<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Michele Bachmann: LSOS</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?feed=rss2&#038;p=15549" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=15549</link>
	<description>Creative Discussions, Inspiring Thoughts, Fun Adventures, Love &#38; Laughter, Peaceful Travel, Hip Fashions, Cool People, Gastronomic Pleasures,  Exotic Indulgences, Groovy Music, and more!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2016 11:26:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephanie Cutter</title>
		<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=15549#comment-50459</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephanie Cutter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 04:26:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.michellemoquin.com/?p=15549#comment-50459</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I love the Buffett Rule for the same reason Mitt Romney opposes it.

It levels the playing field in America by closing tax loopholes and ensuring that millionaires aren&#039;t paying a tax rate that&#039;s lower than what many middle-class families are paying.

And it&#039;s going to be one of the issues that will define this election.

We&#039;ve got a new interactive tool that shows how Mitt Romney and some other millionaires play by their own set of rules -- the same rules they&#039;re trying to make sure you and I don&#039;t ever get to change.


I can&#039;t think of a better way to illustrate the choice this country is facing in November. This is the way it breaks down:

The Buffett Rule closes loopholes and asks millionaires to pay at least as much as middle-class families, so that we can share the burden of reducing our deficit and investing in programs important to a strong middle class, like education, innovation and infrastructure.

Romney not only opposes the Buffett Rule, but he wants to make things even more unfair. He will explode the deficit by giving more tax breaks to the wealthy -- and place the burden of paying for them on the backs of the middle class and seniors.

This November, it&#039;s one or the other. We either stick with a President who fights for the middle class, or we choose a candidate who fights to protect an unfair status quo that benefits him at the expense of our economy and the middle class. You&#039;ll be hearing a lot about the Buffett Rule in the coming days. But remember this: It&#039;s not about class warfare, and it&#039;s certainly not about some arcane policy disagreement. It&#039;s about common-sense fairness.

If you&#039;re still curious about what the Buffett Rule would actually do, take a look around the new website now:
Thanks,

Stephanie

Stephanie Cutter
Deputy Campaign Manager
Obama for America]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love the Buffett Rule for the same reason Mitt Romney opposes it.</p>
<p>It levels the playing field in America by closing tax loopholes and ensuring that millionaires aren&#8217;t paying a tax rate that&#8217;s lower than what many middle-class families are paying.</p>
<p>And it&#8217;s going to be one of the issues that will define this election.</p>
<p>We&#8217;ve got a new interactive tool that shows how Mitt Romney and some other millionaires play by their own set of rules &#8212; the same rules they&#8217;re trying to make sure you and I don&#8217;t ever get to change.</p>
<p>I can&#8217;t think of a better way to illustrate the choice this country is facing in November. This is the way it breaks down:</p>
<p>The Buffett Rule closes loopholes and asks millionaires to pay at least as much as middle-class families, so that we can share the burden of reducing our deficit and investing in programs important to a strong middle class, like education, innovation and infrastructure.</p>
<p>Romney not only opposes the Buffett Rule, but he wants to make things even more unfair. He will explode the deficit by giving more tax breaks to the wealthy &#8212; and place the burden of paying for them on the backs of the middle class and seniors.</p>
<p>This November, it&#8217;s one or the other. We either stick with a President who fights for the middle class, or we choose a candidate who fights to protect an unfair status quo that benefits him at the expense of our economy and the middle class. You&#8217;ll be hearing a lot about the Buffett Rule in the coming days. But remember this: It&#8217;s not about class warfare, and it&#8217;s certainly not about some arcane policy disagreement. It&#8217;s about common-sense fairness.</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re still curious about what the Buffett Rule would actually do, take a look around the new website now:<br />
Thanks,</p>
<p>Stephanie</p>
<p>Stephanie Cutter<br />
Deputy Campaign Manager<br />
Obama for America</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yancy</title>
		<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=15549#comment-50458</link>
		<dc:creator>Yancy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 04:16:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.michellemoquin.com/?p=15549#comment-50458</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It appears that SCOTUS has given the rich the power over both US houses so that the will or the majority matters if it will cause a substantial loss to the super rich. 

It seems that this Unlimited buying power given to the super rich coupled with innate racism within my race is almost a death blow to the majority having a say in how their government is run.

So we will continue to get votes giving big oil interest, large tax deductions to the super rich and corporations and the vote against the Buffet Rule. 

White politicians know that they can use the super contributions to advance their subtle aspersions to race values to guarantee that white voters will elect them over their non white competition so they don&#039;t have to care what those whites voters want. 

White politicians know that they will get the benefit of the doubt from their white voters.

Yancy]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It appears that SCOTUS has given the rich the power over both US houses so that the will or the majority matters if it will cause a substantial loss to the super rich. </p>
<p>It seems that this Unlimited buying power given to the super rich coupled with innate racism within my race is almost a death blow to the majority having a say in how their government is run.</p>
<p>So we will continue to get votes giving big oil interest, large tax deductions to the super rich and corporations and the vote against the Buffet Rule. </p>
<p>White politicians know that they can use the super contributions to advance their subtle aspersions to race values to guarantee that white voters will elect them over their non white competition so they don&#8217;t have to care what those whites voters want. </p>
<p>White politicians know that they will get the benefit of the doubt from their white voters.</p>
<p>Yancy</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry</title>
		<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=15549#comment-50452</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 02:40:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.michellemoquin.com/?p=15549#comment-50452</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Zen Lill:

After reading your post to me about my criticizing Howie&#039;s view of his reception on this blog, I accept your logic.  I do not know what Howie is going through because of his medical problems.  And you are certainly correct when you point out that those suffering chronically can perceive and interpret them differently.

Howie: 
Please accept my sincere apology. I did not mean to cause you anymore anxiety.  I too look forward to your return. 

As a fan I would also like to say you don&#039;t owe us or anyone a reason why you left for a period. Just return with your usual excellent comments. You will be accepted with open arms. 

I hope you will accept my apology.

Larry]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Zen Lill:</p>
<p>After reading your post to me about my criticizing Howie&#8217;s view of his reception on this blog, I accept your logic.  I do not know what Howie is going through because of his medical problems.  And you are certainly correct when you point out that those suffering chronically can perceive and interpret them differently.</p>
<p>Howie:<br />
Please accept my sincere apology. I did not mean to cause you anymore anxiety.  I too look forward to your return. </p>
<p>As a fan I would also like to say you don&#8217;t owe us or anyone a reason why you left for a period. Just return with your usual excellent comments. You will be accepted with open arms. </p>
<p>I hope you will accept my apology.</p>
<p>Larry</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zen Lill</title>
		<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=15549#comment-50451</link>
		<dc:creator>Zen Lill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:25:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.michellemoquin.com/?p=15549#comment-50451</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Larry, points well taken, thank you, I was perhaps cutting slack unnecessarily although I think I understand the mind of a chronically and episodically very ill person, they are of a different ilk, what seems rational and mature to you and I is interpreted differently.  Often a chronic/episodic ill person is living very much within their pain, unable to NOT take things personally, and one day they can completely get that and others they are taken aback by their own physicality working against them that it&#039;s literally impossible for them to be reasonable and they can&#039;t even have that pointed out without getting upset and doing some back rationalizing - listen, we all have our coping mechanisms, this is his. 
Is he too sensitive or a &#039;pussy&#039;? Well, I don&#039;t believe in evaluating how much anyone else feels anything, in other words, if I hurt your feelings, it&#039;s not appropriate for me to point out (no matter how &#039;true&#039; it may be to me) that YOUR being too sensitive. So, all the name stuff aside...sigh...what can I say,  I just miss the alien activity, and about him acting like a pussy or not, in case you haven&#039;t noticed - not all men, in fact =most= rarely &#039;MAN UP&#039; and just take the heat. (if they did Mischa could stop writing this blog : ) 

As far as, &#039;taking his ball and going home&#039; hahaha...sometimes when the going gets tough it&#039;s better to take your ball and go play somewhere else. He did. 

I can&#039;t comment on Bachman and/or Palin - it&#039;d be low blows only and I&#039;m in a great mood, why change that to state the obvious about these two...

Luv, Zen Lill]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Larry, points well taken, thank you, I was perhaps cutting slack unnecessarily although I think I understand the mind of a chronically and episodically very ill person, they are of a different ilk, what seems rational and mature to you and I is interpreted differently.  Often a chronic/episodic ill person is living very much within their pain, unable to NOT take things personally, and one day they can completely get that and others they are taken aback by their own physicality working against them that it&#8217;s literally impossible for them to be reasonable and they can&#8217;t even have that pointed out without getting upset and doing some back rationalizing &#8211; listen, we all have our coping mechanisms, this is his.<br />
Is he too sensitive or a &#8216;pussy&#8217;? Well, I don&#8217;t believe in evaluating how much anyone else feels anything, in other words, if I hurt your feelings, it&#8217;s not appropriate for me to point out (no matter how &#8216;true&#8217; it may be to me) that YOUR being too sensitive. So, all the name stuff aside&#8230;sigh&#8230;what can I say,  I just miss the alien activity, and about him acting like a pussy or not, in case you haven&#8217;t noticed &#8211; not all men, in fact =most= rarely &#8216;MAN UP&#8217; and just take the heat. (if they did Mischa could stop writing this blog : ) </p>
<p>As far as, &#8216;taking his ball and going home&#8217; hahaha&#8230;sometimes when the going gets tough it&#8217;s better to take your ball and go play somewhere else. He did. </p>
<p>I can&#8217;t comment on Bachman and/or Palin &#8211; it&#8217;d be low blows only and I&#8217;m in a great mood, why change that to state the obvious about these two&#8230;</p>
<p>Luv, Zen Lill</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sen. Bernie Sanders</title>
		<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=15549#comment-50445</link>
		<dc:creator>Sen. Bernie Sanders</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 21:17:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.michellemoquin.com/?p=15549#comment-50445</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This nation is facing a $15 trillion national debt, and there is no shortage of opinions about how to move toward deficit reduction in the federal budget. One topic you will not hear discussed very often on Capitol Hill is the idea of ending one of the oldest American welfare programs -- the extraordinary amount of corporate welfare going to the nuclear energy industry.

Many in Congress talk of getting &#039;big government off the back of private industry.&#039; Here&#039;s an industry we&#039;d like to get off the backs of the taxpayers.

As a senator who is the longest-serving independent in Congress, and as the president of an independent and non-partisan budget watchdog organization, we do not necessarily agree on everything when it comes to energy and budget policy in the United States. 

But one thing we strongly agree on is the need to end wasteful subsidies that prop up the nuclear industry. After 60 years, this industry should not require continued and massive corporate welfare. It is time for the nuclear power industry to stand on its own two feet.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This nation is facing a $15 trillion national debt, and there is no shortage of opinions about how to move toward deficit reduction in the federal budget. One topic you will not hear discussed very often on Capitol Hill is the idea of ending one of the oldest American welfare programs &#8212; the extraordinary amount of corporate welfare going to the nuclear energy industry.</p>
<p>Many in Congress talk of getting &#8216;big government off the back of private industry.&#8217; Here&#8217;s an industry we&#8217;d like to get off the backs of the taxpayers.</p>
<p>As a senator who is the longest-serving independent in Congress, and as the president of an independent and non-partisan budget watchdog organization, we do not necessarily agree on everything when it comes to energy and budget policy in the United States. </p>
<p>But one thing we strongly agree on is the need to end wasteful subsidies that prop up the nuclear industry. After 60 years, this industry should not require continued and massive corporate welfare. It is time for the nuclear power industry to stand on its own two feet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
