Ron,

Nice post. The republicans are still not responding with ideas, just talking points and some of them make little sense. I tried to watch MTP but got discouraged with the lack of answers.

When Bush took office the Debt was 5.73 Trillion dollars, when he left it was 10.7 Trillion and he left the American people with two unfunded wars another trillion, unfunded tax cuts where over 50% of the benefits went to 5% of the people (those in the top 2 Tax Brackets). The republicans continue to fail to tell the people that part of the deficit our President Obama is facing is a direct result of the Bush Administration and will continue to suck dollars out of our pockets. CBO places just the portion of the tax cuts to the rich at 658 Billion. They do not want to pass the unemployment bill at 35 Billion that will put $ 1.65 into the economy for every $ 1.00 in benefits because they say it is not paid for. Put in one dollar get a dollar and a half back?? Out of the other side of their mouth they want to keep the tax cuts for the rich which is also unfunded at 20X the cost. They claim that tax cuts INCREASE Revenues, although there is absolutely NO evidence that claim is true. The party of Drill Baby Drill, became the party of no and the latest morph into the party of Repeal Baby Repeal. President Obama has done more in 18 months than any other president has done since 1965 but this is not getting to the public. Jobs are not their but how can our President create jobs when the Republicans stop him at every step of the way???? How can we create jobs when Big Business continues to ship them over seas. How can you create jobs when Big Business sits on trillions of dollars in cash, same for the banks who still are not lending money to Small Business even though that was to be part of their Bail-Out. The Chamber of Commerce is also part of this problem as well.

I find it so amusing that the republicans would admit they plan to win elections by avoiding issues. They've dumbed down their base so far that now they're able to talk right in front of them without fear that anyone who might vote for them would catch on.

Anna Molly: Perfectly said! The Republicans are clueless about how to run the government, and their base doesn't seem to mind.

The dopes of nope (GOBP) like to pursue phony issues like the non DOJ scam that I posted earlier, see MMFA for the rest of this post.

To sum up: Prior to the publication of the July 15 Washington Post article, the following facts were known:

• J. Christian Adams, the person claiming the Obama DOJ going easy on a voter intimidation case because of political considerations, was himself hired by the Bush DOJ under a process the Department’s IG has concluded was “improperly influenced by politics.”

• Adams has a history of conservative activism, including an ethics complaint against a Democrat that was dismissed.

• Adams has admitted lacking first-hand knowledge to support his attacks.

• The Bush DOJ concluded there wasn’t sufficient evidence for a criminal case.

• Not one voter has alleged intimidation.

None of those facts appeared in the Washington Post article. Not one. But Washington Post Ombudsman Andrew Alexander bizarrely praised the article for having “succinctly summarized the issues” and criticized the paper for not having covered the bogus controversy sooner.

Tell Halprin and Meka to do some research like um..like real reporters

Good thoughts. I don't recall which republican last week accidentally let it slip by saying the republicans would not be telling voters specific ideas because the media would slice and dice their plans. Not the exact words but pretty close.

We so often hear complaints from GOP legislators and FR posters asking "where's the promised transparency?" Well, how transparent is it for the Republican party to have a "secret" plan to fix the country but we can't tell anyone. Vote for us anyway. Sounds a bit like McCain during the campaign claiming he knew where Osama bin Laden was but refused to say more.

Your "analysis" fails to include the fact that despite their lack of answers, the trend towards a major republican victory in November grows by the day.

"Under pressure, the Democrats are cracking. On both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, there is a realization that Nancy Pelosi's hold on the speakership is in true jeopardy; that losing control of the Senate is not out of the question; and that time, once the Democrats' best friend, is now their mortal enemy. Since January, when Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat, the President's party has tried to downplay in public what its pollsters have been saying in private: that Obama's alienation of independents and white voters, along with the enthusiasm gap between the right and the left, means that Republicans are on a trajectory to pick up massive numbers of House and Senate seats, perhaps even to regain control of Congress"

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2004646,00.html#ixzz0u8dFnBOs
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2004646,00.html

Additionally, house democrats are ticked off at the administration's perceived indifference to their plight after doing the "heavy lifting" for the party on HCR and now financial reform...

"There is existing tension between the House and the Senate. Some House members believe Senate candidates get more attention from the White House. They're upset because they feel like the Senate always gets preferential treatment. It's not just that House Democrats had to take a tough vote to support cap-and-trade legislation without the Senate following through. There are lots of bills the Senate hasn't picked up, and every time the House Democrats want to do anything, they have to pare back their ambitions because their Senate counterparts need to get 60 votes to do anything. They're also irritated Obama didn't whip the Senate Democrats into line during the drawn-out health care process."

http://www.slate.com/id/2260477/

On HCR it is becoming clear that you WON'T be able to keep your insurance plan...and there is just too much video of the president saying just the opposite that republicans can't wait to use...

"The tradeoff, they say, is that more Americans will be asked to pay higher prices for the privilege of choosing or keeping their own doctors if they are outside the new networks. That could come as a surprise to many who remember the repeated assurances from President Obama and other officials that consumers would retain a variety of health-care choices."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/business/18choice.html?_r=1&h

So, while the republicans may not have any answers, it doesn't seem as though the electorate has been overly ecstatic with what the democrats have wrought.

It still comes down to the economy, and the independent voter. Things look bleak on both fronts. It would make more sense to focus on how to impact on those two issues than to continually bash and rant against the republicans. It is in the republicans interest to just sit back and do nothing until November, and that's exactly what I suspect they plan on doing.

I suggest "Washington Week" and the "Shields and Brooks" segment on Fridays on "The Newshour", both on PBS for a better perspective on the political scene and for the example of intelligence and civility in their discussions...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/politics/political_wrap/

http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/

Ron, you did not get the whole story-but it is not surprising, since, this is, after all,First Read.

The entire script on Meet The Press yesterday was taken from a memo issued by The Third Way, a Democratic group that commissioned a poll last week from the Benenson Group, who acted, incidentally,as Obama's polling group during the campaign.

Taking their advice, Dems are trying to run against Bush's economic policy. Unfortunately, it IS NOT working.

By 48% to 43%, respondents thought Obama's policies made the economy worse. Those, by the way,were his BEST numbers in the poll. By 54% to 32%, respondents preferred tax cuts for businesses over more stimulous.

Then there were the questions about the congressional elections. Republicans had a clear advantage. When asked which candidate they would support, one who said "Obama has a plan for the economy and we need to stick with it to grow the economy and create jobs" or one who said "We need new policies to shrink government, cut taxes on investment, and support business growth", 51% supported the second statement, vs 43% who supported the first. Not THAT bad.

The question was then rephrased, to would you support a congressional candidate who said he or she would stick with Obama's policies-30%; or someone who would start from scratch with new policies to shrink government, cut taxes and grow the economy-a whopping 64% supported that candidate.

They then asked a lot of questions about G.W. Bush, and, not surprisingly, he does not garner much support. (Thus the strategy to try to tie republicans to Bush and his policies).

Unfortunately for Democrats, only 25% of respondents think Republicans would return to Bush policies, vs. 65% who think that Republicans have a 'new economic agenda that is different from Bush policies".

Now, the memo from The third Way gave explicit instructions that Republicans MUST be tied to Bush plans. Looks like David Gregory got his marching orders,and followed them to the letter.

Is it any wonder that public distrust of the media is at an all time high?

NOW do you understand why I keep harping on the Journalist's canon of ethics, that forgotten tome, without the use of which our Fourth Estate are nothing more than paid propagandists?

If they do not find their ethics soon, we lose much more than elections, Ron. We lose some of the most precious freedoms ever granted in the history of mankind.

dangerfield,

Why is it President Obama's fault if private insurance companies continue their practice of limiting access to health care?

President Obama said that if you liked your doctor you could keep your doctor.

And you can.

So what are you saying?

Insurance companies have always had docotor networks, and nothing in the health care reform changed that, despite much information about a "governement take over" of health care.

President Obama rightly pointed out that nothing in the health reform law would require you to change doctors.

It is disingenuous and just plain ridiculous to continue to blame President Obama for things that he has nothing to do with in an effort to score political points.

If the Republicans are returned to power, we are still going to need the same set of problems solved. And phony talking points don't solve problems.

uh oh, more ramblings from no jo no clue. poll this and poll that blah blah blah. here is the deal, you can poll whoever and whatever. the game there dope is won in the 4th qtr. if the democrats keep the house and senate following november, we are all going to laugh at you and your idiotic and "discussions" full of half truths, talking points and lies.

you never sent the link regarding your statement that "80% of wall street is made up of liberals". can you please send it.

don't tell me you lied? no jo lie? wow. shocker.

I guess it makes me sound naive, but I don't understand how the Republican voters don't get angry with their party's failure to advocate any solutions to the very difficult issues that face us as a nation. I can understand disagreeing with the President but they never have anything constructive to suggest. If I were still a Republican (as I was for many years), I would be frustrated by the negativity. Instead it doesn't seem to bother the base at all.

Ms Nash-

Because he is the president and the "front man" for the democrat's HCR package and he personally promised that you would be able to keep your plan and your doctor(s) and the reality is that you will not.

He did not say "Be prepared to pay even more for the same care" did he? Read the piece, that is the coming reality.

And if you don't think that the RNC has ads featuring the president ready to go with this little juxtaposition...

What is disingenuous and somewhat ridiculous is to ignore reality and or try to say that you shouldn't hold the president responsible for the product of the centerpiece of his legislative accomplishments.

The bill was supposed to be a boon to consumers, not give them less or cost them more for the same thing. Did you even read the NYT article before you posted?

No Jo... Is everything a conspiracy theory with you?

Notice how well your last one went about NOT capping the geyser until Michelle Obama was down there for a photo shoot!

I would hardly call Gotcha Gregory a Democratic operative! lol

Hey all, I think this is in line with what has been said so far today, I think y'all have seen the phony media hype about POTUS poll numbers, have a read from MMFA.

The NYT mangles Obama’s approval ratings; ought to post a correction
July 19, 2010 11:02 am ET by Eric Boehlert

The Times’ Op-ed page devoted all kinds of space Sunday so influential insiders could ponder the Times’ question: “How Can Obama Rebound?”

See, everyone in the know understands that Obama’s presidency is now officially in free-fall. How do they know? Because Beltway media insiders say so. (Simple right.?) In fact, the Times Op-ed page even provided proof for why Obama’s presidency need to be rescued [emphasis added]:

Though BP managed to stop the spread of oil from its broken well last week, President Obama has been able to do little to stop the drop in his public approval ratings, which now, according to a new ABC News-Washington Post poll, hover just above 40 percent.

Well, there you go. According to the latest ABC News-Washington Post poll, Obama’s approval rating hovers just above 40 percent.

Except that, of course, it doesn’t.

In the latest ABC News-Washington Post poll, Obama’s approval rating stands at a solid 50 percent. So the Times needs to issue a correction on getting that central fact wrong.

Perhaps what the Times was referring to was the fact that only 43 percent of voters in the ABC News-Washington Post poll said they had confidence in Obama doing the right thing for the country’s future. But of course, that’s not what the Times referenced. It announced Obama’s “approval rating” hovered just about 40 percent in the ABC News-Washington Post poll. But it does not. It hovers around 50 percent.

Please note that last week a Bloomberg News poll put Obama’s job approval rating at an even better 52 percent, which marked a slight increase from March. But for some reasons that didn’t stop the Times from hosting a forum about Obama’s inability to “stop the drop” in his approval ratings.

Ugh.

For the record, Real Clear Politics maintains a rolling average of Obama’s approval rating based on all the latest polling data, and it currently stands at 47.6 percent. In early January, Obama’s approval ratings at RCP stood at 48.2 percent. So yes, with Obama down less than one percentage point over six months, you can see why the Times devoted all sorts of column space to ponder Obama’s falling approval rating, right?

Oh yeah, this morning at Gallup, Obama’s approval ratings, which has been measured every day of his presidency, stands at 49 percent. And guess what? On August 18, 11 months ago, it stood at 51 percent.

Obama’s approval rating ? Look out below!!

Republicans have a sound philosophical basis for their conservative positions, so all this talk about no ideas is a bunch of hooey. Check out congressman Tim Ryan. You may not like his ideas for dealing with debt/deficit/spending, but you can't argue he has no ideas.

But what I really wanted to comment on is the explicit Republican strategy of avoiding issues. As a practical political strategy, I'm not sure that's such a bad idea. It's sort of like a footbal team sitting on a lead and running out the clock. With most polls showing a surge for Republicans, why would they want to take any chance of staking out unpopular positions? Because it's politics stupid, the same motivation for Obama's debt commission waiting until after the midterms to announce their results. So all of you pure as the driven snow lefties need to get a grip, both sides play the same game and both sides often eschew purity in favor of doing what it takes to win.

dangerfield:

I have not read the piece yet . . . but my comment was limited to your comment about what the President "promised".

Since President Obama is not running any insurance companies (contrary to popular belief), my only point is that I do not see how it would be possible for him to prevent privately run companies from continuing to offer services in a way that is the most beneficial for themselves.

Healthcare reform was designed to put an end to the more egregious of these profit driven behaviours - like dropping folks simply because you don't want to pay for their care, and preventing folks from purchasing insurance because they had a pre-existing condition.

It is ironic that the very folks who most fear "government run" healthcare, are now attempting to say that it is the government's fault that private insurance companies continue to do what they were designed to do - limit care to ensure a profit.

Of course, it is easier to make these nonsensical and circular arguments than to acknowledge that perhaps the private sector running health care is one of the primary reasons for out of control costs in health care.

But if you would like to operate under the assumption that President Obama should be able to use his super powers to control health insurance companies in order to keep his "promise", then that is just fine with me.

I just wanted to make my objection known.

"During the health reform debate, President Obama made clear to Americans that “if you like your health plan, you can keep it.” He emphasized that there is nothing in the new law that would force them to change plans or doctors."

http://www.healthreform.gov/newsroom/keeping_the_health_plan_you_have.html

contrast that with...

"The tradeoff, they say, is that more Americans will be asked to pay higher prices for the privilege of choosing or keeping their own doctors if they are outside the new networks. That could come as a surprise to many who remember the repeated assurances from President Obama and other officials that consumers would retain a variety of health-care choices."

There is a marked difference between rhetoric and reality...

dangerfield. Yes, there is a potential that someday people might lose the health care they currently have. HCR grandfathered in employer coverage for a period of time. What you ignored is: that will only happen IF an employer changes the existing plan they have with their insurance provider or choses a different provider--then no one has the same coverage. That scenario has been in existance since employer's started providing employee health benefits--employees have no choice as to what changes their employer makes from provider to determining what doctors employees can use. This will happen to individuals also IF they decide to switch insurance carriers. That's not because of health care legislation, it is because of employer or individual choices.

Dangerfield,

Health care reform limitations aside, I thought you said that the main focus is the economy/unemployment and the independent voter. I assume you meant if the independent voter views if the nation is going in the right direction.

On HCR, the DNC and democrats timidly folded to the insurance companies to go after the so called "cadillace insurance health plans" that supposedly all labor unions and government workers had. That allowed them to push these basic plans into HCR that would cover the limited types of coverages (a baseline) that someone felt all insurees should have. I knew when that happened the only way to get good coverage was to have to pay more or select another type of coverage. Of course the employeers would always push for a plan that would minimize their payment responsibilities. One of the limitations of HCR.

However, do you think that people will notice? How often does your company have a meeting about insurance coverage and costs? For me it is every year, it starts like this "We didn't want to raise your rates so we shifted to ABC insurance co. instead of XYZ insurance co. We tried to get the same rate but the rates will increase by $$$."

Granted HCR and the wall street reform bills may only be small accomplishments, but what else can the democrats do to show the population they are trying to do what they think is best for them?

Realistically, the democrats will loose seats in both chambers. Some happen to ignore that real possibility on this board, but what is the harm in that? Bless their hearts, but if they want to push the accomplishments that Obama has done more power to them. If that is what energizes people to do all they can to register voters, discuss issues and get more people to the polls, then what is the big deal?

Yes the economy is the big issue this election, the reason fair or not why democrats will lose seats. I do want to ask one thing. What is the independent voter looking for. Not saying you, but why would the independent voter look back to policies that didn't seem to work in the past. I understand the repbulican strategy, (repeat the old mantras). However, why would independents look back to republican ideas if those ideas caused some of the problems we are in?

If the NYT ignored anything, contact them. Read the article (I suggest everyone here read more than they write, and stop watching fox and msnbc) and if you disagree with the facts or presentation, write a letter to the editor.

I READ the article and posted it with the link and my thoughts as to how that "reality" will play with the electorate in November. Bottom line is that you will probably wind up either getting less for your insurance dollar or wind up paying more for the same coverage and the privilege of keeping your current doctor. Do you disagree with that fact, and do you think the voters will understand that it isn't the president's "fault" after he promised that you would be able to keep your doctor and your plan?

dangerfield:

I will read the article. I guess only time will tell who the voters hold responsible for the continuing mess that is our for profit health insurance system.

Thanks for sharing the info.

Bill, Fairfax: "It's sort of like a footbal team sitting on a lead and running out the clock. With most polls showing a surge for Republicans, why would they want to take any chance of staking out unpopular positions?"

Bill, as any Eagles fan who remembers for "The Miracle at the Meadowlands" can tell you, you have to be really careful about sitting on a lead - one little fumble can change an entire season. And it kind of depends on how much of a "lead" you have to begin with. And how much time is left in the game. If I were coaching your team, I'd still be on the offense.

As for why Republicans might want to stake out unpopular positions, well, gee, I don't know - maybe to demonstrate they have convictions or principles or something? I mean, if you have a position on something, shouldn't you be willing to defend it even if it's unpopular?

And yes, Republicans aren't the only ones who use this playbook. I, for one, respect and am more likely to vote for someone who stands by their beliefs no matter what the latest focus group tells them.

Ms Nash-

Thanks...:)

For the record, I was a big proponent of "single payer" or as rep Weiner (too late) called for "medicare for all"...

Dangerfield - Another of your posts said that all democrats should moblize and support their candidates, fair enough.

Yes the economy is the big issue this election, the reason fair or not why democrats will lose seats. I do want to ask one thing. What is the independent voter looking for. Why would the independent voter look back to policies that didn't work in the past. I understand the repbulican strategy, (repeat the old mantras). However, why would independents look back to republican ideas if those ideas caused some of the problems we are in?

What's new Ron?, (or more importantly) What's "new" Ron?,

Everybody always talks about new ideas, wants new ideas. That obviously seems to be the way to win elections. A famous guy in Germany (no implied reference) had a lot of new ideas in the 30s, didn't work out well. Speaking of that era, how many of the our new guy's ideas are really new and/or different from Wilson's and/or FDR's new ideas? Anyway..

Here's a new idea. Why don't we actually apply and/or execute the old new ideas, before we legislate new ideas.

For example: If BP hands in a used bingo card as their disaster plan, instead of saying looks good - here's your approval, why doesn't someone read it and say no. (I know "no" is not a popular word these days, but..) If BP says we don't want to pressure test the BOP at 15,000 psi, can we test it at 6,000 psi, instead of saying sure, or why bother, why not say no. (Sorry to use that word again). If BP says we want to pump and spray 1.85 million gallons of automotive anti-freeze and laquer thinner in the gulf to disperse and hide the oil, why not say Corexit has been banned since 1998, it destroys the efficacy of skimming (which actually removes the oil) and in summation - that's a big fat negatory BP buddy. (Pheew, finally came up with another word.) Anyway, you get the idea.

Instead we have to come up new ideas. Like, instead of really regulating (old idea) lets shut down the regulatory agency that wasn't regulating and come up with a new regulatory to regulate regulations, give them a "new" name, change the letterhead, etc.(instead of doing the those pesky inspections?) We can shut down drilling, form a committee of environmentalist to study the engineering failures (instead of engineers? - now that is new)... Anyway, you get the idea.

It's funny, but it just occurred to me that maybe this would apply to say FinReg too. For example: Instead of the SEC sitting around surfing porn, we could say no (sorry, did it again) do your job and enforce the regulations so we don't have a meltdown and we'll have to write 2,300 pages of B.S. to make it look we are doing something to fix the problem.

A guy (I'm guessing an old guy) once wrote:

The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innummerable guises; and discovered to be, at human cost, wholly false. - British Historian Paul Johnson

....................Nahhh. We need vision. We need new ideas for everything.

No Joe: Since I included you in my post, I will try to be respectful in a response. I think we are talking about two entirely different topics. I'm talking about a Wasthington Post article about Republicans ignoring the issues and you are talking about Sunday's talk shows. We are not even in the same hymn book. You talk about poll numbers, journalist's cannon of ethics and I'm talking about Republicans avoiding issues about how to solve some of the country's problems.

This is a golden opportunity for you to speak to the unsolved issues of the day. Yet you are talking disconnected gibberish. Is this your way of avoiding the pressing issues we are facing?

Dangerfield, we're already getting less for our insurance dollar each and every year. I'm managing a different company now and am not sure how much their premiums increased, but the last 2 premium increases at my previous company were 22% and 35%. My family has over the years had to choose doctors and even hospitals based on inclusion in my employer's health plan. Employers have repeatedly changed plans without my say so during my career.

Given that all this has been the way of life in American health care for the last couple of decades at least, what basis is there to say that the continuation of that has anything to do with the President? You seem to be saying that some people will conclude that it is in fact his fault. Some people have also concluded that NASA's lunar landings were all faked, also. We can't operate on the basis that something we do might be misinterpreted, that's always a possibility. In today's political climate it's practically a given.

Spot on John! This last April we had a 29% increase & my employees are relatively young & healthy!

Not to mention I had to raise co-pay & deductible limits each year to be able to keep it 'affordable' for my employees.

Las year the deductible was $1500 this year it's $3K.

Bill The Liar, from FAIRFAX

Maybe you should just give up on the football analogies. They didn't make sense in our 9/11 discussion and they don't make you look manly here either. What are you going to lie about now?

Well said, Bob. I've been saying the same thing.

By the way, a majority of the public now agrees with what you had to say.

And-jomama? The article you refer to was commenting on the numbers BELOW the topline. It works like this:

during the Lewinsky mess, Clinton knew he was in very good shape. Sure, his approval numbers were crummy; the numbers on his POLICIES, however, were sterling. All he had to do was wait it out.

Obama has the opposite problem; has had for some time. So, sure, you ask if folks approve of his being president, anywhere from 44% to 52%, ( the numbers from the polls taken this month) say sure. Look below the topline, and you get the truth of where this president is.

Underwater.

His disapproval on his handling the economy, the deficit, taxes, AFghanistan-you name it-are upside down. Moreover, if you follow the two daily tracking polls, Gallup and Rasmussen, you find that his greatest strength has become another weakness: his speechifying. In both of those daily tracking polls, he has seen a 'negative bounce' each time he gives a major speech. Sure, the recovery period is the same as that for a 'positive bounce'-but it is a problem, nonetheless.

In addition, he has become a double digit drag on candidates for whom he campaigns or endorses, according to several polls.

Kiss the majority in the House goodbye-and things are going to be very tight in the Senate as well.

“During the whole eight years of the Bush administration, we actually lost over 600,000 private sector jobs…”

Before the recession started, Bush added 5.5 million jobs.

Since the Democrats took over Congress (and the purse-strings), we've lost 7.1 million jobs.

Remember, Congress controls spending and all legislation. All the President can do is sign it or veto it.

It's a bit disingenuous to blame Bush for what the Democratic Congress did or did not do. It was also the Democratic Congress that allowed the meltdown to occur, and made no attempts to stop the wild spending and lending - especially by Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac - which were exempted from the new "financial reform" bill, when they were the real cause of the meltdown.

Yes smart Roy Wilson. Democrats were sworn in Jan 2007. The recession started officially Dec 2007. It was caused by mortgages made mostly from Jan 2007 to Dec 2007 under the new dems. Not the speculations, flipping of houses including at the official peak of the housing boom in 2005, regulation repeals, 40 fold leveraging at AIG, Goldman and Bears who are not mostly primary mortgage companies.

Same thing with the deficits which were at arguably at surplus or at worst reducing the national debt in 2000 on Clinton's way out to going to $1.3 trillion at the end of Bush's eight years and $2.5 trillion tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 much of it which went to foreign investment (like the rich would patriotically put their new gotten gains in an economy yeilding 2.6% growth when there are others yielding 7%). Now the debt is at $1.5 trillion which would of course continue to grow since jobs were being lost after Bush left meaning less revenue for government. Not to even add the TARP at the end of 2008 and a crashed economy in a freefall. But of course the stimulus (and the yet to be implemented HRC) are the major cause of the increased deficits.

Same thing for the price of oil which started gallping following Cheney's and oil industry contrived energy bill but became $4 under a democratic congress.

Same thing for unemployment which stood at 7% on Jan 2009 but is not 9.5%. But wait, if 750K people were losing their jobs on Jan 2009 and this kind of losses can not be halted immediately woulding the 7% number continue naturally to rise until the problem is arrested.

The point it takes years for effect of bad policies to become apparent (and sometimes they come to their peak under a new administration).

Same for good policies as we say from 1992 - 2000.

See here Roy:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38258047/ns/business-stocks_and_economy?GT1=43001

The Bush government already took over Freddy and Fannie on Sept 2008. And the governemtn runs it now. Isnt reform of those relevant when they want to privatise them? Afterall they can freely change internally how they run it - unlike private institutions who need the reforms to tell them how to do things differently.

Also part of the financial reform bill is reforming the income requirments (or lack) of in mortgages. Since Fannie and Freddy mostly buys secondary mortgages, doesnt thoe reforms affect them also? If they bought primary mortgages, doesnt those provision affect them directly?

We just keep repeating rightwing talking points from websites without even understanding one bit what they mean.

I'm surprised Cornyn and Sessions didn't reiterate the Orange Man's new idea. After all, isn't he one of the principal voices of the GOP? Yeah, let's put a moratorium on any new government regulation. Let's let any new financial instruments Wall Street can derive (that's why they're called derivatives, after all) be sold without finding out if it's the "same s#!t, different day" from the derivatives that caused the last crash.

How can a party that opposes goverment govern? I guess they would just get out of the way and let America be taken in every ponzi scheme out there. Sounds good....NOT!

Hey J Richter were you been? Haven't seen you since back before the format change. Good to see you. Come around more often now you hear

"Bin Laden determined to strike America". Yeah, that's about as helpful and specific as "college students plan to get drunk this weekend." What should Bush have done, exactly? What would you approve of? Prevent all "terrorist-looking people from entering the country?" Hmmmm. Too general. Maybe, give extra scrutiny to all "muslim-looking people" trying to come here or acting "suspicious". Liberals wouldn't allow that. Maybe wiretap some Islamic groups phones? Nah. That means Bush is a nazi, right?

Liberals did everything possible to undermine and disrupt Bush's actions to prevent another 9-11 and anything he would have tried to do PRE 9-11 would have been met with the same resistance.

CU Farley, that might be the worlds worst analogy there tough guy. since the favorite terrorist target has been the airplane for the last 40 years, maybe bush could have beefed up security at the airport? i realize that seems so abstract that it might be difficult to grasp. maybe you spent the last 40 years getting drunk with the college kids to really comprehend.

Rick ~ They knew where Bin Laden was, but it didn't suit their purposes to kill the bogey-man.

CU ~ Where were you after September 11? The briefing memo was very specific as to how the attack might come. At least they might have clamped down on airport security. But Condi Rice, a Russia expert, not a Middle East expert, said later that who would believe someone might blow themselves up in a airplane. Like there hadn't been suicide bombers forever in the Middle East. Well, if you can point me to one thing that Condi Rice did right in her years in government, I'd be happy to listen.

By the way, Bush is no Nazi. He's not that smart. Even Nazis have standards. Apparently not the American people, however.

"clamped down on airport security?"

How, exactly? Extra scrutiny of "people who look like they might follow bin Laden?" Can't have that. Wouldn't want to violate the rights of potential (or non-potential) terrorists, would we?

maybe air marshalls? maybe lock the cockpits? come on there, use you head for more than a hat rack.

CU Farley

laying blame for 911 is like laying blame for peral harbor. you can't do that, as a liberal i will never do that, all i will say is this, had Bush listioned to the intelegance reports that the clinton administration left him, about Bin Laden, and the clinton administration has listioned to again intelgenance reports that people were at flight schools learing to fly and not land, maybe it does not happen. lets face it, we were caught with our pants down. i don't care who would have been in charge.

also Mark Williams got booted from the tea party for is inflamitory letter last week. good job tea party. i knew that the kind of language from him has no place in politics and the tea party showed me that they do have some balls. Please don't mention the new black panther party. i have never seem then at NAACP rallies!!!

So much for small government and decreasing the deficit.

Jeff is right, CU ... there were plenty of clues as to these specific guys which everyone just flat-out ignored.

The 9/11 pilots were trained in the U.S., by U.S. flight instructors, in U.S. aircraft, at U.S. flight schools...all while Bill Clinton was President of the United States.

That is among the findings of the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission.

Squeeze that one into your narrative, First Readers.

CU. That was the title of the document. The document itself contained some pretty specific data. If nothing else, it should have set the wheels in motion to warn airport security to look more closely and yes, to scrutinize those who looked suspicious, those who had one-way tickets and were of Arab decent. It might not have worked, but it was better than assuming using airplanes to attack was illogical.

Mixed,

And they were tracked by the FBI, however, the FBI was stopped by the CIA from arresting them when the FBI determined that an attack was imminent. Bush and the CIA ALLOWED 9/11 to happen so that they would have their "Pearl Harbor Moment" and be able to greatly increase Executive Control of the US Govt.

Go and read up on the Federalist Society and their plans on how they were going to turn our Govt into a near dictatorship with the Repubs permanently in control. Quite the education there! They start out by requiring a "Pearl Harbor Moment"and history has proved that out!

I just want to interject that 9-11 was primarily the fault of the terrorists who committed the crime. Period.

There are things that could have/should have been done better, differently, but there always are.

I don't blame President Bush for 9/11.

I just wish that we could have held on to that feeling of "we are all in this together" that we had right after the horrible act, instead of dividing into warring factions, and using it as a political football to divide and conquer.

Our country has been just as devastated by the decisions made after 9/11 as the act itself, and that is really the larger tragedy.

We need to find a way to pull together as a country for our common interests . . . there really is no other alternative.

B. Honest

Say what you want about former president Bush but what your saying is treason. i can't and will not believe what your are saying, don't not mean your not wrong, i just can't believe George Bush, son of a fromer president would allow 911 to happen.

Jeff,

Can you believe it of Cheney, the heartless wonder?

There is absolutely NOTHING I wouldn't put past that heartless b@stard!

Check out 'Gasland '- ol' Dick' & Halliburton are up to their eyeballs in profit at ALL costs...

Nashville fan. Ditto.

My comment may have mislead some to think I was blaming Bush. I do not blame Bush for 9/11 just as I would not blame any future President should we sufffer another attack. I do think someone should have taken the warning memo more seriously.

Not as much of this occurred during the Clinton administration as you make it out to be, Bag Boy ...

From Wiki:

As chronicled in a 2004 report by the 9/11 Commission, the 11 September 2001 attacks were carried out by 19 hijackers, and planned and organized by numerous additional members of al-Qaeda. The first hijackers to arrive in the United States were Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, who settled in the San Diego area in January 2000. They were followed by Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Ziad Jarrah early in the summer of 2000 to undertake flight training in south Florida. The fourth pilot, Hani Hanjour, arrived in San Diego in December 2000. In the spring and early summer of 2001, the "muscle hijackers", who were trained to help overpower and take over the aircraft, arrived.

Just sayin'

The points about the CIA ignoring the threat are also good ones. Why DID they do that, anyway?

Bush wasn't in charge of 9/11. Cheney was in charge of the "psy-op" false flag attack. Bush failed to discover Cheney's plan.

Saying that Cheney was the architect of 9/11 isn't treason Jeff. Cheney's actions against our country were treasonous.

Liberals didn't stand in the way of much of anything that the Bush/Cheney administration asked for in the aftermath of 9/11. They would have had absolutely no say to oppose reasonable measures that could and should have been implemented before the"EVENT".

Isn't it curious that the "Patriot Act" was written out to 95% completion months before 9/11 took place?

Anna Molly-

Reread my post about the 9/11 pilots.

You didn't refute/rebut any part of my comment.

Everything I said is true.

Anna Molly

As much as i hate dick cheney and disappointed in George Bush i will not believe they allowed the 911 attack. yes there was evidence that says they knew more about the attack than they are telling. Now when it comes to air port security, we were 20 years behind the times and they again we got caught with our pants down. to say they allowed this is like saying Roosevelt knew and allowed Pearlharbor. we knew the Japanese would attach but not a pearl harbor. there was no way the Japanese navy could get 4 carriers with in 400 miles of pearl harbor but they did. again we got caught with out pants down.

Now i will say that the Bush administration used the attack to get what they wanted, war with Iraq.

Jeff

Try thinking for yourself for a moment. Roosevelt did know that we would be attacked at Pearl Harbor. The lie being told is the official story. They had two warnings on the morning of the attack that they deliberately ignored. FDR needed the Pacific War to build up the Military Idustrial Complex.

Hitler wasn't going to be enough. You sacrifice the few to save the many. The fact that Pearl wasn't put on highest alert when Naval Intelligence knew that the Japanese fleet had left harbor five days earlier and COULD BE WITHIN STRIKING DISTANCE of Pearl is clear evidence of a stand down order.

Paul-977599

all indication were that the Philippines would be attacked, not pearl harbor. we were behind the time with radar. Roosevelt was dealing with large part of the American society that did not want war. he did everything to try and keep us out. even giving supplies to England against the wishes of the congress and senate.

these conspericy theries will always be there.

These conspiracy theories only exist because the National Security files are still classified. You have bought their lies hook-line-and-sinker.

If you want the "theories" to go away you have to be willing to have an investigtion that can't be stymied by claims of National Security, especially on issues that are 68 years or more old.

Our greatest National Security Asset is our ability to lie to the public with complete impunity.

The Philippines issue doesn't stop you from going to alert status when the Japs have been out of port for five days and you haven't located them anywhere near the Philippines, you go on alert everywhere that they might be five days out of harbor. This isn't rocket science Jeff. Iasked you to think for yourself and you couldn't even begin to do it or try to do it. You've been brainwashed.

No Paul, i can be safe to say i have not been drainwashed. i love history and have looked at what history taught us about pearl harbor and 911 and that is, nothen is not out of the question. but i will say that my brother thought that the towers were brought down by a controled demolition, Now that is impossible.

I don't suppose it will change anyone's mind, but the engineering work has been done to show just how the collapse of the towers could be caused by the kind of intense, sustained, high temperature fire that would have occurred with that much jet fuel in a relatively contained space. The steel weakens under high temps. Once one of the floors gives way the floors below can't hold up the drop load. The outer structures serve almost as guide rails to make sure everything stays vertically oriented until it gains enough momentum that it can't be diverted off course http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf . Tragically it isn't the only time that a higher structure collapsed onto a lower structure, taking them both down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse .

I will try this one more time with you and then, I will surrender you to the brainwash of the "official" history.

If you are unaware that what "history" teaches is always a partial truth, I can only pity you for your ignorance. If you can at least acknowledge that any story that involves National Security issues will never be the complete truth for anyone who doesn't have the appropriate clearances, then there is still some hope for you.

Anyone who "loves" history has to accept that the "public" story about much of what took place in the twentieth century is the redacted version of the truth. So stop regurgitating what you've read or been told and apply logic to the "story".

The incompetence defense, or OCCAM"s Razor, or "people make mistakes", only have validity when those responsible for the "errors" are held up to public scrutiny, afforded the chance to spread the blame around, and are punished accordingly for getting people killed by their negligence.

This never seems to happen in cases where conspiracy theorists still have unanswered questions.

Let's take the Japanese military codes issue. Common wisdom states that we had only broken their diplomatic code. It's a good cover story for the National Security Secret that we had indeed broken their military code as well. Why is that still a secret? Because the ignorant populace wouldn't take kindly to the notion that the war could have ended much sooner, and saved many American lives. But that wasn't the point of the war. Today's populace is no less ignorant.

The RADAR excuse is illogical. You don't order it shut down when you are picking up an unidentified target, even if you think that you do know what it is. It doesn't cost you anything to confirm what it is you are picking up, and it might cost you your life if you don't bother to keep it up and running. This also ignores the fact that the U.S.S. Hood had reported sinking a submarine at the mouth of Pearl prior. How does that not sound an alarm, when it costs you nothing to err on the side of caution?

Have you seen the multiple videos of WTC7 on youtube? If you can watch that and not even suspect that the building was rigged with unconventional explosives you are beyond help.

Dr.Steven Jones went on the Tucker Carlson's show with a digital video file of WTC7's implosion to be played during his appearance so they could discuss it. Tucker and his "News Executives" wouldn't allow the tape to be shown, so why did they book Dr. Jones as a guest?

Really though, what can you expect from an America that reelected GW Bush? We deserve the kind of government we vote for.

Paul-977599

I will try this one more time with you and then, I will surrender you to the brainwash of the "official" history.

If you are unaware that what "history" teaches is always a partial truth, I can only pity you for your ignorance. If you can at least acknowledge that any story that involves National Security issues will never be the complete truth for anyone who doesn't have the appropriate clearances, then there is still some hope for you.

Paul why call me igorant, i though we were having a healthy discussion about 911 as well as pearl harbor. i never said i delieved everything i read, all i said was what was told after these 2 events. do i believe i read or is in a history book, NO!!!! Do i believe Roosevelt dropped the ball before WW2 yes. do i believe bush allowed 911 NO!!! i do believe he thought there was no way planes would take those building down YES!!!

John B, Des Moines, IA

i saw the history channel doc about how the towers were built and thank god we don't build them like that any more. there were no inner steel supports in that building, all the suport came from the out side of the building. once the planes went in they blew out 3 floors and all the inner support that was there was transfered to the out side. and the weight was displaced, the damamge the planes did to the out side compromised the structure and it came right down. i was waiting for it to stop because i thought there was a strutural core, but there was none.

the sconstruction on the sears tower(willis) started before the world trade centers and finished after. the sears tower has inner support with steel gurders as will as a 2foot think core, WTC did not have this. lessions were learned from that building, now 4 foot think cores are typical.

Jeff

I didn't call you "igorant". WE; you, me, and everyone here on this blog routinely prove that we are all ignorant of lots of things on lots of subjects. Ignorance is not a sin. I tried to explain that we are all doomed to be ignorant because we live in a world of "CLASSIFICATION". NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT ANYTHING OF IMPORTANCE. So please stop being willfully ignorant to the lies you are being told by places like the History Channel.

The central core of the towers, which you say didn't even exist, supported 60% of the buildings' load. Then you write about the inner support, which first didn't exist, being damaged by the planes, so the load redistributes to the outer walls. That is what was engineered to happen.

None of this explains the energy levels required to turn the 4 inch concrete floors into microfine dust particles. Almost everything the MSM refers to as soot, and smoke, and ash, is actually the concrete floors turned to dust which moved through the city like a pyroclastic cloud. Only volcanoes and explosives produce this kind of phenomena in atmospheric conditions.

All I ask is that you look at the videos i mentioned, and try not to be so willfully ignorant.

Joe, maybe they are not clowns, just educated. that is the problem, not everything is so simple and it takes a little bit of an education to understand it. if you asked the general population what a derivative is, the majority would look at you with a blank stare. if you asked the "elites", they would be able to tell you with a much higher percentage. and that goes for a lot of our issues.

it takes a little bit of intelligence and education to cut through the beck and limpball misinformation campaigns. something that many in the general population are having difficulty with currently. the "elites" along with most educated people also realize the fox news and the commentators on there are doing their "schtick" while the righties buy it hook line and sinker. for the general population, they just want results and quickly. i guarantee you that if we have a great jobs report before the election, the numbers would change in the opposite direction.

we are in a mess, and it takes a little bit of intelligence and understanding to know that not everything is so simple (even those on the right think it is). and maybe you are the real CLOWN.

Joe,

The Washington 'elites' happen to actually read and have some knowledge of the bills and policies of the Dems. Most of America is continually hearing the lies, distortions, hate and misleading reporting from the MSM about the policies and bills passed, predominantly Faux Neuz. The 'elites' actually understand what is going on in Government and KNOW how badly we were damaged by the Repub policies and the Bush Years. They can clearly see that President Obama has been repairing the extensive damage caused by the party of NO and how badly the Repubs are trying to bring him down. They are much less easily fooled than the rest of the population.

The MSM makes it's money on division and strife, there is more to report there than showing folks being happy. Channels like Faux Neuz make up a lot of lies and listen to the talking points of the Repub strategists, in fact, many of those strategists work for the media. Reporting the extreme right's drivel and lies make for great ratings and more money flowing to them from the heavily Corporate advertising, most of whom happen to be Repub anyhow.

Turn off Faux, get off the couch and do some real investigation yourself, with an open mind. Bush and Co worked hard to deregulate and lower taxes while increasing spending to an ungodly level, and are now blaming Pres. Obama for all the troubles that THEY caused. Do not believe them, they do not have what is best for all Americans in mind, only that of the hand that feeds them: the top 5% of the richest of us, who have benefited greatly from the Bush years and want to keep their huge tax breaks and deregulation so that their income flow is unimpeded. They got richer and yet they have not increased hiring or loans here in the US, all of the jobs that the Rich have been creating are in other countries where sweatshops are the norm and people work for slave like wages. Enough is enough, tax these uber rich and re-regulate the industries that have been killing Americans for profit!

Joe,

This "real Americans" versus "Washington elites" talking point is so played out.

Who cares what either group "thinks", when much of their "thinking" is based on what little "news" they are getting from "corporate owned" "news" organizations.

Polls confirming what we already knew are really not that enlightening.

First, you mislead a bunch of folks with half truths and made-for-TV drama, then you poll them to see if they believed you or not.

Shocking stuff indeed.

What is so wrong about being an "elitist"? I'll take an elitist anyday over an ideological purist and especially over a cowboy who operates on gut instint--his words, not mine.

Jody, there are elitists on both ends of the political spectrum (using Politico's definintion). Are you saying that if the R's were in control of the WH and both houses of Congress you would be OK with right wing elitists running the govt??

Or are the current left wing elitists the ONLY ones you're OK with??

LOL!!!

Wow . . . so nice to see some good old common sense posted.

Wish more folks would ask themselves that simple question instead of letting folks whip them into a frenzy with talking points.

"You've told us yourselves that you're going to do a bad job..."

And proven it.

Perfect.

If a party doesn't believe in Government, how can it Govern?

Very good Dennis, and a question I actually asked my husband the other night while we were watching those bombardment of campaign ads. If Washington is so awful, then why do they want to go? Exactly how am I supposed to believe that one person can change all they claim to change - they can't they have one vote and one vote only. It is rather laughable that the party who got us into this mess thinks two years is long enough to clean up 8 years worth of elephant poop, when the educated worker/voter knows better - it takes a long time to clean up 8 years of elephant poop once the circus finally leaves town, unfortunately for us the clowns are still there (bonner, sessons, et al).

Good Morning Pat:

When it comes to Senate races, I turn to Clara, our resident expert on such matters. I continue to believe McCain will not win in November and the Dems will lose only 1 or 2 seats. The crystal ball will get clearer by September.

Good Morning All,

Pat, Rubio is no more a shoo in than I am. He may be raking in the dollars right now and he has to spend a lot of that for the primary in August which he will probably win. His opponent has deep pockets but not much credibility or likability ( not that Rubio has much on him in either department). The more people I talk with, like Charlie Crist. He is for the people of Florida and has taken stands that are unpopular with the GOP and their auxillary groups including the Tea Party. I am of the opinion, that Charlie will win in Nov. and will caucus with the Dems.

Good morning to you as well Ron - Not sure we're going to get killed in November as the pundits keep telling us. Perhaps the voters want to see our politicians actually govern and not just accept big checks from corporations with a kiss and a promise to watch out for them in January 2011.

President Obama has opened the door to the future. Hopefully the Fall campaigns will be a testament to this. But obviously there is so so much more to be done. Especially with the economy. Something the GOP has still not addressed after all this time.

McConnell and Boehner as Leaders? - It just can't be. They are as bad as Newt.

Gingerbread Mama: That's what I'm hearing and seeing with the polls as well. The media loved Rubio, so I thought (assumed) he was an automatic W. The voters it appear are saying something entirely different. And that's terrific.

It should be a very interesting November. I think we will loose some seats but retain the majority in both the Senate and House. Only time will tell.

Good morning Pat and Ron -

As of a Quinnipiac poll from here last week, Sestak and Pat Toomey were tied at 43 % - but the more interesting numbers were in the "Favorable/Unfavorable" question, in which roughly half those polled said they didn't know enough about either candidate yet to have formed an opinion.

Or as Ron said, "the crystal ball will get clearer by September".

Just as an aside, I've mentioned before that I work across the hall from Sestak's constituency office. One of his staffers called me at home last evening to mention that he'd found a letter I'd dropped on the floor out in the hallway on the way down to the mailbox on Saturday. He didn't know me, but took the trouble to track me down from the return address on the envelope to return it to me personally. I even told him he could just stick it in their outgoing mail pile, but he just came by a few minutes ago to make sure he handed it to me in person. And last night when we were on the phone, I asked him how the campaign was going and got exactly the response I knew I would - "I'm sorry, ma'am, but this is the office for working on constituent problems; we don't get involved in campaign or political issues".

Small things, perhaps, but they say something about the caliber of people Sestak has working for him. I'm hoping he'll be one of our best Senators ever.

Good morning US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired -

I think we just may retain both the Senate and House. Which is quite a ways away from what the pundits have been saying for a year now. Wouldn't that be something?

JoAnne, what a great story. Thanks for sharing it with us. Seems Democrats do like to govern. The GOP just like to make up talking points.

Good Morning JoAnne: Remember when candidate Obama was 20 points behind Hillary? Remember when Joe Sestak was 20 points behind Specter? First time I saw Joe Sestak on TV, I said to myself: He is a winner.

BTW, I think Dems will pick up a seat in Missouri. Blunt (R) is as dumb as a post.

On the contrary, Obama has closed the door to my son's future. He will be living in more debt than any generation before him.

I believe the American public is tired of the blame game and the mismanagement of government. Not limited to the sitting congress and senate, but also the previous president. Obama never mentioned any specifics as I recall running for the white house, yet the press never brought that up did they? The republicans will wait until September to explain their specifics so that the democrats can't take them and run prior to the November elections. Or maybe they won't, perhaps people will be blind enough to vote once again without hearing specifics.

Now I believe Blumenthal will win in CT since we are one of the bluest states and he doesn't really have any competition. Even though his staff is bunch of bumbling fools, I don't believe the people of CT are smart enough to put clues together that if he can't even run a smart campaign, his term wouldn't be much better. (his mistatement about his vietnam service, then placing a fake veteran behind him in his press conference to explain his errors) But then again, I'm sure some republicans will be foolish enough to forget that Palin quit her job as governor when she attempts to run for president. Let's smarten up and demand some specifics from both sides!

Dan, con't forget to give Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II credit for their portions of the debt. http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/USDebt.png

I suggest reading more than you write...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/2010_elections_senate_map_no_toss_ups.html

Barring a sea-change in the next month or so, it is going to be very close...

GOP Sees Path to Control of Senate

By NAFTALI BENDAVID

"WASHINGTON—Democrats for the first time are acknowledging that Republicans could retake the Senate this November if everything falls into place for the GOP, less than two years after Democrats held a daunting 60-seat majority.

Leaders of both parties have believed for months that Republicans could win the House, where every lawmaker faces re-election. But a change of party control in the Senate, where only a third of the members are running and Republicans must capture 10 seats, seemed out of the question."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704875004575375122374132154.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

I advise all democrats to get out there and start working for your local candidates, every little bit helps...

John B-I certainly don't pretend to believe that the entire debt came from Obama. But even the portions under W Bush.....how did obama vote on those? He voted with them, so he can also be held responsible for that. Just like all of the Democrats that voted to go to war in Iraq can held responsible like W can.

VP Biden commented that democrats will suprise everyone this election by keeping both the House and Senate. I am inclined to agree with him thanks to the likes of Rand Paul and Sharron Angle; those and other Tea Party extremists have forced the GOP to move far right--the country is not far right. I think Crist will win in Florida. Unlike others, I'm unsure he will caucus with democrats but I do believe he will NOT tow the McConnell line of obstruction.

JoAnne, PA. Appreciate your sharing that story. It does not surprise me. I have been impressed by Sestak and it would make sense, his staff is equally conscientious.

Jody - You just hit on two of the biggest things I look for in any candidate:

1. Not always toeing the party line - even when it's my party. I'll never believe that every single Republican is against every single position President Obama has on every single issue, any more than I believe that every single Democrat agrees with him on every one. But you'd never know it from how they vote.

2. Being conscientious - as in having a conscience. Which, come to think of it, is the same as #1.

I'll stay with my original prediction: Republicans will make gains in this election but will not assume majorities in the house or Senate. Two more years of Democrat control will insure a one term Barack Obama.

However, in the event of a takeover by Republicans, it will go one of two ways: 1) Obama will ride it to fame, glory and faux greatness like Bill Clinton, or, 2) Democrats will set new filibuster records and breathe a great sigh of relief that they didn't change the rules. Of course, in this scenario, Obama gets waxed in 2010 when the Democrats prevent anything from being done.

Pat, the voters in Arkansas are about as fickle as the voters in Tennessee, we have become a transient society in the south, the repugnants move voters in and out (using small businesses as a disguise) in order to swing elections, been going on for a long time down here. I'm pretty tired of it, and I'm real sick and tired of all these folks from somewhere else moving into my state and changing what I've worked all my life for.

For Richard its always about Obama not surprisingly. Every situation and analysis boils down to that prism. Its not really partly about the country or what's good for us, or even what's good for Richard.

Otherwise, the conversation was about who would take over congress and the senate. I think a split.

My grade of Obama is C-. Doesn't mean he's no good, just below average. That IS an opinion based on my assessment of his performance, based on the same pool of facts that you have. Some people here point out the legislation he's passed as evidence of "accomplishment". Yet now the stimulus is touted as a success not because it's improved things, but because of how much worse things would have been without it. Now, that's a statement that can only be defended with selected facts and selective interpretations. I'm sure you and I would interpret the same set of facts differently. Just because one or the other of us offers "facts" doesn't settle anything.

And because I'm just another human hick, Obama's not going to get any more of a break from me, due to my own innate biases and views, than any Republican gets from the left wingers here.

There has been nothing new or unique in the approach of this president to anything. A Republican might make the comment that he's just like "all those liberals", he just throws money at something and calls it solved. Well, that's purely a biased political talking point, but on the other hand, there isn't much evidence to refute it.

His efforts at arms reduction with the Russians is aggrandized by some of those who comment here, but he hasn't done anything but essentially extend the agreements between Bush and Putin that resulted in reductions that were just as significant. So, sorry, it's been done before.

For me, however, if there is going to be no recognition of the previous administration's accomplishments, then an equal effort by this one should also be ignored, at least for political reasons.

This country needs to take some very painful steps for our economic future that every previous administration has ignored. Those steps are not being taken by this president either. He, like most of the others has shown no evidence that he's going to do anything but kick the down the road, to use one of the current worn out analogies.

Is Obama the worst president I've ever seen? No. But then, neither was Bush.

I'm sure you're disturbed by the attacks on Obama for his handling of the BP situation. It's simply using a crisis to score political points on the part of the Republicans, right? (Even I believe that's what's happening). But the Democrats set the most recent stage for completely justifying the political attacks by their vicious politicization of Katrina for the sole purpose of demeaning President Bush and in turn using it for every political campaign that occurred after that.

Well, Obama is the victim of circumstance and the effectiveness of his response is just as much fair game in the political sense. I don't like it when people try to hold him personally responsible for everything. I didn't like what you people did to Bush, either. It was one of the most polarizing efforts by a political party that I've ever seen. And don't think the Bush haters weren't deluged with innuendo and paranoid talking points.

Unfortunately, it seems that it's given Republicans a perfect legitimacy when they go after Obama for the oil spill response. It's either fair to both of them, or it's unfair.

So Obama gets a C from me on the BP thing, primarily because I LIKED the settlement with BP for damages. But that's about it. The political BS blame game, from both sides, is irrelevant.

That's just a couple of things. I believe Obama is a big government liberal and the "socialist" rap is just political hot air. As is just about everything I see spewed here about Bush and Cheney.

I never believed Obama was anything more than average. I think he's an average speaker. (My pastor does a better job on a regular basis.) I never thought his resume` and intelligence were any more than average.

His timing, I must say, was superb. 2008 was the worst presidential choice (both parties) that I've had in my lifetime.

Thanks for taking the time to respond Richard.

I think President Obama's record speaks for itself, and of all the words I can think of to describe him, I don't think average would be on the list.

I think the situation that he inherited when elected was certainly well beyond the "usual" thing president's have faced in the past.

I do agree that our society has become very polarized and ridiculous, but I don't think the fact that some unfair shots were taken at previous President's too completely covers the level of hysterical foolishness we are seeing hurled at President Obama.

One of President Obama's central messages has been that we need to work together to solve our problems, and I think he is making a good faith effort to do that. Not a perfect effort, but a good faith effort.

I do not feel the current Republican leadership has returned the "good faith" part. They have stated time and again that their objective is to see the President fail.

I can't support that type of thinking, and I wouldn't have supported any Democratic politician saying that about President Bush either.

I think the lines between what is good theater and what is good government have become impossibly blurred, and until more everyday Americans realize that simply saying something doesn't make it true, we are going to continue to have lots of "talking points" and few solutions.

If conservatives have a plan other than the one that already did not work, I for one am willing to listen to it and implement it if I believe it would help this country.

I have yet to hear such a plan.

At the end of the day, the issue is not President Obama, but rather solutions to problems. President Obama has been working from the day he was inaugurated until this very day to find solutions to America's problems. . . so much so that he was accused of "doing too much".

No matter how any of these elections turn out, if "we the people" don't get back to focusing on realistic solutions to the problems that we face, playing musical chairs in Congress and the White House is not really gonna matter too much in the grand scheme of things.

As always, its been a pleasure chatting with you Richard. Take care.

Trust me Nash (or not), but you only have to be on the receiving end to know that the rhetoric leveled at Bush throughout his presidency was every bit as hysterically foolish as anything that's come Obama's way. With Bush it started at the inauguration with the 10,000 who turned out to protest the election. That was a tough situation, but there was no effort to come together on the part of liberal Dems and the left fringe. Bush was "illegitimate". He stole the election.

He was under attack from day one. And, to a certain extent, it was some carry-over of the anger at their perception at how people saw Clinton treated.

It may just be the way of the country right now, but there is no difference in tone between the two situations. In reality, the stuff that's directed at Obama is pretty much business as usual. A lot of it is stupid and hateful, but no different than anything directed at Bush.

Both sides contribute, but I will also hold Democrats responsible for an equal contribution to the deterioration in the discussion. That goes for media personalities and the media in general.

All you have to do to see this is read First Read.

Dennis,

Interesting piece of logic is it not. Unfunded tax cuts, 2 unfunded wars, special treatment for Wall Street, Big Business and the Insurance Companies all sucking money out of the economy and the republicans want to know why we are in this mess. Hello, we are in this mess because you guys created it and then denied having anything to do with it. They put the blame on President Obama even though he is one of a few with the balls to try and do something about it. The Republicans vote no on everything he does and if that does not work, they threaten to Repeal Baby Repeal. I can hardly wait to go back to that mentality (joke). I just hope that the people wake up sooner than later that going backwards to the old regime is not an option. moving forward, no matter how hard it is, must be done if we want any chance at all.

It is beyond me how these GOPers can make that statement with a straight face. Guess they've finally reached the point where they believe their own lies.

Meanwhile unemployment benefits simply goes back into our economy in consumption (and ends up in corporate earnings making everyone better off including the rich).

While most of the tax cuts to thw wealth exits our economy in foreign investments (that's hust capitalism by the way as the rich would rather invest in economies returning 7% than 2.6%, same for craeting jobs overseas).

I hadn't heard that Pat - if it's true this redhead will be a VERY happy camper the next couple of weeks! :0)

Has anyone heard when Lawrence's show will be starting?

Hi Fiesty, the only time frame I have heard is some time in the Fall. My guess it will be just in time to keep things honest during the election cycle.

Cool. I just might have to watch MSLSD the next couple of weeks. Larry O is more angry and unstable thatn Keith O. Don't wanna miss that potential crack-up on air!

O'Donnell and Rachael (two Air America alumni) back to back. Does not get much better than that. I heard a funny snippet on NPR over the weekend. They were discussing the demeanor of President Obama and a comparison was made to the similarities of how Rachael presents her show and how President Obama presents his agenda. never thought of that.

I hadn't heard that but did assume that Lawrence would sub when Keith announced he'd be on vacation for two weeks.

The West Wing was my all-time favorite show. The shows realism, although slightly Camelot, was due partly because of Lawrence O'Donnell and another political advisor. I was familiar with Lawrence on a PBS Sunday political show--what a surprise when I realized who it was playing Pres Bartlett's father.

Great Post Beverly, thank you for your excellent points!!

The Obamas are great role models for ANY American and Michele is AWESOME as a First lady!!

B.Honest,

Good morning and happy monday. Got your link this AM, will try it out later. Thanks. Nice posts. The Tea Party has dumped The Tea Party Express. Michelle Bachmann sets up a Tea Party Caucus. Here we go, round two.

Didnt mean to vote for this...sorry

So Micchele calling her kids fat makes her a role model? Really?

TRR,

I saw those and was wondering the same thing. President Obama said he was going after the fraud, now we have some proof that he is keeping that promise as well. The cases that the boarder Patrol is sending to the courts is up 54%. It is starting the make the Judges compalin that they now have to work longer hours. Go figure. Nice post.

Great post . . . I saw the same information . . . not much about it on the TV news though.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/government-agents-uncover-medicare-fraud-operations-cities/story?id=11180320

I guess a story about the government doing good at something and saving tax payers money is just not sexy enough.

Doesn't fit the "government bad" narrative.

Good morning Alan.

Questions for you:

Why is it that if insurance companies raise their premiums 25% a year, you are fine with it as long as it is not called a "tax"?

If we are paying for the exact same thing, access to health insurance, does it really matter what it is called?

Health insurance companies have always limited access to doctors, this is not something that is suddenly happening because health reform was passed. . . so how is that President Obama's fault?

Folks accuse the government of "taking over" health care first, and then complain when in fact the private companies that they claim is the panacea continue to take advantage of them.

I thought the private sector was the solution?

Are you advocating that the government make private health insurance companies not restrict access to doctors?

What could/should the government do about it?

The point of health reform was to insure that all Americans had access to affordable health care, and that they paid into the system - either voluntarily by selecting a health insurance plan or by "penalty" or "tax" or whatever word you want to use if they chose not to.

Pretty simple concept.

Alan NJ:

The contents of the HCR will need reforming (but not repealing). My gosh, as massive and complicated as this Bill is one would be mistaken to think that as written the HCR Bill will not need some revisitng, tweeking and adjustments as it is implemented. Even many unknown variables that will have an impact on the Bill will have to be considered as time goes on requiring various changes and amendments to improve the Bill. But not repealed!! Changing, amending and adjusting a Bill is koving forward. Repealing a Bill as the HCR Bill whose purpose and foundation is to expand the numbers of American citizens who will be covered by health insurance is moving forward. Repealing the entire Bill simply because there may be potions of the Bill that need changing or amending in the future is moving backwards.

Regarding the indiviaul mandate, it is my understanding that if a person fails to participate in some form of HC and is penalized for this through an additional amount added to the federal income tax, that if the person fails to pay that portion of their tax there will be no actual enforcement to collect that tax. I may be wrong about this. If anyomne has heard differently please let us know.

Regarding the insurance company networks, many insurance companies already required that a person use a doctor and medical facilities within their network of physicians and facilities. Go outside of the newtwork and you already are penalized with either limited coverage or no coverage at all. This is not something new or that has grown out of tor in reaction to the new HCR Bill. But be that as it may, we all know that the private insurance companies are goigng to do all they can, and to find any and all loop-holes they can, to take advatgae of people in the name of profit and that all mighty dollar. This is one reason why the HCR Bill should have inculded a public option.

And, the best thing is that, since it's in the NYT, lefty liberals are REQUIRED to consider it the TRUTH!!

LOL!!!

It's early. I meant say and to infer that completely reprealing the HCR Bill is moving backwards. Changing or amending the Bill as needed and required to improve the Bill is moving forward.

Regarding the indiviaul mandate, it is my understanding that if a person fails to participate in some form of HC and is penalized for this through an additional amount added to the federal income tax, that if the person fails to pay that portion of their tax there will be no actual enforcement to collect that tax. I may be wrong about this. If anyomne has heard differently please let us know.

_________________________________

CA, you are right on with this observation. Let me show you how it will work: Anyone who is uninsured and would have to pay even a modest amount out of their own pockets would be an absolute fool to get this coverage. With the elimination of pre-existing conditions clauses, they can sign up for coverage on their way into the ER. I can guarantee you that hospital's will have staff that will fill out the paperwork and submit it for you so the hospital can get paid. Likewise, in a non-emergency situation you just wait until you get sick and then sign up.

This violates the most basic concept of insurance pooling of risks for the benefit of all participants.

The unenforced individual mandate is a joke that the Dems have foisted on the American people.

Alan, your link doesn't at all say what you claim. It says the administration is arguing that IF you choose not to buy health insurance the resulting tax penalty is constitutional and proper. The tax penalty for noncompliance was known and acknowledged before passage...and inserted into the bill at the insistence of Republicans.

Joe,

Health care should be about caring for people's health, not about "risk pools" and "profits".

The system we have is not the most efficient or effective system, simply the most profitable.

The American people have already had recissions, limits to care, and ridiculous deductibles and premiums "foisted" on them by the for profit health care industry.

But you don't seem to have any problem with that . The only things that get your notice is anyone implying that corporations are anything other than hard working folks looking to create jobs for us unproductive and ungrateful masses.

Once again, I am forced to call bullsh!t.

If the health insurance and pharamaceutical industries were not taking complete advantage of the American people . . . all the while taking money FROM the government to help them make a profit . . . we would not be in this situation.

Period.

Once again, the government is being demonized for trying to reign in private sector abuses. And once again, "corporate people" are trying to use their money to confuse the American people and divert attention away from thelr malfeasance.

Not going to work this time.

I read an article this weekend that Insurance Companies are going to offer new policies that have reduced premiums and reduced benefits and stricter policies on what doctors you can see and not see. HMO'S are back. One nitwit claimed that because the insurance companies are going to restrict who you can see that President Obama broke his promise that if you like your doctor you keep your doctor. How in the hell do they relate the two????

This is nothing more than the insurance companies looking for a back door and it has nothing to do weith the promise our President made.

U.S. Navy:

Watch for more back door strategies by the private insurance firms as the HCR Bill is implemented. The HCR Bill is a start but it did not go far enough. There should have been a public option and there should have been more regulations placed on the priavte insurance firms to close these loop-holes that they will now take advantage of to rip people off.

But here is my main issue with the Bill. There needed to be a strong corresponding Bill that attended to the lack of doctors and facilities in many parts of the country (especially in the rural sections). Somehow, someway, they needed to make medical training available to more bright young people who cannot now afford medical school, even if such training was shortened to target and to provide more general practicioners and medical practitioner asssitants in the country who could fill in this doctor shortage gap we saw bewfore the Bill passed and will continue to see when the Bill is fully implemented. We have to find a way to get more young people who are intertested in the field the training they need at a reasonable cost to help with the current and future shortages of doctors. One way to increase the availability of affordable medical training is to enter into a contract with young people wishing to be doctors or medcial practitioners and to pay for their training if they will agree to serve in certain locations in the country for an agreed too amount of time where there are shortages of doctors, i.e. rural areas, etc.

"Health care should be about caring for people's health, not about "risk pools" and "profits"."

Nash, NOWHERE in my post do I mention "profits". The lefty liberal's beloved "Public option" and "single payer" are, in their most basic form, government sponsored insurance "risk pools" (see, it's really not a dirty word). If you can join the pool anytime you want to, without any penalty of any kind, the pool is doomed to certain financial failure.

Imagine a govt sponsored auto insurance plan or homeowners insurance plan where you could sign up after your car is wrecked in an accident or your house has burned to the ground. I think most people would think that's a ridiculous concept. Why is it not ridiculous when it's about health insurance??

Joe,

People are dying because they don't have access to health care in the richest country in the world.

That is a more ridiculous concept.

There are safeguards built in to discourage folks who would consider deliberately scamming the system. . . but as we have seen so often as of late . . . folks who want to cheat will always find a way to cheat.

But I don't think that means that we should just sit back and do nothing to help the majority of Americans who are doing everything they are supposed to do . . . and still can't afford health insurance for their families. . . just because there are dishonest folks in this world.

P.S. The health insurance industry in American is about profit . . . whether you yourself personally used the word or not . . . this is a fact that you cannot deny.

Nashville,

Attacking unpopular insurance companies is easy, but ultimately ineffectual. The trouble is that they're mostly middlemen. They collect premiums and pay providers (doctors, hospitals, clinics, etc.). Limiting premiums without controlling cost (which so far I haven't heard how healthcare reform will control the cost of providers) will cause insurer bankruptcies, which would then threaten providers because they won't be fully reimbursed.

We have already seen this before health care reform. Medicare and Medicaid are notorious for discounting providers more than reasonable amounts (remember, hospitals, doctors, and clinics still have medical equipment that cost great amounts, and with the case of doctors, have high student loans and malpractice insurance due to the easy ability to sue which, even if false, still costs the doctors and hospitals time and money). This generally leads to providers increasing their fee's.

Even if you try to control hospital and doctor fees direclty, providers will often offset lower rates by performing more tests and procedures.

What we needed is not to control insurance companies, but to control costs through tort reform (make people pay for frivolous malpractice suits that ultimately cost the providers to increase their fees. Lower the cost of going to medical school (which will also help increase doctors which will lower fees due to competition), and help drive down the large costs of medical equipment.

Hey Nash

I'm not going to argue with you point by point but make a general statement. I believe this is the thinking that permeates Washington. There are only two solutions to every problem, a D and R. It really has come down to Animal Farm - "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad". Your reply basically is that if I don't like HCR as it is I must be for unfettered capitalism and allow the Insurance Companies free reign.

Because this bill is lousy that is no need to be for the status quo which is why I said I hope the law is reformed and not repealed. For example the government paying for a high-risk pool of pre-existing conditions is a step in the right direction.

John B. You are splitting hairs. The government has passed a law forcing me to buy a product offered by a private company. Non-compliance results in a tax on my income. What part is not a tax? Even the DOJ calls it tax. What do you call it? Further, and I don't buy into the "we're losing our freedoms" rhetoric. However, if this law is allowed to stand then there is very little that the federal government cannot do. You may see this as a good thing because in this case it may be a benefit to all. However, how will you feel when a government passes a law that you do not agree with?

Cult of Personality:

I agree that insurance companies are middle men . . . and to this day I have not figured out who they are providing a service too.

I mean, I can pay my doctor myself . . . so why do we need them to "process" it . . . especially when the costs are skyrocketing anyway . . . what "monies" are being saved and by whom?

I don't have a problem with finding ways to save money . . . I have a problem with folks telling lies to confuse and scare folks to preserve the status quo.

Hey Nash back to you "I don't understand what service the Insurance Companies offer" argument. You know fine. They spread the risk so that if you are the unlucky one in the pool that requires major medical treatment the premiums from other pool members will be used to pay. For this service the Insurance company charges a fee which includes a profit. As you said you can pay the provider yourself. Well why don't you practice what you preach and cut out the middle man? Unlike Obamacare no one is forcing you to buy insurance. You can self insure and it may be that you will save yourself money because you do not require a lot of healthcare. IT'S YOUR CHOICE.

CA,

I could not agree with you more. My wife and daughter are nurses and two of my nephews are Doctors (1 MD and 1 DO). We all agree that a program that would educate those interested into going into these fields ( I would add teachers as well) and have the government pay the bill in return for them working in under service areas. We do something similar in the Military through ROTC, NESEP, Military Universities such as Norwich, West Point etc where the government in return for a break on the cost of your education you give them 4,5 6 years of service. I do not see why we could not do something similar for nursing, MD, DO, Teachers etc. I know the republicans will poo poo this because it has a cost attached. My arguments what about the benefits? Better health care to rural America, better education to the same. Somebody once said that you have to spend money to make money. We will have to wait and see if anybody steps up to the plate on this one. I also agree that the HCR will get stronger as time passes. It did for Social Security and Medicare.

Alan,

I just wrote almost exactly what you wrote, only you quicker!

...and a quick follow-up on the restricted choice plans. The articles states that this is in reaction to the new legislation. It is being aimed at small businesses but larger employers are showing an interest. All I can say is that if people are forced to change their doctors they will blame the government not the insurance company.

Alan,

Good point . . . considering the fact that my current insurance is a Health Savings Account with a $5000 deductible, that is basically what I am doing. . . still paying installments on the $3000 bill for medical tests requiring NO HOSPITILIZATION from last year . . . so yeah, its not just theoretical to me.

Alan, NJ:

In our current political environment, folks blame the government if they forget where they put their keys in the morning.

The wonderful thing about blame is that you can place it wherever you like.

Doesn't solve your problem, but hey, if it make folks feel better then it is fine with me.

'There are safeguards built in to discourage folks who would consider deliberately scamming the system"

Nash, the modest penalties in the HCR law are not enough to discourage anyone whose out of pocket cost exceeds the penalty amount. Especially if no one is going to enforce the penalties anyway. The plan, as it's currently structured, encourages people to cheat and when you encourage people to cheat, many, many people will do so.

Alan,

And then when they discontinue your insurance, even though you have been paying them tons of money for years, just because you happen to actually Need their services, is That your choice too?? They have kept raising their prices and lowering your access, is This your choice too? If your kid gets desperately ill and they cut off your insurance so that you end up on the street due to medical bills, is This your choice too??

The Insurance Companies SAY that they 'provide a service' but their Management each take home more money than most people see in 10 years every year and deny coverage for Bullsh!t reasons, forcing people into bankruptcy. The MAJORITY of bankruptcy cases arise from medical bills that have been denied by the insurance companies or after the Ins. Cos discontinue coverage on individuals...Is THIS your choice too?? Was it Their choice to lose everything?? No, it was the Insurance Company's Choices and THAT is what the HCR is intended to remedy. The fact that the Insurance Companies are finding ways to make Obama look bad because the HCR is going to cut into their profit margin and they will actually HAVE to pay what they CONTRACTED to do is NOT Pres. Obama's fault.

B..as I said I hope this law gets reformed not repealed. I used the high risk pool as an example of what is good in this bill. Another is the exact issue you bring up. It's a disgusting practice and if Insurance Companies are too lax to perform due diligence when you sign-up then too bad. If they accept you they're stuck with you. This is another area that should be retained.

I was simply pointing out the concept of shared risk to Nash.

And Nash there is the the big omission from HCR; no control over the cost of providers. Insurance companies did not come up with the $3000 in tests. However, if you bought a policy that covered the $3000 would it have cost $3000 more in premiums?

Alan, the government also requires that I carry Automobile Insurance. They even dictate certain minimum coverages. If I get caught without insurance, either by means of a traffic stop or legal action stemming from an accident, there are legal penalties to pay. Does this mean that my car insurance is also a tax? Goldman Sachs just paid a whole bunch of money to settle a government investigation of fraud. Is that a tax? The company that ground my hamburger risks government action if said burger gives me salmonella poisoning. Is the cost of actions they take to avoid making me sick a tax? How about the government fines they would get if my Saturday night barbecue guests all drop dead? If I'm rushing them to the hospital and I get a speeding ticket, is that a tax?

You'll tell me I'm being ridiculous, but once you start declaring that penalties for being out of compliance with government requirements as taxes you quickly slip into the ridiculous.

Alan,

I get your point about the premiums costing less than $3000. But for most folks, they pay more into the insurance system than they ever get out in services . . . thus the profit at the end.

There is nothing preventing all of our wonderful legislators (or members of the private sector )from coming up with a plan to address rising health care costs.

It is not realistic to expect one bill to solve the entire problem . . . we need a functioning government to address this issue. . . and that seems to be the one thing that much of America has been convinced we don't need.

John B says to Alan: "You'll tell me I'm being ridiculous, but once you start declaring that penalties for being out of compliance with government requirements as taxes you quickly slip into the ridiculous."

____________________________________________

Too bad for you, John, that it is not Alan calling it a tax.

It's Barry Obama's Justice Dept. calling it a tax in their defense against the 20 or so states that have sued calling the HCR law unconstitutional. That's because they are afraid it is unconstitutional under the commerce clause, which is how they sold it when passing it. Congressional powers under the Constitution's taxing provisions are far broader. Unfortunately for the Barry admin, the law does not use the word "tax" and Barry Obama's own assertions that it is not a tax will come back to haunt them when the SC gets its chance to weigh in on its Constitutionality. LOL!!!

Joe,

My money is on "Barry". . . seems like folks have been writing him off since the day he announce he was running for President . . . and I'll be darn if he didn't go and win and then do all the stuff he said he was gonna do!

Yep, I'm thinking that all the nitpicking about calling it a "tax" or a "fee" or a "penalty" is pretty much just alot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

P.S. Your "LOL!!!" doesn't seem as happy as you are attempting to project . . . overcompensating perhaps? :o)

Joe, if you read the link AND my response or even just the link you'll see that the only thing that's being referred to as a tax is the penalty that will be imposed IF you choose to go without insurance. Anyone without insurance therefore won't be "taxed". Considering how much of the health care for those without insurance gets paid by others it's a pretty small sum.

And it's something the Republicans, including my own Senator Grassley INSISTED upon. Before refusing to vote for the bill. If you want to blame someone for this blame them. Without Republicans and the model prescribed by Mitt Romney in Massachussetts that "tax" wouldn't exist.

jomama,

I noticed that little tidbit too . . . also Bobby Jindal's little barrier island is falling apart . . . but I'm sure Anderson Cooper is going to tell us all about it . . . not!

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/15/jindal-berm-boondoggle/

Amazing how there was a point where every criticism of the cleanup effort and every hare-brained scheme (though I don't think anyone actually suggested using any portion of a hares) was taken at face value and assumed to be effective. Often in the face of contradictory exper opinions.

The "A Whale" has become a "White Elephant" saw that on facebook. Must be a metaphor in there somewhere.

Thanks Nashville, this DOJ story is in line with the lies from Fix News and the riechwing blogs and the GOBP dopes of nope, see MMFA for the rest of this post.

Finally, the NBPP case offers an allegation worth investigating
July 19, 2010 10:32 am ET by Simon Maloy

Commission on Civil Rights vice-chairwoman Abigail Thernstrom has delivered what should be a lethal blow to the Fox News-hyped "scandal" regarding the Department of Justice and the New Black Panther Party. And she's also turned the New Black Panther case into something the media would be justified in investigating.

In the course of an interview with Politico's Ben Smith, Thernstrom, a conservative who was appointed by George W. Bush, alleged that the conservatives she serves with on the commission seized on the New Black Panther case not out of concern for civil rights and the law, but rather to wield it as a cudgel against the Obama administration and Attorney General Eric Holder. In stark language, Thernstrom claimed that her colleagues held "fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration," and that they "had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president."

Thernstrom has effectively confirmed what most of us already assumed to be true -- that the New Black Panther Party allegations are nothing more than invidious political hackery. And it should be noted that Thernstrom's claims carry more credibility than anything J. Christian Adams, the GOP activist and former DOJ attorney whose allegations of institutional racial bias at DOJ form the spine of the NBPP non-scandal, has thus far brought to bear; she clearly isn't grinding any political axes, and she boasts first-hand knowledge of the events she says transpired.

More importantly, Thermstom's allegations have the weight of plausibility. The widespread and illegal politicization of the Justice Department was one of the more high-profile scandals of the Bush years, contributing as it did to the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. People like Adams and his cohorts on the Commission on Civil Rights are the legacy of that scandal -- conservative activists who, if Thernstrom's accounts are true, openly and enthusiastically abuse their positions to wage ideological and political warfare.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether Thernstrom's allegations can be substantiated. But if she's right, then she's revealed a vile corruption at the Commission on Civil Rights, wherein destructive political activism subordinates the safeguarding of civil liberties.

And that's something the media should probably look into.

I would like to challenge my fav channel MSNBC to follow up on this and make it a headline issue and bust in Fox's arse.

Follow up to this post, how about a little MADE IN AMERICA for help in the gulf, from the Coast Guard

Learn how Unified Command has embraced new technology to enhance our unprecedented cleanup efforts by touring ‘Big Gulp’ skimmer, a locally-developed, one-of-a-kind skimmer made out of a 4-million-pound barge, the size of a football field. Visit Morgan City Shipyard, where owner Lee Dragna invented the vessel - known as the ‘Big Gulp’ – which can collect 300,000 gallons of oil a day, 10 times more oil than many of his counterparts. This new technology is contributing to the fight of containing the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and preserving fish, wildlife, wetlands and the marshes.

That's an easy one.....good accounting. If you and I could do it also don't tell me you wouldn't. On top of it, the corporations do have to pay taxes on every American working them. It's called the social security tax. Many people don't realize that companies have to pay the same amount as it's employees do for every employee. On top of it, many states like mine (CT) allow companies to exist tax free from state taxes for a predetermined period of time just to entice them to do business in the state and hire the state population. Otherwise all of the companies would be based out of the state with the lowest cost of living. Or the country with the lowest cost of living.

Whatever you say Dan.

I will look forward to getting a pass on my income taxes because I was charged a Social Security tax too.

So thankful that the sweet and blameless corporations are willing to take my money for their products and services . . . what a favor they are doing for me. . . all the while they are making absolutely no taxable profits of any kind . . . how very selfless of them.

End Corporate Welfare.

I didn't say if you pay social security you get a pass. re-read my previous post. If you don't have companies in your town, you don't have jobs. And then there aren't any taxes coming from those workers pay. It's a process both parties do. These companies take advantage of the tax codes set up for research and development. When you volunteer to pay more taxes THEN you can claim the moral high ground. If you want to tax all of these companies, be certain you aren't complaining about outsourcing.

Dan,

They are paying zero taxes now and still outsourcing. They are not paying their fair share. Pretty simple.

Nashville-I can tell from other posts of yours that you're an intelligent rationale human being. But I think you're missing what I'm saying. My point is that although these companies aren't paying any federal taxes, it's far better for them to exist in this country where as the employees taxes will be collected than for them to exist in a country that has lower cost of production and not have this country collect any taxes at all. I know of G.E. in CT and how much their company employs in this state. And I'm certain that this blue state doesn't collect taxes on them like they could. But that helps maintain the employment of thousands of people in this state and therefore adding to the taxbase of the state. Now in a perfect world the company and employees would be taxed. Unfortunately, for that to happen we would have to find a way to force the G.E. to remain. And that just won't happen. The world is not fair, especially in business.

I would like to suggest along the same lines that perhaps we should look into taxing churches. They definitely wouldn't move to a different country. I realize the seperation of church and state, but it seems as if it's along the same ideals as you have on taxing corporations and paying their fair share.

Dan,

Um . . . whether or not churches should be taxed is beside the point. If we are dealing with an "income" tax, it would seem that corporations would be where the money is, no?

But I do appreciate your acknowledging the fact that I am not an idiot.

Very flattering.

Question for you: What would be wrong about closing the loopholes that allow corporations to pay zero taxes?

Nashville-It might be said that the Catholic church is the richest corporation in the world. But that could be a point for another time.

I'd like to think that everyone on these posts aren't idiots and give them the benefit of the doubt. Not to mention, I think one of the quickest ways to have some conversation where both people may be able to learn from each others points is to point out that we are intelligent enough to do so. Although with some people (present company excluded) it's hopeless. =)

I think that in an ideal world, it would be the perfect thing to do in taxing corporations. But I believe that by closing the corporate loopholes then corporations would just offshore work because it would be cheaper for them. If we were to close the loophole, I think it would be VERY important to also determine a way to force the corporations to remain in this country. Of course some of the means to do so would not be good for our global trade partners and may even violate some of our trade agreements. Can you think of a way where we could close the loopholes without losing the jobs the companies provide?

Dan,

I do not have a plan that would guarantee that corporations would not simply take their jobs overseas. However, I think much of the talk that is done in this vein feels like a scare tactic to protect the status quo. Like I said before - if they take all their jobs overseas, they will also be taking away the means to purchase their products as well.

I think it would be a worthwhile project for Congress to investigate this and find a way. Because zero taxes in the middle of a recession just doesn't seem right. Correction: Zero taxes in any economy does not feel right.

I am willing to let the chips fall where they may - no more corporate hostage taking in the name of "jobs". If we cannot have a reasonable oversight and corporations paying their fair share, then I guess "we the people" will just have to start new companies to meet our needs and stop relying on the ones who are determined to only consider what is best for their bottom line, regardless of how the rest of the country is effected by their actions.

We have shown more than enough deference to corporations, and we don't actually have a whole lot to show for it.

Nashville-very valid points. I agree with all of them in principle. I think the biggest thing that can help is our media to show us who exactly is going overseas so we can stop purchasing from them. The problem is, can we afford to purchase items made in America in this economy? Can afford not to as a country? I think the points we have been talking about may be part of a larger problem that is all entangled. Do we bother to look where the items are made that we purchase? Do we as a country try our best to purchase the product that is made here.

I think one thing that we may both agree on is to continue the tax free research and development. As that will lead the way to ensure that we remain on top of manufacturing capabilities.

But......didn't democrats control the House and Senate????? Since 2006???? How about we replace them all.

Beverly, Admiral Allen has that in hand, that's why he will have them open the cap and run the oil up to the recovery vessels so they can then finally get an accurate flow rate, don't need reporters or phony experts for that.

How' bout them Cubs..phew..lol

One more thing, someone please tell our friend Kieth O. that it is PSI not PSI's.

BTW: I'd be interested in a poll asking people if they disapproved of Obama because he raised their taxes. I'll bet 47% would say "yes", despite the fact that he actually lowered them for most people.

Houston:

You have hit the nail on the head my friend. We are making decisions as a country based on misinformation.

And then folks act surprised when we get crappy results.

This is how the world looks when folks profit from your ignorance instead of your enlightenment.

Sine the Low Info voting bloc is bigger than Republican, Democrat, and independent blocs, I wonder why the corporate media doesn't do in-depth analyses of their every whim and desire the way they do with independents and Tea Partiers.

Maybe it's because there wouldn't be so many Low Info voters if the corporate media acknowledged their existence and the enormously devastating impact they have on themselves and their fellow citizens. But it seems that the media view it as their duty to their corporate bosses to ensure that the Low Info bloc remains as large as possible.

You said a mouthful right there Houston . . . yes you did.

What about all the people who were asked about Obama during the 2008 campaign? They were told McCain's stance on the issues but made it sound like they were Obama's views. All of the people said they agreed with "Obama's" views.

Talk about low-information voters...

Lynchmob: I have no idea what you're blathering about. McCain flip flopped so many times on so many issues that voters could be forgiven for being confused about what he stood for, which seems to be mainly getting himself re-elected. His flip-flop on immigration on immigration was one of the most disgraceful examples of pandering to xenophobes and racists I've seen recently.

Agreed. 9 Years and 7 months of incompetence and fiscal irresponsibility....and counting

You can actually go back to 1997 when Republicans abandoned the 'Contract With America' and began to spend. The first 4 years of the Contract With America yielded some positive things, but then in 1997 the GOP began to act like Democrats.

It is amazing how much this "Seperation of Church and State" idea has been invented in the 20th century. The constitution says the government can not make any laws respecting or influcencing any religious institution. Some how the left has manuevered this into religious people can't have any influence on the government and politics. They hold Thomas Jefferson's writings up as their "Holy Grail" supporting this position. If you read Jefferson's papers, he was against the over influence of a particular denomination to the exclusion of all others such as in the Church of England. Jefferson was a religious man. He had the first Bibles printed in America printed in the Capital Building. If you move out of the East Coast or California, this so-called evangelical fringe represent a huge constituency a America. They deserve to have their voice heard like any other Americans. Maybe the wacky fringe from the left coast should get out of California someday and see that they are actually the minority in America.

Jefferson was ahead of his time, considering he invented the phrase "Separation of Church and State." And sure the evangelicals deserve to have their voices heard. The thing is, to them I'm not really a Christian and I'm in regular attendance at a Christian church. Imagine if I were Jewish, or Buddhist, or (gasp) Muslim. It's unAmerican to enshrine the principals of one religion into the law of the land. You as much as said so yourself.