At what point do we, the voters, let our elected officials know they aren't meeting out expectations, because if we play the power game, they are going to do whatever they want, because they have your vote already counted.

My vote is up for grabs, if crazy hits the streets, I will vote, otherwise I am on the couch.  Obama has not earned my vote, and I will be damned if I play this silly game of voting for the least destructive to make the next four a little easier.

Enough people start using their vote as it was meant to be used, and stop putting so much importance on power, GWB would have never gotten a second term, and IMO the GOP would be a lot better off had that happened.  

Obama is ruining our brand name, and I for one am not going to be an accomplice, unless it means keeping a lunatic out of the White House.

You're essentially saying that he can do whatever he wants, produce any inept policy that actually hurts the middle class in this country and you'll still vote for him.

What's next, taxing people who own Ferrari's, or have butlers ?  It's a riduculous metric, even in jest.

Ditto for taxing the rich, he had a chance to go for it and he punted.  Now we are to believe he is going to do something about it, it's pathetic, approaching 'Mission Accomplished' pathetic IMO.

Next he'll be talking about reeling-in Wall Street or closing Gitmo, just more failure he claims to be compromise.

I could be more forgiving and have a lot more respect if he actually put up a good fight and lost.  But this business, is just plain sad.

Next up, Obama gives them everything they want in regards to the debt ceiling.

I mean the country is past DADT at this point mostly because I think we are having multiple wars going on and the military needs soldiers to fight it.

then,

Paying more for the same benefit means you're getting less. Or at least I think that's how the math works.

This is an idea that Dick Durbin, such a great friend to seniors, and other Dems now believe should be on the table.  But, not to worry, it's only for "the wealthy," or so they say.

Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) acknowledged that there's something in their Medicare plan for just about everyone to dislike. But they say it's necessary to bring the program under control.

"Nobody's going to like this plan. We understand that," Coburn said at a press conference Tuesday as he and Lieberman rolled out their proposal.

Most of the plan's savings would come from some form of benefit reductions or shifting costs to seniors -- a stark contrast to the Medicare cuts believed to be on the table in talks over the debt ceiling. Negotiators there are looking at cuts to healthcare industries after Democrats drew a line in the sand over benefit cuts.

[snip]

The proposal would cap seniors' out-of-pocket costs depending on their income. The maximum would be set at $7,500 for people making less than $85,000 per year. Seniors with twice as much income would pay three times more in out-of-pocket Medicare costs.

Wealthy seniors also would pay more for their prescription drugs. Premiums only cover about 11 percent of the total costs for Medicare Part D, the senators said. They would require seniors to pay the full cost of their drug coverage. They said the change would free up between $5 billion and $10 billion in tax money.

The plan also would increase premiums for Medicare Part B, which covers drugs that are administered by a doctor. Part B premiums are more than $400 per year, and taxes currently cover only about a quarter of that cost. High-income seniors would have to pay the full cost of their Part B premiums under the Lieberman plan.

Both the changes to Part D and Part B premiums would only apply to seniors making more than $150,000 per year or couples making more than $300,000.

As David Dayen points out:

Democrats haven't been totally firm on anything but the idea of not ending Medicare and not privatizing Social Security. Everything else is up for grabs. They don't want to "slash" benefits to Social Security, but changes in the COLA by using chained CPI, which would result in a benefit cut, are on the table. They don't want to end Medicare, but they're open to cuts as long as they are attached to some minor revenue increases. They are concerned about senior health care, but they don't mind making fairly severe changes to a program that substantially benefits seniors: Medicaid. Included in those changes is one that comes from the policy shop of the White House:

In the budget blueprint unveiled in April, President Barack Obama proposed adjusting the way federal matching funds paid to the states are calculated for Medicaid and its companion, the Children's Health Insurance Program. Sources close to the administration tell POLITICO that White House officials have been trying to develop the idea into a version that could become part of a deal in the ongoing deficit reduction talks [...]

The administration wants to create what's known as a "blended rate" for these programs, recalculating the levels so states receive federal dollars at the same rate for all populations in joint state-federal health programs. And in the process, they want to contribute to Medicaid savings totaling $100 billion.

This has Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) nervous.

"What we know is that in order to generate `at least $100 billion' in savings, any blended-rate proposal would have to severely reduce federal Medicaid and CHIP payments to every state over time, with some losing a lot more than others," Rockefeller said. "And the underlying needs and costs don't disappear -- they just move from the federal side of the ledger to the state side."

You can call it something antiseptic like a "blended rate" or "chained CPI," but the proposals are to give state Medicaid programs, or Social Security beneficiaries, less money over time. As long as Democrats don't end these programs, they feel comfortable starving them of funding.

As a general rule, people always think crime in their area is increasing no matter what.  That is aggravated by the fact that the internet and media allow us to know about more crimes occuring.

The reality:

Crime is down in Chicago and has been falling for 29 straight months.

The media and our fears throw our perceptions off.  Same thing happened here in Atlanta.  There was a string of high profile crimes downtown, people protested and all manner of hell was raised.