GO BACHMANN!!

She is the epitome of what we need in this country except she is a she.
High morals, honesty, intelligence, scandal free, family and the list goes on. Unfortunately it comes at a time when the country is too much of a mess for people to accept that a woman could get them out of it. Still I do hope they go for a woman winner instead of a man wiener!

EDIT: Most importantly, she is a very active Christian!

Bachmann, Obama is the reason the super committee failed.

President Barack Obama must carry the blame for the failure of the debt crisis supercommittee because he was “absent from the whole process,” Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann tells Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview.

“With no disrespect intended, it’s been like Where’s Waldo?” she said. “Where’s the president been?

“He wasn’t a part of the debate last summer dealing with raising the debt ceiling,” she added. “And he hasn’t been part of this whole supercommittee process.

“He’s been AWOL on leadership. Now the president is coming out and he’s sending out Rahm Emanuel to tell everyone that it’s the Republicans’ fault.”

But the Minnesota congresswoman pointed out that GOP legislators bent to such an extent that they were willing to raise taxes if that is what it took to get a deal.

“The problem was the fact that the president had no interest whatsoever in solving this problem and so now here we are, back exactly where we were before — only worse because now we’re deeper in debt.”

The only solution is for the entire Congress to get together and sort out the mess rather than leave it to a hand-selected dozen members, whose failure, she said, came as “no surprise.”

“Last summer, I was the lone voice in the wilderness of Washington that said we had enough revenue coming in to pay the interest on the debt so we wouldn’t default.

“All 535 members needed to sit down last summer, and we needed to cut the spending so that we didn’t need to continue to borrow $2.4 trillion that we didn’t have.

“There is absolutely no reason why we couldn’t have sat down last summer and solved our budget problem. Here we are five, six months later literally hundreds of billions of dollars more in debt, and there is no solution on the horizon.”

The public should be outraged at the committee’s failure, Bachmann said, noting that a family of four’s share of the national debt went up by $2,300 in October alone.

“That’s not for the year, that’s for one month. The government is so overspending money that, quite literally, we can’t earn money fast enough to pay off the debts the government is taking on.

“That’s why the supercommittee is a super failure — because they are continuing to keep us in a debt spiral the likes of which we have never seen before.

“We don’t want to turn into Argentina in the 1940s or Germany in the 1920s, but President Obama and the supercommittee are ensuring that we could be looking at a very serious economic fall-out from this failure.”

Now, Bachmann said, the country has to worry about the automatic sequestration that is supposed to kick in, with half of the $1 trillion-plus coming from the defense budget and the other half from domestic programs.

“The cuts that people are most worried about are those to defense because we’re engaged in four wars right now: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and also in Uganda. We’re involved in four conflicts.

“Never before in the history of the United States have we cut resources for our military while they are out trying to do the job that we have asked them to do. This is incomprehensible. No one can understand why the president would go this route . . . his foreign policy and his economic policy are incoherent and incomprehensible.”

Bachmann was adamant that, despite her low poll ratings, she will pull off a victory in the Iowa caucuses which then will propel her into contention for the rest of the GOP primary season.

“There’s only been one true, meaningful election in the race so far, that was the Iowa straw poll,” she insisted. “It’s the most similar to a primary or a caucus.

“I got into the race later than any other candidate, and I won, and I’m the first woman in the history of the straw poll ever to win.”

She said her campaign has identified more supporters than 2004’s Iowa victor, Mike Huckabee, had at this stage. Her advantage over many of her rivals is that, with her, what you see is what you get she said.

“There’s no surprises with me, no funny YouTube clips where I’m making contradictory statements.

“I’m calling people just to come home and go with the candidate that’s a constitutional, consistent conservative. I won’t let you down because I have proven myself as someone who means what she says and says what she means and that’s what we need in our next president of the United States, someone we can count on, someone who’s true blue, a strong social, fiscal, national security and tea party conservative.”

And once she has won the Republican nomination, Bachmann said she “can’t wait” to debate Obama during the campaign run-up to the general election and “hold him accountable for how he’s failed the American people both on national security and in the economy.”

Bachmann confirmed that she had a fourth meeting with businessman Donald Trump on Monday, but she would not disclose what they had discussed. She did say it was not about any possible third party run for either of them.

“A third party is not a good idea for any candidate to run. I certainly wouldn’t run one, and I wouldn’t want Donald Trump to run a third-party candidacy either because we want to make sure we do everything we can to ensure that Barack Obama will be one-term president.”

To me Perry looks like a fish washed up on a sandbar by the tide. Let's see if he can flip and flop his way back into the race. Even if he can accomplish that I think it will leave a gritty taste in your craw.

I think he is using racism except this time he has suceeded in a war between the rich and the poor. He has written off the middle class as the working class isn't on his agenda. He would love everyone to be on the goverment take. I watched a commentary last nite where people on the goverment take is better off than a person working making ten dollars an hour. What a mess we are in but with O focusing on the under employed or unemployed this will destroy America as we have known it.

I have NY Times Nov. 16,2011

WASHINGTON — The portion of American families living in middle-income neighborhoods has declined significantly since 1970, according to a new study, as rising income inequality left a growing share of families in neighborhoods that are mostly low-income or mostly affluent.

Multimedia
Graphic Shrinking Middle as Income Inequality Rises.
Document Growth in the Residential Segregation of Families by Income, 1970-2009 (pdf).Related
Beyond Seizing Parks, New Paths to Influence (November 16, 2011)
Times Topic: Income Inequality
Related in Opinion
Room For Debate: Rising Wealth Inequality: Should We Care?
Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.

Jessica Kourkounis for The New York Times
Many stores along West Chelten Avenue in the Germantown area are closed and for rent.

Jessica Kourkounis for The New York Times
The Northern Liberties neighborhood of Philadelphia is now described as middle class.
The study, conducted by Stanford University and scheduled for release on Wednesday by the Russell Sage Foundation and Brown University, uses census data to examine family income at the neighborhood level in the country’s 117 biggest metropolitan areas.

The findings show a changed map of prosperity in the United States over the past four decades, with larger patches of affluence and poverty and a shrinking middle.

In 2007, the last year captured by the data, 44 percent of families lived in neighborhoods the study defined as middle-income, down from 65 percent of families in 1970. At the same time, a third of American families lived in areas of either affluence or poverty, up from just 15 percent of families in 1970.

The study comes at a time of growing concern about inequality and an ever-louder partisan debate over whether it matters. It raises, but does not answer, the question of whether increased economic inequality, and the resulting income segregation, impedes social mobility.

Much of the shift is the result of changing income structure in the United States. Part of the country’s middle class has slipped to the lower rungs of the income ladder as manufacturing and other middle-class jobs have dwindled, while the wealthy receive a bigger portion of the income pie. Put simply, there are fewer people in the middle.

But the shift is more than just changes in income. The study also found that there is more residential sorting by income, with the rich flocking together in new exurbs and gentrifying pockets where lower- and middle-income families cannot afford to live.

The study — part of US2010, a research project financed by Russell Sage and Brown University — identified the pattern in about 90 percent of large and medium-size metropolitan areas for 2000 to 2007. Detroit; Oklahoma City; Toledo, Ohio; and Greensboro, N.C., experienced the biggest rises in income segregation in the decade, while 13 areas, including Atlanta, had declines. Philadelphia and its suburbs registered the sharpest rise since 1970.

Sean F. Reardon, an author of the study and a sociologist at Stanford, argued that the shifts had far-reaching implications for the next generation. Children in mostly poor neighborhoods tend to have less access to high-quality schools, child care and preschool, as well as to support networks or educated and economically stable neighbors who might serve as role models.

The isolation of the prosperous, he said, means less interaction with people from other income groups and a greater risk to their support for policies and investments that benefit the broader public — like schools, parks and public transportation systems. About 14 percent of families lived in affluent neighborhoods in 2007, up from 7 percent in 1970, the study found.

The study groups neighborhoods into six income categories. Poor neighborhoods have median family incomes that are 67 percent or less of those of a given metropolitan area. Rich neighborhoods have median incomes of 150 percent or more. Middle-income neighborhoods are those in which the median income is between 80 percent and 125 percent.

The map of that change for Philadelphia is a red stripe of wealthy suburbs curving around a poor, blue urban center, broken by a few red dots of gentrification. It is the picture of the economic change that slammed into Philadelphia decades ago as its industrial base declined and left a shrunken middle class and a poorer urban core.

The Germantown neighborhood, once solidly middle class, is now mostly low income. Chelten Avenue, one of its main thoroughfares, is a hard-luck strip of check-cashing stores and takeout restaurants. The stone homes on side streets speak to a more affluent past, one that William Wilson, 95, a longtime resident, remembers fondly.

“It was real nice,” he said, shuffling along Chelten Avenue on Monday. Theaters thrived on the avenue, he said, as did a fancy department store. Now a Walgreens stands in its place. “Everything started going down in the dumps,” he said.

Philadelphia’s more recent history is one of gentrifying neighborhoods, like the Northern Liberties area, where affluence has rushed in, in the form of espresso shops, glass-walled apartments and a fancy supermarket, and prosperous new suburbs that have mushroomed in the far north and south of the metro area.

Lawrence Katz, an economist at Harvard, said the evidence for the presumed adverse effects of economic segregation was inconclusive. In a recent study of low-income families randomly assigned the opportunity to move out of concentrated poverty into mixed-income neighborhoods, Professor Katz and his collaborators found large improvements in physical and mental health, but little change in the families’ economic and educational fortunes.

But there is evidence that income differences are having an effect, beyond the context of neighborhood. One example, Professor Reardon said, is a growing gap in standardized test scores between rich and poor children, now 40 percent bigger than it was in 1970. That is double the testing gap between black and white children, he said.

And the gap between rich and poor in college completion — one of the single most important predictors of economic success — has grown by more than 50 percent since the 1990s, said Martha J. Bailey, an economist at the University of Michigan. More than half of children from high-income families finish college, up from about a third 20 years ago. Fewer than 10 percent of low-income children finish, up from 5 percent.

William Julius Wilson, a sociologist at Harvard who has seen the study, argues that “rising inequality is beginning to produce a two-tiered society in America in which the more affluent citizens live lives fundamentally different from the middle- and lower-income groups. This divide decreases a sense of community.”

Message was deleted by User.