HuskerNation1

I'm pro-life too, but the pro-abortion crowd does not want anyone to know what truly happens behind the scenes. What makes this scandal so bad is that they have been caught trying to sell/profit from body parts of fetuses. It's just disgusting. The debate is not about letting women get mammograms from PP, its about the political nature of this being an extension of the pro choice/abortion crowd.

For those of you following this in the news, there is yet another disgusting video out today discussing intact fetuses and how to sell potential parts. What's more shocking is that Hillary Clinton and other 2016 Democratic hopefuls refuse to condemn Planned Parenthood. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/08/planned-parenthood-video/400472/ I know many people who are pro-choice and are also outraged by what Planned Parenthood is doing.

I agree with the bold (not so much the Heritage Foundation, whose sole purpose is to advance conservative ideology by hook or by crook). People making hundreds of millions of dollars a year by buying Stock A at 9:30 and selling it at 10:30, or who move piles of money around according to algorithms designed by Ivy League scientists (who ended up on Wall Street instead of doing something useful with their lives) should be asked to pay a share of taxes commensurate with their "productivity." That would go a ways to curing our ills. We could also afford to cut our military expenditures and police-state armaments. This is easier than it sounds when you don't plan to invade or bomb half the countries in the Middle East. Your note is a little puzzling. It reads as if I indicated something to the contrary. Even in the 1950s (where like I mentioned twice before without comment that the top marginal tax rates were roughly triple what they are now) there were extremely wealthy individuals that everyone envied. What we live in now is a Gilded Age, wealth discrepancy like we haven't seen since the 20s. I'm a little strange, I admit. Although I'm an atheist, I style myself a social Christian in many respects, meaning I believe that the extravagancies of the wealthy are secondary to the needs of the impoverished. Laissez faire capitalism be damned. Edit: Ditto Zrod on the flat tax/fair tax/voodoo tax structure. If you think someone worth ten billion dollars should fork over the same percentage in taxes as a janitor making twenty thousand a year, I'm afraid this is where we part ways again. I definitely agree with the bolded part here. But in all seriousness, as I just posted, I would think a fair/flat tax (with a lower or zero rate for those under the poverty line or at a threshold of $40K or below) would make both sides happy, as super millionaires would not be allowed to have a lower effective tax rate than someone barely above the poverty line. It takes away the ability for the powerful with plenty of cash to find loopholes. Also, most fair tax plans call for a rate in the lower 20s, not the 30s as has been suggested. Also, as I pointed out earlier, there are many different lenses to view these topics, and just as the Heritage foundation leans to the right, Paul Krugman, the NY Times, and other sources cited previously have a leftist angle. On many issues I lean to the right, but I don't like a lot of politicians from either party.

Except when it doesn't... Wow...if you ask any economist regardless if they lean to the left or right, they will tell you that when taxes are reduced, it will stimulate GDP and economic growth, and when raised, it will slow economic growth. It's not rocket science. In 2014 Japan's Prime Minister raised taxes on his country, and their economy shrank at the fastest rate in 5 years. My college Econ professors were very liberal and even stated that changes to fiscal policy through tax hikes or reductions have the biggest impact on GDP growth of any lever the government can take. Really? Tax Cuts Don't Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds We can go back and forth citing different economic studies with empirical evidence. Here is just one of many showing the impact of raising taxes on economic growth. The others cite the fact that if we really want to shrink our deficits without affecting GDP growth, the best way to do that is through spending reductions, not tax increases. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp11158.pdf http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/11/america-s-austerity-tax-increases-and-deficit-reduction http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/20101227-Econ-WP-2010-04.pdf Part of the reason that the current progressive tax structure is not effective is that there are way too many loopholes within the tax code. It must be simplified as the wealthiest are the ones most able to take advantage of the loopholes. If Liberals are truly for treating everyone fairly, then we should have a fair/flat income tax where everyone is treated the same. NOTE: Equality does not mean equal outcomes for all. No thanks. Not sure if this is something you seriously support, but a person who makes minimum wage and works 40 hours a week makes ~ $16,000 per year. They should pay $5,000? It's not "fair" to work that hard and not earn enough to feed yourself. Where do you get $5000 in taxes. That's assuming a fair equal tax rate of 31%. Most proposals have a fair tax rate in the low 20 range. Also, many fair tax proposals actually call for 0% tax if you fall below poverty level. You might still have OASDI and other taxes taken out, but the income tax component would be void. As was the case in the last election, there are many millionaires whose effective tax rate after loopholes is at 10 or 15%, well below their marginal tax bracket. This is really an idea I would think that those who hate those who have been successful would go for.

Except when it doesn't... Wow...if you ask any economist regardless if they lean to the left or right, they will tell you that when taxes are reduced, it will stimulate GDP and economic growth, and when raised, it will slow economic growth. It's not rocket science. In 2014 Japan's Prime Minister raised taxes on his country, and their economy shrank at the fastest rate in 5 years. My college Econ professors were very liberal and even stated that changes to fiscal policy through tax hikes or reductions have the biggest impact on GDP growth of any lever the government can take. Really? Tax Cuts Don't Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds We can go back and forth citing different economic studies with empirical evidence. Here is just one of many showing the impact of raising taxes on economic growth. The others cite the fact that if we really want to shrink our deficits without affecting GDP growth, the best way to do that is through spending reductions, not tax increases. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp11158.pdf http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/11/america-s-austerity-tax-increases-and-deficit-reduction http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/20101227-Econ-WP-2010-04.pdf Part of the reason that the current progressive tax structure is not effective is that there are way too many loopholes within the tax code. It must be simplified as the wealthiest are the ones most able to take advantage of the loopholes. If Liberals are truly for treating everyone fairly, then we should have a fair/flat income tax where everyone is treated the same. NOTE: Equality does not mean equal outcomes for all.

Going out on a limb and assuming that particular RB was not Imani Cross. Its Newby with everyone else trailing Yup. Obviously Newby proved himself if Riley named him the starter. Cross was never going to be a full time feature back here. Taylor was injured and Wilbon was on scout team last year with a whole other offense. Doesn't surprise me only one RB stood out. I agree that Newby will get the first opportunity to prove himself as the starter for the BYU game, but I think other backs will get some good playing time early on to see how things shake out. If Newby is fumbling too much, or not proving himself in a game-time environment, Stevenson, Wilbon, Devine, or Taylor could come in and take his spot. Also, Riley did say at the press conference they have been working with Tommy on the short throws. To me this means more RB receptions this year as well, and that could be any of our backs.

Except when it doesn't... Wow...if you ask any economist regardless if they lean to the left or right, they will tell you that when taxes are reduced, it will stimulate GDP and economic growth, and when raised, it will slow economic growth. It's not rocket science. In 2014 Japan's Prime Minister raised taxes on his country, and their economy shrank at the fastest rate in 5 years. My college Econ professors were very liberal and even stated that changes to fiscal policy through tax hikes or reductions have the biggest impact on GDP growth of any lever the government can take.

And here is one of many counter perspectives on why the national debt does matter http://pgpf.org/issues/fiscal-outlook/2013/07/why-long-term-debt-matters http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/opinion/sunday/the-dangerous-notion-that-debt-doesnt-matter.html?_r=0 (when the liberal NY Times is saying Progressives are wrong for making light of the debt problem, then you know it's bad) I was an Econ/Business major in college, and the notion that it's ok to just continuously add to our national debt and not think it's a serious issue is ridiculous. For starters, more and more tax dollars go to simply pay the interest in our debt, which means less funds to invest in all those programs that liberals love for the federal government to provide. It also makes it more difficult to implement needed stimulus measures to help grow the economy and create jobs during economic downturns which are cyclical in nature. Those damn liberals just adding to our debt... To be honest, it's both parties that have added to the debt, so I hold both accountable. Bush 43 implemented Medicare Part D without proving a way of funding it moving forward, and that's the problem with all entitlement programs. There needs to be a way to pay for these programs without raising taxes on everyone by billions of dollars. When you raise taxes, time and again, it shrinks GDP and economic growth, which is then followed by increases in unemployment as a lagging indicator.

And here is one of many counter perspectives on why the national debt does matter http://pgpf.org/issues/fiscal-outlook/2013/07/why-long-term-debt-matters http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/opinion/sunday/the-dangerous-notion-that-debt-doesnt-matter.html?_r=0 (when the liberal NY Times is saying Progressives are wrong for making light of the debt problem, then you know it's bad) I was an Econ/Business major in college, and the notion that it's ok to just continuously add to our national debt and not think it's a serious issue is ridiculous. For starters, more and more tax dollars go to simply pay the interest in our debt, which means less funds to invest in all those programs that liberals love for the federal government to provide. It also makes it more difficult to implement needed stimulus measures to help grow the economy and create jobs during economic downturns which are cyclical in nature.

I agree with your points here and that there are too many candidates. I wish Trump would go away, but his ego is too big to do that. There will be some division, but the one thing that will unite all factions on the GOP side (moderates, mainstream, and conservatives) is Hillary Clinton. While she has a lead now, I still have my doubts if she will make it through the primary process given how poor of a candidate she is. She avoids the media, and the few times she has done an interview, its completely backfired. If Hillary were a Republican candidate, the media would be all over her for destroying servers, not answering questions, etc... I have been most impressed with Fiorina thus far, but she has yet to catch fire, and maybe never will. After her, I think Rubio is the most articulate of any of the candidates, and has a good story to tell. From there, you have Walker and Kasich that have strong records as Governor, and Walker has done a heck of a job in a blue/progressive state of challenging unions and getting that state turned around.

Forget history and what we were founded upon for a second. Why, exactly, shouldn't the government provide these things if they are able? What is the logical and rational reason why this is a bad thing? I just don't get it, the only argument I here is that, "WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR COUNTRY HAS DONE" or something. Further, I've just never really understood why people place the Constitution in such high regard. It's a vaguely worded document written by imperfect men within the context of their specific culture and time. It's not some omniscient force of purity to base life on, imo. Well if the country were not $17 trillion in debt and if we were running huge surpluses, sure it would be great to provide everyone free health care, free tuition, and why don't we throw in a free house and car. But...that is not reality. Moreover, regarding the single payer system referenced above, it was tried in the most progressive state in the union, Vermont, Sanders home state, and the Progressive Governor that pushed to have a single payer system said he would stop pursuing it because the costs were too outrageous, and this is in a very small state with little population. Despite what most liberals think, there is not an appetite in this country to raise taxes to pay for more big government programs. http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-single-payer-health-care-failed-in-progressive-paradise-1438382832

It's like you didn't read my second paragraph, man. I'm in favor of redistributing wealth in order to provide our country with a maximally beneficial system of healthcare. The left has been consistent about this point: many did not like Obamacare because it was frankly too conservative. It failed to even include a public option in the health insurance exchanges, much less get us on par with the vast majority of developed democracies where citizens pay nothing out of pocket for an ER visit. If we call our single-payer system Medicare, it's a good a word as any. You're presumably in favor of redistributing wealth to fund our military (and unless you want to go to the Roman rape and pillage model or something, you don't have many other options). I consider your health to be on par with our national defense in terms of our political priorities. I agree that no person should have half their income taken to fund needless wars in the Middle East (or anywhere else). However let's pretend that everyone in the country was taxed at 50%, and out of that you were guaranteed healthcare, education from preschool through graduate school, top-rated infrastructure, social security, defense from all enemies foreign and domestic, accessible public transportation, a basic standard of living, etc. I fail to see the horror in there. It sounds like getting what you pay for. Oh, and under the socialist president Dwight D. Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rates for people making over 150,000$ was 90%. Corporate taxes was around 50%. Yeah, I know. I said that already. But what a terrific idea! We can join socialist Germany, who provides free tuition to all European and international students, or France, or the Netherlands, or Sweden. Etc, etc. Link? About 40% of "mainstream America" believes that the earth and all of its species of life was specially created ten thousand years ago. That argument doesn't pack much punch for me. But regardless, the truth is if you polled Americans issue by issue instead of on scary sounding words from a bygone Cold War era, Bernie Sanders is very much in step with the priorities of your average citizen. Here is one of many links that references some of the points I made. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-socialist-surge-119785.html And you and I just are not going to agree. If you truly believe it's the government's responsibility to provide free education, healthcare, and an array of services and benefits, then we have completely different ideological views of what this country was founded upon, and where it should go in the future. America became a great nation founded upon capitalism, striving to be the best at what you did, because you were not guaranteed a free handout from the government. The American people have always been hardworking to get ahead. Also, when you look at the Consitution, the only mandatory powers granted to the Federal Government per Article 4, Section 4 is that it must " guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” There is nothing in the Constitution that states that it's the Governments job to provide healthcare, free tuition, and many other services we currently provide. I honestly hope that Sanders gets the Democratic nomination so we can have a true debate with a self-proclaimed Socialist as one of the party's nominees. Man, you keep tossing the word socialist out there like a grenade that plunked in your foxhole. I know he's a socialist; a self-proclaimed democratic socialist. I don't even know where to begin with that Politico article, but the authors apparently believe as you do that simply repeating the fact over and over will somehow make me head for the fire escape. Relax. I'm guessing by the avatar and the general feeling of your writing that you would identify as some kind of political conservative. Well let me tell you, linking to an article about European politics and "mainstream America" is a bad idea. Most western European countries don't even have a word for what the right wing is in the States, much less a serious party that embodies our national brand of fear and loathing. So you mean to tell me that you envision an America with no public education system, no roads, bridges, tunnels, trains, or airports––no welfare or public good of any kind––no space or scientific research programs, no effort to protect climate or human health, no police force (Article 4 Section 4 seems to indicate nothing about domestic violence), and no public services? Just a military big enough to bat away the Hun bastards whichever way they come? Can you point me to which founding father had that in mind? And if you can, could you then explain why I should care? It ain't 1776 anymore. I think at best you're presenting a knockdown case for another amendment. Hey, if you are a Socialist, more power to you. I don't think that is the mainstream of America, but I can tell you are proud of falling on that side of the political spectrum. There is a reason that America had a tea party and declared its Independence from Britain 200 years ago, and it was not to become another European political state. And you should reread Article 4 Section 4...it states exactly what I said. As for your 2nd paragraph, it makes no sense. I never said there is no purpose for government, but I do advocate limited government. I think education is a great example of something that can best be handled at the local level, not the federal level. That's the tendency of leftists to make the assumption that those believing in limited government want no government. There is a huge difference.

It's like you didn't read my second paragraph, man. I'm in favor of redistributing wealth in order to provide our country with a maximally beneficial system of healthcare. The left has been consistent about this point: many did not like Obamacare because it was frankly too conservative. It failed to even include a public option in the health insurance exchanges, much less get us on par with the vast majority of developed democracies where citizens pay nothing out of pocket for an ER visit. If we call our single-payer system Medicare, it's a good a word as any. You're presumably in favor of redistributing wealth to fund our military (and unless you want to go to the Roman rape and pillage model or something, you don't have many other options). I consider your health to be on par with our national defense in terms of our political priorities. I agree that no person should have half their income taken to fund needless wars in the Middle East (or anywhere else). However let's pretend that everyone in the country was taxed at 50%, and out of that you were guaranteed healthcare, education from preschool through graduate school, top-rated infrastructure, social security, defense from all enemies foreign and domestic, accessible public transportation, a basic standard of living, etc. I fail to see the horror in there. It sounds like getting what you pay for. Oh, and under the socialist president Dwight D. Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rates for people making over 150,000$ was 90%. Corporate taxes was around 50%. Yeah, I know. I said that already. But what a terrific idea! We can join socialist Germany, who provides free tuition to all European and international students, or France, or the Netherlands, or Sweden. Etc, etc. Link? About 40% of "mainstream America" believes that the earth and all of its species of life was specially created ten thousand years ago. That argument doesn't pack much punch for me. But regardless, the truth is if you polled Americans issue by issue instead of on scary sounding words from a bygone Cold War era, Bernie Sanders is very much in step with the priorities of your average citizen. Here is one of many links that references some of the points I made. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-socialist-surge-119785.html And you and I just are not going to agree. If you truly believe it's the government's responsibility to provide free education, healthcare, and an array of services and benefits, then we have completely different ideological views of what this country was founded upon, and where it should go in the future. America became a great nation founded upon capitalism, striving to be the best at what you did, because you were not guaranteed a free handout from the government. The American people have always been hardworking to get ahead. Also, when you look at the Consitution, the only mandatory powers granted to the Federal Government per Article 4, Section 4 is that it must " guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” There is nothing in the Constitution that states that it's the Governments job to provide healthcare, free tuition, and many other services we currently provide. I honestly hope that Sanders gets the Democratic nomination so we can have a true debate with a self-proclaimed Socialist as one of the party's nominees.

The fact that so many on the left are into Bernie is just as sad as the fact that Trump is leading with 20% of support currently. Bernie is a complete extremist/socialist, while Trump is a narcissist with an ego bigger than all other candidates combined. I think when more in the GOP realize that Trump actually voted for Obama in 2008 and has praised Pelosi and Hillary, they will realize he's not a true Conservative and in this thing just to get attention. I think when you look at the resumes of candidates on both sides, the GOP has a much more experienced field that has gotten results, but they are going to beat themselves up with so many candidates running. There really are no strong Dems running. Hillary has the name recognition but really has never accomplished much. No it isn't. It isn't even remotely comparable. What about Bernie Sanders is "extreme" except relative to conservative demagoguery? His stance that healthcare is a human right rather than a privilege predicated upon a person's wealth? His view that a nation in which higher/specialized education is essential to our future should not only quit burdening young people with impossible debts, but join several other modern countries in providing free public universities? His ambition to end a campaign finance system that allows wealthy individuals to donate unlimited sums of money and purchase virtually the entire political process? I don't look on the word "socialist" like a tarantula that just crawled into the room. It's a word which thanks to the slow drift of the country rightward (economically) has lost all meaning. Sanders is a democratic socialist who believes in a hybrid system in which both government and capitalism play a role. So far as I know he does not favor nationalizing every American industry. And no one seems to mind our socialist military––a socialist military paid for by the redistribution of wealth from the tax base to soldiers and pilots and generals and such. Or our socialist interstate highway system. Or our socialist NASA. Yet when we consider removing healthcare from the profit-driven arena of capitalism (specifically our widely beloved health insurance companies), suddenly it's Red Dawn out there. You have to be kidding me. What about Bernie Sanders is extreme? For starters, he wants to take Obamacare and move it even further to the left and have a Medicare for all single-payer system. The American Public still despises Obamacare and the notion of the government taking such a key role in medical care. A single-payer system that Sanders advocates is the ultimate example of socialism and redistribution of wealth. To help pay for this, he wants to raise marginal tax rates ABOVE 50%. No person, on matter how successful they are, should be forced to pay more than half of their income to any government, especially our federal government that is highly corrupt and does not spend our tax dollars well. He also want to have the government pay for everyone's tuition (offering free 4-year tuition to all). He's stated in the past that no person should ever be able to earn more than $1 million, so again the notion of leveling the playing field. Members of his own party even find him as an extremists. I know he's popular right now with the leftist base because many believe in his socialistic views, but that sits far from mainstream America.

The fact that so many on the left are into Bernie is just as sad as the fact that Trump is leading with 20% of support currently. Bernie is a complete extremist/socialist, while Trump is a narcissist with an ego bigger than all other candidates combined. I think when more in the GOP realize that Trump actually voted for Obama in 2008 and has praised Pelosi and Hillary, they will realize he's not a true Conservative and in this thing just to get attention. I think when you look at the resumes of candidates on both sides, the GOP has a much more experienced field that has gotten results, but they are going to beat themselves up with so many candidates running. There really are no strong Dems running. Hillary has the name recognition but really has never accomplished much.

The GOP does have too many candidates currently, but that will get narrowed quickly after the first 2 or 3 primaries. While there are too many candidates, the resumes of many of the candidates far outweighs what the Dems currently are offering. There are many GOP governors that have turned their states around and were highly successful (Walker, Perry, Kasich, Jeb, Jindal), and the GOP has way more diversity in its field than the Dems, with 2 Latinos, one African American, one Indian American, and one female. And the Dems seem keen on sticking with Hillary who, every time she opens her mouth, her approval ratings fall. Hillary is a horrible candidate and campaigner, and if she weren't female, her poll numbers would be even worse. I actually really like Carly Fiorina and believe she is the most articulate of any candidate on either side, and is willing to criticize her own party just as much as the opposing party. She hasn't picked up in the polls yet, but I would not count her out.

Just wanting to give Devine some love tonight too....we have 2 great running backs for 2015. Heres to hoping they both wreak havoc on the Big Ten

I agree with you on many points. Both parties are guilty of not being fully transparent and spinning facts to support their own personal causes. And I also agree that income inequality was fully in existence prior to Obama taking office. My only point is that it has gotten worse under his tenure, not better, and I do feel he deserves sufficient blame for this topic that the left typically states they are the champions of. Their rhetoric and the data do not align.

So, the thing you would have done differently is secure the same deal, but also negotiated for the release of 4 prisoners. Is that all?... No, I would not be negotiating with Iran period. They have not earned the goodwill of the USA to have sanctions lifted and be treated as though they will actually follow through on their promises this time around. Whether its Israel or England or another of our closest allies, if their leadership states they want to eradicate those countries, and they condone having their people chant "death to America," there is no reason to even think the negotiation outcomes will be positive for US interests. Now in 5 or 10 years, if Iran has become a regime of stability in the middle east, and no longer supports or harbors Muslim extremists and terrorists organizations, I will eat crow and applaud this deal. I would be just as upset about this deal if it were a Republican President, and am not happy with either party's actions (or lack thereof) on a host of issues in the past several years.

Given your arguments in that thread and this one, I have little doubt that that would be a waste of time for the both of us. Have a nice weekend. Same to you...we can agree to disagree

As an IL resident, we have had corrupt politicians from both parties, but it's really the failure of the liberal controlled legislature (led by Mike Madigan for many years) that has failed to address the growing state debt and pension programs. The prior governor (Quinn) did not instill business-friendly legislation, and as a result, more jobs have been moved to Wisconsin and Indiana. Our new governor is an outsider that is trying to force the legislature to make hard choices, but so far they are not willing to.

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/64360-wealth-inequality-in-america/?view=findpost&p=1556047 You failed to also show that I pointed out the Huffington Post has also commented on how income inequality has gotten worse under the Obama administration. If you can provide some hard data points or trend lines showing its improved, or stabilized, please share with us all.

I think you are missing the point. Iran has not had a history of being open and honest when it comes to weapons inspections, whether its through the US or UN. They have openly lead chants "Death to America" as well as the desire to eradicate Israel. Unless they have new leadership through fair elections, its complete naive to expect that their behaviors and intent will change. If Iran truly desires to be more accepted by the US and throughout the world, it will have to show more willingness to condemn Muslin extremists and terrorists both within Iran and in the region. They will understand that America is NOT a bad country who intends to do harm to others for no reason. For a century the US has used its resources to help promote peace throughout the world and make it a safer place. If Iran wanted to show goodwill, it would have released 4 prisoners it still holds as part of this deal, and the Obama administration should have made this part of the deal. That was a big mistake. Do you view Iran as an ally or an enemy? Do you think its plausible that they will change their behaviors and actions and truly become a long-term strategic partner in the Middle East similar to Jordan?

Fat chance of that happening. But....but....his administration said it is the most significant agreement in decades. You realize Iran has been fighting ISIS with boots on the ground for months, right? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/on-the-front-line-of-the-war-against-isis-joint-action-by-us-and-iran-has-never-felt-closer-10391625.html I mean, this Iran hatred is fun and all, but it's completely misguided. It shows a complete lack of understanding of history, and the motivations of Iran and the US. Here's a tip - in this story, the US has mostly been the bad guy. Of the two, the country with the most reason to hate the other is Iran. For starters, the Independent leans to the left on most political topics, so I would not identify that as being a strong source. WIth that said, I'm sure both sides have been at fault historically, but in the past 14 years, I have not heard Iran come forward once and condemn the 9/11 attacks, or any other attacks on Americans, whether its via Isis or Al Qaeda. There has been mounting evidence that they have contributed to the destabilization in Iraq since that war has begun, sending in their own fighters. Israel has always been a strong ally for the US (in the same way as Great Britain), and Iran's leader has called for the eradication of Israel. There have been marches and gathering as recently as a few months ago with hundreds of thousands chanting "Death to America." All of these behaviors do not make me have any faith or trust in the Iranian regime, but that must be where we disagree.

Sound the alarm. A Republican website thinks it's Obama's fault. The article didn't even mention what policies of Obama's they think might have caused this. I wonder when people are going to learn that a president doesn't have that much power. Well for what its worth, Ive seen similar articles on huffington post and liberal sites, but it was not most current. Just do a search on "income inequality under obama trend" and you will see their is bipartisan agreement that things have gotten much worse. Correlation does not imply causation. Additionally, I haven't really seen any correlation. Just "Obama is the president." I haven't read a lot about it so maybe it's out there, but maybe someone could make a graph showing the increase in "wealth distribution" along with the income inequality increase. But that still would not imply that Obama caused it. I think a much more important factor than wanting to increase welfare/snap/taxes on the wealthy is that you can spend sh#t tons of money buying off politicians and funding campaigns. All that matters in this country is how much money you have. If you have money you can buy policy. If you have money you can buy policies that help increase your money. You can have safety/pollution regulations decreased that were in place to protect the public, just so you can make more money. You can prevent laws being passed that would tax your company for outsourcing jobs, so you can make more money by hiring foreigners who are being treated like sh#t and being paid sh#t. And I don't want to hear crap about there not being people here willing to do the jobs that are outsourced. The fact that there aren't people here willing to have their 5 year old kids work in a factory for $1/hour is part of why this isn't a crappy place to live. I agree that causation is complicated in that there is never usually just one cause to a trend or issue. I also do not think it's fair to align a trend to a President that has only been in office a few years, just as we all should give Riley a few years to implement his system his way. However, after year 6 and 7, I do think the data showing the negative trend should not be dismissed. You cannot pinpoint one single program, but let's take Obamacare for example. The requirements of small businesses for Obamacare is such that it encourages them to not hire more than 50 full time employees, and they are instead cutting back hours to the point that underemployment is still quite high. We also have the highest number of Americans who are of age to work that are not even being considered in the labor force. For some it could be they want to be dependent on the government, but I would hope that for many its because they just haven't been able to find work. Thus, this increases the gap between the haves and have nots. It's not the sole factor, but one example.