I'd prefer to take my lessons from slightly more recent history. Like since the advent of television, computers and the space age. See below. Clinton era tax rates resulted in a surplus. Bush era tax rates coupled with increased spending on wars let to a HUGE deficit. I'd rather go with what has worked in recent history. And btw...all real incomes (from the richest quintile to the poorest) have grown faster during Democratic presidencies than Republican, since Kennedy. And Ike grew the economy like no one else with the interstate highway system (pretty good for a soldier) and other infrastructure, as well as big funding for education (GI bill). His era's tax rates were even higher. I think it's time to stay the course and for the GOP to get the *%%^$ out of the way of further recovery by stopping the excessive use of the filibuster to stall even discussion in the Senate, and pass a jobs and infrastucture bill post-haste.

@D'skidoc in re Clinton Surplus:

The National debt went from $4.692749 trillion when Clinton took office to $5.807463 trillion when he left. So why do they say he had a surplus?

The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself, mostly borrowing money from Social Security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following:

In FY 97, the public debt (PD) was $3.789667T and the intragovernmental holdings (IH) were $1.623478T for a total debt of $5.413146T.

In FY 98, the PD was $3.733864T and the IH were $1.792328T for a total debt of $5.526193T.

In FY 99, the PD was $3.636104T and the IH were $2.020166T for a total debt of $5.656270T.

In FY 2000, the PD was $3.405303T and the IH were $2.268874T for a total debt of $5.674178T.

In FY 2001, the PD was $3.339310T and the IH were $2.468153T for a total debt of $5.807463T.

Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.

You went over the line with your last statement. You don't know this man, other than the fact that he served our country, more than we can say for you.

DR- so besides your off the mark comment about Kirk, you're also saying anyone on Medicare, SS, or medicaid should not be able to vote. You're saying anyone who takes help with a mortgage bailout can't vote, anyone with a disabled child getting some assistance with a wheelchair ramp can't vote. Did your dad ever accept any Government help? GI bill? Veterans benefits....can't vote under your plan.
Economic issue vs. social issues? That's how the Republicans are trying to get votes....conservative social issue. They won't help the middle class but they will make sure people who love each other can't marry or a woman can't choose how her body is treated. You're ashamed? Yes, you should be....of the Tea Party Republican's.

Yep, better off. Stock market up. Consistent private sector job growth. (If only the GOP would let public sector jobs grow?) Clinton era tax rates=surplus. Bush era tax rates + war on credit =ginormous deficit. Duh....what worked better?

"Stock market up."

Sure, for the 10% of people that own stocks. Why are you shilling for the rich?

"Clinton era tax rates=surplus. Bush era tax rates + war on credit =ginormous deficit. Duh....what worked better?"

What worked better for Clinton was $10 oil, an internet expansion and genuine productivity gains in the private sector. Job gains and Total State revenue came in spite of crushing tax policy, not because of it.

Your argument is that higher taxes leads to more jobs and State revenue? Really??

I'm saying the economy on the whole is better than 4 years ago, and I wish I owned those stocks too. Not saying that the tax rates specifically and solely led to economic growth, but the association is undeniable. That lowering tax revenues whilst revving up the military industrial complex in two wars caused the huge deficit is blatantly obvious. Add Medicare part D and that is cause and effect. At a minimum we need to pay down the credit card balance and the only people with the money are the ones who did sooooooo well under Bush era tax rates which are still in effect. Now the GOP wants to cut their taxes even more?????? Well, the rich do pay the campaign bills now don't they. Follow the money.

Fact Check Regarding Guido's comment:
"Stock market up."
Sure, for the 10% of people that own stocks. Why are you shilling for the rich?"

In U.S., 54% Have Stock Market Investments as of 4/11. This is down from 65% in 2007 and is trending up again. This is from Gallup and can be found here: http://bit.ly/TwrDdg

You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.

I agree! I don't want a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in my Doctor's office telling him that the treatment he is prescribing for me is too expensive for Medicare to cover.

Where are these people you speak of, who want a state religion. First I've heard of it. Again, the moon landing was real, try avoiding web sites that cater to Dungeon and Dragons links.

McCloud, you need to look beyond this little NS bubble. Check out Kansas and Tennessee and Alabama and Louisiana and Virginia, just to name a few places.

McCloud - There was a town where a public school and a Catholic school got together to form a football team (I guess they did not have enough students / funds for two individual teams, the Catholic school school did not have enough kids, etc). One of the STUDENTS designed a symbol for their helmets that showed unity and combined symbols from the two schools, a "greyhound" for the public school and a "bishop's hat" for the Catholic school. Someone screaming separation of church and state (which is NOT in the constitution) made them scrap their helmets midway through the season.

My point was noted above. There are people who want their faith based views to be incorporated in the laws and government of our country. I am a strong believer in a big separation. IMHO Religion and faith based assumptions don't belong in how we self-govern a pluralistic society.

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

~ Winston Churchill

You make my point for me. If the government wants to tell you who you can marry, or who can have a medical procedure (not who's paying for it) because some in government have a "moral/religious based" objection to some behavior or another, then it's a huge problem in a pleuralisitic society. The Medicare analogy is spurrious because Medicare is just another name for single payer insurance and insurance companies deny benefits all the time ( note Obamacare tries at least to level that playing field). As for "Faith based view": I know of no specific definition. To me it means a view of the world (or part of it) based on an assumption which is taken only on faith (no actual evidence, or even evidence to the contrary). Some examples are that the world was created by an omnicient being in six days, as we now measure them and that this planet is some thousands of years old. There is absolutely NO unambiguous evidence to that effect, yet large numbers of people (especially in this country) take it on faith that it is so. And so on......anything you can't PROVE must by definition be taken on faith to some degree, but some take their own (personal) faith too far into the public arena. IMHO Practice your religion away from our government!

I've got a definition, Faith based view is anything D'skidoc decides, it gives him the keys to decide just about anything. Obamacare tries to level the playing field? How does that work? Medicare has been a financial disaster, inefficient, unsustainable costs, and somehow it escapes any scrutiny. ALthough what else would one expect from a government program.

Funny, if I put on another of my hats we actually agree (in some small way) about Medicare. From the point of view of a medical provider Medicare sucks eggs. If reimbursements continue to fall, more providers will drop out and poof...no more care in Medicare. HUGE problems. But those problems can be solved with collaboration and cooperation, not partisanship and polar all or none thinking. Tackle the problems one at a time without the focus on getting reelected, and without the influence of big money. Ha Ha Ha In my dreams.

Unsustainable costs are related to healthcare in general, not Medicare. Medicare is actually fairly efficient in today's screwed up healthcare system. Insurance companies do no better, except charge more. Getting healthcare to move to paperless systems, adding accountability to care, and increasing revenue to the program through income based premiums and a higher max out will fix Medicare. Obama's plan has extended the viability years longer than the Ryan I mean Romney plan. It's not enough, but it's better than the RR plan. Putting a cap on maximums and making the elderly choose which insurance company they wish to use as Ryan calls for won't work. Do you really want your 85 year old aunt to take a voucher and find an insurance company?

Thank you RB re: Medicare and medical costs in general. Couldn't have said it better.

Medicare is a financial disaster, and it is getting increasingly worse as providers do not want Medicare patients, since they get pennies on the dollar to cover costs. Thats why fully insured people get charged $200 for an aspirin tablet inpatient charges. Incredible how any moron can blog whatever they please without any clue on the topic.

Mac- I am fully versed on the topic, so you obviously are talking about yourself. If you think an insurance company or Medicare will pay $200 for an aspirin, you're less knowledgeable than you pretend to be. All huff. All hat, no cattle there McCloud. It's getting repetitive. Blaming Medicare for skyrocketing medical costs is like blaming Honda for the price of gas. And you vote! That's what's so scary. Even with Halloween coming, the fact that people like you vote makes me very frightened.

There are many reasons for skyrocketing medical costs. Doctors and hospitals have no other choice but to shift their costs to the private market, else they could not keep their lights on from the paltry Medicare reimbursement schedules. Just ask a doctor.

Mac- Medicare payments being too low in your mind. How does that make Medicare a financial disaster as you call it? Is your solution for Medicare to pay more? That's a novel approach based upon your other posts. How would that make Medicare more financially feasible? Private insurance payments are rated to Medicare payment rates (not the same, but not too much higher), so if your program goes in place private insurance will start paying more. So, Providers make out and consumers and the Government loses. Your idea of Medicare payments being too low does not hold water as being the problem with Medicare solvency.

Excuse me, but Bb Dold voted to defund Planned Parenthood. He voted to close the Government down when we had a chance for a grand bargain. He voted with the Severe Conservatives every time it mattered to them. Anything moderate coming out of Dold is a show vote that Cantor or Boehner let him make. Hell, Boehner is even campaigning for an openly Gay Republican while at the same time bashing equality for all. This current batch of Republicans will sell their grandmother to get elected.

Robert Dold also disagrees, strongly, with the Labor Laws-his serfs at Rose Pest Solutions are not paid overtime even though their workload is 50 hrs. per week, easy. While it seems Dold is a cheap crook, he actually is a smart Republican and all of you complaining are just jealous of his hard work for the country he loves so much :)

Can't really support Schnieder myself. Had a conversation with him the other day and IMHO I don't think he could organize a trip to the bathroom.

What, and miss out on your posts, jockstrap? Aren't scrotal contents essential before a supporter is needed?

I know you can get other than FAUX news in Deerfield. You would also need a better accountant if you ended up paying 35%. If all of the rich folks actually paid an effective 35% tax rate, we wouldn't be in trouble, we'd be in surplus. Mitt only paid 14%.

How does raising taxes, on anybody, help grow an economy? Whatever you deem as fair, I'd rather have the market determine. The market rewards what works, and punishes what doesn't. See green technology investment for the most recent example of a long list of picking losers by some smart guy.

Your math is off. Romney made more than that and paid 14%. I hope you make enough to help your parents at nursing home time, because under Romney, you'll need to. You dont even understant loopholes. Lame programs? Head start, Medicaid, school lunches? Affordable care? Jobs for Vets? Which ones? And I don't think you should even try to guess whether I'm wealthy or aspire to be wealthy because you don't know me. I bet I pay more taxes and charity than you ever hope to. I do know that a safety net is not something that's as simple as your description of the Government giving all your money to the underclass non working. You're completely wrong about that too. The Republicans have grown Government larger than Democrats! How's that? Yep, Bush, Reagan grew Government. Obama has reduced the size of Government. I hope it keeps you awake tonight, because it's true, if you just bother to look it up instead of mindlessly listening to Rush. For some reason those that could use a Government helping them attain opportunity vote for Republicans that could care less about them, except for their votes. And they get those by selling simple minded social re-engineering and bigoted principles on equality, God and Guns. Makes me Ill. You bought it hook line and sinker.

Romney ryan 2012

Mr. Dold is a moderate Republican. There are many independent voters and even a significant number of Jewish voters who support him. Mr Dold even has the support (GASP!) of the Illinois Education Association, a teacher's union.

Supporting Mr. Dold by attacking his opponent with hate speech, does nothing to help his campaign. Mr. Dold, Mr. Schneider and the Patch's readers all deserve better than that.

Offensive? How politically correct can you be? Grow a pair "D"

I am still in disbelief of the backlash of my comment. I simply stated a fact. Mr. Schneider is in fact jewish, now logically areas like highland park and deerfield will back Mr. Schneider because of the fact he is Jewish. Much like why a certain race votes for Obama. If you fail to understand that, then you have bigger problems.

It may not have been intentional but referring to the "jew vote" is offensive to many people. I realize that if the comment had been that Mr. Schneider is likely to receive most of the "Jewish vote" its probable that no one would have thought twice about it.

However, I don't even know that its true that most Jewish voters, who aren't hard core Democrats, will necessarily vote for Mr. Schneider just because he's Jewish. I think that more than that goes into the decision-making process.

Sorry Stevie,
I'm Jewish and wouldn't vote for Schneider if you paid me to do it.
There is a plane leaving for Iran today, please be on it!

I think there are more votes against someone of color or Jewish heritage by people like Stevie, than you might think. Why else would he think the way he does. All his economic arguments and social arguments are a show, it's really about race and religion with him. Your true colors were shining tonight Stevie boy. You can't even be totally honest about your color and religion litmus test either. At least I will cancel your vote.

Stevie probably has other litmus tests like Gay Equality, Abortion, Gun Rights, everything, but some religions.

"Persons of color, women, minorities, gays, the unemployed, students and people who care about any of them should vote Democratic because it is the party that includes all of them."

Comedy gold

You guys are a bunch of pussies. if I cant say "jew vote" how soft do i have to candy coat it for you? Love how you jbirds think this is about you. Not the case just stating that the majority of jewish people will vote for their guy. Like the majority of blacks vote for their guy. Thought you guys were supposed to be smart?

Stevie is obviously intimidated by blacks and jews and they fact that they happen to be smarter than him.

That being said, I'm Jewish and not voting for Schneider because I know of him personally and he is not capable of helping guide our country, he would be better off as the stay at home dad that he has been for the last 18 years. There, now I have completely upended the jew vote.

When we spend (tax $$) on infrastructure—high speed rail, bridges, wind turbines, public transit -- 5 things happen:
1.) 1000s are no longer unemployed…
2.) But are instead earning a good living building the future of America. (If you have 1000 (public sector) workers laying track between Chicago and Nashville, say, that translates to 1000 American jobs, held by 1000 American workers. We (Congress) can even stipulate that the tracks be made of steel forged in this country (gov’t contract) and that the train cars be produced in the USA (gov’t contract), all of which translates to 1000s more USA jobs.)
3.) The increased purchasing power of these (public sector & gov’t contract) employees spurs private sector growth. Supply and demand economics! Crazy! (Remember those 1000s ,who are earning a good living forging steel, and laying rail? Presto, changeo! They have paychecks and are once again feeling secure about their future. They move out of their mom’s basement, start spending, new furniture, a more dependable car—i.e., in the private sector… They eat out more often, hire a contractor to build their dream house, buy a better lawnmower and a second car—i.e., more spending in the private sector…)
4.) The deficit goes down! (More people employed in both the public and private sectors translate to more tax revenue collected!)
5.) We have infrastructure improvements that future generations will thank us for.
Hope this helps!

The GOP gets no quarter from me, most of them are scum. I refuse to vote since it is a violent act.

The comedy is in the idea that the dems are the defenders of the people you list.