Sumner, can you ever develop an original thought that does not leave you toilet stained?

  36. Lars – do the terms “un-married”, ”married, filing jointly”, and “married, filing seperatly” mean anything to you? You will find them on the 1040 forms. So two people living together without benefit of clergy, could make up to $400K, while a married couple would be limited to $250K.

  37. JudasEscargot says:

    “Roncella says:
    November 20, 2010 at 12:10 pm
    Carol the bank is broke in Washington D.C. By the way unemployment checks have been going out for 99 weeks straight, isn’t enough already ??”

    Maybe someone should have thought about this when all those jobs were outsourced to India so that Wall Street could make more money.

    Tell us, Roncella. How long should YOU get unemployment checks if your job was sent overseas and you couldn’t find employment for 100 weeks?

    Maybe the bank wouldn’t be broke if we quit taking away the source of revenue so that people making $250K a year can have an additional $7500 each year.

    A person that was earning in excess of $40K a year, gets $10,400 in regular benefits from unemployment. That will sure fill the hole left by his job disappearing. The 52 week, 78 week and 99 week benefits are rare and conditional. The majority of Americans are only insured for 26 weeks.

    Just think, that $250K person will created a job paying $7500 gross for the person that could qualify for $10,400 for 26 weeks, when he or she was budgeting for over twice that much when employed.

    Uh huh.

  38. I remember when the max for unemployment was 13 weeks.

  39. I remember when outsourcing wasn’t considered good for the US economy.

    I remember when outsourcing wasn’t a word.

    I remember when the US manufacturing sector was the mightiest in the world.

    I remember reading how US manufacturing won WWII.

  40. sumner402 says:

    I remember when republicans were rational and reasonable people capable of thinking for them selves.
    I remember when lying was considered a character flaw and not something to be proud of.

  41. sumner402 says:

    Roncella, how many jobs have those 2%ers created in the last 4 years?

    The talking points do allow for roncella to stray into what normal people call conversation or debate. If there is no slogan, sound bite or spoon fed talking point, roncella has no words and no thoughts.

  42. sumner402 says:

    Still waiting for something that the republicans have done to help the working man and the middle class.
    Why do the right wing tools avoid that question?

  43. donjames says:

    I remember when sumone was a craftsman.

  44. klthompson says:

    There are axioms in economics as well as in life endeavors. Economically, when you strip money from those with funds to invest in private business you cripple the ability to create jobs. Private charities are hampered in their efforts to help the less fortunate. Businesses who are unable to grow are also unable to pay increased taxes. The list can go on and on but it is a chain that, when broken by government, has devastating results. Our government brought us to this point by breaking the chain. The question is, do we have the guts to tough it out?

  45. Right on Teebird. Carol, try drinking something other than Koolaid.

  46. Klt & ISpg – hate to bust you bubles but the problem is that the 2% are not using the money to create jobs here in this country were they are needed.

  47. sumner402 says:

    Thats why they think the top 2% need more of the middle classes money xring, that way they will surely start spending it and it will start to trickle down any day now, we just need to give them a little bit more!

  48. Roncella says:

    Kthompson, Your 10:28 coments explain exactly why the Government needs to get out of the way and let private businesses expand and prosper and hire more folks to work and extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone.

    However some Posters like sumner will not comprehend anything except whats preached on MSNBC, CNN, NPR. Huffington Puff etc.

  49. sumner402 says:

    You are killing me with this stand up comedy routine roncella!
    I’ve never watched but maybe 10 mins total of MSNBC, maybe an hour of CNN since they have been on the air, NPR a bit more as I listen to them while on long drives, much better than the hate radio BS you live on and I have never in my life been to Huffington post.
    You one the other hand……..

  50. Roncella – the goverm=nment was out of the way for almost 8 years. What do you think caused the mess we are now in?

  51. Roncella says:

    Sumner, aw come on now be truthful, you can admit to listening to the left leaning cable outlets, I know you could not believe as you do without being influenced by them.

    xring, You have got to be kidding. Bush was pre-occupied with 9-11 and its aftermath. The Airlines, and the economy took a big hit from the 9-11 plane bombings. The Liberal Dems controlled Both the house and senate for six years of the Bush 2nd term, they controlled the purse strings completely.

    President Bush, a good man was not a straight Conservative. He actually tended to be more of a Rino Republican on most Issues. He pretty much followed in his Fathers foot steps.

    As Bush one tried to be bi-partisan with the Dems. in the Congress at that time, all the dems. did was make a fool out of Bush one.

  52. Roncella the Republicans controlled both houses of congress from 2000 to 2006 – the first SIX years of Bush’s eight years. And Bush did have a lot on his mind; two illegal and unjust wars, deregulation, corporate welfare, tax cuts, and sending jobs overseas.

    But you are right that Bush was not a conservative or a Christian. Rather he was a cheap jack con-man who lied and cheated his way into the White House (twice), and then lied and cheated his way through both terms.

    Bush was also a tyrant (or in realspeak a wartime president), who disregarded and disrespected the Constitution, and branded all who opposed him as traitors.

    Bush did not need help from the Dems to look like a fool; he just had to act naturally because he was a fool. And the only bigger fools are the right wing zombies who think he was the best president since the divine Saint Ronnie.

  53. sumner402 says:

    I know you could not believe as you do without being influenced by them.

    Roncella proves yet again he is absolutely clueless.
    Do yourself a favor roncella, turn off fox for 1 week, tun off hate radio for the same week, stay off of your usual right wing extremist web sites and try to find different source for your news.
    Try it for one week, cut the umbilical cord from your beloved talking points and propaganda and see how much better you feel about yourself and the world.
    I dare you.

  54. sumner402 says:

    Well said xring, the truth is always on the good guys side.

  55. blakeshouse says:

    Writer is nothing but a “what can the govt do for me” whiner ass just like the rest of the socialists here who pervade this state.

  56. ron The Liberal Dems controlled Both the house and senate for six years of the Bush 2nd term, they controlled the purse strings completely.

    While it did feel a bit interminable, Bush’s 2nd term was the standard four years, of which the Dems were voted in for that last 2 years.

  57. donjames says:

    Gather ’round darling liberal children, it’s time for your remedial Congressional majority histroy lesson… AGAIN.

    Democrats held a one-vote majority in the Senate for 8 months of 2001, and all of 2002. First because the 50/50 tie was broken by AlGore until the new Bush administration took office on 1/17/01, whereby Dick Cheney became the tie-breaker. And second because on May 24, 2001 Republican Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the Republican Party and became an Independent who chose to caucus with the Democrats.

    Republicans won back a slim majority in the Senate in the 2002 Midterm elections, and regained control of both houses with the convening of the 108th Congress on January 3, 2003.


    Enough with the “Republicans controlled congress for six years” crap. Try reading a bit of history if you can’t otherwise remember, ‘fer gosh’ sake. Even during the 4+ years when Republicans did have control of both houses during the Bush administration, they never had anywhere near the majorities the dems have enjoyed over the past 4 years.

    End of lesson.


  58. Roncella says:

    DonJames, Sometimes trying to debate with liberals/dems reminds me of that great old country song, Hello Wall !!??

    xring, Yor are infected with the Bush Hate syndrom disease. You need professional help in clearing up all the hate, along with many other libs/progressives/dems.

  59. DJ – and we all know that no conserative Dem every voted with the RINO’s.

    Ronc – the very fact that you are unable to use facts to refute my posts show that you are the one that needs help.

  60. Roncella says:

    xring, Read Donjames post 7:44 it refutes your posts with facts.

    Also Rino’s need to change their party to Democratic as their beliefs are more in line with lib/dems than the majority of Republicans.

  61. donjames says:

    xring, who gives a rip how Blue Dogs or RINO’s voted, a majority is a majority.

    And for those folks want to rip someone for making a mistake, it’s best to know what the Hell you’re talking about first – then fire away. Otherwise, I find the advice of Abe Lincoln is always appropriate:
    “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”

  62. DJ – there are at least two ways to look at the term majority. One is by party affiliation and the other is by voting record. Since not all Dems (unlike the Repb’s) can be counted on to vote in lock step with their party, it is the later that truly determines who controls the Senate.

    In the Senate, if control was based strictly on party affiliation why have so many Obama appointees yet to receive an up-or-down vote?

    Roncella – read the post, why do you think I’ve replied twice. There are facts (which DJ has) and then there is REALITY – the how things actually work.

  63. donjames says:

    …there are at least two ways to look at the term majority.

    LOL, tell that to Nancy Pelosi.

    Uhmm, x, you are really charting new waters in the sea of split hairs here. Why quibble, it’s simple; 51 to 49 = majority. C’mon, you can say it – it’s easy… rolls right of the lips.

    … Since not all Dems (unlike the Repb’s) can be counted on to vote in lock step with their party

    LMAO, and tell that to Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, etc, etc, etc.

    As for 0bama nominees, who needs Senate confirmation when you can be a record-setting recess appointer. x, you really need to read this:


    Ties all of this stuff up quite nicely, no?

    How many times must we go over this tired ground; dems held a 58 to 42 majority of Senate seats for the first 4 months of 2009. That jumped to 59 when Specter the defector switched parties, and to the super majority number of 60 when the loathsome al franken finally finally fabricated enough votes to steal his seat. It stayed at 60 for 6 months until the earth-shaking election of Scott Brown in January of 2010, foreshadowing the democrat doom of 11/2/10.

    In the House, the dems held a 31 seat majority from 2007 to 2009, when they increased their majority to 79 seats.

    Now tell us again, x, how in the hell do the dems not get everything they wanted, even without Republican support?

    Answer; they pretty much did.

  64. DJ –
    – in his first two years in office Bush made 22 recess appointments; So far Obama has made 18. So Bush remains the leader. May be you should try getting your facts some place other then the leading of conservative media since 1944.

    – and now for the forty-eleventh time. Senate rules allow one senator to block any bill from coming to the floor for debate or for a vote, and it requires 60 votes to over ride the block and bring the bill to the floor for action. Can you say “Cloture” or ”Closure”?

    -“how to the Dems get everything they want” THE ANSWER IS THE DO NOT.

  65. donjames says:

    Uhmm, x, 0bama has made 22 recess appointments thus far.

    From that famous “conservative media” source, the WaPo:

    Bush made 23 in his first two years, but 0bama still has two full months to tie or break that record. Given the… suspicious background and nature of so many of 0bama’s appointees (such as the one featured in the WaPo piece, above), combined with the changing complexion of the incoming Congress, I would say it’s a virtual certainty he’ll wrest the recess appointment crown from GWB.

    And again,x, your really need to read up – as opposed to make-up – before you post. In order to prevent cloture, the party opposed to a bill needs at least 41 votes in order to continue debate.

    An individual Senator can use certain parliamentary-like rules to delay discussion of a bill on the motion to consider, or the actual motion or issue, or the nomination of a conference committee, or on the House-Senate conference report which must be approved by the full Senate.

    And there are specific parliamentary moves by which a single Senator may delay a vote on a nominee. But none of these moves are permanent, nor do they have anything to do with cloture unless an actual filibuster occurs, in which case, see paragraph 4, above


    You seem to be mixing rules and moves to produce your desired result.
    No surprise. But, if you can link official, specific Senate rule language to back up your oft-repeated inaccuracy…

  66. Roncella says:

    xring, Lets remember Bush was in office for 8 years, Obama has been President for less than two years and has made 18 recess appointments already. In this two year period Obama has had full control of the House and the Senate.

    Lets not forget about the 43 Czars Obama has appointed going around the Congressional oversite of these Czars. Why has Obama appointed so many Czars so quickly. How much are they paid, why were they needed ?

  67. ron – read the complete sentence for comprehension

    “in his first two years in office Bush made 22 recess appointments”

  68. DJ

    -23/22 Bush still leads. And with Hapless Harry making deals to keep the senate in secession I doubt Obama will have a chance to do any more this year.

    Rule 22 – cloture rule – it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture, it takes 41 senators to invoke a formal filibuster, it takes 1 senator to block or put a hold on the bill, which then requires a cloture to override to block/hold.


    The term czar seems to have two meanings; one describers an official with wide powers appointed to a position created by Congress and has to be approved by the Senate. The other use describers a Presidential Advisor who is in charge of a certain area, but does not need to be confirmed by the senate under ‘executive privilege”

  69. Roncella says:

    beerBoy how may Czars did Bush appoint his first two years as President ?

  70. tell me……I’m not your research monkey.

  71. Corporate profits are at the highest level ever recorded……W’s tax cuts didn’t stimulate jobs creation for 10 years……our deficit is exponentially expanding……tell me again why the rich need the low tax rate?

  72. Great info. Thank you. I found your blog in yahoo

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0