Ron, Indiana

When I was a kid, to bear arms meant that I could legally own a gun to go hunting; otherwise the gun stayed in the closet. Rational people did not openly carry guns in public. KKK members and gangsters carried concealed guns but law abiding folks had no need to carry a weapon. Today crazy people, militia types, and patriot groups express themselves by packin’ assault rifles and hand guns. Guns designed to kill people. I hate it, but I might as well get used to it.

You libs just do not have a clue, do you? Otis McDonald, a 76 year old African American living in Chicago isn't exactly a "crazy people", "militia type", and or "patriot group" member. He's a man that got fed up with the gang-bangers and the drug dealers preying on law abiding people because they gangs and drug runners had guns, and they knew the law abiding people didn't. The result? Chicago is the murder capital of the nation. But Mr. McDonald took his case to the Supreme Court, his case for him to legally bear arms, and won. And you liberals think that's a bad thing. Good luck with taking that position liberals, where you stand up for the gangs bangers, and you stand against people that want to just live their lives without the fear of getting shot.

Yes, I too think there is much to fear from this Supreme Court. But their decision on Corporate donations worry me more than the gun issue. I grew up with guns, own several and participate in some competition shooting on the state and local level. Personally, I don't believe the 2nd ammendment gaurantees private ownership. It sure doesn't say anything about self protection but regardless of what the Constitution says, we have been allowed to own firearms for over 230 years so I believe it is an ingrained or earned right. It is not guns but the owners that worry me.

I believe in stricter regulation for gun ownership. I believe there ought to be some kind of limit on what kind of firearm is available to the public. There are certainly people I do not want to see owning military style weapons with large capacity magazines. \

I know I will get someone claiming that the 2nd Amendment was for the possible overthrow of a government gone wild, but closer examination of the Consitution blows that theory right out of the water.

Hey Ron Indiana - great comment my friend, I certainly remember 1967 though a little fuzzy on remembering that great Pat Paulson schtick. The NRA gun nut cowards have really gone crazy over being able to carry guns everywhere, just like the old wild wild west of the late 1800's. The NRA aids and abets gun toting criminals to be able to kill more and more people. A real shame about what happened in Chicago as we see that when guns are too easily available there will be nuts buying them and shooting up innocent people. Must have been some rightwing Teahadist Paliban creep who did those killings in Chicago, we know how they hate everything Chicago Democrat.

What's needed is less guns on the streets and more smarts in people. Time for the crowd who clings to guns and bibles to put down both and pick up some real good books that teach them the reality they so cluelessly deny, not to mention proper morals and responsibility.

Less Guns, More Intelligence!

Hey Drive-By.. Looks who's back... Looks like you might get that funny bone of yours massaged after all ;0)))

um, Ron-1967 was not, by any stretch, a peaceful time. Remember all those hijacking to Cuba? They were done at GUNPOINT. In fact, it was as a result of those hijackings that guns were banned on flights, metal detectors installed at airports, etc, etc. Incidentally, one of the problems on 9/11 was that flight attendants were trained on how to deal with a hijacker who wanted to make an 'unscheduled stop', rather than ones who were bent on destruction.

I do not own a gun-although I have many family members in law enforcement, who tell me that my fears would be allayed by education, I have no desire to learn how to shoot.

That said, the constitution is the constitution. I find it unwise, if not downright foolish, to restrict handgun ownership to criminals. Let's face it-criminals care little for gun laws, as they care not one whit about the other laws they break. It is the law abiding who follow the laws-ipso facto, these laws have had the effect of putting all the firepower in the wrong hands.

It is a case of 'it sounded like a good idea at the time'. Unfortunately, those who wrote the laws did not think of the inevitable consequences. Chicago has extremely restrictive gun laws which were just struck down, yet 29 people died as a result of gun violence.

What does that tell you? It tells me that criminals don't care HOW many laws are on the books restricting their behavior-law-abiding people do-so the laws have absolutely no effect on the element of the population that are supposed to be targeted.

Your idea of the court, by the way,is one hundred per cent WRONG. We have a constitution that protects the rights of the individual. If you, or others, believe that you have rights that are NOT being protected, you should start petitioning to get an amendment passed to protect that right.

While you are at it, please refrain from proposing amendments that take away the rights of others. Thank you.

Guns. The two most passionately argued issues in my lifetime have been guns and abortion. Being as how I’m not of the female gender I really don’t have much standing to discuss that second one but seeing as how I have had a firearm of some sort either in hand or close since I was about 5 or 6 I guess I’m pretty well qualified to speak to the first. I have been holding off on it because with all the questions that we deal with I view it as somewhat of a distraction from the central issues of our time. But the one thing you can count on when a certain group of our political class falls out of power is for them to start beating that guns drum real loud and that is exactly what it is starting to happen again. A distraction so that they will not have to answer questions for which they have no answers. Guns have been an issue in America for so long that all the folks on both sides of the issue have to do is go to the footlocker and drag out their copies of the mythology and viola we have something that doesn’t need thinking about just reacted to and the reaction is pretty well predictable. That is exactly what it is you know? Mythology. Funny thing is that just like Mom, Apple Pie and Baseball it is a distinctively American Mythology. Norwegians and Danes have Thor and Odin. Greeks have Zeus and Apollo. Brits have King Arthur and Camelot. We have the Deerslayer, Doc Holiday and Wyatt Earp, Butch and Sundance and John Wayne. Let’s look at the left hand side of the equation first. Many on the extreme left think that guns should just not be allowed to exist and certainly only under careful control. Sorry folks ain’t happening. You need look no further than the failed experiment with Prohibition to see why not. I know that in urban and inner-city environments they are a problem and I’ll get back to that in a while. For 90% of the more rural population they are simply a tool like a hammer or chainsaw. Many of the folks I know are right now using them to put food on the table for their families. Many of the fees are used for conservation and wildlife management and most of the activities are under controlled circumstances and regulation. Many of the organizations such as Ducks Unlimited etc have gotten together with folks like the Sierra Club and a lot has been done to preserve the countries wildlife habitat and wide open spaces. The rural folks also have a law enforcement problem that our more urban cousins don’t have. Sad to say but if we have a problem that needs to be addressed by law enforcement there is a pretty good chance that Roscoe P. Coltrane or Barney are going to show up about 30 or 45 minutes after the fact. Please remember that Andy made Barney keep his bullet in his pocket for a good reason and based on experience I trust a lot of these guys reactions and attitudes just about as much as he did. I don’t know about the Mid- West and West but a lot of the Crystal Meth cookers have moved into the mountains in the East and most of these folks and their associates are dangerous in any situation. Taken into consideration that most of the folks I am describing have spent a lifetime around guns with all the adherent safety issues, etc drummed into their head since birth then those of you on the left should be able to see why I say that they aren’t the problem. Now let’s look at the pry them out of my cold dead hands side of things. You’ll need to start using your heads for something to besides to hold your ears apart and start to realize that you are being used and abused and it’s not by the folks that you think are doing it. I’ll just bet that most of the folks on this site can look at the argument that that I made for you and say “Yep I can live with that” What they can’t live with is a bunch of danged fools that just cannot live unless they can go down to the park amongst the women and children and wave your gun around next some families picnic. And you know I agree with them. Tools generally need to be used on the job set aside for them and ought to be kept in the toolbox otherwise so they don’t get lost. Why go so far out of your way to create a problem where one doesn’t exist? As far as the concealed carry mythology goes you’ll need to recognize it for the silliness that it is. This ain’t Dodge City and you ain’t Wyatt Earp. It is simply time for the Rural folks and the legitimate shooters that are being used to further another darker agenda to realize that Guns and gun ownership is a real problem in areas of our country where they are being misused and set down at the table and work out some reasonable accommodation within limits that we both can agree on and quit insisting on pushing a right that carries the implied responsibility of the owner on folks that have to deal with the use of the tool with no idea of user taking responsibility for his actions. I’m tired of reading in the paper every day about one gang of kids shooting up another gang of kids because they didn’t like the way they wore their hair or something.

I do sympathize with people in Chicago who want guns to protect themselves from robbers and street thugs already armed with guns. But the reason that the gun laws in Chicago and other big cities don't have much effect in stopping gun violence is that criminals just go to conservative states where they have lax gun laws, or to gun shows where background checks are not required, thank again to conservative gun worship.

People do have a right to defend themselves, so as long as we have crazy far right nuts in Congress and the Supreme Court blocking rational gun regulation, people in those areas should be allowed to carry guns.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Hey Drive-By.. Looks who's back... Looks like you might get that funny bone of yours massaged after all ;0)))

Good morning Feisty. I'd look back for all the important, insightful, and interesting things you've written over the last several days, but we all know that would just be a waste of time.

JoAnna

You libs just do not have a clue, do you? Otis McDonald, a 76 year old African American living in Chicago isn't exactly a "crazy people", "militia type", and or "patriot group" member. He's a man that got fed up with the gang-bangers and the drug dealers preying on law abiding people because they gangs and drug runners had guns, and they knew the law abiding people didn't. The result? Chicago is the murder capital of the nation. But Mr. McDonald took his case to the Supreme Court, his case for him to legally bear arms, and won. And you liberals think that's a bad thing. Good luck with taking that position liberals, where you stand up for the gangs bangers, and you stand against people that want to just live their lives without the fear of getting shot.

-----------------------------------------------------

Does it work that way for countries too ?

Maybe Iran and North Korea are Tired of being pushed around by the Global American Bully .. Maybe they don't like the hypocrasy of one nation dictating who can and Can't have nukes

Nukes don't kill people, people kill people

It would, be a waste of time for someone that can't read such as yourself JoAnn.

BTW: on your earlier post, do you not think Otis McDonald isn't more likely to get shot when the gang bangers see he's caring a gun. If your naive enough to think they will just walk away because they see a gun your nuttier than I thought.

One can always rely on JoAnnaSmith to tell us elitist Liberals that we don't have a clue and otherwise exibhit a superior attitude. No small amount of irony in that. You might be interested to know that not only is Chicago NOT the "murder capital of the nation" it doesn't even rank in the 25 most dangerous cities in the US http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921299.html . Tell me again how their handgun ban only made things worse. I like a good story.

On another point from this thread, it's worth explaining why Liberals are afraid of the court even though we have the Constitution to protect us. It's because this court has been willing to pick apart our individual rights (aside from guns) a little at a time. Protection of our voting rights, protection for consumers, protection from potential police misconduct, protection of the environment, protection from our electoral system continuing and worsening as a den of legalized bribery, and more have been picked at a little at a time by the Roberts court. A constitution is no protection if the courts won't stand behind it. The Soviet Union had a constitution that went farther then most any other in terms of the rights it guaranteed. It didn't stop the Gulag from filling up with political prisoners.

You said it so well John. Great post! Voted.

Great post John, voted. This court has become hard right and that is not good for We The People.

While I consider myself to be firmly on the Left, I grew up with guns in a small town family, and we later moved into a larger city. I have seen the proper use of firearms, and I have seen the rampant misuse. Most of this is actually based in how we teach about firearms. I was taught that they were a tool, and NEVER EVER pointed at someone unless you intended them dead, and with the severe restriction on that only ONLY happened if lives or major property were being threatened by that individual. I was not even allowed to point toy guns at anyone, as that would teach the wrong ideas. People in the cities, who have never had contact with actual firearms or their proper usage, see TV shows and Movies that glorify the use of firearms to the point of absolute ridiculousness. It is no wonder that city folks, including gangs and the like, have crazy ideas about gun use: They never learned any better!

With all that being said, I am much FOR gun ownership. If it were not for the general public owning firearms, the only armed, and thus power enabled, would be the Military, Police and Criminals. Considering the opportunity for corruption inherent in ANY police force, the number of military coups worldwide, and the standard mentality of the criminal element, the public, if it were not armed, would be totally at the mercy of any of these groups. I am not advocating violence against the military or police, nor am I advocating vigilantism, but the knowledge of an armed populace will automatically keep these forces in check, as a balance for them, to some extent.

The framers of the Constitution considered gun ownership, when gun technology was making great strides considering the wars at the time, that they made it the Second Amendment, instead of further down the list. The argument that guns now are so much cheaper and better than before does not fly either, the framers understood that technology would get better and better, and that weapons development would continue to make bigger, better and faster firearms. They knew that mankind had gone from the rock, to the antelope femur club, the stone knife, the axe, to the spear, bow, swords and on and on up to the firearm of the day, the best of which were rifled, an grand new thing, which brought a measure of accuracy which the British lacked, making 'sharpshooting' the newest thing. They KNEW that weapons would progress and STILL made that the second priority in our Constitution. The Constitution does not say that one has the right to Brown Bess rifles, it says the Right to Bear Arms, which would mean whatever the weapon of the day happens to be, the public has the right to match the best that the Government or whatever enemy, foreign or domestic, happened to have.

I know that many of my friends here may disagree, and I am fine with that, but the adage that if guns are made totally illegal, then the only people that will have them would be criminals, outside of the military and police who would have the opportunity to use them for reasons of power. We can plainly see, in many places in the world, where the public has no access to firearms, that the police and military regularly are blatantly corrupt and abuse their authority simply because the public is powerless to stop them. An armed populace is an Automatic Check on that sort of activity, simply because the public, if those agencies get out of control too blatantly, can act to protect themselves against them. Our public owning firearms also will make any other country who just might think America a possible target for invasion (HIGHLY unlikely of course) will think twice because of the fact there are so many firearms that it would entail a long guerrilla type war against a fanatical populace.

On top of that, an Armed Society is a Polite Society. Yes, people will always try to abuse authority at some points, however, we must NOT allow our society to become powerless in the face of those who may abuse said authority. The Public is the final backstop against aggressive, malicious criminality or military overthrow of the government. I do NOT advocate violence, but I DO advocate proper instruction of firearm history, safety, use and the principles and reasons for such.

26 folks in Chicago were shot this weekend. 50 plus last weekend.

The gun ban remains in place in Chicago. Does anyone need any further proof gun bans don't work? Thank goodness McDonald violated the ban, lest he be another victim.

Thank god SB 1070 gets all the attention right now. The new gun rights bill in Arizona also goes into effect shortly. A very simple law that one: The Second Amendment is now the only permit needed to carry a gun any how the lawful owner sees fit. Out in the open, or concealed. In the trunk, or on the dashboard.

You think any of the fine folk in Chicago, the ones doing all the shooting, concerned themselves with gun permits?

Excellent Post John B. Des Moines: It is amazing, 40 years ago conservatives were for individual rights, now they just want power. What a shame.

MSierra, SF

JoAnna

You libs just do not have a clue, do you? Otis McDonald, a 76 year old African American living in Chicago isn't exactly a "crazy people", "militia type", and or "patriot group" member. He's a man that got fed up with the gang-bangers and the drug dealers preying on law abiding people because they gangs and drug runners had guns, and they knew the law abiding people didn't. The result? Chicago is the murder capital of the nation. But Mr. McDonald took his case to the Supreme Court, his case for him to legally bear arms, and won. And you liberals think that's a bad thing. Good luck with taking that position liberals, where you stand up for the gangs bangers, and you stand against people that want to just live their lives without the fear of getting shot.

-----------------------------------------------------

Does it work that way for countries too ?

Maybe Iran and North Korea are Tired of being pushed around by the Global American Bully .. Maybe they don't like the hypocrasy of one nation dictating who can and Can't have nukes

Nukes don't kill people, people kill people

You libs are two-for-two. First you stand up for the gang-bangers, and now you stand up for Iran. Is it any wonder how much suffering you're going to incur this November?

Hey everybody, I'm from chicago, born and raised on the southside.

Whats going on in chicago is a result of public housing mistaked that the city is paying for right now. years ago all the public housing was located in section areas on the southside, west side and near northside. in the last 10 years they have been torn down and the result is, middle class black neighborhoods are under seige. once the public housing was goan they sectioned 8 out these people to the neighborhoods. the result is the last 3 years crime and shooting are ramped. people from the projects are in those neighborhoods trying to sell there drugs on the street and people in the neighborhoods are helpless. the cops can only do so much. in the past i have supported the hand gun ban, but in resent weeks i think the gun ban is causing the problem to get worse. when i was a kid my father had a shoot gun and everybody knew it, so did my grandfather, my uncles, the next door neighbor as well and to me i felt safe knowing if anybody came in our home i knew my dad would beable to protect us.

Now the year 2010, regular hard working people are completely depended on the chicago police. i'm not saying the police is not doing there job, but too many time lately the cops can't be every where, you can't put spy cams on every corner. they have and it has not reduced the crime drug dealing and shootings. the man when brought this to the high court is tryical of how people in chicago feel right now. so i will say this to some who think liberals are anti-gun. my mother was raised in that neighborhood(morgan park) 70 years ago. people did not have the nice things young kids think they must have these days. it breaks my heart that, the neighborhood my mother was raised has goan to sh0t because thugs know that common people can't and don't have guns. my neighborhood i grew up in is falling as well, (chatham) my grand father bought that place in 1957 and it was a great place to raise kids. and that place too is undersiege because of the section 8 who turned my neigborhood in to a place i would not walk alone at night, i ca;nt ever go over there to see old friend after dark. as long as only the bad guys have the guns i will not take a chance over there.

so in closing i understand why the band was put in to place but now its time to get thing back the way they use to be, People not having to depend sooly on the chicago police. just like in many rual areas.

Jeff, thanks for your feedback from Chicago itself. I don't agree that more guns will solve anything, but you've expressed your opinion politely and thoughtfully. I think the old thinking on public housing has contributed mightily to crime in our cities. We erected huge, hulking warehouses in which to store our poor, in the process creating spawning grounds for crime. Even in smaller cities and areas with less crime we see "future slums" being built all the time in places where large apartment developments are more or less segregated from everyone else. They never fail but to decline over time and eventually become blights.

My inlaws live in a place where the city has stubbornly refused to allow this to happen. Apartments, town homes, and single-family homes are mixed more or less uniformly through the town. It seems to create an environment in which everyone has a stake in every neighborhood, and there aren't places where those in need are just left to be victimized by the basest among them. Drug dealers don't have a place where people shrug and turn their backs because no one will help them. Apartment owners can't let their properties run down until they fall down, because there are home owners nearby who have a real financial interest. Law abiding apartment dwellers don't have to live in fear and desperation because there are people around them who will help. It appears to work well.

John B, Des Moines, IA
John i'm telling it breaks my heart whats happening in chicago, no matter what people think about chicago, on the south, west, and northsides you had stable middle class neighborhoods, strong black neighborhoods that were picture perfect. no though was given to what happens when you allow more section 8s in neighborhoods what are dependent on everybody pulling together to keep it clean and safe. man you should see it now, they don't keep there garbage neat, they don't cut the grass, they deal drugs on the street and don't care if kids are around playing. years ago things like that were not open on the street. the drug dealers from the projects are trying to take over there new neighborhoods and drug dealers there, are not letting them have it. every weekend the shooting are in those neighborhoods.
so i think that your right more guns will not solve the problem but you can't keep denying the good citizens they right to protect them selves. 3 weeks ago a 80 year old Korean war vet killed a armed intruder with his unregistered hand gun, thank god he was not charged, but what if he was.

Independent Redneck, I couldn't agree more.

Yep. The beat goes on...

IR great post, voted on that. Have a good day.

In case some of you Blackwater smearer's didn't know; MOST of their employees are ex-military. Almost all of them have had numerous tours in the Middle East. Prince is not the problem. This is just a man that has tapped into the money pot in America; something that most dream of.

They free the military up to do warfighter missions as opposed to protecting some diplomat. Most of you in here probably hasn't got the slightest clue as to what goes on in the Mid East but I see you all have OPINIONS. OPINIONS and they are just that OPINIONS.

ITM,

Xe (Blackwater) charges 3 to 5 TIMES what an average soldier would make. They also are beyond the law essentially, as they do not fall under military jurisdiction and are also apparently exempt from civilian laws. Prince tapped into the money pot alright. And, it cracks me up to hear you all whine and moan about supporting those without a job because all the jobs were shipped to China and India, yet you have NO problem at all spending 5 times more than necessary for a group of hot shot punks to guard a diplomat.

You all love the military so much, why is it you feel we need to hire a private contractor and pay them 5 times an average soldier's salary to do the same job that the Army and Marines have been doing for well over 200 years? Why do you disrespect the soldiers that wear our uniform and fight for your right to steal from our treasury? Oh yeah, beware the tax and spend liberals. Give me a break ITM.

Your rants are tiresome, mis-guided, and detrimental to the future of our country. Grow up.

Yeh Middling opinions are like a$$holes everybody has one. You seem to be somewhat a freak of nature however in that you seem to have two one on each end both of which have diarrea. That being said why don't you take your alligator mouth somewhere on down the road and let it overload your hummingbird a$$ somewhere around somebody that wants to hear that mess.

Independant Redneck...Have you considered running for office? If so, I will move to your constituency. THanks for you consistantly insightful postings

Dude you have issues.

Hmmm...

Soldier1 sounds a lot like another dude that hangs around here with some serious anger management issues... Could they be ONE and the same?

Ps: Nice retort IR - alligator mouth indeed! LMAO!

First of all DISGUSTED:

I really don't give a sh!t that you're DISGUSTED.

I served, thank you. I was one of those soldiers in the mixx. Blackwater serves a purpose.

We do not have enough soldiers to guard diplomats and be warfighter's. DUH.....you wouldn't know this little nugget.

I have nothing but love for my fellow soldiers...so F'k you. I'm surrounded by the best and brightest this country has everyday....so F'k you again. I take this sh!t to heart.

You come in here with your little tantrums and think I will just accept it.....yes sir boss...anything you say boss.....you are the mis-guided one...you need to go somewhere and sit your tired, lame, triflin' azz down.

I'm more man than you will ever be twerp

ITM,

I was speaking to the Disgusted lady.

Who in the hell.....called for a Redneck....?

Man you had better run along and continue playing with the kids. This right here is waaay out of your league. Get back in your truck with the confederate license plate, put that dip in your mouth, and keep it movin'.

InTheMuddle,

If you and your precious Republicans had spent the time doing the homework that SHOULD have been done, we would NOT be in two wars and our military would NOT be stretched painfully thin. Had we finished the job in Afghanistan and NOT gone off to follow GWB's folly in Iraq, you and your boys would all be living the good life likely stationed back home somewhere and not rotting in the desert.

It is the short-sighted military views of people like you that are too close to the job at hand and too focused (rightly so) on the task that has been given and needs to be completed to be able to see the big picture and navigate a way out using military AND diplomatic/political influence. It is for this precise reason that the founding fathers rightly determined that the US needed a CIVILIAN commander and designated that the President be the CIC of ALL US armed forces.

Now, get back into your foxhole and guard that mountain grunt!

IR: You are right on target. I really enjoyed your post.

Disgusted, I think you really got to itm. He really went off on his last two posts. Good job.

I know. When you throw facts at someone that inhabits the echo chamber, it rattles all around really loud and scares them. I need to try to be a little more sensitive I guess huh?

Blackwater/Xe is yet another example of how the religion of privatization perverts our public services. Our budget is limited, so paying far more for a Blackwater mercenary fixes what? Our tradition of citizen/soldiers has helped ensure that the people have a real stake in any potential war and keeps us out of war unless it's truly necessary. Mercenaries such as Blackwater/Xe help the kings play war without the interference of mere citizens. Mercenaries are notoriously brutal, and their slaughter of innocents plays poorly with any local populations. At the same time they're notoriously self-interested, and rarely the best army on the field.

Come on Middling that little bit of stuttering and stumbling the best you can do. And here I thought you were a rooting- tooting hairy old bad fella. Heck that ain't even enough to inspire me to move the dip from one side to the other. Want to try it again but maybe with a little more feeling this time. I just ain't getting that warm fuzzy feeling of brotherhood that you're trying to project there sport.

What budget? Has the congressed passed a budget? That's great, becasue we really need one. It was just silly that they said they were not going to do one this year. I'm really glad they changed their mind. Not passing a budget would really reflect poorly on the democratically controlled congress and President. I bet Obama demanded that they get a budget done, and they listened.

Great Job Pelosi, Reid, Obama.

ITM, Xe services is nothing more, nothing less than a Mercenary outfit, and the Bush admin erred terribly in starting America depending upon such services. Yes, there have been other security firms, but Xe (Blackwater) has been Actively Recruiting amongst the people serving in the military, pulling away trained professionals with the lure of More Money for the Same Job type advertising. We have lost a great number of our top level, special forces soldiery to them and now there are similar, mercenary groups offering their "Security Services" for outlandish money in places we used to have our Military doing the jobs. Freeing up the military to do their jobs my foot, it is bribing people away from the military to do the same old jobs at a much higher profit for a few and a great loss, on several fronts, for the American Public.

Xe and all of the Blackwater affiliates should be outlawed and disbanded. Give the job of defending our politicians and diplomats back to the military. Even if it is a boring and distasteful job, it must be done, and I would much rather have a Marine in uniform guarding the doors than a civilian decked out like Rambo with an attitude guarding that same door! It would be cheaper by far, and the Marine would be more likely to be competent at his job rather than the overpaid, trigger happy Xe Mercenary!

Hey Red,

Why do I get the sinking feeling that ITM is off muddling around again until he can catch something on the Glenda or RushBall shows that he might be able to use here. I have a feeling we will not be seeing too much more of him on this thread today. lol

Hey Disgusted!

Yeah his usual MO is to attack - get his a@@ whipped & retreat to lick his wounds... LMAO!

He's particularly fond of 'pouncing on' strong liberal women!

Aw, come on now Muddled... I am sorry I threw all those hateful facts at you and muzzled your rant. I promise to allow you to spew your hateful and twisted Texas view of the world a bit more before stuffing those pesky facts in your face next time. Please come back. It's not as much fun playing whack a troll when you are not around for me to chase after...

Amen, Pat--I couldn't agree more. How sad that we are so polarized that the Republicans feel it is "safe" to attack such a man--they clearly fear no political repercussions. A by-product of the red state/blue state split in our politics.

Fiesty, good morning

I am watching the Kagan hearing, and this mental midget Sessions, is an embarassment to the country. What a pompous little p***k.

Morning Gingerbread Mama - makes me glad I can only listen otherwise I fear the 'shoes' would be a flying!

The p***k (good choice there GM) REEKS of male pale & stale!

So far Kagen's holding her own against the clown!

You know Feisty, I have spent my entire life reading about so many people and moments throughout our history, and I have to tell you, no one has impressed me as much as Justice Thurgood Marshall. And that's saying a great deal. So for these Senators to say what they said yesterday makes me so so angry.

They know nothing about trying to imagine what it's like to walk in another man's shoes. It would never occur to them to even attempt it. For even one minute of their life.

And what bothers me more than anything is that they are United States Senators. Here you have a man literally making a difference for millions of Americans. And they mock him.

But then when have they ever showed genuine respect for anybody? Never.

Right you are Pat!

I couldn't believe what I was hearing yesterday!

It's pretty hard to respect others when you are void of any shred of self-respect!

So does the government just get to come into the lawful gun owner's home unannounced to do a spot inspection of the "locked safe area?" It kind of makes it tough to use to weapon to fend off unlaful intruders, you know the criminal types, if you have to retrieve the weapon from "locked safe area."

Mamma are you really advocating for government spot checks, ie throwing out the 4th Amendment?

Maybe the police could just focus on getting the bad guys. Or are you saying that anyone who owns a gun is bad?

Spanky:

No, I did not advocate nor am not advocating government spot checks.

In Florida, a gun owner, has the responsability and yes, the obligation to keep that weapon in a safe place. If the gun was used by someone other than the owner to commit a crime, and (pay close attention) if it can be established, that gun was not properly stored in a safe place, the owner can be prosecuted and sued by the victim or their family.

No again, I am not saying that anyone who owns a gun is bad, where did you get that idea from my post?

The key in all of this decision, is that gun owners be responsible, most that I know are, BUT, not everyone is, there are those who leave a gun in an unlocked drawer or in a box, hoping no child or young adult will find it...guess what? they have, and have killed or wounded an innocent victim or in one case, took it to school and shot and killed a teacher.

It might be helpful to you to take a course in reading comprehension, it may stop you from making untrue assumptions and we all know what assumptions can do.

Those who don't want an austerity plan might want to take a good, long look at Greece.

Ireland, by the way, was dragged kicking and screaming to the budget cutting table. They, too, thought that the party would never end; being identified as one of the PIIGS was a wake-up call for the citizenry. (The PIIGS are Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain-all countries whose budget deficits are unsustainable, and a threat to the EU. Germany bailed out Greece, but there is not enough money in the world to bail out all these countries.)

Selective 'reporting' is a given on a site such as this; however, heartrending stories of poor bureaucrats who have lost their lifetime careers do not tug much at my heartstrings-especially considering that those same people continue to draw livelihoods from the taxpayers of their countries, and will, for the rest of their lives. What people in this country do not understand about Europeans is that it is not just themelves they are worried about-it is that their children will not follow in their footsteps in the mines, public transit, city hall, or where ever. In this country, we long to see our children follow their bent-there, if you are a miner, your children and your children's children are supposed to be miners.

so, yes, we need to cut spending, and the best place to start would be to cut the federal and state workforce by 20%. All those poor bureaucrats will find something to do.

But I am honestly baffled at those who look at the current Irish situation and somehow leap to the conclusion that the solution to all of America's problems is to slash and burn every government social program.

it is not a desire to slash and burn every government social program. It is the fact that these programs, Medicare D for example, are financed through borrowing....for the long term. There comes a time when the people we borrow that money from want it back. At that point you don't get a choice what to save and what to cut because it all has to go.

It's clear Ireland will have some tough times in the early going of their budget balancing efforts. But in the long run, Ireland will be better off for "biting the bullet" today and being more prosperous tomorrow. Even now, the United States and Europe are seeing they didn't get the bang for the (trillions) of bucks they spent in deficit spending. You spend that kind of money, then have the VP of the US stand there this past weekend saying "Those 8 million jobs we lost are not coming back", you have to wonder what exactly is the goal of the socialism Obama is pushing on to the country, and from the G-20 summit over the weekend, trying to push on to the world.

So your answer would be to inject millions more newly unemployed into a job market that cannot sustain the numbers of unemployed already there?

I am not delivering any heartrending stories. I am listing the facts of the situation. Anyone can tell the local story of a family that has been broken by these economic times, but emotionalism is not going to solve anything. However, neither is forcing this nation into another Great Depression, which seems to be what you advocate.

Michael, Good Morning

I read this report, being a native of Ireland, I have been aware of the struggles there dealing with their difficulties and long ago realized how similar the problems here and there were. I have relatives who have been affected and are dealing with it the best way they can. One thing that helps the Irish deal with this adverse turn, is that, many of my generation remember what it was like to live with a lot less and know they can do it again. They are helping the younger generations to deal with the cutbacks as it is the young people who are feeling the pinch, well educated, they are forced to take jobs, when available, for which they are overqualified and emigration is not the option it once was.

Their social services have been extremley generous over the years, the cuts are directed mostly to the younger population, the seniors still have their generous benefits, the government recognizing that that segment of society has paid its dues and rewards them with a comfortable standard of living. No working person appears to begrudge them that. You are correct, an austerity program here would not work so well, as society are not as homogenous, there is not the sense that we are all in this together and work for the greater good.

Looking at Ireland's economic history, it seems as though the only period of economic prosperity, as we define it, that she has enjoyed, was from 1994-2006 - when the nation engaged in exactly the sort of bubble creating behavior that we are now decrying. I have seen no evidence that their austerity program is going to lead to such, but I have seen a great deal of evidence that she has managed to push herself into a decades long depression, from which the 'recovery' would be a return to the same sort of national poverty she experienced prior to 1994.

So I guess the question then becomes whether creating conditions that result in the desire for mass exodus from your nation is worth a return to poverty as long as the books are balanced in the long run.

Those are the questions that the Irish face.

P.S. - Just as an addendum to the above comment. I am assuming that NJ's advocacy to reduce the number of employees includes all governmental employees. Reducing the total number of government employees in the United States would immediately add over 4 million people to the unemployment rolls and increase the unemployment rate to approximately 16%.

Any plans on where you want these people to work?

No joe you are right. We need to start forcing these state unions to accept some concessions. They are bleeding us dry! There was an article in the NY Times about how one New Jersey town paid out nearly $1 million to four (4) retiring police officers for unused sick time and vacation days. Of course these public unions see nothing wrong with what there doing and are unwilling to concede anything. However the ironic part is that the leaders and state politicians that are asking for concessions are former union leaders. They realize, once elected into office, that these unions are the ones that make it hard to fund programs that help the poor. There should be a cap in how much someone can get for unused vacation and sick days, and these public unions should start contributing to their health care and retirement like the rest of us do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/business/28union.html?pagewanted=2&src=busln

It sure sounds simple cutting the government workforce, however by bureaucrats, do you mean police officers, teachers, and highway workers?

nojobo:

Those who don't want an austerity plan might want to take a good, long look at Greece.

That is what is called an apples and oranges comparison. As has been pointed out, Greece had much more short-term debt than the US. Greece's debt was 115% of its GDP in 2009. The US debt is nowhere near that relative to GDP. Paul Krugman totally debunked this bogus comparison.

The Republicans don't care about budget deficits. They squandered the Clinton budget surplus and turned it into a huge deficit. The only reason they're demanding austerity now is because they want to stop the recovery the stimulus made possible. Yes, the recovery is weak, but the GDP is now growing, which is by definition is a recovery for their own political benefit. They care for nothing but themselves.

Tim in Minnesote...yes. I lost my job for 18 months after 9/11. No government handout. Unemployment benefit ran out after a year I think, may have been 6 month. Survived on savings and taking out a loan that I'm still paying off. I was not a protected worker why are police and teachers special when I'm paying their salary and I haven't had a raise in 2 years. If you don't want job cuts then the offer should be to accept less pay. This brings me to Michaels point. No don't throw 4m people on to the unemployment rolls but ask them to accept less because the people who pay their wages have lost their jobs!!!

BTW NJ just balanced it's budget. Go read some of the articles.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/nj_senate_budget_debate_focuse.html

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/gov_chris_christie_calls_speci.html

State workers pay capped at 175K

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/nj_assembly_passes_bill_preven.html

It cuts almost 11B from a 30B budget. We are getting our house in order and I can tell that if California defaults and the Feds bail them out .....goodbye Obama administration.

NJ will re-elect Chris Christie if he keeps this up because he tells the truth. He does not say that you can cut and there will be no pain. This is going to suck but there is NO MORE MONEY!!

PS Houston...if we follow the projections of the administration, in 10 years we will be way past Greece.

Michael, and Houston-you do know, don't you, that the only place to get a job as a file clerk is in the government, do you not? Maybe the government should go out and hire a bunch of unemployed keypunch operators-that was what my mother-in-law did when she was a young girl, and she earned a good living. What ever happened to that particular career?

Government spending is out of control, and using up all the oxygen in the room. There is no room for growth when the government is using up all the capital. As for Krugman-let's just remember that he was the economic advisor to enron, and seemed to come out of that arrangement with his monies intact.

It is one thing to run a deficit-most people run them in their family finances when they buy homes and cars. It is quite another to be in so far over your head that you cannot see daylight. That is where we are now. That $787billion in stimulous stimulated nothing but the deficit-more proof, by the way, that Keynsian economics does not work, cannot work, and never will work.

We need to cut government spending, and that includes getting rid of departments that do nothing, (like education); streamline the ones that do work, and most of all, gut the power of the unions. Why do you think all those crooks, for want of a better word, at MMS are still employed by us?

Michael,

The standard of living in Ireland was well under way prior to 1994. I have lived in the US for over forty years and return to family fairly often and observed how things were progressing. When the Celtic Tiger got roaring, it was then it exploded to what it was until recently. Building bigger and bigger homes, expensive cars, vacations in farflung exotic places ( people who never could take vacations), in other words they spent as if the money would never run out.

It really was when Ireland joined the EU that life slowly but surely became better. As the EU grew so did the wealth for all members but some members were not as well prepared to handle the problems that come with sudden wealth, Ireland included, thus forgetting to save something for a rainy day.

Michael, what GM says is true. There was a massive amount of infrastructure spending in Ireland that was paid for by the EU.

So you basically say that the answer to increasing the unemployment rolls by an additional 4 million people, (approximately 25% more), in a time when the private sector cannot even support the number unemployed already there is to tell those newly unemployed to go out and get a job?

You do realize how insane that sounds, right?

Just looked up the US debt on Wiki. It was 54% in 2009 as opposed to Greece's 115%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

BTW: This page has one of those charts showing how the national debt increased under Reagan, Poppy Bush, and Baby Bush but went down under Clinton. It's going up again, of course, but Obama has almost 2 and a half years left. Hopefully the debt will eventually start decreasing if the Republicans don't succeed in stopping the recovery.

Gee NJ, actual Economists don't seem quite as sure as you and your talk radio heroes are that Keynesian Economics doesn't work http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/KeynesianEconomics.html . How exactly does it NOT follow that putting more people out of work during a downturn makes things even worse? Much of our present deficit is due to falling revenue, resulting directly from the Great Recession. It's simple math--demand for unemployment benefits and other support increases as the recession deepens and revenue falls. As the economy recovers revenue will as well, and it will be MUCH easier to repay the debt. If you need additional examples of how this works beyond the fact that troubles in Ireland and Greece DEEPENED after enacting their austerity plans and the example that Spain is in better shape after resisting an austerity plan, you could look to the good old US of A. A good example would be 1937, when Conservatives managed to conserve the Great Depression for several more years by insisting on withdrawal of stimulus earlier than indicated. http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/egd_02/egd_02_00440.html

Houston, I don't argue who caused the debt, but the projections by the current administrations push the debt past Greek levels in 10 years. Not their fault, just part of the baby boomer demographic time bomb. There are rumors that there will be new taxes and spending cuts after the mid-terms. As long as its put to us honestly then we'll have to take our medicine. But the BS we were fed in 2008 that only those earning 250K+ isn't going to fly. Get ready we're all going to be paying more taxes for less benefits. This is also the reason I think HCR was such a farce as there was any intention to cut costs, only to cover more people. Problem is that those people won't covered when there's no more money to borrow.

You want to cut spending, cut the military, get out of Afghanistan, almost one half of every dollar the government spends is military spending. At least 5.5 billion a month for the futile effort to build a government in Afghanistan. Young lives lost, for what? To make us safe, that's a cruel joke. Millions are wondering how they will feed their kids and keep a roof over their heads, that is the real terror we should be fighting. The world wants us to control spending fine I agree no more aid for anybody, sorry folks but we have citizens in need, infrastructure crumbling, and a crap load of other things we need to address in our own nation. As long as I am on a roll no more free food for oil producing nations, here is the deal, a barrel of corn for a barrel of oil, a barrel of soy beans for a barrel of oil, if you don't like that deal we will make ethanol out of the corn, and bio-diesel out of the beans, and you can eat your oil. Every republican senator to a man (and Ben Nelson) voted to turn their backs on the working people of this nation (suffering do to republican deregulation, trillion dollar tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% and out of control spending for 8 years) because they say we can't afford it. Well I say if we can't afford to help our own then we can't afford to wage war and build governments, we can't afford to feed the world, we can't afford anything else.

Alan,

It's my understanding that there are many states where running a balanced budget is a requirement. I am not sure if NJ is such a state, but if so, then it's what your governor should be doing. I am not saying that it is easy, by any stretch of the imagination, to accomplish this, but it is far easier to do it on a state level than it is on a federal level, for no other reason than the items on the plate are so much fewer in comparison.

In addition, though I am not sure if New Jersey is guilty of this or not, there are also quite a few states right now that are acheiving balanced state budgets by virtue of infusion of federal funding - funding which NJ seems to want to eliminate.

I am just honestly baffled that it seems as though the right feels the answer to these problems is the complete antithesis of the Reagan administration's approach to the economic problems of the early 80's. Do all of you now believe that those approaches were just complete failures? Or is there something that I am missing in the interpretation?

Reagan's principle belief, other than lowering the tax burden, was that you could reduce the delibilitating effects of high unemployment and economic recession by outspending the problem and that the increased tax revenue achieved by putting people to work would offset the money that you were spending to battle the problem.

It didn't work out entirely that way, but it was the foundational principle of the 'greed is good' generation of the 80's. It succeeded in ending the recession, but the revenue offset was never high enough because budgets were never brought back down to pre-Reagan levels, mainly because the priorities of the time dictated higher and higher defense spending.

Has the right done such a complete 180 from that philosophy that we are to assume that you would have preferred that we spent the entire 80's in a recession and that it would be preferable for the Cold War to be still be in full force because a balanced federal budget was preferable to all of the spending we did then?

I am honestly not being totally partisan here. I am just completely floored by this seeming complete turnaround in what the core belief was supposed to be.

Michael,

I doubt anyone thinks that "slash everything" is the right answer, but some serious thought needs to be given to reductions in the entitlement programs where we currently (in my opinion) are overspending. I would love to see a "means testing" enacted for Social Security, for Medicare, for virtually all of the entitlement programs that we've come to love and revere. I'm not of retirement age, and I honestly don't expect that the funding that Social Security indicates that I will receive upon retirement, will be there. Means testing will probably indicate that I get next to nothing from Social Security, Medicare, pick your program, but that's okay, so long as I know it now. Start now, reduce the benefits, require means testing, if necessary, increase the Social Security tax (not a typical Republican stance), but don't increase the tax if you're not willing to make corresponding reductions in beneifits. Doing nothing with regard to entitlements is a disaster waiting to happen, one that will ultimately result in people that truly need the help, receiving even less help than they currently receive.

Living, I think that you do have something. I admit we have 2 parties that don't want to look at the entire picture. We have Democrats who see the good in entitlement programs but gloss over the details of how to pay for them. We have Republicans who've never met a tax cut they didn't like, but refuse to acknowledge that the reduction in revenue must eventually be reflected by a reduction in services. No one's all that interested in looking at both sides of the debate--a comprehensive discussion of what services the government should provide, and how much money needs to be collected in order to pay for them.

John-how can I put this? You are wrong.

Of course, there are those who adhere to Keynes-just as there are those who adhere to the Chicago school, and the Austrian school.

I, myself, am not, and never have been, one who adheres strictly to ANY school. I come down on the side of pragmatism-use what works.

Unfortunately, Keynes does not work. It does not ameliorate immediate downturns, since it is a given that government spending takes at least six months to have an effect; it has often fueled inflation, which leads to another downturn; worst still, it is the cause of that unique phenomena known as stagflation.

All in all, it is as effective as marxist economic policies.

Many of these things sound good on paper-but are unworkable in reality. What I cannot understand is the suspension of disbelief of so many with regard to the effectiveness of such policies.

$787billion dollars, with no 'stimulative' effect.

You can point to the so-called economic recovery-I will tell you, if you study past cycles, we should be seeing growth of 7 or 8 per cent at this time; it is only that level of growth that will spur employment. The amount of borrowing by the government is actually constricting the economy. Look at it this way-there is only so much money to go around. If the government is borrowing most of it, what is left for businesses to borrow?

Not to mention the uncertainty effect. Businesses look at the federal deficit, look at consumer confidence, and hunker down. They are seeing rising tax rates, rising interest rates, and lower sales coming down the pike. None of this makes a decision to expand justifiable.

I could go on, but it took me 9 years of school to learn all of this, and I cannot educate you in one blog. Suffice to say that reading an article that reaffirms your viewpoint does absolutely nothing to negate the facts. Keynes was wrong, is wrong, and will always be wrong. The carcasses of economies that followed his theory are legion.

Ask the Greeks.

And, by the way, I don't know who it is that told you that Spain was doing okay, but that person is delusional.

Sure was a lot easier for Obama to naysay the policies when he was in the minority. Much harder for him to govern now.

Let's start with austerity for the public sector - the ones getting 100% of their highest salary as a pension for life. Should municipal bus drivers be making $150K per year? SHould Firefighters and police be making over $100K in overtime?

Michael

As George HW Bush called it Reagan practiced Voodoo Economics. I am not right wing. I believe in social programs. However, I also believe that they have to be paid for. A thriving private sector allows you to be socially progressive. I also agree with Forrest that we should get out of Afghanistan and cut military spend by at least 5 - 10%.

At the same time Keynes was for short-term deficit spending not the structural problems that we currently have due to the demographics.

Look at Greece right now. They are striking and rioting to maintain the social programs and government benefits they had. Unfortunately the people who were paying for them decided not to lend them the money anymore.

OK NJ, Keynes doesn't work because you say Keynes doesn't work. I thought you might actually have some REASON why, but I guess that was a lot to hope for. Yes, it takes time for stimulus to kick in, that's the nature of the beast. Yes, stagflation was the result when politicians fell in love with these tools and concluded that if they could prevent ALL downturns it would be good for there electoral prospects. Stimulus can't prevent economic cycles, but it can smooth them out to a less than disastrous level. As for inflation, where is it? I've looked in all the places where GWB searched for WMD and there's none to be found.

As far as doing what works, how is what we've done for the last 30 years working out? We've had multiple bubbles during our generation-long affair with Free Market religion. We've had the first economic recovery that EVER resulted in lower income at the end of the recovery than at the end of the previous recovery. Laissez Faire doesn't work. That's why it was discredited 100 years ago. Failed ideas from the 19th Century don't exactly qualify as brilliant new insights for the 21st Century.

Alan:

I think, largely, that there's probably a center road between Ireland's depression and Greece's bankruptcy. And I don't think any organization, be it private or public, is going to get very far if it decides to null its obligations to its workers and expects those workers to simply blithely accept it because their paychecks originate with the taxpayers. Nojo would tell me that I am wrong, but Nojo also seems to believe that dumping 4 million newly unemployed into this marketplace would be a good idea, since that is the only policy suggestion she has bothered to make.

I also think there's a lot of mythmaking associated with this. I would like to see some actual hard and fast numbers about the amount that would be saved by transitioning public sector benefits to more cost-effective programs... like transitioning public sector pensions to 401k plans. The conventional wisdom seems to suggest that this would some sort of hazy 'a lot' figure, but the conventional wisdom is often f.o.s. about a lot of things. That is unless the suggestion is that public sector workers should simply have no benefits at all... which is not what I am thinking that you are suggesting, but the word from the right is usually just, 'we have to get rid of the pensions' without suggesting what you would transition to.

The most valuable projected 'benefit' in the long run for public sector employees appears on the face to me to be the health care plan. So what is the proposal? Do all public sector employees now apply for Medicare? Do they all have to go out and buy private health insurance? They worked, (even if NoJo appears to believe that they didn't do anything), for 30 years or more, putting 6-10% of their annual salary into a fund on top of taxes that was designed for their retirement. Did suddenly none of that ever happen because the fiscally conservative among us have now decided that they are worthless people and that their service to the government deserves nothing?

I know a lot of this is hyperbole. I just hear a bunch of anger coming from the right about these people, who represent about 20 million in our workforce, and never hear a thing about what the alternatives are. Only that government workers never do anything except watch porn and that they don't deserve a thing.

So what defines worth? Is a guy who runs a machine that stretches plastic into big rolls somehow more valuable than a teacher or a Medicaid worker? Is a Wal-Mart Produce Manager more valuable than the guy who gets hired and actually DOES go out and inspect the oil rig? Is the Hedge Fund Manager, whose income is all unearned except from his salary and makes 8 million bucks a year, but get taxed like he makes 50k, somehow more valuable than a firefighter?

I guess you could argue that all of these other people are not drawing their pay from the taxpayers, but that is, point blank, straight up B.S. One side of the public sector divide is being paid by 30% of your paycheck and the other side is being paid by the other 70% of your check. Everyone is getting paid by all of us, no matter where we happen to work. No one is more valuable. Some people have just negotiated a better deal, (usually those who have wised up and negotiated as a group with the implied thread of massive non-performance as a lever, rather than taking their chances on negotiating along and relying on the benevolence of our economic overlords).

In fact, all of this happened because of the sheer interconnectedness of both sides of the check. Do you honestly believe that Greece would be tanking right now if the global private sector hadn't collectively collapsed in 2008?

I hope there is a center way. But some of your points. The reason I support a change from a pension to a 401(k) is that current politicians cannot push liabilities off on to future generations as happened in NJ. Past governors, from both parties - Christie Todd Whitman being one of the worst, either raided or under-funded the pension plans. This is what is happening in California, and I believe a change to 401(k) plans would stop this. For health care what I'm asking for is fairness. I pay between 8 and 10% of my salary on health insurance not counting out of pocket expenses. Teachers in NJ up to the current budget paid 0%. I don't want them paying more but I believe there should be some sort of parity. I know you've seen the figures where public sector workers are now being paid more in salary and benefits than private sector and the private sector has less job security. How is that fair? I don't want a pound of flesh I want fairness. As NJNBNJ says how are there still job descriptions that no longer exist still exist in government? This is what Obama ran on. Not bigger government but smarter government.

Alan,

That seems to be a distinction based more on the desire to decrease corruption rather than one based on the belief that the shift from a pension based retirement plan to a 401k based retirement plan would result in saving the taxpayers of NJ phat stax of cash. And on that level, I agree. Corruption should be eliminated on all levels of government. However, it strikes me that without a convincing additional rationale, it would be far easier to create a statute to change the behavior of NJ's governors than it would to structurally change the nature of NJ's retirement system for its public employees. That statute would have to say nothing more than, "Under no circumstances can the governor raid or under-fund the pension fund."

And I agree. With health care costs being what they are and until we as a people realize that it's a terminally bad idea to have people without a vested interested in keeping costs down be our advocates to keep costs down in the health care industry, everyone should have a responsibility to contribute to our health care costs. In fact, I think everyone, public sector and private sector alike, have been artificially insulated from the real costs of health care by having ours handled by our employers for so long that it might be a good idea to completely remove the concept of 'employer based healthcare' as a benefit from our way of thinking.

Only then will the right realize that the idea of capitalist collectivism through a plethora of relatively smaller collectives, (insurance companies), is galactically inherently weaker than using the collective bargaining power of the entire society to bring the health care providers into line.

However, that debate is probably for another time. Be that as it may, my own benefits package when I was hired by the county down here in NC was not significantly different from the benefits packages I've had working for private corporations in the past. However, I was officially hired only this year, so these might be relatively recent decisions. In short:

I have a pension retirement plan that requires a 6% contribution of my gross pay. The pension amount is based on a calculation including years of services, the average amount of my three highest earning years and so forth. In a nutshell, based on my current salary, if I work 30 years, I'd end up with a pension amount of about $1400/month at age 70.

If I work for the county for 20 years, I carry my health insurance with me for the rest of my life.

I have term life insurance as long as I remain employed with the county.

A couple of other small things, but those three are about the long and short of it. Maybe my experience is very different from other government employees, but in a lot of ways, my benefit package at the last private company I worked for was superior to this. That is one of the reasons I have long been a little bit confused by the sheer vitriol displayed toward government employees. It seems as though people in the private sector largely expect me to work for no benefits at all.

No Jo, i knew you hated the president but i never thought you would say such a racist thing like this,

that Keynsian economics does not work, cannot work, and never will work.

Barack Obama is the president of the united Stated, Not Kenya. his economic policy's are not From Kenya, they are from advisers that know allot more about the economy than you ever will. these advisers are from Harvard, Princeton, Not Kenya.

Now go to the Jersey dumps next to your house and blend in.

What you say: Cutting off video......LOL...Kinda reminds you of your beloved Olbermann and Maddow slicing and dicing to their liking.

ALL OF THE FRIKKEN INFOTAINMENT SHOWS DO IT. IT IS NOTHING NEW.

IntheMuddle:

What you say: Cutting off video......LOL...Kinda reminds you of your beloved Olbermann and Maddow slicing and dicing to their liking.

Got anything to back that claim up with? Olbermann and Maddow usually play enough of what idiots like Michell Bachmann say so there's no question of being taken out of context. The more time they give Bachmann, the more she makes a fool out of herself. Sure, Olbermann and Maddow don't play every word everyone utters. You can watch C-Span for that. But they don't cut off people in mid-sentence like Fox News did to deliberately make it seem the president was saying something he hadn't said.

I love it when the best defense the Right has is to pout and cry "Oh yeah? He did it....too, I'll bet!"

The markets really don't effect most people, nowadays what happens on Wall Street is divorced from Main Street. The markets are not concerned with the bill in any case, remember they wrote the toothless legislation, that Cult would be the ridiculous aspect to the whole farce, rest easy they still have legal authority to have the taxpayer bail them out and continue the rape of the consumer, actually the only part of this country that "is" doing well would be the crooks on Wall Street, just as some think it should be.

w bush,

do you really think that the market really don't affect most people? I assume most people have retirement plans. Whether in 401's, 403's, IRA's, or Roth IRA's. Where do you think the money that people contribute to these plans go? They are invested in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, money markets, etc, etc. To really thing that the market's really don't affect most people is simply delusional

What's delusional is people thinking that Wall Street is going to allow the average person to make money on their investments, 401's, 403's, IRA's, and Roth IRA's are just instuments designed to remove weath from the masses, they do the job quite well.

Steeler Fan,

No doubt! Since everything they say seems to land them in more trouble (attacking Thurgood Marshall?! Isn't that the moral equivalent of saying that Jim Crow is acceptable?), we should encourage Republicans to speak as much and as often as possible. Of course they won't all be Bachmann/Palin/Sessions/Barton/etc., but the more they have to talk, the more people they will annoy. I've been saying this for months. Harry Reid, make them actually filibuster!

Jody--you said a word not commonly associated with Democrats or Republicans--"courage". It just doesn't exist any more--it is every person fighting for his or her position and no one challenging the status quo because the tables might be changes and the "in" party become the "out" party.

Biden should totally declare the filibuster unconstitutional. That will make things go a lot smoother come November.

Well Nash I went and read your diary. Bit out of date. You are still saying that the bulk of the stimulus hasn't been spent "June 2009". Well a year later what has got better? No real private sector job growth. All the jobs saved were basically in government and now the money is running out those workers, who in some cases got a raise paid for by the stimulus, are going to be let go.

The stimulus failed. It bought time but it did not jump start the economy. You can argue of the reasons (it was too small; it was mis-directed) but either we're another 1T in debt.

Alan,

The only point that I was making is that President Obama never made the type of promises and guarantees that folks continue to claim that he made.

And I maintain that the stimulus did work because it provided much needed relief to millions of Americans negatively effected by all the foolishness that was allowed to flourish over the past decade, to the detriment of the American people, which was the larger point of my post.

Why are victims of BP singled out as deserving assistance, when the victions of Lehman Brothers, Enron, AIG, Countrywide, Bear Stearns, and the list goes on and on are told "too bad".

Can it really be both ways?

Or is it "too bad" unless it directly effects me?

Alan NJ:

The stimulus failed. It bought time but it did not jump start the economy.

No it didn't. It turned a negative GDP growth rate into a positive one. It turned 700,000 jobs lost per month at the end of Bush's disastrous presidency into jobs gained. The recovery has been weak, but it's a recovery nevertheless. Whether the Republicans succeed int stopping it and plunging the country into a new recession they can blame on Obama remains to be seen.

Alan, as of 6/18/2010 $415 billion (52.7%) has been spent.

I disagree. The stimulus did not stop private industry from laying off workers, all it did was stop the states from laying off workers too. Either way the economy would have stopped contracting all be it at a lower level of activity. Now however, unless MORE money is found, the economy is going to contract again because the jobs saved by the "stimulus" are not sustainable. Nothing to do with the current GOP, and this is a sop to Nash, but a lot to do with GWB profligate spending.

Alan,

I do understand that the governement cannot continue spending money with wild abandon, but the point of my post was to say that there are some things that the government OWES to the citizens of this country, and that it is irresponsible and immoral in my opinion to first abuse the American people with the ridiculous business practices and accompanying lack of government oversight we have withnessed over the past few decades, and then when the predictably ruinous fruit comes in for harvest - high unemployment and financial collapse - these same folks turn their backs and say "Time to balance the budget!" . . . sorry, no money left to help those injured by our actions.

The point of the stimulus was to stimulate the economy AND assist those suffering in this economy AND invest in infrastructure that on't bear fruit for many years to come.

It is short sighted to say it is a failure less than two years after it was enacted and based on such a thin criteria.

Alan, so what you are saying is that we should what we did in 1933 and stop government spending because of debt fears. That kept us in recession for another 8+ years until the spending for WW II ended the recession.

The economy is contracting around the world. We are most likely moving into a double dip recession which is almost assured now that the G20 has decided to cut spending.

I still think the stimulus is a failure. However, spending on unemployment benefits should never have been included in a "stimulus" package. It is supposed to be a one-off where as other spending, like unemployment benefits has to be maintained.

In the end though unemployment benefits have to be temporary. You see this the world over where the long-term unemployed are actually on welfare.

I think there's something to the Conservative argument that the New Deal didn't fix the recession, WWII did. What did we do differently at that time? Spend massive amounts of money on a war effort. How did we pay for it? War bonds and other deficit spending along with tax increases.

Thanks to my Conservative friends for making the case that increases during a recession don't automatically torpedo the economy and deficit spending will create useful economic stimulus.

John, remember also that after the war the US had no competition and that it could export goods to almost any nation as their industrial capacity was non-existent. That world no longer exists so the same remedy is not the answer.

Ah, but the recovery didn't start AFTER the war, it started when we became a war-time economy. No moving the goalposts on this one.

Wouldn't this speak to the model of massive investment spending to energize a sector of the economy that may provide much larger returns in the future and a chance of taking a leading position in that sector, say green energy for example?

OK...how many of the work force joined the Army? Now I suppose you could argue that they became government employees but the labor was cheap and the benefits poor. At the end of the the government spending on the war was unsustainable if it had continued another 10 or 15 years which is what we're facing now. The recovery was that government spending dropped dramatically after the war which was aided by the uncompetitive environment the US faced. As I said before we don't have the luxury of that environment this time.

John,

Thank you so much for clearly and concisely stating the obvious in a way I could not. Much appreciated. You got my vote!

Alan, why do you continue to insist that the END of WWII ended the Depression? The economy surged all through the war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression and there was in fact a recession at THE END of the war when payrolls shrank dramatically as a result of GI's coming home to take the jobs that had been done by women, creating 2 income households. Yes, that level of spending was unsubstainable, but the evidence is hard to refute.

The time to pay off the debt is during the recovery phase, not when it would plunge the economy deeper into recession.

Yeah, I know that all of you pundits in MA have a real good feel for CA politics. Will be interesting to see how your predictions hold up.

Pat,

Nancy's district is safe, California's gerrymandering over the years has made virtually all of the districts safe for their respective parties. However, you are correct with respect to the title of Speaker of the House. It seems more and more likely that the Republicans will take control of the House, and make some inroads into the Democrat's majority in the Senate. That being said, my personal preference is always for power sharing between the parties. When the House/Senate/Presidency is controlled by a single party, you will always have the out of power party in a petulant mode, as they have virtually no voice in the production of legislation. I've said this previously, and I'll no doubt say it again, but if the Republicans (of which I'm one) learn anything from being out of power, it should be to attempt inclusion in a meaningful way, not on a slective basis. I heard many years ago, from a very wise person (an ex boss) the following statement:

"It's amazing how much can be accomplished, when no one cares who gets the credit for the accomplishment".

Would that our elected officials, of both parties, shared that sentiment.

Living in L.A. - Yes, I assume Nancy will be re-elected; I was only referring to her position as Speaker. I have no problem with both parties having power, but this Republican Party is irresponsible and has shown to me no concern at all for the American people. This is not the GOP of old, and began changing during Newt's tenure. They have just gotten worse from what I can see. Power is all they want. Governing, they could care less.

Hey Glenn, Lexington - yeah I'm all for having Harry Reid call the repugnant one's bluff on filibustering. It would be so awesome to watch thedopes of nope self destruct on CSPAN 24/7 as they would have to talk and talk and talk and would eventually drive everyone away from the Teahadist Paliban terrorist traitors trying to destroy our Secular Democracy. I don't know why Harry has refused to call the filibuster bluff, he has to stop being too scared of them and their filibuster bluffs as it would be the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party if he forces the dopes of nope to do their dirty deed.

George Wallace was an arch-segregationist for many years. Later in his life, he changed his tune. Just like Robert Byrd, who has been praised to high heaven by every lib on the planet for the last two days. Maybe Jeremiah Wright will do the same one day. Wow. Thank God none of Wallace's proteges from back in the day ever made it to the White House.

CU,

This may be one of the least inflammatory and insightful posts I've ever read from you! :o)

I think you make a valid point, however, I think that the reason folks highlight the race of tea party protestors is because so much of what they are protesting is already being addressed by President Obama.

Taxes have been cut by the President, and yet folks decry "high taxes".

Folks complain about "government run" health care when what passed was a plan to mandate Americans to buy private insurance.

When the rhetoric doesn't match reality, folks try to figure out what the actual motivations are, and considering the history of race in our country, that is often the first place where folks look.

Doesn't make it right, but that's just my take.

Personally, I don't care what motivates those who participate in tea party protests. I am more interested in what will be the outcome if the policies they advocate are followed, and so far, I am very unimpressed.

I understand the outrage, but I just don't see a solution being presented.

Last thing this country needs is more irrational complaining - from the right, the left, or anywhere in between.

So Obama created the Debt Commission to LOWER taxes? I suppose we should wait until the taxes are raised to protest, lest we be called racist? You don't really think Obama's going to keep the campaign pledge of not raising taxes, do you? Is it less that $250 and you are ok, or will there be a VAT?

Is it racist to protest a government mandate to buy insurance? Maybe the the motivation is just that the Tea Party folks don't like the policies. Maybe complaining about the failed stimulus, health care, and now financial reform is only about the policies, not race. Maybe some folk just can't figure out why Dodd and Frank just don't seem to want to tackle Fannie and Freddie, leaving them to go on unabated and unchecked. Maybe some folk are astounded that Dodd and Pelosi pass giant bills without knowing what is in them. THe fact that each has admitted that they don't know what is in thier bills is cool with you, right?

Would it be ok with you to protest that fact that they now refuse to pass something as elementry as a budget, or would that be racist too?

Um, Spanky.

I did not use the word racist. People can discuss "race" without discussing "racisim".

I gave two specific examples where the compaints did not match the policy, thus leading some to wonder what the underlying issue actually was.

I did not mention it in my intitial post, but there is also the little issue of some of the blatantly race focused signs and images from many tea party protests.

Like I said, protest till ya turn blue. That's your right. I just need to see the logic of your proposals before I can support them. I need something more than "WAAAAAAAAAAAAH!" to persuade me.

And I refuse to get dragged into a meaningless race-based conversation (did that last week! lol), when the real issue is how certain folks go blind when folks that they voted for wreck the economy and develop psychic powers to protest stuff that hasn't happened when the person that didn't vote for is sworn in.

Strange phenomena, no?

Bill,

I'm about to leave my desk, but I did want to acknowledge your post and the tremendous amount of info you have there. Haven't had a chance to check out your links, but I'll try to do that later.

My brief response is to echo President Obama - so many of the issues that we face as a country are ill served by the either/or dynamic that our two party system and cable media environment creates.

I feel confident that the solution to this and many other issues lies somewhere in the middle.

But to secure political advantage, so many of our political "leaders" are pre-programmed to use the most inflammatory and divisive rhetoric possible to win votes.

Thus making the compromise that is required very hard to broker.

I think President Obama has taken extrodinary measures to try to reverse this . . . and he has paid a political price with both sides as a result.

But it is the right thing to do, and the only way to finally move this country forward.

Talk to you more later.