One-term tactic interferes with economic growth
The goal of the Republican Party and Kentucky's senior senator is to make President Barack Obama a one-term president. This obsession is interfering with economic growth. They have hijacked the discussion to include the subject of deficits only.
Economists know that we need to spend to get the economy on track. We need jobs, not cuts. Stop individuals and corporations taking from our country while giving little or nothing back.
Those who got tax breaks and bailouts should now be asked to pay their fair share and help create jobs here, not overseas.
All of the GOP appointments to the "super committee" have signed the Grover Norquist no-tax-increase pledge that will most likely lead to committee gridlock.
In a recent CNN poll, 63 percent of the public want revenue increased. The committee needs to follow the will of the people to create revenue and jobs.
The middle class has given enough. Now it is the turn of those who have benefited from the policies of our government to take their turn and pay their fair share.
What makes America look unreliable isn't budget math, it is politics. It is not the usual media false equivalency that both sides are at fault.
Our problems are almost entirely one-sided, caused by an extremist right that is prepared to create crises rather than give an inch on its demands.
It is time to stop being unpatriotic and do something for America.
All our president wanted to do was raise the debt ceiling, as has been done many times by various presidents, including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
The Republicans, including the Tea Party, led by Sens. Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, have done everything possible to bring down Barack Obama, and in doing so, caused great harm to our country — and the rest of the world (which is shaking its head in bemusement).
The congressional Republicans did the same thing when they tried to bring down Bill Clinton. Harming the nation doesn't matter; just "get" the Democratic president. What selfish bullies.
I read every day that some readers question how Republicans kept the debt ceiling in limbo by not agreeing to what our president wanted, but my question is why Democrats were not questioned?
Everyone knows that in order to get out of debt, we must reduce spending — a fifth-grader can explain that. So why when Republicans ask for a reduction in spending, are people outraged?
I personally couldn't care less which party you are in but just spending huge amounts of money has got to stop.
This country is broke and until our government quits wasting money, we are truly in trouble.
A difficult site
Let us be realistic. For those of you too young to remember, the reason we fought the McDonald's on East Main Street 28 years ago was because of the drive-through.
Nothing has changed. The streets involved are not any wider and there are still no turn lanes.
As much as I would have loved to have a Trader Joe's on my side of town, we cannot have a market or another drive-in on that site.
Picture the traffic nightmares (and accidents) when you have people coming out from Midland and Vine streets trying to make a left turn into the property across two lanes of oncoming traffic.
Now add in the people trying to come out of the property and make a left turn to go out toward Richmond Road. Put this mix into all the extra traffic that is generated between 4 and 6 p.m. every day and imagine what things will be like. Total gridlock.
Liberal outrage puzzling
I enjoy reading your opinion pages, although I disagree with a lot of it. I wonder how some liberals have total disregard of the words and insults they used towards President George W. Bush.
They get upset when someone insults President Barack Obama; but they giggled like third-graders when Bush was insulted.
Sen. Harry Reid called Bush "a loser" to a group of high school students. There were lots of signs calling Bush a Hitler. But when the right calls Obama names they get outraged?
No one should call my president a Hitler. It just shows they don't know history because they don't know who Hitler was. But were all those insults aimed at Bush racially motivated? I doubt it. But why are all critical comments of Obama considered racial? It allows the left to ignore them and feel better.
And speaking of feeling better, where are Jane Fonda and Cindy Sheehan and all the rest who marched in the streets until all our boys came home? Is war now "good" and "moral"? Or do they march against a conservative, white, Republican president and not against a liberal, black, Democratic president? And why hasn't the American press noticed this? Could it be racially motivated?
Sen. Mitch McConnell has made no secret of his determination to wreck President Barack Obama by any and all means possible, and bears considerable responsibility for the recent self-inflicted credit crisis.
Patrick Henry did not say "Give me tax breaks or give me death."
Let's see if he can keep one foot on Fat Cat, the horse he rode in on, and the other on the fractious Tea Party.
The president and Congress narrowly avoided an unprecedented default on the U.S. debt by agreeing to raise the debt ceiling, but Washington's deal does nothing to help Americans still suffering from massive cutbacks in social services, unemployment, foreclosure, etc.
The August break was for members of Congress to meet with constituents. They should have listened to our anxiety about the economy and thought through ways to dig us out of the financial mess they've created with corporate giveaways, tax breaks for the wealthy and lax regulation of unscrupulous banks that are forcing people out of their homes with fraudulent mortgage documents.
They could hear our outrage about what the more than $1.2 trillion of our taxes are doing to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and to our troops they're sending over to fight wars without purpose.
Instead, 81 representatives — nearly 20 percent of the House — headed to Israel on an expense-paid trip organized by an affiliate of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Israel wants us to continue sending the Israeli military $30 billion for the next 10 years. That's money we won't have for jobs and health care to buy weapons for Israel to perpetuate its illegal military occupation.
It's time to "name and shame" these members of Congress who put more weapons for Israel ahead of their own constituents' economic rights.