Mr. Sir, have you ever actually been raped? Has a man taken his penis and forced it, against your will, into your body? If not, I highly recommend you find a better word to express your frustration with our tax system. To say that you are being raped by politicians shows your complete ignorance and is disrespectful to those who are actual survivors of that crime.
Grow up.

Will County Resident, Why don't you say that using your real name? Then maybe you should call your mother and let her know you failed her.

Emily, to the government and you, I am just a resident. You don't care about my name, you only care about my money.

Resident - you insulted someone blindly. Only a weak person would do something like that.

Emily, explain who I insulted. What was their name?

Morals and values are taught at home not school. It's not the teachers job to teach the future bangers how to live right. When they see mom never working and punching out babies with different daddies like a stray dog, you think 6 hrs at school will help? Dream on.......

I agree with I.J. Schools can only do so much and in my opinion it isn't even the school's/teacher's job in the first place. That's what parents are for. Also, I really don't feel that this tax is about anything other than making more money.

I'm more worried about the king quartering troops in my house than I am about the government taking guns. Any tax that limits the amount of ammo available is a good idea.

Yeah, cause we all know that the gangbangers are purchasing their ammo at legal stores that charge tax.
As usual, this will only affect the law-abiding citizens and not affect the criminals.

What part of "well regulated" do you gun nuts not understand?

To Mike, we already have "well regulated" gun laws, enforce them and put the bad guys in jail. Revamp the jail system to make it undesireable to be there, no TV, no internet, no beautiful buildings. Ever wonder what to do with all of the old manufacturing building in the country, turn them into jails. Forget about trying to add more regulation, stop the bad guys in their tracks with existing laws, use them.

For Mike Fangman...re your gun nut comment. Take two towns as an example here. In my town I can muster a thousand hunters and sport shooters and in a half day have a very well regulated militia! We would survive most attacks. What are you going to do in your gunless town? Throw flowers, shed a tear and waive their flag as the drive down your Main Street. Wake up. The "gun nuts" that fought and died for your freedom would be ashamed of you!

Mike Fangman--Well regulated applies to the state militia, not the guns. The second amendment is saying "it is necessary to have a well regulated militia for the state to be secure. The people also have the right to own weapons and neither the militia nor the right of the people to bear arms shall be infringed. Well regulated means to have ranks and discipline in the militia to keep order within the militia. It has nothing to do with regulating weapons.

What about the "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" portion of the Second Ammendment? I'm guessing you're not a member of a well regulated militia. I never understood why the entire ammendment isn't considered.

Having been shot, I'm not a big fan of guns, nor do I advocate outlawing them either. But there is no sensible reason for automatic and semi-automatic weaons. There only purpose is to kill as many humans as possible. You want handguns for protection, if you think you need it, fine. Same with rifles and shotguns and so forth for hunting. The real topic here is the taxes and they're ridiculous. Even if it raised more funds, the County would just waste it away like everything else.

Stones--You blame the gun for shooting you? What about the guy that pulled the trigger? I have yet to see a gun jump up on its own and start firing. It doesn't matter if it is auto or semi auto, the gun can not hurt anyone unless a person pulls the trigger.

The second amendment is two rights rolled into one amendment, you can not consider it as one part relying on the other part.

By your logic, I blame my fork and spoon for making me fat!!

Michael M., I'm not blaming the gun per se but fact of the matter is, if the gun wasn't there I wouldn't have been shot. I'm not advocating against gun ownership, just some limits on the the types of guns that are available.

The "fork and spoon" argument is old and tired just like people get killed in car accidents, so we should outlaw cars. The difference is, the fork and spoon are tools meant to enable you to nourish yourself. I'm a fat guy, I know that wasn't caused by anything but me. On ther other hand, some guns are manufactured for one purpose only, to take a human life. There's no real need for those types of weapons, is my point.

Guns are a tool, just like a fork and spoon. The gun is for defense, the user determines the intent, not the gun. Many people own semi auto and autos, but do not go out and shoot and kill. Should we outlaw plumbing because someone was beat to death with a pipe? How about railroad ties? That school kid was killed with that at Fenger high. All knives because they stab people. Where does it end? Like anything else it is the person, not the tool that is responsible. The internet can be used for learning, or for garbage. Guns can be used responsibly or irresponsibly, you decide.

Michael M., Yes guns are a tool as well, but only certain ones. Other certain ones were designed only to kill other people. Plumbing and railroads ties? That's the same old argument as cars. I guess you're missing my point. No, the guns don't jump up and shoot anyone. But if there was no gun, there would be no human to pull the trigger.

Suppose someone was intent on harming you, would you prefer they are shooting an AK-47 at you or swinging a railroad tie? And no, you don't have your arsenal at your disposal. Personally, I would take my chance against the railroad tie.

Russ... are you a paid political operative for Soros or some other fringe group...your posts make me ask.

I don't see the correlation between Romney and the Demorats of Illinois who tax everything that moves or doesn't move. I don't see the relevance of bringing Romney and Ryan to this story. But rest assured, Romney and Ryan will win this election so get used to it Demorat!

No Ed,I'm not paid by either party.I actually had to google Soros!Neither party machine pays me to write for them because I won't lie to their extremes.The Republican propaganda gurus hate that I won't support Romney while the Democrats don't trust me because I'm a Republican(argue f you want,I'm a GOP moderate,not an fanatic nor a sheep).
I write what I can verify,indications are that Romney/Ryan will be bad for our future. Neither have a great record when you actually do the research.Ryan passed 2 bills on his own in 14 years,(a tarriff on arrows made overseas and the renaming of a post office in Janesvile Wisc).He voted against each job stimulus bill and against woman equality acts to include Lilly Ledbetter. Not a person I want legislating women issues.Romney's record as governor?65% disapproval,most of his acts have been overturned,and it turns out his famous RomneyCare was actually proposed by a bipartisan committee on Health Care,not by Romney himself.Jobs left his state in droves as Governor and returned when it was clear he would be gone.These are facts.
Regarding Bain,Romney worked for both Bains.The venture capital part,he freely admits that he sucked at choosing deals.He did much better at managing the deal when others selected them.He described himself to FORBES as an "action" guy,not a bean counter.His record at Bain?Made more money on BKs and outsourcing than restructuring companies.A 70% success rate in business + 35% approval as Governor=bad President.

They have taxed the "heck" out of cigarettes. How about if they tax liquor and beer for a while? I know...sacred territory.

I seem to remember that "sales tax" was really a "retailers occupation tax" but the retailer collected it as an add on to the sale charging the buyer. So, if it is or has become a true "sales tax" then we shouldn't have to pay it...we are the buyers not the sellers. To make a sale you need a seller and a buyer. Seller and sales seen to be the match. I wonder what the history of the tax really is...and the law as written. Maybe no one should be even talking to me about a sales tax if I am the buyer...from any state or county!

Great example of why comedians (an most politicians) know little or nothing about economics. Makes bullets $5000 and you will have a giant black market develop overnight. Kinda like making cocaine, heroin, weed, etc., illegal. That keeps the prices low and restricts supply, eh? Jeez. Can't we ever elect anyone who understands stuff like this?

The British DID outlaw guns, but 240 years ago you could have a revolution with muskets. The guns of today are not those covered in the Constitution. Your simplistic knee-jerk response is typical of those that need an inanimate object to complete them.

Buy out of State seems to be the answer. Since illinois requires you show your FOID card to buy ammo...a new law will likely required an Illinois seller, out of Cook, to collect and remit the tax to Crook County. Our bordering states will love this legislation.

So become lawbreakers? That's your publicly posted opinion? Why not quit smoking and walk a bit more? How much ammo does one person need? I'm already stiffing the state on taxes by never having smoked. Saved a fortune.

First, it is not illegal to cross state lines to purchase something for personal use. Secondly, every time that crook county raises taxes, revenue drops. Last year I had the choice of purchasing something in Cook county or Indiana. The tax difference was $25.00 for driving the same distance. Tough choice.

Hey moe, I think that time is well past present day, although the thought is appropriate for anyone that doesn't live there. The real problem is Chicago wants the whole nation to be under their laws. This election may give Chicago a closer world toward that goal.

chive on ! Ignatius R

The mind set of people with the authority to enact new laws and taxes is to penalize the righteous because they offer the least resistance.

And Mary, have you EVER seen any member of our mainstream press ask ANY Democrat to explain why they are smarter than anyone else in those 49 other states? Ever ask any of our "duly elected" pols to explain that in every other jurisdiction where concealed carry is legal, why the crime rates there are always less than in Chicago? When a government is so corrupt, and the people know it, the pols feel much, much safer with un-armed subjects.

Where and what time of night was the most gun violence in Chicago? The ghetto around 2am. Conceal and carry is not going to stop those murders.

So Emily, you are against concealed carry? Can YOU explain why Illinois politicians are smarter than all those other pols in 49 states?????

I am against conceal and carry. The problem is, you all think you're Bruce Willis in Die Hard and will "save the day" by pulling out your gun and shooting. When the reality is, more innocent people will be injured or killed.

Take Colorado: Everyone on here kept claiming if only there was conceal and carry they would have saved the day! Well, let's look at what really would have happened....
You're in a dark movie theater and 3 canisters of tear gas go off. Shooter is standing there firing at people. Person #1 with gun, stands and shoots the shooter. Then person #2 stands, sees person #1 then shoots him. person #3 sees person #2 and shoots them only for person #3 to be shot by the police. In the process other innocent people trying to flee get shot by all persons with a gun. Way to save the day!

Emily, you didn't answer the question. Instead, you created a hypothetical, which is indicative of someone who has no legitimate answer. You will also notice that your hypothetical has yet to become reality in any of the other 49 states that allow CCW. Enjoy your Kool-Aid.

If you were a little more educated on concealed carry, you would know places like movie theaters are "no-gun zones". You know, if everyone was a little more educated on guns, there would be a lot less of these sudden gun crimes. Criminals would actually be turned off by the fact that more people are willing to carry guns. The incident in Colorado could have been solved if someone was carrying a gun, but even with that, there would still have been innocent deaths. It seems stupid that we have to keep increasing security AFTER things like this happen. Illinois would be a better place if people could take classes to earn a concealed carry permit.

Ha ha ha, Albert I don't know what a gun nut looks like but you can see a Bug-salt gun check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oYl-Lm9a6U

Take a closer look at the times Emily. Its all through the day. Morning,evening,afternoon............

Nimby? You're too close to the issue for your input not to be biased, therefore your comments are meaningless.

I agree - why should the hunters and police be taxed to pay for the medical bills of the gangbangers? Oh never mind we are it's called Obama care. The gang shootings in Chicago are done by gangmembers who normally get their bullets and guns by stealing them so this tax is not going to effect them one bit.

McMahon, I agree, as long as Teebaggers get no Medicare or SS.

If there will be no money paid to "Teebaggers" for medicare or SS, does that mean they get a refund of all the money they paid in?
I'm pretty sure it's Teabagger, by the way.

B.S. Yes, you Teebaggers get your money back, if you actually paid in. Then, we far left Liberals get to watch and enjoy Teebaggers @ 65 dealing with those private insurance companies that Mittens is pushing.
As a self employed business owner paying around 20K year on healthcare, I can't wait to hear the moaning of Teebaggers when they get those bills!!!

Never said I was a "Teebagger" (it really is "Teabagger", I checked).
The only moaning that you will hear will come when the bill for Obamacare kicks in to the tune of $500 billion in new taxes over the next ten years. You will wish your healthcare costs were only $20,000 then.

B.S. I'm sure you're Faux News versed on Obamacare. But speaking of tax increases, can you tell me how many times Ronald Reagan raised our taxes?
You were able to check on Teebagger, so this should be easy.

Mokena, Reagan never raised taxes. That's what the legislative branch does, not the executive branch. I guess either you missed that day in civics class, or maybe are the product of CPS.

Mokena Voter,
I did the research for you and it looks like Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his tenure as President. Hope that helps.
I've never watched "Faux news" and could not find a station on my Direct TV called Faux.
I usually watch BBC for the news. I find it to be less biased.
Now about the $500 billion in tax hikes over the next ten years, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was my source.
If you need anything else, may I suggest you stop being lazy and check your own facts.

Hey Ernie Sochak and Tired of the B.S., Don't let these liberal truth benders bother you. They like their idol B.O. aren't interested in the truth (unless it benefits them) and aren't interesting either. They're just school yard trash talkers who try to name call and belittle those that can't agree with their union frozen brains. Mokena Voter says he has employees and pays $20K yearly, yeah right?? If that were the truth he could only be working for the democratic machine and still be OK with Obamacare. That's the problem with bloggers. They pretend to have what they will never because they're manually working for a living and blogging become their false reality. Good luck with that.

B.S.
The health-care law did include substantial taxes, such as an additional tax on investment income for the wealthy, but those were always disclosed and never hidden. The penalties it included for failing to get health insurance — which the Supreme Court has now labeled a tax — amounted to just about $13 billion a year, or $65 billion in the first 10 years of the law, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. (See Table 2.)
I was obviously wrong, you're a Limbaugh follower. As far as being lazy, it's called the "Affordable Healthcare Act". Now you've got Ernie PO by admitting that Reagan was a TAXER.

No Joke, # 1, BO is not my idol. He's the Prez that has made me whole again and then some in regards to my 401K. He's the Prez that has the equity in my home close to whole again. He's the Prez that gave me the largest tax cut in history with the 2009 stimulus plan. He replaced the worst Prez in history. In regards to healthcare, yes I pay around 20k a year for my spouse and myself. My employees are another bill. It's very apparent that you, like most Teebaggers have no knowledge about healthcare. You should remove the no from your moniker.

Mokena Voter.
You mention the taxes that the "wealthy" will have to pay, but forgot to mention the taxes that the rest get to pay.
How about the new taxes on the people that make medical equipment? How will a new tax on operating tables, pacemakers, prosthetic limbs, and stents help to keep medical costs down?
What about the "Indoor Tanning Services Tax"? This tax seems more like a move by the federal government to control the behavior of Americans. It also seems to be somewhat racially biased.
You should learn some simple math, if the penalty (tax) for not getting health care is about $13 billion a year, or $65 billion over 10 years, those numbers don't add up.
$13 billion a year times 10 years equals $130 billion, not $65 billion. I don't fault you for not knowing what these new taxes will cost, after all, nobody can agree on the final cost to Americans for this wonderful new program that was passed before it was read. That's a fine example of the transparent government that Obama promised .
You seem to have some kind of a superiority complex going. You may think that you know everything (like most hard-core liberals) but your lack of understanding on Obamacare is showing. $500 billion in new taxes, many of them will directly affect the middle class (even though Obama promised that they would not) is not the way to get America growing again. Unless you are talking about the one thing that this administration has been very successful in growing, debt.

B.S. That's exactly what your 500 billion is. BS. You had me going there for a minute, a Teebagger who was actually informed. But like most of the Teebaggers here, you're informed by Faux or the Druggie. Talk about math, i'm sure your buying Mitt's plan hook line & sinker! Obama gave the middle class the largest tax cut in history and I've never heard a Teebagger even mention it. Probably because Faux doesn't talk about it. You go cast your vote but remember, O wins Illinois by 3 million votes.

Mokena Voter,
I guess that the Congressional Budget Office was lying when they said that the ACA would add $500 billion in taxes. Maybe you should do some research for yourself instead of relying on MSNBC and CNN. Wait, that would mean that you would actually have to do some work. It is much easier for you to parrot the talking points of your party.
By the way, the term is Teabaggers, as I have pointed out before. Apparently your laziness will not allow you to check that as well.
You talk about how your 401K and property value have been restored under Obama. You must be the only one to have had that happen because everyone that I know lost both in their 401K and in the value of their property.
You earlier advised the poster "no joke" to remove the "no" from his moniker, I can only hope that you remove the "voter" from yours as it seems that you have no grasp of the issues facing this country...especially this health care bill.

Mokena Voter, You are hilarious. The Prez is your idol. Why can't you admit it. He is the worst President in modern times (go ahead and follow him off the cliff). His policies have done just the opposite of what you say he has done for you. Which could only be true for you if you're in the machine. Worst President ever in the office very possibly. That's why he has to go and Clint stated. Barack is a nice guy and a good family man but not up for the job. My business is the worst it's ever been in 26 years. Funny how you can't express yourself without insulting me. Typical democrat move of demonizing and class warfare. Obama can't run on his record, demonizing is the typical move for progressives. You work for the machine!

B.S. You're not really as sharp as you seem to think you are. I guess we could go all day, but I really do have a business to run. You're obviously oblivious to the housing industry and if you didn't know that the Dow was in the low 6000's when the worst Prez in history left, you probably have friends that are in the 47% that Mittens dislikes.
BTW, Dow in the 13,000's now! Translates into trillions of gains under Obama, and yes even your buddy the Drugster Limbaugh benefited greatly.

Mokena ______,
I really hope that you don't vote.
Let's talk about how well the country is doing. Where should we start? I know, since I am oblivious to the housing industry, I'll start with these facts:
Property values have fallen to the point where almost 31% of homes with a mortgage are underwater, that is about 15 million homes.
There are about 5.5 million homes that are either more than 30 days delinquent or in foreclosure. Under Obama, the number of foreclosures was the worst in history. In addition, last year was the worst sales year on record for housing, while home values are nearly 35 percent lower than they were five years ago.
The Dow Jones was not in the low 6000's when Obama took office, it was over 8000, but hey, what's a couple thousand points, right?
I have never listened to Rush Limbaugh, and it seems kind of funny for you to call him a druggie when Obama was part of the Choom Gang. Obama has also admitted to using cocaine. What a druggie!
As usual, when you try to have a discussion with a "far left liberal" you get nothing but insults and made up points.
Have fun running your imaginary business and if you are real good, maybe your mommy will bring you cookies later.

Moneka, Do you have any idea how the stock market was funded the last 4 years to the level we are at today? It's well known to anyone in the business as Quantitative Easing, money printing and soon as that's over so is the stock market. At least until it regains reality to where it should be which is lower for sure. It's all a bubble again. The democrats were the ones that made easy money available for the first real estate crash and they are making it easy again for the next one.

5 cents is too little, make it 5000. I agree 100%.

Using that logic, $5,000.00/gal gasoline would end DUI deaths.

Um, yes Reagan did blame Carter.

Obama's record:

-authorizing the operation to take out bin Laden
-getting the Affordable Care Act passed
-investing in infrastructure with ARRA

He would've gotten more done with a cooperative Congress. And don't give me the BS about him having a majority in Congress for two years either. He did not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. By the time Al Franken was seated after the recount in Minnesota, giving the Ds the required 60, Ted Kennedy was lying on his death bed and in no condition to vote. Then Kennedy died, Deval Patrick appointed a temporary placeholder, and then Congress went into recess. Then, in the special election, Karl Rove and the Koch brothers flooded money into Scott Brown's campaign fund to basically buy Ted's seat.

Hey Mike Fangman, No Reagan didn't go on blaming Carter the way BO has with Bush. He ran on his record but you probably were too young to know that. You are so BooWhoo. BO didn't do much but push through an unread Obamacare, Not affordable care act and use the standard Chicago machine of redistribution or distribution of QE1 and 2. Obamacare: 2000 Pages and 1 Trillion Dollars has already pushed healthcare rates higher than they should be and will head much higher if it were to stay intact. He is the worst President in modern history if not the worst of all time. He can't run on his own record "hope and change" and seeks to demonize as a way to be re-elected. He will be replaced very soon. Good luck with that Mike.

No joke, I rarely do this, but you have forced me to quote "Billy Madison":

What you have just said is the most insanely idiotic thing I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Mike Fangman,
Funny Mike, you're very funny. Can't stop laughing. You're words have become mindless chatter. To bad you don't understand what you have stated. BO is the Worst President running. Hahaha, still laughing.

Did "Barry" (as you right wingers like to call him) drive the economy into the ground for eight years? No. Has "Barry" tried to get the economy going again? Yes. Has "Barry" been obstructed at every turn by the party whose Reaganish policies brought down the economy? Absolutely.

You guys keep trying the same thing over and over, expecting a different result each time. Learn from history. Republican economic policies DON'T WORK!

Let's do the math. Between 1981 and 2009, the Republicans held the White House for a whopping 20 years (eight years each under Reagan and Dubya and four under GHWB), broken up only by Clinton's two-term presidency. Under each of the three Republican presidencies, the economies hit all-time lows. Under Clinton's presidency, the economy did quite well.

Oh Mike, I have never called Obama "Barry" but you have. Look, he is an OK guy but doesn't understand what it took to get the country out of a recession. He went with printing trillions of non-backed dollars. Now your dollars are worth less than they were before he took office. Do you understand this simple policy. Canada didn't take that road and are far better off today. First of all, Barney Frank was probably told not to run for office this election because he was one of the main reasons for easy money that lead to the housing collapse. The Bush administration tried unsuccessfully to have that practice stopped. The democrats wanted the easy loans that lead to the bubble, Mike. If Obama has been such a great President he could run on his record but that's not the democrat's way. Demonize, putdowns and smoke and mirrors that's what the administration is running on. "Tired of the B.S." stated it well when he posted the fact that Ronald Reagan did take part of the blame as he said he used to be a democrat. I know of many other people that understood that Reagan was also sincere in stating he used to be a democrat because they used to be one also. Just look at the way Chicago is run, that's all you need to do to realize the one party democrat system doesn't work very well if at all without corruption.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-1561324.html

Duh.

COB
How could you possibly know who Reagan would vote for?
Since Reagan has been dead since 2004, he could not vote for either candidate.
Unless the dead can now vote....wait a minute, are we talking Chicago politics where even the dead can vote?
I do remember when Sam Donaldson asked "Mr. President, in talking about the continuing recession tonight, you have blamed mistakes in the past and you have blamed the Congress. Does any of the blame belong to you? Reagan answered, "Yes, because for many years I was a Democrat."

I do know because he told me. Myself, mr reagan, tu pac and eddie ( from eddie n the cruisers) were sitting around watching elivis perform and he said, "chron, (thats what he called me) "i know i was a rep president, but this tool mitt is no republican. Obama is more like me that this idiot. Oh and i loved you in fight club."

Be careful, COB, you are starting to sound like some others that post here. I hope that you won't start to post in CAPS or to tell us what the true religion is. It is bad enough that there are already a couple of crazies on this board, we surely don't need another.

Hey, don't try to drag me into your disagreement with COB. I actually thought his dead Reagan, Tu Pac, and Eddie (actually laughed out loud from that one) was pretty funny.

Yes, you pobably should. I for one would help you move.

Whatever, but everyone knows that Reagan wouldn't have voted for Obama in Obama's lifetime so why post it? To be funny? To find someone to argue with? It's hard to take anything you post seriously, so I guess that's your point... understood.

Hey COB,
I only speak for myself and I did think your TuPac thing was very funny, but I wonder, since you say that Reagan had the support of many unions, do you think he had the support of the 11,000 union air traffic controllers that he fired?