5th District race: Social issues 'a distraction,' says Hurt

You should have asked what he has done as a representative of his constituents......

What exactly is Rep Hurt's record?

"I was raised how I was raised." This is disturbing to me. It reads as "I'm not going to to bring any critical assessment to a single thing I was told as a child despite anything that might change or be revealed along the way to adulthood." That's just sad. If you believe gay marriage and marriage equality are wrong, ok, I disagree but just explain why you believe it to be wrong...not that it's what you were told as a child. Many children in the 50s were raised to believe that Black and White people eating in the same restaurant was bad and wrong.

The people commenting on this board (so far) prove his point - they are getting all hot and bothered over abortion, gay marriage, etc. when in the grand scheme of the problems facing our country right now, they are not the most important issues. People need to be debating economic policies and the long term financial health of our country or else we are in for a Japanese style lost decade or worse.

I am pro-choice, pro gay marriage, but also believe that I must vote on who can fix the economy, which are the Republicans.

TheDude...what an unusual comment to make...Republicans can fix the economy? It was the Republicans who de-regulated, gave away billions in tax cuts, and started the two unpaid wars which got us into this mess and you think they'll get us out. Romney wants to start another war with Iran. He wants to triple down on tax cuts for the rich....and those things help our economy how? He can't tell the truth about anything...as illustrated by the Pants on Fire, False and Mostly False ratings received on his ads and his comments as a Presidential Candidate located here: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/statements/byruling/... and here: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/statements/byruling/... and here: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/statements/byruling/... and here: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/statements/byruling/...

Of the 164 statements rated by Politifact, a mere 27, or 16% have been rated true. I understand that during campaigns the truth is stretched, twisted and turned to suit the particular candidate, but Mr. Romney's record is extreme. Do you really want to elect someone who tells you the truth 16% of the time? Not me.

@Chris - agreed that more clarity is needed on specific policies, but I also just generally agree for the need to reign in government spending, fix entitlements, etc.

As much as I don't know about specifics with Republicans, I know that I don't like Obama's policies and that they have not worked over the past 4 years. For my job, I often speak to small business owners and I will share two stories that I heard from SMB owners in C'ville (businesses that most people reading this board would probably know).

1. Due to increasing the length of unemployment benefits, one businesses costs spiked 31x, forcing him to stop hiring because he could not afford it if that person did not work out (it is a bit of a seasonal business). He said is business is now in "survival" mode, not growth. His entire family voted for Obama in 2008 - not this time.

2. Due to Obamacare, under which you must provide part time employees health insurance, another business's healthcare costs spiked to 20% of his operating budget. As a result, he had to lay of 60 employees and is having to lease his stores to a national corporation who can manage the costs better. He noted that many small businesses that operate on thin margins and have part time employees (ex. Restaurants) are going to either have to cut back the hours of their employees or close.

These are just two real life examples of how Obama's policies are hurting the economy instead of promoting growth and hiring. Every jobs report over the past year has been terrible.

So for me, I just feel like we need someone new who understands business.

@Sharon - good luck with all that. You are clearly just repeating the party sound bite instead of thinking critically about what you are saying.

@The Dude, I do think critically and here is the issue - have you read the health care LAW - not the bill but the law which is about 900 pages? Employers are exempt from the group plan if they qualify but they can buy into group plans that are more affordable. Lets see here, a health employee is more productive than an unhealthy one. Plus the government will rebate employers who promote healthy lifestyle options which can be provided by the health care coverage they choose for their families.

We have small business here that has indeed obtained grants from the government incentives that were created under the Democrat in office now.

Please let us all know here what Hurt has done for the economy? Tell us, what has he done to improve the economy or attempted to do to help? Absolutely nothing!

I suggest you go read the health care law now and then come back more informed. Here is a link... http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ152/content-detail.html

@The Dude -- From the Kaiser Family Foundation website: "The Affordable Care Act does not require businesses to provide health benefits to their workers, but larger employers face penalties starting in 2014 if they don't make affordable coverage available. This simple flowchart illustrates how those employer responsibilities work."

Does the business you speak of have at least 50 full time equivalent employees. Here's the chart that might help http://healthreform.kff.org/the-basics/employer-penalty-flowchart.aspx

@Sharon - thanks for providing the chart. While I do not know all of the details of the Affordable Care Act, I am sure it is more nuanced than this chart, though maybe this is a good start.

I assume he had greater than 50 FTEs since he had to lay 60 people off - which I think were mainly all part time employees. I think the part time employees crossed some government threshold that then qualified them for insurance under the ACA, and the business simply couldn't afford them.

Finally, the thing that strikes me about that chart is that under almost every scenario, even if the business isn't "required" to provide healthcare, they still must pay a penalty to the government. This is a real cost to the business which stops them from using that money in more productive ways.

Something Obama DID build...without our help...

http://clashdaily.com/2012/09/middle-east-madness-congrats-obama-you-bui...

WhoaNelly - check out what George Will has to say about that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/16/george-will-romney-libya-abc-th...

chris,

1) hanadful of state exploiting a loophole until the dems get control again does not change my premise at all. Why do you think target cvs wal mart and walgrens are all building clinics?

2) So when Obama said that if his daughter "made a mistake" she should not be "burdened" with a child then that was not dismissing abortion as housecleaning?
You are entitled to your opinion. The abortion statistics say otherwise.

3) "On point 4, contraception is included in basic preventive care which is shown to reduce costs for insurance providers and thus" If this were true then insureres would have given it away as a sales tool... so why do we need government intervention?

4) "On point 5...um...wow. It'll stop at two consenting, non-related adults getting married"
Right.... people that want gay rights always stop there and never consider what comes next... so I will ask again... why can't two brothers marry? Why can't a guy marry his mother to avoid estate taxes? At 88 she is post menapausal? Deal with the realities. The work it out.

5) Obama signed the stimulous because it was put in front of him.. "HE DID NOT BUILD THAT" He then wasted three years.... as for Obamacare reducing the deficit it is smoke and mirrors.. (see my number one and use some common sense)

6) Hurt has been consistently pushing for creating a marketplace that would allow people to create jobs and salvage. He has not been wasting time trying to make life "fair" for misfits while the country slides further into oblivion.

Bill,

You love to quote abortion statistics as if they somehow justify your complete hatred of women who exercise choice over their bodies and their lives. Abortion has been on a steady decline in the US, despite your idiotic claims about women's lib. IN fact, the ability of women to participate in society, be educated, and find value in more than just motherhood has encouraged such a decline. Assaulting female independence is hardly going to give you what you claim you want.

I think you need to put that bias away and focus on teaching men how to be husbands that provide, and get skill sets for the modern competitive world.

Robert Hurt will win by a mile.Douglass will fade away after the election never to be heard from again.People seem to forget that the district went from leaning Republican to safe Republican.

@Bill Marshall -- you might take the time to read Breanne Fahs' interesting book Performing Sex: The Making and Unmaking of Women's Erotic Lives. I doubt it will impact your opinions, but at least you will have been exposed to the facts. You can find it at Alderman Library.

@Bill Marshall...I'm in agreement with many of your posts, but trying to say that many women use abortion as a form of birth control is a scary thought. What kind of woman would take something so serious, lightly? When my wife and I were dating, 25 years ago, she got pregnant only a month after we met. She decided to get an abortion, and she still to this day regrets it. It was a very emotional and scary thing for her. As far as birth control pills go...we have four daughters (two are identical twins) but we planned our oldest. The other two pregnancies were a result of birth control pill failure, and although it has not been easy raising four daughters, it has been the most rewarding thing I have done. Believe me, abortion is not taken lightly by women who choose that path.

@ Bill M -- Hahahahahahahahah ... get used to the facts ... and thanks for showing your true colors by beating up on the distaff side ...

Romney used his tax return money to invest overseas. It's a free country.

Romney invests overseas. And around my house he is known as "That Lying Mattress."

whoanelly, It sounds like your wife is the reason we need safe and legal abortions. She took it serious. Ask any social worker how many people do not talke it serious... Too many people get lazy, loose, drunk, indifferent etc and when the envitable happens they abort, many without guilt.

If, hyopthetically, abortions were made illegal and back ally abortions were punishable by death how many women would be more careful because they could not get an abortion? That "number" is the proof that easy abortions makes many women less careful.

I do not think abortions should be illegal, but I think that women need to be accountable to society when they get one and not just "excused" like they banged up the car fender. Society used to judge women too harshly and now too many people don't want them judged at all.

You presented me with information and I judged your wife. She did a sad but responsible thing and I have respect for her for still thinking about it to this day. I think it demeans her when other women just go get one because they got drunk and were not careful and don't even know who the father was.

I know they cannot be eleiminated ,but I think they can be reduced and despite old timers assertions about raw numbers.. if we can just reduce them by 20% that is over 200,000 fetuses that will not have to be destroyed because they were prevented.

As for the guys... the abortion advocates make it so the guy feels no guilt and just tells the girl to "get rid of it" Don't expect them to be more careful when you are the one making it no different than a root canal.

"Better yet, let's make castration the punishment for men who get a woman pregnant and walk away"

So OLD TIMER you want to punish the man for having irresponsible sex but not the women?

Does anyone have the source of the poll mentioned in this article that has Hurt up by 18? Was it done by the same polling firm as in 2010 that had Hurt up in the 20s at one point, but he ended up winning by 4?

"...but I think that women need to be accountable to society..."

No. She doesn't and here's the problem. It's a private decision. It's a private medical decision. Small government, remember? You're painting most women who make the amazingly difficult choice to have an abortion with the same brush. Got drunk and this was the out. Stats show that's now what happens.

To Cville Native - War on Women?? What about the war on unborn children waged by the euphemistically so-called pro-choice contingent.

Wow! Robert Hurt demonstrates (again) what an empty suit he is, and why he is so well-suited to the Republican party. It’s of little surprise that his inane and inaccurate remarks draw support from local conservatives who can do no better than to parrot the Fox/Limbaugh/Beck nonsense.

Hurt said that he’s “asking people to evaluate what I've done the past two years. Of course, he’s lied about virtually all of it. The truth is that Robert Hurt has voted consistently to obstruct economic recovery; he has voted consistently against the interests of most citizens in the 6th district and in favor of the monied interests represented by Republicans.

Hurt says that “people have not been holding their leaders accountable.” The he goes on to say that the “$16 trillion in debt” cannot be blamed on any “ one Congress, you can't lay that all at the feet of one president.” This is a purposeful distortion of the public record. The national debt in 1981 –– accumulated over 200 years –– was less than $1 trillion when Reagan took office and instituted supply-side economic policies. After a dozen years of Reagan and Bush1, the national debt had more than quadrupled. The rich were richer, the poor were poorer, and the middle class was squeezed.

In 1993, Bill Clinton replaced trickle-down supply-side policy. He raised taxes on the richest, without one single Republican vote in Congress. They whined that it would “ruin” the economy. Instead, the nation gained 23 million jobs and experienced economic prosperity for all citizens. Clinton shrunk the size of government. And importantly, he balanced four federal budget and provided surpluses designed to preserve social programs like Social Security and Medicare.

The stolen presidential election of 2000 led to a return of supply-side economic policy. Tax cuts geared to corporations and the rich and laissez-faire regulatory policies –– and a manufactured and unfunded war –– caused huge budget deficits, an explosion in debt, and aided and abetted massive fraud and corruption on Wall Street. The end results were a greed-induced financial meltdown, a broken economy, and millions of job losses...the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression.

Yet, Hurt, ever the charlatan, says amazingly that “you can't lay all that at the feet of one party.” That is simply a flat-out lie. Republican economic ideology is directly responsible for the Great Recession and for the vast majority of the nation’s debt. Worse, they take absolutely no responsibility for it, blame it on Obama, and obstruct recovery efforts at every turn. Exemplifying the phrase “stupid is as stupid does,” they want to force even more supply-side poison (the Paul Ryan “budget,” for which Hurt voted) on the citizenry.

Robert Hurt claims that “The American people did not want” the Affordable Care Act. That’s also untrue. Obama campaigned on it in 2008. Maybe Hurt will recall that Obama was elected.

Hurt claims that Paul Ryan’s imaginary “budget” plan would lead to balanced budgets and would “reform Medicare.” Yet every independent analysis finds that it will lead to more deficits. and it will gut both Medicare and Medicaid. The Ryan “budget” is a fraud.

According to respected Congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norman Orsntein, Republicans are the problem. Mann and Ornstein recently wrote that conservative Republicans are " ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition." Former Republican senator Chuck Hagel called his brethren "ideological," "narrow," and "intolerant." A veteran Republican Congressional aide called them "an apocalyptic cult." Robert Hurt fits right in.

Republicans often cite the sanctity of the “markets.” As Blloomberg news just reported, “ the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has rallied 82 percent to a four-year high since President Barack Obama took office... America is doing better...Every time the S&P 500 posted an annual return above its historical average, U.S. gross domestic product has accelerated the following year.” The chief investment officer of New York’s U.S. Trust says. “We are in a healthier state right now. Next year, we think the growth clip in the United States and the globe is going to be better than expected. Over the next three years, we are bullish.”

But to hear Hurt and Republicans, Obama has “failed.” As David Firestone reported in the New York Times, “ the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is responsible for saving and creating 2.5 million jobs. The majority of economists agree that it helped the economy grow by as much as 3.8 percent, and kept the unemployment rate from reaching 12 percent. The stimulus is the reason, in fact, that most Americans are better off than they were four years ago, when the economy was in serious danger of shutting down.” Perhaps more importantly, the Obama stimulus “ protected the most vulnerable from the recession’s heavy winds.” These are the people the Republican party –– to use Mitt Romney’s words –– doesn’t “care about.”

The stimulus bill also committed to the future. As Firestone notes, “it made crucial investments in neglected economic sectors that are likely to pay off for decades. It jump-started the switch to electronic medical records, which will largely end the use of paper records by 2015. It poured more than $1 billion into comparative-effectiveness research on pharmaceuticals. It extended broadband Internet to thousands of rural communities. And it spent $90 billion on a huge variety of wind, solar and other clean energy projects that revived the industry. Republicans, of course, only want to talk about Solyndra, but most of the green investments have been quite successful, and renewable power output has doubled.”

It really is sad to see adults so disdainful of personal responsibility that they resort to blatant misrepresentations and lies.

Robert Hurt says he believes “life begins at conception.” Perhaps. What seems clear is that whenever human life begins, membership in the Republican party leads to neural atrophy, and, if their failed policies and prevarications are indicators, many if not most of them are close to being brain dead.

All the debt from George Washington to Bill Clinton is 1/3 of our debt. George Bush's debt is 1/3 of our debt and Obama's is 1/3 of our debt. If Obama is reelected and continues spending over 1 Trillion a year we don't have by the end of his 2nd term 1/2 of the national debt will have accumulated under Obama. Is Romney's plan of tax cuts for the wealthy and trickle down the answer? That's a terrible plan also.

Social issues are a distraction from the GOP agenda. That's for sure.Golly, I mean you'd think we live in a society the way these Liberals carry on. Grow up!

Poor Bill. Like most conservatives, facts are not his strong suit.

Bill Marshall says I blame "the rich." for our economic problems. No. I blame Republicans –– and said so very clearly. But expert Congressional scholars blame them too, as I noted above. Republicans do, however, , indeed, cater to the rich.

Marshall raises the Fox/Limbaugh/Beck canard –– again –– about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That too is a lie.
As McClatchy news reported, conservatives (like Marshall, and Robert Hurt, and Rush Limbaugh, etc.) like to say that "what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.
Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis."

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fan...

Moreover, as McClatchy notes this:

"Federal Reserve Board data show that:

• More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

• Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

• Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics."

And even worse for conservatives who try to duck taking personal responsibility for their profligacy is this:

"Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication...During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie"

Sorry Bill, you are defending the indefensible, and in the process proving my point about neuronal withering.

Here's the Republican illogic in a nutshell, courtesy of Ezra Klein of The Post and Bloomberg News:

"In other words, Romney is arguing that about 47 percent of the country is a “taker class” that pays little or nothing into the federal government but wants to tax the productive classes for free health care, food, housing, etc."

"For what it’s worth, this division of “makers” and “takers” isn’t true. Among the Americans who paid no federal income taxes in 2011, 61 percent paid payroll taxes — which means they have jobs and, when you account for both sides of the payroll tax, they paid 15.3 percent of their income in taxes, which is higher than the 13.9 percent that Romney paid. "

"Part of the reason so many Americans don’t pay federal income taxes is that Republicans have passed a series of very large tax cuts that wiped out the income-tax liability for many Americans...when you look at graphs of the percent of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, you see huge jumps after Ronald Reagan’s 1986 tax reform and George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. So whenever you hear that half of Americans don’t pay federal income taxes, remember: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush helped build that."

"Some of those tax cuts for the poor were there to make the tax cuts for the rich more politically palatable....
But now that those tax cuts have passed and many fewer Americans are paying federal income taxes and the rich are paying a much higher percentage of federal income taxes, Republicans are arguing that these Americans they have helped free from income taxes have become a dependent and destabilizing “taker” class who want to hike taxes on the rich in order to purchase more social services for themselves."

"The antidote, as you can see in both Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney’s policy platforms, is to further cut taxes on 'job creators' while cutting the social services that these takers depend on. That way, you roll the takers out of what Ryan calls 'the hammock' of government and you unleash the makers to create jobs and opportunities.
So notice what happened here: Republicans have become outraged over the predictable effect of tax cuts they passed and are using that outrage as the justification for an agenda that further cuts taxes on the rich and pays for it by cutting social services for the non-rich."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/17/romneys-the...

Democracy, your shallowness of thought and analysis does not make you right.

Bill clinton pushed through the reforms that forced banks to laon to unqualified minorities by agreeing to backstop the loans through fannie mae and freddie mac, they then accused banks of "redlining" to force them to hand out shaky loans. This sudden avialability of money spurred home purchases and these uneducated buyers payed too much for thier homes drining up prices which the private sector was only too happy to climb on board and make some cold hard cash.

Regardless of who held the paper the bubble was created because of liberals trying to give people houses they did not qualify for and it was burst by people who borrowed money and then did not pay it back. The resulting cascade of defaults brought the economy back to earth. This is a normal course of events except that Congress and both Presidents tried to turn back time by pumping the banks with taxpayer money. They got duped by wall street and we are all paying for it now. The Demcrats wanted the bailouts because of union pensions invested in the banks and the republicans wanted to protect big business and the bankers.

This would have occurred exactly the same whether Bush was in office or gore was on office.

And what Roney is saying is that there a are lots of people collecting free crap from the government who may be putting at risk by voting republican because republicans are aginst freeloaders... Obama has tried to create an america where everybody gets a trophy and anyone who is unable to find a job is a "victim" . The fact is some people are simply lazy and selfish and would not work unless there were no other way to get food. They are not victims... hardworking americans are "victims" of able bodied lazy cretins who game the system while people like Democracy sheilds them from scrutiny.

and to C-villenative.. the only war on women is obamas war that is telling them they are victims... birth control is three cups of coffee from starbucks.... that dog don't hunt....

Women are half of college graduates and when you examine salaries of educated women under 40 compared to men and take out the ultra high paid CEOs( mostly inherited wealth) women make MORE than men.... There are also a lot of women in DC answering phones in an air conditioned law office for 35k a year, lokoing out the window at guys they went to high school with making 25k pouring asphalt on the street below.

As far as planned parenthood goes... they empatically believe that abortion on demand without any moral judgment is the rule and they can have that opinion... but have it without taxpayer money. Why is that so tough? Women have money.... maybe they could spend a little less and donate for the cause they believe in. Put your money where your mouth is and leave the taxpayers out of it.

and 30% of rapes do not end up in pregnancy.... just like the body cannot magiaclly block a conception it cannot magiaclly "create" a conception that goes contrary to the statistics of unprotected sex either. The odds of getting pregnant from a one time encounter is 11%

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_odds_of_getting_pregnant_if_you_h...

As long as women and democracy keep defending the careless and indifferent women demanding their abortion on demand rights then the other side will push for restrictions. There is a balance and it is NOT abortion clinic drive thrus on the taxpayer dime.

Hurt is also setting aside this issue (as he should ) to focus on getting people back to work before these 1st world problems we debate turn insignificant because we collapse into a third world economy where nobody has anything.

old timer

" oh, she made me do it." " She was asking for it." "She was wearing those provacative clothes."

I never uttered any such thing.

If women want the freeedom of choice to kill a fetus without interference by what you acknowledge is the other half of the equation then it is women who need to accept responsibility for the pregnancy. If they want to give the man veto power over the abortion and let him raise the child (which is what they would do if as a couple they bought a dog together) and make her pay child support then we can have a beef with the guy who has irresponsible sex and walks away. Until then he is accepting the risk of child support and the (hopefully) guilt of knowing that his potential sire has been disposed of like 5 day old meatloaf.

If it makes me a "mysoginist" to expect a woman to be as careful with her eggs as she is with her atm pin number then i'll take that....

You just can't stand the fact that I am okay with abortions being legal but not funded by the taxpayers and expecting women to separate themselves into the category of those who have some very powerful and compelling reasons and those who because of places like planned parenthood feel no guilt or remorse whatsover for getting themeslves knocked up in the first place.

I also have disdain for men who don't take precautions on the thought that the girl will just get rid of it..... That subject just never seems to be brought up on the six oc'clock news or congressional hearings....

I would imagine there are a lot of "intelligent" women out there who can see the difference between people who took precautions and lost against the odds and the booze hounds who are too lazy selfish and irresponsible to even take a pill.

Whether the latter half is 10% or 50% I don't know, but we will never know as long as we keep defending their irresponsible behavior with less disdain than we have for a person that litters.

Old Timer - In the long run, we all lose - it's in the history of civilized societies, and it's in the history of the universe - entropy. It's hard to predict whether the intermediate stage is going to be more like The Hunger Games, On the Beach, The Turner Diaries, or A Canticle for Leibowitz.

There is always Savanarola's solution. He took the orphans of Muslims slain in battle and whose towns were burned and pillaged and raised them from an early age as Christian warriors dedicated to carry on the holy war against the Muslims. We could form an army of unwanted children whose mothers were compelled to carry them to term and send them against the Axis of Evil - Iran, N. Korea, France, Canada.

Old Timer...

I am 100% FOR making guys pay for every child they create. In fact I am for making the unemployed guys do community service to repay the government for any help the taxpayers have to provide. The law WILL go after them and even take away their tax refunds and drivers licenese if they don't pay up.

But making men more careful is much harder because it is seen as a sign of weakness for a man to demand to use a condom when not asked to. It is the path of least resistance that allows a man to let the women ask, and even easier for him to assume she is on the pill if she is silent . As I stated earlier the pregnancy will have very real consequences for her in short order so the guy is not nessasarily wrong to think that she has a much higher stake in the situation and will speak up if nessasart.

I am not defendiong the guys... they should ask, and you did right by your son.... but there will be about 2500 abortions tomorrow that at least "most" could have been prevented. It may take a joint effort but my assertions do not change... women need to accept responsibility so that there are less abortions overall. If that were to hapen then it is my belief that there would be MORE support for the women who truly did their best but lost aginst the odds to be protected by the law without it being such a hot button issue.

@Bill Marshall...Bill, banks lent money in the form of mortgages and bleed-you-dry credit because they made money on it. They weren't naive going in, they knew exactly what they were doing. One of the financial tools the banks used/use to pull this off was the Credit Default Swap. They bundle "less than desirable" debt and sell it to other investors at a huge profit. Basically the investor bets that the loans won't go into default. This came about because of bank deregulation. CDS's were done on the down low, as opaque as a process can be. The banks don't want transparency BECAUSE these tools are so risky. They sold these swaps to private and public investors who didn't understand what they were buying. The banks made it sound like a slamdunk and happily pocketed the profits. In other words, the more they lend and the more risk involved in the debt, the more CDS are created and the greater the payoff to the bank. It was nothing but greed and bad stewardship at the corporate level that took out the market. It wasn't just because money was lent to some people who couldn't afford it.

The scary thing is...nothing has changed other than the fact that the taxpayers recouped the banks losses for them. They continue these suicidal practices to this day with no oversight.

@WOG - why do you include France and Canada in the same group "axis of evil" with Iran and North Korea? Last time I checked, France and Canada were relatively prosperous constitutional democracies that offer freedom of religion and basic civil rights to all citizens -- including women. Show me a Muslim country that does that? -- please.

omgitspaul.....

You are correct....sort of... the fact remains that if people at the bottom had not defaulted it would have all worked out...but they defaulted and that started the cascade of events that froze the marketplace.

The reason for the bailout was to unfreeze the market AND to protect the stockholders of banks which are comprised of individual small investors, union pensions and hedge funds representing extremely wealthy individuals. It was a nessasary evil at the time but has been mismanged since.

The government should stop loaning money at zero percent to banks and make them unload their housing inventory at a loss so that the people who didn't overextend themselves could buy a house at a great price. That is the natural way capitalism redistributes wealth. If they did that then there are a lot of older people with money who would scarf up the houses and give/sell them to their children to give them a leg up and we would begin to grow again.

The bankers were taking risks with taxpayers money because the government regulators were looking the other way at the pretty much the badgering of Congress .. specifically Barney frank and Maxine Waters...

The difference between a banker and a badger is that the badger makes no pretense about eating you alive. That is why we need to educate the populace and go back to the old adage "let the buyer beware"

There were a lot of people who DIDN'T get caught up in this mess because they understood basic economics and didn't buy into the "free money" mailers and no payments till 2009 offers....

The government should not be the backstop for the banks or the rich uncle that bails out the neice who got herself duped by a snake oil salesmen.... they should require tranparency and proesecutions for fraud.

The reason for the bailout as for its runup was: a gigantic heist that lined the pockets of That Lying Mittster and his ilk -- the rich and the super rich in America. They used their tax breaks to send jobs overseas. That says it all ....

Bill...I have a sneaky feeling that Christian just won't get that. Did you see the reporter interviewing participants at the Democratic convention who asked the question "Do you think that it would be fair if Barrack Obama made it illegal for corporations to make a profit?" (4 out of 5 said they thought it would be fair...they really are clueless.

Or humorous

Robert Hurt thinks social issues are "a distraction" - perhaps because because he can't run on his record and would rather be seen as a "nice guy" an "honest politician" and someone whose "thought" aligns invisibly with the Republican policy of taxing millionaires and billionaires at a lower rate than their secretaries pay. Corporations that don't make a profit don't last long; neither do partnerships. But perhaps you might like to look at The Tax Evaders Wall of Shame on the Washington Times Communities. You may not be surprised to learn that Murdoch's NewsCorp paid almost no US tax at all on its income; you may even applaud that result. But at some point you may like to remember that the absurd tax breaks for the super rich and their corporations are responsible for 48% of the current deficit -- and although many of you may believe that "creating jobs in China" or Vietnam or Indonesia or Mexico is a socially worthy, ultimately laudable and of course very profitable way to impoverish the American middle and lower middle class, many of whom might be "union members" if it seemed worthwhile to be so -- ultimately, however, it is worth noting that the recently past era of American prosperity from the Fifties through the Nineties was a time of rising wages, rising employment, and increasing purchasing power for American consumers; opposed to that we now have, since the recent financial catastrophe, which mostly impacted the middle class: falling wages and declining purchasing power. That is the order of the day. Does that cause a decline in union influence? So much the better. Maybe that was one of the overall aims. For a while the decline in purchasing power of American wages was concealed by a flood of cheap imports. But that's no longer true. So: (a) Get yours while you can and (b) Chow down at the Riverside on Hazel Street as often as possible. Or, float the James in your own antique perambulator. Don't read a book. All the information you really need is prominently displayed ...

on television.

Poor Bill Marshall refuses to point the finger of blame for the mortgage and economic crises where it belongs, and that’s at Republican policies. Instead, Marshall keeps trying to pin it all on Bill Clinton. But the facts just won’t cooperate. During the Clinton presidency there were tens of millions of jobs created, budget deficits were eliminated, multiple budgets were balanced, and surpluses were generated to pay down debt and preserve social programs. George W. Bush squandered it all.

The New York Times reported on the mortgage melt-down in a lengthy piece in 2008. The Times investigation found that “the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bush’s own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?pagewanted=all

While there were people warning of serious problems in the Wall Street’s securitization of mortgages, “As early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Mr. Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn; as recently as February, for example, Mr. Bush was still calling it a ‘rough patch’.”

Moreover, while income was stagnant for most American families during Bush’s presidency, “ housing prices skyrocketed. That put homeownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers. So Mr. Bush had to, in his words, ‘use the mighty muscle of the federal government’ to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.”
More importantly, Bush “leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations...And corporate America, eyeing a lucrative market, delivered with a proliferation of too-good-to-be-true teaser rates and interest-only loans that were sold to investors in a loosely regulated environment.”

Bill Seidman, an advisor to Bush and other Republican presidents, a supervised the bailout of savings and loans during the Reagan adminstration when Republicans also let the banks run loose. He notes that “To make the market work well, you have to have a lot of rules.” But Bush, Seidman said, “made decisions that allowed the free market to operate as a barroom brawl instead of a prize fight.” Consistent with Republican laissez-faire regulatory policies, Bush “populated the financial system’s alphabet soup of oversight agencies with people who, like him, wanted fewer rules, not more.” The results were disastrous for millions of citizens and for the country.

Eric Cantor. Robert Hurt. George W. Bush. Mitt Romney. Bill Marshall defends them all. But all he has to back up his meager defense is what he gets from Fox “news” and the right-wing ranters. Very sad.

Democracy,

You are the liar.... here is the proof in barney franks (Democrat) own words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo&feature=related

c-villenative.... It is not the government buying those boxes it is consumers. As long as consumers choose price over quality that will be the case. But what you don't address is that in america we pay skilled people to manufacture components and then ship those components overseas or to mexico to be assembled because american expect to be paid as much for assembling a simple puzzle as the guy who uses his skill does to manufacture the precise components. If we paid those artificailly high wages the product would sit on the shelf unsold because someone else (european investors?)will simply buy similar components IN AMERICA, export them to mexico for assembly and ship them back via wal mart napa auto parts or best buy to be sold.

It is a global world . We were able to be prosperous in the 1950s because europe was decimated by war , japan was decimated by war , korea was in a war and america was the go to place for manufactured goods and an abundant disciplined labor force. Gm and Ford among others were able to make inroads while germany was still recovering its manufacturing of cars. We were in a very fortunate place from a manufacturing perspective This slowly changed through the 1970s when the rest of the world caught up and began to compete with what was then a well paid complacent labor force and it has been evolving ever since. George Bush didn't cause it, ronalad Reagan didn't cause it, even Jimmy carter didn't "cause" it "evolution" caused it. All the while this was happening local state and federal governments were expanding services and spending. So now we are faced with wages that are determined by a global market, aggravated by domestic work restrictions (good or bad is irrelevant) and a lack of consumption based on a global work force that is probably 50% larger than it needs to be. We are trying to deal with this while the citizens are demanding more instead of less from their government.

If you look at the "successful" countries thriving in this new world they are few and far between. Currently, germany is successful, but if you look at why it is because they shipped jobs overseas TO AMERICA. Merdeds, BMW and volkswagon all produce cars here because the labor and taxes in Germany are simply too high. So when they "average" their labor costs the numbers work.

there may be plenty of people who see "opportunity" to buy products produced in china and sell them here. Is that wrong? Try and buy american for a week and see how much it costs you. Look at labels and see where your grapes, apples, fish. shrimp, crabs and scallops come from....

The profit margins on these products are slim because the busineses have vary high overhead so how much more would you be wiling to pay for "made in america"? You cannot "afford" made in america because the guy who assembles toasters in america wanted to be able to buy a four wheel drive truck, a boat, a classic car, a big screen AND send his kid to Florida for spring break on that salary. meanwhile the engineer that designed the toaster when he hears the guy assembling it gets that lifestyle wants twice that because he utilized a lot of skill to design and patent the thing. So at the end of the day we have a 60 dollar toastermade in cleveland vs a 15.95 toaster made in maylasia that are of similar quality.

Nobody "sent" anybodies job to china.... China CREATED jobs (unfairly) and if we "created' jobs in america without expanding the economy we would have to take jobs from somewhere else. There will be no jobs created in america until the people with money regain confidence that the government is on their side instead of waiting in the wings to regulate them and snatch the profits. That is not democrat or republican that is capitalism.

@democracy...Not that I side with Bill Marshall (on pretty much anything), but to be fair, part of the reason for the ultimate near-collapse of the financial system does lay with Bill Clinton. He repealed the Glass-Steagall (Glass was a VA Democrat) act, thereby allowing banks to get into far more risky business ventures. Glass-Steagall was put in place during the "Great Depression" in part due to the risky behavior of banks prior to the depression (history repeats). It basically separated banks into two categories; Commercial and Investment. Once the act was repealed by Clinton, the banking industry went off the hook and profits (and risk) soared. It helped drive the stock market boom of the 1990's...and the collapse of the financial system. Not helping make Bill's case, just sayin'...I think the blame lies squarely on pretty much all our representatives, or should I say the lobbyists representatives?

No amount of regulation can change the marketplace into a "prize fight" because if they did you would have what democacy wants..... 1000s of people paying a giant beauracracy about a weeks pay to watch two people "work" for less than an hour with mandated "breaks" every few minutes and at the end of the night half the people feel like they wasted their money and everybody walks a way with nothing. (just like Obamas government)

At least in a barrooom brawl everybody gets a chance to make a difference.

Your inability to compete does not make the process unfair. It it just darwinism in action.

Hurt has "misspoke" on many issues. BUT uranium mining and milling is his achilles heel. He has reaped over the years as a state and federal representative thousands of dollars from the uranium people and now claims he has been in favor of the ban, or is he really ? His daddy, Henry, is a large investor in uranium mining and they live next to each other.

"At least in a barrooom brawl everybody gets a chance to make a difference."

Interesting. Don't you think all the players get a chance to make a different in a ball game or hockey game? But there are still rules. If there are no rules, then the cheaters just sell their snake oil, leaving an entire community damaged without the ability to be producers. I thought you were against fraud Bill. Or do you only squeal about rights and rules when it's you who gets hit with the sucker punch? Most Republicans I know do.

Ponce, I love it when someone brings in something you find inconvenient, you like to make stuff up, like about Germany. Germany did not start manufacturing cars in the US any more than Japan because local labour costs and taxes were too high. They did it to get around import restrictions, and other costs associated with shipping. They have sent some production back to Germany, such as in the case of the M3. Also, things manufactured outside their county do not count as part of their export GDP, which, in spite of their so called high labour costs, is significantly higher than the US.

" In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour. Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler (Mercedes-Benz), and Volkswagen—are very profitable."

It's just absolute bollocks that Unions and the American worker has chased jobs to low wage countries like Mexico and then China. It has to do with crappy incompetent management and pure unadulterated greed, and the resentment by right wing hicks to actually believe that reading and writing and skillsets - which unions required in the past - are elitist and passé. We'll include the small % of minorities who bleat racism and eubonics at every chance that will probably vote for Obama in that lot. Oh, and an absolutely overpriced, sloppy, and incompetent healthcare system also based on greed and monopolistic profits. My God, we pay 3 times as much and get poorer care with endless waits to see specialists who resent actually having to provide care.

"We have strong unions, we have strong social security systems, we have high wages. So, if I believed what the neo-liberals are arguing, we would have to be bankrupt, but apparently this is not the case. Despite high wages . . . despite our possibility to influence companies, the economy is working well in Germany."

You and Bill Marshall are full of rubbish when you make so many of the statements you do, that are anti-union and use them as scapegoats for everything, while ignoring the pathetic decisions made by management and pretending globalization has somehow caused it all. All globalization has done is allowed management to avoid having to make good decisions about how to be competitive and actually put pressure on inefficient parts of our society like health care.

The quotes above come form Forbes Magazine "How Germany Builds Twice as Many Cars as the U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice as Much," 12/21/2011, Frederick Allen.

The biggest problem we have in this country is we have one party that is completely against the American people as a whole. When even a local representative won't listen to you (and after writing to Mr. Hurt, all I ever get is the boilerplate "Well, this is what I plan to do", completely disregarding anything I have said in my letter), then how can they say they truly represent ALL of their constituents.

The Republican party does their best to scream how 'government is broken' and it 'can't do anything right', and then get themselves elected and break as much as they can (all the while doing everything possible to enrich the people at the top) and then point to it and say "See, we told you it's broken and doesn't work!"

Amazingly enough, I have voted for Republicans in the past, but they were MUCH more moderate (more Eisenhower Republicans) than what we have representing the party these days. But someone like Rep. Hurt is not the least bit moderate, and will continue to toe the party line and never deviate from it. One reason why I would not vote for him is the fact that when you vote 'party first', you are not representing the people who put you there, and therefore you should not continue to represent them (and should be voted out).

Again, one reason I have continue to vote either Democratic or Independent is due to the fact that at least those two parties are not actively trying to make the lives of normal, everyday American citizens worse by their actions, and by the legislation they are trying to pass. If at some point, the Republican party is willing to throw the ideologues and extreme right wing from their party (and welcome moderates again), I might actually be tempted to vote for them again.

@omgitspaul I can agree with you on the issue with lobbyists (moreso with lobbies that represent the business interests in the nation versus the lobbies that represent the actual citizens). I don't agree that all of the Democratic party is in the pockets of big business, as they are nowhere NEAR as monolithic a party as the Republican party has become. Heck, if that was the case, then what is Bernie Sanders doing caucusing with the Democratic party (especially since he is a TRUE socialist!)

In the end, we as a nation have to start putting people in office that truly represent all of us, not a narrow few. That will only happen when we vote people in that get rid of the influences of big money (and that will take some time, unless we get another person like Teddy Roosevelt or FDR in office, that is).

Now that we've made the corporations "people" as far as contributing to political campaigns goes (at least), would it make sense to really, actually make them people -- and give them a fixed lifespan, at the end of which they'd be subject to the inheritance tax? Once every twenty years or so .... would probably be long enough for them to "live" ...

@Christian...You should check out what Halliburton has done to the people of the Navajo reservation in northwest New Mexico. They aren't subject to all the federal regulation on sovereign Navajo lands...they have left open mine tailing piles all over the place. There are elevated cancer rates all of the reservation. If there is money to be made, we throw out ethics to fill our wallets. Nothing good can come from mining here in Virginia. It's not about free enterprise, it's about common sense. The right tends to support one without using the other.

...I like the "inheritance tax" idea, lol.

Which ever side wins, you better do what the gov't can't... lower your debt, save cash, and convert your IRA to cash before a war with Iran. I wish I had faith a war with Iran is not coming.

@Bill Marshall...Sounds like you're arguing that for us to be competitive we need to operate as a third world country. We aren't far from it, but it isn't because we have people asking for a living wage. The fact is, other than cars, trucks and airplanes, we don't build sh!t in this country and that isn't the fault of the American worker. Sounds like you'd love them to relax immigration so that you can get some "affordable" workers for your business. Major corporations are beholden to no one but the shareholders these days. It isn't enough to turn a profit and keep folks employed, you have to reward the investors. Overseas jobs equals profit...

Fact is, those 11 year old Vietnamese girls you carry on about are working for American corporations.

You have some pipe dream that everyone can shell out $40k - $50k a year to go to university and get a skill that will make them attractive to employers. I get the impression that you're relatively successful, at least by your own measure. If you're doing well, bully for you, but get real, man! Look around! No one wants to live like this. When I was a child, dad worked, mom stayed home to raise the kids, we took a simple vacation every year and we had a car that ran. Those days are over, welcome to the corporate universe...you don't get to blame the worker for being unemployed. I love debate, Bill, but great day, wake up!

@bm -- That 11 year old girls in Viet Nam are forced to work in factories is exactly the situation we had here in America 100 years ago. Asking 11 year old American girls to work in the factories (without health care, worker safety regulations, pollution controls, and unemployment insurance) wouldn't help our country nearly as much as a sensible tariff would help. The declining purchasing power of American wages was concealed for several decades by the flood of cheap Asian imports we could still afford. And let's not forget the flood of narcotics that go along with the rest of the situation. The Chinese remember The Opium Wars -- even if you don't. And as for the looming war with Iran? I say, "Bring back the Pahlavis,"

Christian Gehman

You can brea about how unfair global competition is but it will not change the facts on the ground. Even if we boycotted countries that hired 11 year old girls others would not, and the result would be that the rest of the world would get the items cheap, americans would not be able to sell american made versions outside the USA becasuse they would be too expensive, americans would pay a much higher price for the US version, and americans would lose choices in the marketplace.

Also, "the declining purchasing power caused by cheap imports" is just WRONG. The cheap imports INCREASED purchasing power as is PROVEN by the fact that someobody as simple as a school teacher with 5 yrs experience can buy more with todays pay then he/she could in 1970. If you go back in time and look at a teacher from 1970 you will find they lived in a little apartment that may or may not have had a/c, and drove a used car... but they did not have health insurance anywhere close to todays medicine, their car did not have airbags or 30mpg (or power windows, CD player or satelite radio)They did not have a laptop and internet access, they did not have a big screen and cable, they did not have access to a local airport that could get them to Florida cheaply. They did not have cell phones or access to credit, 1st time homebuyer credits, childcare tax deductions etc etc. The also did'nt have a microwave or any of the other food inventions that make life simple and consumed free time.

Life has improved for those who took advantage of the system and got an education and retained the work ethic. Look at something as simple as the number of riding lawnmowers and gas powered weed wackers... almost nobody had them. now they are almost standard equipment in every garage.

America is full of crybabies who whine that Mitt Romney was born on third base and should give all his money to them, all the while ignoring the fact that at least half of america is born on second. the overwhelming majority of the rest got a walk to first, and that 3/4s of the rest of the world never even make it to the dug out for a chance to play.

We need to stop providing country club public universites and get back to providing a first class education for a reasonable amount of money. We need to stop prepping blue collar workers for college and give them the education they need to compete and we need to stop telling people that they should be able to feed a family of four as a tire changer at Sams Club.

@Bill Marshall... Also, "the declining purchasing power caused by cheap imports" is just WRONG. The cheap imports INCREASED purchasing power as is PROVEN by the fact that someobody as simple as a school teacher with 5 yrs experience can buy more with todays pay then he/she could in 1970. If you go back in time and look at a teacher from 1970 you will find they lived in a little apartment that may or may not have had a/c, and drove a used car... but they did not have health insurance anywhere close to todays medicine, their car did not have airbags or 30mpg (or power windows, CD player or satelite radio)They did not have a laptop and internet access, they did not have a big screen and cable, they did not have access to a local airport that could get them to Florida cheaply. They did not have cell phones or access to credit, 1st time homebuyer credits, childcare tax deductions etc etc. The also did'nt have a microwave or any of the other food inventions that make life simple and consumed free time.

Life has improved for those who took advantage of the system and got an education and retained the work ethic. Look at something as simple as the number of riding lawnmowers and gas powered weed wackers... almost nobody had them. now they are almost standard equipment in every garage."

Flawed logic, my friend. All the things you list are probably purchased on credit, credit that teachers of the 70's didn't have, as you said yourself. Today's teachers are burdened student loans that will take many years to pay off, their purchasing power without credit is more likely diminished, not improved. I would argue that this applies to everyone, not just teachers. Without credit, most could not afford the lifestyle they now enjoy.

@ Christian Gehman-If uranium mining comes to Pittsylvania County it will come to many other parts of Virginia, including areas near C'ville and Albemarle County. This is a disgrace and abomination for politicians like Hurt to play games with. Hurt can't take there $ and then pretend that hes been against this evil when all know he has been for Uranium mining. A friend who lives in Danville tells me that all the uranium people have "Hurt" signs and that they are at the site of the Coles mine.