Feisty, Great post.

The Republican Party continues to deny being called the “party of no,” while at the same time they do not offer a clear positive agenda with new ideas about how to govern this country. Earlier this year, former Bush advisor Karl Rove and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie helped form American Crossroads as part of gaggle of new conservative advocacy groups that were quickly dubbed the “Shadow RNC,” and were designed, in part, to help generate these new ideas or retread the old ones.

But this week, Crossroads GPS, the advocacy arm of American Crossroads, will release a proposed platform on which Republicans should run in November that is based almost entirely on obstructionism. As the conservative Daily Caller notes, “instead of things they think the GOP should do, the agenda…is made up mostly of things they think Republicans should oppose or eliminate.” Indeed, Crossroads GPS is even calling the platform an “emergency intervention to stop” President Obama’s policies:

American Crossroads vowed to raise $50 million to influence the 2010 elections, and are on their way thanks to just four right-wing billionaires, who alone have contributed 97 percent of the group’s money. Rove has directly credited his group’s fundraising prowess to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

The program calls on the GOP to “stop” the Bush tax hikes from expiring at the end of the year, to “end” stimulus projects deemed to be “wasteful,” to “call a ‘timeout’” on Obama’s health care bill, to enact a “moratorium” on “government handouts to banks, automakers, labor unions and other politically-connected interests,” to “block” any bill putting a price on carbon emissions, and to “stop stalling” on securing the border.

Just look at the recent bills that the republicans have held up via filibuster the past weeks. Comprehensive Jobs Bill, The Aid to States Bill that got through only after the republicans stripped out 12 Billion in food stamps to the needy, Unemployment Extension Bill that was held up for no reason and finally passed, Disclosure Bill, the 9/11 First Responder Bill and the list goes on. Hundreds of bills sitting in the Senate held hostage by the republicans.

Tuesday the owners of FOX gave $1,000,000 (One Million Dollars) to the Republican Party campaign funds and NONE to the Democrats. Just further proof that FOX is the right wing Media Arm for the Republican Party with spokesmen Glenn, Rush, Hannity etc., etc as their guru’s.

Republicans still pushing for privatizing Social Security and denying it, a host of Republicans — most prominently Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) — have called for the creation of private Social Security accounts, akin to those proposed by President Bush in 2005. A Center for American Progress Action Fund analysis found that under a Bush-style privatization plan, an October 2008 retiree would have lost $26,000 in the market plunge of that year, and if the U.S. stock market had behaved like the Japanese market during the duration of that retiree’s work life, “a private account would have experienced sharp negative returns, losing $70,000 — an effective -3.3 percent net annual rate of return.”

And this is a good idea?? Wall Street already has almost bankrupted this country. During this time not one Social Security Check has been delayed or NSF. Can’t come even close to saying that for Wall Street (just look at your 401K plans and individual IRA Accounts, remember the bail outs) and this is where the Republicans want to put OUR Social Security funds. This is nothing more than another carefully designed plan by the Republicans to destroy a program that the major beneficiaries are by far the Middle Class.

An oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, power etc.

Robert Michels believed that any political system eventually evolves into an oligarchy. He called this the iron law of oligarchy. According to this school of thought, modern democracies should be considered as oligarchies. In these systems, actual differences between viable political rivals are small, the oligarchic elite impose strict limits on what constitutes an acceptable and respectable political position, and politicians' careers depend heavily on unelected economic and media elites. Thus the popular phrase: there is only one political party, the incumbent party.

While I do not know if this is in our immediate future, this is the path that the Republican Party sees for America today. The concentration of wealth and power into a small select group of people that follow one God, GREED.

Blago:

Personally I thought ex-governor Rod was guilty of more than one count. But I wasn't there to hear the testimony. The American judicial system is slow and deliberate as it only takes one jury member to hang a jury. Blago can be retried, it will cost a lot of money, but it is the way the American judicial system works..

I'm not one to make political hay over this verdict. I didn't like the outcome of the OJ trial either, so I did not comment. Essentially I support all three branches of government. They make mistakes, but that is a part of our human condition. Supporting the government and its Constitution is what real patriots do.

Bob 1805084: Post from yesterday.

Thank you for bringing up the Iran nuclear reactor issue. You must have noticed that I have been following those events also. I don't think we are going to get much information from the media because the important conversations are being held sub-rosa: Top secret stuff among diplomats. The one piece of information I would like to know is the location of that big bertha bomb that was discussed in "Stars and Stripes" many months ago. This issue could likely come to a head before election day. If it does, it will be a game changer for November.

Reading over some of the post from yesterday, i came across the thread about Rand Paul being up slightly in some Poll. Within this thread, were several comments about How dumb the voter's of KY were. I could go that route & say that voter's from lotsa other States are just as dumb, maybe even dumber.

I could say, Voter's from, oh i don't know, lets Pick Alabama,also lost in a Sea of Redness, are ignorant , but I know better, because CA comes on here daily with a Reasonable amount of Sanity, that I find Refreshing, coming out of Alabama.

So I'll just say, Cleanup Your own backyard, before ya go digging in someone elses.

If you're Not Ignorant enough to Catch my Drift!

So, Nasty Redhead, does that mean you are going to stop with your sneering comments to posters that don't agree with your positions on issues??

Yeah, right.

Nice quotes, Redhead. I do hope you will ponder them. It's easy to quote pretty words but harder to change behavior and live by them.

Dirt;

Go pi$$ in some one else's Cheerios's this morning... I'm done with breakfast!

Tell me again WHY we Dems don't USE an echo chamber of FACT?

It seems the Republicans determined LONG ago that a lie repeated often enough BECOMES 'truth' in their parallel reality. And we Dems have witnessed this essentially NON Stop since the Supremes appointed "W". And, yes, during the campaign then Candidate Obama had a tactical strategy. I believe it was called "Fight the Smears.com". My issue, currently, is why didn't that operation become a permanent department of the DNC? Why don't we have Dem strategist on the 24/7 cable news chatter FIGHTING BACK?

Democratic capitulation is the greatest failing of my party. We believe we are more mature and that we don't need to 'stoop to those levels'. Well, I've got news for my Democratic pals. If we don't start firing back - we will indeed see an enthusiasm gap that WON'T get our base to the polls and you know the rest.

Defending one's self is NEVER in poor judgment. Allowing a lie to be repeated or perpetuated is NEVER acceptable. Tim Kaine, if you are reading this for the love of Democracy - BRING BACK FIGHT THE SMEARS. I Would be happy to be a foot soldier in the Smear Fighting army - heck, I'm already doing it here, daily!

How true. Just look at the rhetoric of the republican party and compare it to their voting NO on just about every bill that helps Americans then claim they support the very thing they just voted against.

Insane and hypocrisy's.

Good Morning Clara: Way to go!! Saying what needs to be said. It is a great question. Why isn't the WH reenergizing the Truth Squad? They should have learned their lesson when Kerry was "swift boated".

Somebody needs to inform Obama that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. If the best the great orator can do now is nasty, sarcastic quips, his internal polls must be a lot lower than the ones being published.

I'm wondering how First Read is the ONLY media outlet to have complete results on Washington - all the other reports state that the final returns won't be in for days. There is a reason that this is important: while no other candidate could catch Murray and Rossi, given Washinton's open primary system, where all candidates appear on one ballot, the break-down for the two is extremely important-not to mention predictive of the outcome in November.

With one exception, (1998) the November totals have been within one and a half percentage points of the primary outcome. In '98, it was 4.5%-seems there was a backlash to the impeachment proceedings, so the Dem got a greater percentage of the vote in the general than the primary.

Anyway, I'll be watching for the FINAL results of the primary.

oh, njnbnj - YOU are 1/2 right!

Bravo Clara! That is a great idea . . . too bad we can't count on "journalist" to perform that function anymore. :(

Great post Feisty

You know we may be able to excuse some on the right; they seem to have visual and mental impairments.

Somebody needs to remind no joe of same. Oh, I forgot somebody already did. My bad.

Feisty, very nice post this Wednesday morning. Very nice.

Last week I received a call from a company that wanted to outsource my “call center” business overseas. I find this particular vendor a bit offensive because I work in a business that’s very “rah, rah America!” in their image, yet one of the primary trade magazines in the industry gives them regular editorial space to try to sell American jobs to other countries. It wouldn’t work, btw. Many of our internal customers would quit the company immediately because they’re very attached to their contact in the office and because they’re the sort of “Real Americans” that pundits hold up as the ideal. Our external customers are corporations in something that runs closer to an actual free market than most things in the American economy these days. They EXPECT accountability, they WANT a relationship, and if they’re routed to a call center in Bangalore like an ordinary consumer who bought a faulty product at the big box store they’ll be gone.

So there you have it. The biggest trade group in my industry is actively trying to convince their members to do something that is bad for them in pursuit of something that they can project onto the P&L as an immediate gain. Why are they that short sighted? I conclude that it’s because our sense of interdependence as Americans is gone.

We’ve been sold a concept that we aren’t responsible for anyone. Rarely is it pointed out that if that’s the case no one is responsible for us. If I don’t have Social Security as a safety net I’d better do well in the stock market. If the stock market doesn’t do well what then? If my whole life falls apart at least I can still get health care with Medicaid. Except that there are people out there who wish to do away with Medicaid. What then? I’m where I am thanks to American public schools. There’s a movement about to get rid of them http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/public-schools-abolished.html claiming that they’re just liberal indoctrination. What if you can’t afford a good school?

In reality it isn’t just about me. If we close the public schools our society fills up with nonproductive idiots. We’re far too close to that now, with school funding under attack. It poisons the whole environment for me, for my children, for our entire society. Some claim that Social Security has been a failure, but in fact it’s been instrumental in reducing poverty among the elderly http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/articles/articles05/Starr-SocSec-2-05.htm . People without medical care don’t fail to affect me, their bills drive up costs for all of us http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/uninsured05/ .

I’m not on my own after all. I depend on others and others on me. That isn’t a curse or a burden, it’s a blessing and it makes my life better as it does most of us. It’s the American way.

Republicans are proud of being obstructionists.

They dont seem to mind the damage they are causing, they appear to have no interest in helping the country.

The lies repeated over and over again, the hypocrisy, the bigotry, the acceptance of intolerance of anything that is different from their narrow view, all of these they are so proud of.

Why is it that there is no one in their party who would take a stand and say, I am not like that, I will work together with others in government to make things better.

They have no plan, they have no interest in developing one either it is so much easier to sit on the sidelines and complain and distract from their shortcomings. They call themselves patriots, Americans who love their country and want it back, so they can inflict more damage, more of the same.

You guys cant even drive and we wont give you a licence to continue to ruin us.

Rick, Ky: I'm glad you replied to what was said yesterday. I agree with you 100%. It's depressing at times reading some of what is said about other Americans. It shouldn't be.

Hey Rick, Lexington here... maybe mention that South Carolina has missed the mark... and that's being nice.

John B - This is one of the best posts I've read on here in a long time. I happen to think it's the American way, too - or at least it used to be. Maybe that's the country we all need to take back.

To condense it down to bumper sticker length, here's one you might agree with from a very American company I like to buy from occasionally:

Everyone does better when EVERYONE does better.

Of course, I guess that makes me a socialist or something, right?

JoAnne in PA:

I offer that it makes you an intelligent and compassionate human being. We need more of you, not fewer.

I am watching MSNBC right now and they have a bunch of people dressed up as cute little bears speaking out that Mama Grizzly does not speak for them. I think it is Emily's list.

This is the first laugh I had today. Too funny.

Great post John B.

My opinion till the media starts questioning and pointing out the lies coming from the right it ain't going to change. It's up the the media as long as they let the right wing nuts come on their shows and spout their lies with out being challenged it isn't going to change, and MSNBC is just as bad as Fox and CNN. Evidently lies get higher ratings than the truth and ratings are more important than our Country is to the media.

I talked to a staunch Republican the other day. So I asked the question that I have seen here posted by many. "What is the Republican platform that makes you vote Republican in this upcoming election?" The answer I got was, "They don't have a platform. They have no ideas, I just have always voted Republican." Is this what we as a country want? Where is the vision? What is their idea to get jobs created?

I throw it out to the Republicans that post here: What is the Republican platform if they regain power? What are their ideas?? How are they going to implement those ideas? What are they going to do to get this country "back on track" as so many people say they "want their country back"?!? Can anyone tell me one idea BESIDES CUT TAXES AND REPEAL HEALTH CARE REFORM?

Never begin a post with: "A word to the wise". A Republican stops at that point.

In any case, there are two primary reasons "journalists" are unwilling and/or unable to relay the truth. The first, and most important - because it is about money - is that media giants are in the hands of Big Money. I know that flies in the face of what Rush Limbaugh spews, but facts have never been relevant to his rants. Media giants are about money and no journalist dares make the connection between corruption and money. That's tougher than it seems. If only we had examples like corrupt bankers, sleazy CEO's, incompetent Boards of Directors, insurance company death merchants, and a bought-and-paid-for-Congress, a journalist's job would be much easier.

The second reason is the utterly ridiculous notion that a journalist is supposed to be "objective". That means he is supposed to seek both sides of the issue. Example: A great big bunch of scientists - I know, you thought they traveled in herds - states with certainty that a virgin birth is an impossibility. The reporter notes this and must get "the other side of the story". In this case this is not a difficult task. There are billions of people who actually will tell that reporter such an event actually occurred.

On occasion the job is easier, when you can actually find someone to take both sides. See the learned treatise, "Deficits Matter When I Say So" by Darth Cheney which can be found at GOP.Borg.

"Objectivity" is ridiculous. Consider the DeLay case. This guy was told by Republicans to resign even while the GOP controlled all three branches of the legislature. We're expected to believe that he didn't do something pretty darned wrong when a party that gives us a Duke Cunningham and a John Doolittle wants him gone. It is this ridiculous notion of "objectivity" that keeps a reporter from saying, "You have to be BSing me."

Take it easy on journalists, they're almost humans too.

I know I shouldn't be so hard on Republicans, but once upon a time I was registered in that party and as you probably know, there is nothing worse than a reformed whore. Also, some jerk pissed in my Cheerios while he was screaming something about a redhead.

David Walker

Never begin a post with: "A word to the wise". A Republican stops at that point.

RMOAFWL; I'LL DRINK TO THAT!

If Obama lived by what he said this country would be a better place! He also told the Republicans we won and we don't need you!

Even if the Republicans agenda is just to quit with the spending, they have a better agenda than Obama and the Democrats!

We as Democrats need to get on the same page. The Republicans are out there spewing all sorts of nonsense and they pretty much stick together no matter how outrageous the remarks. The Democrats just seem to take it. They should boldly refute the outrageous remarks. But nooooo, they go on TV and criticize the President; e.g. Harold Ford on GMA yesterday regarding what the President said about the mosque. According to Harold, the President could have been more artful. WTH. The President said they had the right to build it and the following day reiterated that remark but clarified he was not commenting on the wisdom of that action because some chose to misconstrue what he said. And all this talk of backtracking - he did no such thing.

Yesterday I saw a blog where a young lady new to this country, legally, said she noticed the media takes one political party's side and beats up the other political party. How astute of one new to the country. DO YOU HEAR THAT YOU SO-CALLED MEDIA PEOPLE? On this blog yesterday, a lady said where is Tim Russert when you need him because Mr. Montero (?) and Mr. Todd, journalists you are not. Exactly.

The Dems keep saying the President needs to do this and that, yet they sit there and take the crap from the Republicans and everything falls on the President, yet they do not back him up. I am a hard-core Democrat because I truly believe they look out for the middle class, however, they need to grow a pair. Stand with the President. He deserves, and needs, all the support he can get because the Republicans are out to destroy him. It's as simple as that.

Awesome post flea1989! Well thought out idea and delivered like a pro! *end sarcasm*

We actually don't need any more fleas.

Hey, Rick, shout out! I also am a resident of Kentucky and worked my butt off for Obama. The sad part is that I contacted Conway's campaign in Louisville or whatever, asked for signs, and nothing has been forthcoming. I hope he doesn't pull a Martha Coakley and think he will get elected without even trying. I am in Newport and Rand Paul has a storefront with all his signs pasted all over. That's what bothers me is that when I try to get info from the Dems in Kentucky, I cannot get hold of anyone. During the primary, I was given a job of calling people in Cincinnati - by the Kentucky coalition of what little there is of it. Where are all the ground troups that we had for the campaign for President Obama. There was a huge turnout of volunteers in Covington because there was a place to go and it was organized. I see nothing about Conway in Newport. (However, I must say that I don't see much of Paul's signs except in his storefront - 1 or 2 throughout the city). Maybe we are making progress, or maybe the Repubs are just embarrassed about him (but will still vote for him). We need to have more organization!

As to your thoughts about casting the first stone, how would you like to live where Louie Gomert is your representative, or in North Carolina, where they hike that old Appalachian Trail? Kentucky is great, we just need to change the color from red to blue, that's all.

x

Ron:

I hear you. The final verdict is not in. If Rod is guilty he has to pay the price. I hold this opinion for both Democrats and Republicans alike. There are way to many self serving politicians in office today. They just are not doing what we elected them to do. They are more concerned about what is in it for them than how it will better America as a whole.

All of them need to be called on the carpet and if we do not like their response of our questions we vote them out of office.

Bill--I would defend Glenn Beck's right to have his rally wherever he wants to have it, even though I do believe it is an insult to the memory of Dr. King. Just as I believe the people who want to build the mosque have a right to build it where they want while I recognize that for some it is an insult to the victims and survivors of the 9/11 attacks.

Bill, Fairfax VA
Go figure?
Glen Beck teaches racism and is exploiting DR MLK's Dream. The horrendous things this unrepentant liar has said about the president , social justice, and the left would have Dr king turn over in grave.

Why don't you check out the bottom of Glenn's website. Like Sean Hannity who still is yet to display his tax form s for ripping his Fallen Victim children charity he's doing for money what ever proceeds from tickets, t- shirts, pens etc will go in his charity.

So you go firgue. Oh, I bet Beck U didn't teach you math; just hate and racism

Bill,

In both cases, folks are just going to have to grin in bear it because that is what America is all about.

Ron:

My husband and I last night had a heated debate over the outcome - he said the jurors were pretty much evenly split! I said bullsh!t that there no doubt was a 'rougue' juror...

Well go figure, this morning the jury foreman came out and supported MY conclusion. There was one woman who was the LONE holdout on the more serious charges including attempting to buy the Senate seat'.

Personally, I'm happy that Fitzgerald is going to retry him... Now if we could just get one of these 'top notch' journalists actually DO their job and find out WHY it's going to cost millions I would be a very happy camper indeed.

Blago's defense was throwing around numbers last night like I toss a salad! ;0)

Wait, let me get this straight:

"The rally is being held on the same spot and 47 years to the day...

"...a mosque a few blocks from Ground Zero..."

Yeah, boy - you sure got us there. "The same spot" and "a few blocks away" are TOTALLY the same thing.

NOT.

I will post what I truly want to say in a minute.... but I actually watch Glenn Beck and I will tell you this Martin Luther King's daughter (who has been on Glenn's show and actually agrees with much of what Glenn says -- and she agrees with Ted Nugent on a lot of things -- what a pairing there!) actually is ok with what Glenn is doing and stated on his show that she givess her "blessing" to him and I believe will be there on 8/28 to join Glenn.

Just some food for thought this morning.

And Feisty I know you uare going to make some snide remark about me or Glen or something like that.

I just want to tell you that if thats what you need to do to feel good inside thats ok with me. Im not going to do that anymore though as God has opened my heart up recently and dropping to the name calling and using curse words is not bringing any glory to Him in the least.

God Bless you I hope God blesses you in all you do today.

The ‘plastic’ Jesus circus is up and about early this morning! lol

Beverly, Woodrow Wilson was a Progressive. Do you think he was a good President?

Feisty:

Yep.

And let us not forget that the station that Glenn is on just gave 1 million dollars to the republican party and zero to the democrats. Further proof that FOX is the true Media Arm of the republican party. What ever filth, lies, hate, bigotry they spew on their so called news channel is 100% republican views. If tis is not true then the republicans need to send the money back. Yeh, and pigs fly too.

Retired,

At least Faux and Freaks had the testicular fortitude to FINALLY come out of the closet and confirm that they are NOT a news station!

They are the right arm of the Repubican propoganda machine!

Bill,

I’m okay with the Beck rally as I am with the building with the community center (some call a mosque) near ground zero.

I believe in the constitution and the amendments. Protesting events that are supported by the constitution is also a constitutional right and is the only way “we the people” have to say we believe that “insert topic here” should not be included. This is how we start a debate on weather the constitution should be changed or modified.

The same should be said of the Arizona law, HCR mandate and the 14th amendment. There are questionable issues that deserve their day in court and if you don’t like the courts decision you have the right to protest and try to have the constitution changed.

In all of these issues there is one common theme – it is the duty of the POTUS to protect and defend the constitution.

Bill,

I completely agree with your premise. It IS OK for Glen Beck to assemble wherever he wants for whateer purpose he wants, granted it is allowed by existing local codes. I will defend his rights as much as I will fight for the rights of religious freedoms to be granted to all.

I may not agree with GB's message, premise, or that his timing / location is in good taste. But, I will staunchly defend his rights. As you should defend the rights of the muslim community center to be built on thier own, privately owned land.

Larry, Minot, N.D.

I have watched Kings Daughter On Glenn Beck, and i saw a different Glenn beck, he was very respect full of Kings legacy and his daughter. i just want that said first.

If Glenn Beck want to hold a rally on the steps of the Lincoln memorial, on the same day as the famous rally for civil rights then hey have a good time.

See this is what King always wanted, people of different beliefs, races, and religions to gather together, remember i have a dream. Ok.

Now lets remember why the Lincoln memorial was choose 47 years ago, Lincoln freed the slaves, Lincoln is a symbol for freedom and Peace. I don't think glenn's audience if there are as racist as some people here think, would not want to rally at the lincoln memorial, because of what it stand for. see my point.

See People we can't do what a majority of Americans want and that is to deny a person the freedom to either build a mosque NEAR ground zero, or have a rally at the Lincoln memorial. if we are this nation for the free then we must practice what we preach. no matter how it makes us feel. we should not act in the same ways as the christen right when it comes to the mosque. remember again King was about inclusion instead of exclusion.

last night i learned something very interesting, years ago Jewish synagogue were not welcome in suburban communities, as well as in New York back in the early 1900. as much as we preach religious tolerance we are full of it. Jews or catholics were not welcome in the south. there was a christen minister and a Muslim cleric debating a mosque in California and this minister was sickening, he basically told the cleric that he just did not want a mosque across the street from his church. he gave no reason, but deep down this guy was a religious racist.

U.S. Navy:

Some great posts above U.S. Keep up the good work.

Rick, KY:

Thanks for the "reasonable comment". Fact is though I am not from Alabama. My home has actually been in many States here in the U.S. and several other countries that I have lived in over the years. I ended up in Alabama a few years ago for private reasons. I do like their passion for football and their football team. And as you say, there are some good , decent and reasonable folks in all States. But also as you say portions of Alabama are about a Red as you can get.

I always enjoy people who generalize what others think. Bill's post is an example of that. I make no secret that I am a liberal...and here is what I would say to those of you who worship the mentally ill Glenn Beck and his silly "rally". Lincoln once said that the best way to get rid of bad law is to strictly enforce it. I have always thought that he was exactly right on that. But, the only way to make clear what the "tea baggers" want is to hope that they do things like Beck is doing. Let him get on stage, and let normal everyday Americans find out how truly sick a man he is. Sunlight is the best antiseptic, and light also sends cockroaches scurrying for the shadows. Let Beck be Beck, let his mindless drones speak, and hope that it is covered by all news stations everywhere. It is the only way that people find out how sick a man he is. Bring it on, Beck, and please, don't hold back.

Bill, Fairfax -

I don't like Glenn Beck very much myself, but he has as much right to the Lincoln Memorial as anyone else in this country does. In fact, I'd like a show of hands here - how many of you have ever been to any kind of rally or protest in Washington, D.C.? I went to a huge one against the war in Iraq a few years back, and while I'm sure there will be some here who won't understand what I'm about to say, I recall looking at the huge American flag waving in the breeze over the Capitol that day and feeling an incredible wave of patriotism and love of my country, simply because we all do have the precious right to peaceably assemble and make our opinions known, right there in the very heart of our government's neighborhood. It's a pretty awesome place that has hosted any number of rallies with a myriad of opposing views, and I would encourage everyone to try to participate in one some day just to get a better appreciation for how great we have it here.

My only comment on the mosque - or actually, the community center - situation would be to ask for another show of hands here - how many of you have ever actually set foot in a mosque? I have - again, in the middle of Washington, D.C. - and though it was 40 years ago, I recall it being a unique respite of quiet and calm in the midst of the frantic bustle that is D.C. on a daily basis - a place to meditate and reflect and feel at peace with the world. Kind of like so many other churches - and I'm an atheist, by the way. I have yet to read anything about the Cordoba Initiative that suggests that this community center will be anything different - no shrine honoring the 9/11 terrorists, no 4-story murals screaming "Death to America!", just a place for the COMMUNITY to come together and try to build some understanding.

Some people apparently find even that offensive. Others find Glenn Beck offensive. Me? Sorry, but I think America's big enough to handle both.

Jeff, regarding this "last night i learned something very interesting, years ago Jewish synagogue were not welcome in suburban communities, as well as in New York back in the early 1900"

That brought a smile to my face because it reminds me of the classic Rosalind Russell movie "Auntie Mame." Some people she's just met are pleased to assure her that the new suburb wher the live is "exclusive and restricted." Mame replies "Exclusively what and restricted to whom?"

Eventually she sets them right by arranging behind the scenes for a famous violinist with a very Jewish-sounding name to buy the lot next door to establish a "home for orphans from Israel." Just goes to show how silly our prejudices look when you glance back on them from the future.

Not a piece of private property. Try again Bill.

Bill- the difference that I see here is that the Mosque (which it is not, and is not at ground zero, just close to it from what I can tell of the map) is that people of any religion are guaranteed the right to religious freedom by our constitution - indeed that was one of the main reasons for starting this great experiment, and one of the reason's I believe it has survived 234 years. I don't agree with the religion the Pentacostals down the road from my house practice but they have just as much right to go there every Sunday morning as I do to go to the Methodist church in town and practice mine.

Dr. King's speech was not a religious gathering, it was a civil rights gathering.

Having said that, the piece of land belongs to the American people, I have no problem with Glenn Beck being there - just as long as he realizes that anyone who knows Dr. King's work will probably think he is a raving lunitic - which he is. Would serve him right if the people of the civil rights movement also held a rally there and out populated his teaparty. Now wouldn't that be something to see!

The left argues that Muslims have the constitutional right to build there. I don't hear anyone saying they don't. But something can be legal but not right. Muslims have the right to stone the lady in Iran under their law for adultry. Do you hear anyone arguing that it is right though. If the Muslims are as interested in forstering unity as they say, then they need to be sensitive to the feelings of those around them. It seems like they are saying "We have the right to do this and are going to build here no matter who it offends." In the latest Siena college poll released at noon on the 18th, 63% of New Yorkers oppose the mosque with 27% approving of it. To say that 63% of New Yorkers are bigots for opposing the mosque is offensive and insensitive to what NYC went through.

The whole Nation went through 9-11 not just New York. All of America was under attack that day and that includes Muslim Americans. Take away the "it doesn't feel right" argument then ask yourself if one person has given a real reason for not building this center. The key word in "Muslim American" is AMERICAN, that is all that should matter. The laws say as to what is right and what is wrong. The thing no one wants to say is, if this center being built two blocks away from ground zero bothers you then it is you that have a problem. It is your fear; your insecurity; your bigotry; your ignorance and your lack of faith that needs to be evaluated. There was a time when Christianity as a doctrine and Christians as a people were not powerful or popular. During that time we were persecuted for our beliefs. Now we are a powerful religious group and we are blessed to live in a place where we are not persecuted practicing of our faith. Do we now want to become the ones persecuting others? Is that what our bible teaches us? The answer is NO. It may not be easy, it may not be what we want to hear, but it is simple. The center should be built and we should all take time to evaluate what hate or bigotry we harbor in our hearts.

Navy, Retired:

Would you mind substantiating the $1 million contribution?

Richard, Washington State: Read: '' Newscorp. Gives 1 Million Dollars to Republican Governors," Dan Well, August 17, 2010.

Louis:

Touche'. See my post, I think it supports your thoughful position as I am in complete agreement with you.

The repubicans are steering this country into a blind canyon. There will be no trun around this time.

I am convinced that just about everything in their agenda of late is designed to destroy the middle class thereby giving more power and wealth to the select few that they deem worthy. They deny this up and down. But, that rhetoric is not sipported by their deeds in any form.

Fasten your seat belts, Houston we have a problem.

Power and Money are more seductive than any Hollywood movie star. Getting power back at any cost, regardless of the effect on the middle class appears to be the mantra of the Republican Party.

We the people have to open our eyes and get past the rhetoric to what is really happening to our country. The few should not and must not control everything that affects us in this country. But Money and Power are seductive. Must have more money, more power!

Are term limits the answer? What about not patronizing the corporations that are pushing for more power? How do we find out who is doing what? Is that not the job of the media? Who runs the media? To quote a line from one of my favorite movies: "There are only questions" We the people have to assume responsibliity for our government. It is for the people, by the people. WE have to wrestle control back into our hands. But it takes an electorate that is EDUCATED about the issues, not just emotional. Are you ready for it?

Are you Fired Up, Ready to Go? I AM..LET'S DO IT

Again, Louis and others are the left are extremely insensitive to the people. Do you think that if the GOP or right said nothing about the mosque that there wouldn't be a controvesy? When 63% of New Yorkers opposes this, it is the left who is not connected with the community. It is on all the the news stations in NYC and the lead store in most New York papers. Last time I looked the media in NYC could not be classified as "mouth pieces for the right.

Really, Ray? The Constitution has the Establishment Clause for a reason. Could you point me to the part in the Constitution where it says that the Establishment Clause is in effect, only if it doesn't offend the sensitivities of others?

CU-I read this article myself, yesterday, and thank you for printing it here.

The one thing I would argue that was left out of the article is the collusion by the reporters, with the Democratic party, to deliberately deceive the electorate about who Obama was-thus, he was allowed to masquerade as a 'centrist', when he is, and was, so far to the left that he cannot even see the middle.

So, they coodinated their coverage on the JournoList. When that was exposed, Ezra Klein, while exuding outrage that 'personal communications' were exposed to the public, took down the site. There was, in fact, no outrage over the fact that the Fourth Estate became an arm of the Democratic Party-but ethics is not the strong suit of this generation of 'newsies'.

If you have any doubt whatsoever about their continued collusion, you have only to look to Monday's story on Rick Scott-which appeared a few hours after Bob Menedez, Senator from New Jersey and chairmen of the Democratic Senate election committee, issued orders to reporters to prevent the GOP from 'politicizing' the mosque controversy.

AFTER Obama had politicized it. (Yeah, Mark, I get it-Gingrich and Palin had done it before he did. Tell me again what offices they hold?)

You'll note, CU, the deafening silence on the subject-from both the writers of this post and the lefties on the board. See, they EXPECT the media to be in cahoots with the dems-it's the way of American politics, in their minds.

Goes a long way toward explaining why Americans' distrust of the media runs about 75%, according to Gallup. THEN they wonder why they are going broke.

(Yeah, Mark, I get it-Gingrich and Palin had done it before he did. Tell me again what offices they hold?)

I see you're unable to handle defeat gracefully... As I said yesterday NoJo... put on your BIG girl panties and DEAL with it already will ya?

You got SPANKED... continuing to 'carp' about it makes you come across even pettier than previously thought!

No Jo,

I have heard many of your theories of collusion between the Dems and the media. I would appreciate your thoughts on Newsgroup's recent 1,000,000.00 contribution to the RGA. And the Fox sponsored Tea parties last summer.

Thanks in advance

The article is predicated on the premise that Americans are essentially decent and exceptional. With each passing year, there is more and more evidence, along with a mountain of internet posts and the increasing cacaphony of talk radio and cable news programs, that Americans, at their core, are neither exceptional or decent. They are simply petty, self-serving, and very, very small.

CUF,

Unlike you this President is on the side of the constitution as he must be.

We the people have a right to disagree and change the constitution but the President does not.

Ted,

And MSNBC gave equally to both Governors’ Associations, to the penny.

Ted-glad you asked.

That contribution was made PUBLICLY, as in, everyone knows it was made. Knowing about it, folks can use the information as a 'context clue' on the reporting.

Now, consider the JournoList-did you hear about it during the campaign? If you did, you were on it. None of the public was privy to the information that reporters were colluding to shape the coverage of Obama in the way they wanted it shaped.

Likewise, there is no acknowledgement of the fact that when Democrats hold events for reporters and tell them how they want issues covered, reporters jump to follow their orders.

So, we have a situation where something is done in the open, and something is done in the shadows. I, personally, believe that openness is the best policy.

What do you think?

Hey farley, you seem to be a person that is a proud republican and you follow them and what they want to the country if they indeed get the senate back,

Have you read there 10trillion dollar plan.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/08/pdf/republican_jobs_plan.pdf

go to this site, i tried to attach but it did not work. go and take a look, if you are a true blue american read this.

First of all no joe all blow Fox didn't willingly disclose the donation, reporters dug it up going through Fox reports required by the Government. Hannity and O'Reilly railed against the information being released, so you lying when you say the contribution was made publicly, it was how ever made public but not by Fox lets stay with the facts no joe all blow.

And about your wild comment about the media being in the pocket of the Democrats. Please with all the ranting you did on this above give us a link to back up your ranting about the media being in the pockets of the Democrats. Especially a link to your JournoList.

republican 10trillion dollar plan.

1 Center for American Progress Action Fund | Republicans’ $10 Trillion Giveaway

Republicans’ $10 Trillion Giveaway

Their “jobs plan” would in fact spend trillions of dollars on

budget-busting tax breaks for the rich and corporations

Pat Garofalo, Michael Linden, and Ethan Berman August 2010

Introduction

Shortly after President Obama came into office, Congress passed the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the $787 billion stimulus package of tax

cuts and increased federal spending that bolstered the social safety net and led to

critical job creation and economic growth amid rising unemployment in the face

of the Great Recession. The economy at the time was on target to shed an astonishing

11 million jobs according to estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional

Budget Office, but the CBO calculates that the Recovery Act saved or created

about 3 million jobs since its enactment.

provided tax cuts to more than 95 percent of American households, and kept millions

of American families from falling into poverty.

1 The president’s stimulus package also2

Indeed, the Recovery Act and the other extraordinary steps the federal government

took during the financial crisis helped avert a second Great Depression,

according to a new study by Princeton Professor Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi,

chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com and one of the top economic advisors

to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) during his 2008 presidential campaign.

3

So what do Republicans today think of this exceedingly timely rescue of the U.S.

economy? They continually blast it as a failure, after all but three Republicans in

Congress voted against the bill in 2009 (one of whom, Sen. Arlen Specter, later

became a Democrat). And what is their alternative plan to restart the economy so

that broad-based jobs growth can begin in earnest? When House Minority Whip

Eric Cantor (R-VA) was asked in December to describe the Republicans’ “big idea”

2 Center for American Progress Action Fund | Republicans’ $10 Trillion Giveaway

for creating jobs, all he could say was, “the big idea is to get, to get, to produce an

environment where we can have job creation again.”

All Americans can agree on that point, of course, but Republicans have also put

their plans on paper. The Economic Freedom Act of 2010—introduced by Rep.

Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and backed by the 116 member-

strong House Republican Study Committee—makes it clear that their jobcreation

plan is to double down on the failed economic policy agenda of President

George W. Bush. The bill calls for more deficit-funded tax cuts for the wealthy and

deregulatory policies that allow corporations to do what they did under President

Bush—act with almost complete disregard for consumers’ financial well-being,

the environment, and worker safety.

After insulting the intelligence of the American people by presenting the same

failed conservative economic policies that led to the Great Recession, they then

advocate further ways to injure our economy with new budget-busting tax cuts for

the wealthy and corporations. Such tax cuts led to the jobless economic recovery

of 2001-2007, when jobs growth was an anemic 4.8 percent before the consequences

of conservative economics over the next three years led to today’s nearly

10 percent unemployment rate.

4

We calculate that today’s recycled conservative economic policy prescriptions

would cost about $10 trillion in new deficit spending over 10 years relative to

the current Congressional Budget Office baseline, which is the CBO’s estimate

of spending over 10 years figuring in no changes to current tax law and discretionary

spending. This nearly $10 trillion surge in deficit spending would flow

overwhelmingly to the rich and corporations, with the rest of us picking up the

tab to pay the cost of borrowing these vast sums. The Economic Freedom Act

alone would add about $6.9 trillion to the deficit relative to current law, while

the rest comes from Republican refusal to allow any of the Bush tax cuts of 2001

and 2003 to expire.

What’s more, this spending would have considerably less “bang for the buck” than

the provisions in the Recovery Act. The reason: the money would flow to a minority

of Americans and corporations that would be least likely to spend or invest all

of it in job-creating ways. (For a complete analysis of the Republicans’ economic

policy program, see Appendices on pages 9-10.)

3 Center for American Progress Action Fund | Republicans’ $10 Trillion Giveaway

Republicans claim they will pay for their program by seizing any unspent

Recovery Act funds alongside any remaining funds from the Troubled Asset

Relief Program, the legislation passed in late 2008 to prevent the collapse of

the U.S. and global financial system. But there is only $284 billion in unspent

Recovery Act funding (much of which has already been allocated, including

$50 billion dedicated to middle-class tax cuts this year), and another $180 billion

of remaining TARP funds, $19 billion of which is being used to implement the

recently passed Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act to protect Americans from

some of the predatory lending practices encouraged by Republican-led deregulation

under President Bush.

5 6

So the money the Republicans would use to cover their new $10 trillion in deficit

spending does not come close to covering the astronomical cost of their proposal.

Even if Republicans could seize all the remaining stimulus money and TARP

funds, it would amount to less than 5 percent of their $10 trillion in tax cuts.

What’s worse, this budget-busting plan would overwhelmingly benefit the same

wealthy Americans who reaped the rewards of the last Republican-led tax cuts in

2001 and 2003, which of course set the U.S. government into a deficit-spending

tailspin and sowed some of the seeds of the Great Recession. If the new Republican

plans were to be enacted, the typical middle-income taxpayer earning an average of

$40,000 per year would get a tax cut of $467 per year over 10 years, while the typical

taxpayer in the richest 1 percent of the country (earning $1.4 million on average)

would receive a tax cut of $157,500 per year over the same period according to

an analysis of the Economic Freedom Act by Citizens for Tax Justice.

In 2011 alone, 42 percent of the tax benefits would go to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers.

In 2012 that rises to 76.8 percent, with an astronomical 61.5 percent of those

tax benefits going to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers. In effect, the plan is a massive

redistribution of wealth up the income scale. This is not the way to create jobs.

In the pages that follow, we will unpack the Republicans sleight-of-hand economic

policy program to demonstrate in detail its fiscal irresponsibility and blatant favoritism

toward the most well off in our nation at the expense of everyone else. It’s

a plan that deserves full public discussion in the coming months if the American

people are to avoid a repeat of the Great Recession and quite possibly a second

Great Depression.

4 Center for American Progress Action Fund | Republicans’ $10 Trillion Giveaway

The Republicans’ sleight-of-hand economic policy program

Step 1: Permanent extension of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts

Senate Republicans earlier this summer repeatedly blocked $33

billion in extended unemployment benefits, citing the cost as

their cause for concern, before Democrats were able to overcome

their filibuster. Yet Republicans nearly unanimously support

extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts, which are due to expire at

the end of this year, as opposed to President Obama’s proposal to

extend only the cuts for those earning less than $250,000 a year.

The cost of continuing the tax cuts for just these wealthy

Americans is $690 billion over 10 years, which climbs to $830

billion when debt-servicing costs are included, all of which

would go to benefit the richest 2 percent of Americans.

total cost of extending all of the cuts is about $3.1 trillion, which

doesn’t include the cost of permanently patching the Alternative

Minimum Tax, or AMT.

7 The8 (See chart below)

Step 2: Eliminating individual and corporate capital gains taxes

The Economic Freedom Act includes the complete abolition of

the individual and corporate capital gains taxes—a long-time

component of the conservative tax-cut wish list. Even back in the

1990’s, then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was advocating for such a step.

9

The capital gains tax, which is levied at two brackets of 10 percent and 20 percent

if the Bush tax cuts expire, is already significantly lower than the personal or corporate

income tax rates, which at their highest stand at 35 percent and 39 percent,

respectively if the Bush tax cuts expire, in order to incentivize investment. But

eliminating it completely would have several adverse fiscal consequences.

First, it would add more than $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the federal budget

deficit relative to the current law, or about $1 trillion relative to President Obama’s

fiscal year 2011 budget, which begins in October this year. Second, it would

incentivize the reclassification of normal income as capital gains in order to make

Bust the budget or balance the budget?

The ten-year cost of two recent proposals before

the U.S. Congress, in billions of dollars

$1,000

$900

$800

$700

$600

$500

$400

$300

$200

$100

$0

Extend jobless

benefits

Progressive

priority

Extend Bush tax

cuts for the rich

Conservative

priority

Source: Center for American Progress Action Fund.

5 Center for American Progress Action Fund | Republicans’ $10 Trillion Giveaway

that income completely tax free. In short order this would bequeath a stunning tax

break for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans—eliminating the individual capital

gains tax would give the average taxpayer in the richest 1 percent a $50,215 tax

break in 2012 alone.

Step 3: Reducing the corporate income tax rate to 12.5 percent and allowing

immediate business expensing

Even though the United States raises far less corporate tax revenue than

other industrialized democracies due to myriad tax credits and tax loopholes,

Republicans consistently claim that the United States’ statutory corporate tax rate

blunts job creation.

the corporate tax rate to 12.5 percent from 35 percent.

This same whopping cut was proposed by former Speaker of the House Newt

Gingrich last year as part of his “Jobs Here, Jobs Now, Jobs First” plan. But this

cut would add $2.6 trillion to the deficit relative to the Obama administration’s

budget, and almost $2.7 trillion relative to current law. (See chart below for the

estimated tax break for select companies)

10 To that end, the Economic Freedom Act includes a cut in

Cash for corporations

U.S. federal tax bills for select U.S. companies, in billions of dollars

2009 taxes paid

2009 savings with the

Economic Freedom Act

Walmart $5.30 $3.41

Goldman Sachs $4.04 $2.50

UnitedHealthcare $2.03 $1.31

Cigna $0.66 $0.43

Wellpoint $2.59 $1.67

AIG $4.78 $3.07

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Walmart, Exxon, Chevron: http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1004/gallery.top_5_tax_bills/index.html.

Goldman Sachs: http://www2.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/press/press-releases/current/pdfs/2009-q4- earnings.pdf.

United: http://sec.gov/cgi-bin/viewer?action=view&cik=731766&accession_number=0001193125- 10-027229.

Cigna: http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/viewer?action=view&cik=701221&accession_number=0000950123-10- 016612.

Wellpoint: http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/viewer?action=view&cik=1156039&accession_number=0001193125- 10-034180.

AIG: http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/viewer?action=view&cik=5272&accession_number=0001047469-10-001465.

6 Center for American Progress Action Fund | Republicans’ $10 Trillion Giveaway

This is not just bad budget policy. It is poor economic policy. Moody’s Economy.

com calculates that a corporate tax cut only generates 30 cents of economic

activity for every dollar spent.

estimates that so-called tax expensing, a proposal to allow businesses to immediately

deduct their costs from their tax bill, adds between 20 cents and $1 for

every dollar spent.

Republicans filibustered this year will result in $1.61 of economic activity for

every dollar spent.

11 The Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile,12 In contrast, the unemployment benefits extension that the13

Of course, it is likely that these tax cuts would spur some additional business

activity and give companies less incentive to hide profits offshore. But the revenue

raised from this increased economic activity would not come close to covering the

astronomical cost of this cut to the federal budget.

Step 4: Permanently eliminating the estate tax

Republicans refer to the estate tax, which taxes only the exceedingly wealthy heirs

to family household fortunes, as the “death tax.” Moving beyond such macabre

but misleading rhetoric, a complete phasing out of the estate tax was enacted as

part of the Bush-era tax cuts and expires at the end of this year. President Obama

proposes to permanently reinstate it at the 2009 level of 45 percent for those

estates with total net worth of $7 million or more ($3.5 million per person).

Completely eliminating the estate tax would add $784 billion

to the deficit over 10 years relative to the budget baseline, or

$273 billion compared to the president’s proposals. At the

2009 level, the estate tax affects just 0.25 percent of the households

in the country.

Republicans incessantly claim that reinstating the 2009 estate

tax would unfairly burden small businesses, yet Tax Policy

Center estimates show that only 110 small businesses

entire country

2011.

estate tax liability at the 2009 level, while less than 3 percent of

people with any small business income at all would be subject

to it. Eliminating this tax wouldn’t incentivize much job creation

since so few businesses currently pay the estate tax.

14 (See chart)in thewould be subject to the 2009-level estate tax in15 Fewer than 2 percent of small business would have any16

The narrow sweep of the estate tax

Only a tiny number of small businesses and farm

estates nationwide owe

any estate tax

99.8% owed no

estate tax in 2009

1.3% of estates that

owed estate tax had

significant small

business or farm assets

(0.003% of all estates)

0.2% owed any

estate tax in 2009

Source: Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Note: A small farm or business estate is defined as an estate with farm and business assets

that represent at least half of the gross estate and total no more than $5 million.

7 Center for American Progress Action Fund | Republicans’ $10 Trillion Giveaway

Step 5: Reducing the payroll tax by half for 2010

This is easily the best idea included in the Republicans’ Economic Freedom

Act. A payroll tax holiday stimulates $1.29 in economic activity for every dollar

spent—a far higher “bang for the buck” than any other form of tax cut—according

to Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com,

Still, if implemented in fiscal year 2011 (since fiscal year 2010 is more than halfway

over) the measure would have cost $439 billion.

Remember, earlier this summer Republicans repeatedly filibustered a one-time

$33 billion extension of unemployment benefits amid 10 percent unemployment—

a program that cost more than 13 times less than the payroll tax cut they

suggested. Even if a payroll tax is a good idea to boost consumer spending amid

a shaky economic recovery, why is it that Republicans can support a payroll tax

holiday without accompanying budget cuts but not a similar trade off for unemployment

benefits?

Step 6: No new regulations

In addition to their budget-busting tax cuts, Republicans also want to ensure that

corporations are always allowed to play by their own rules—even in another financial

crisis caused by Wall Street excess or another oil spill caused by Big Oil’s negligence.

Similarly damaging corporate scandals are still fresh in the public’s memory,

yet House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) proposes a federal moratorium

on all government regulations for one year, saying “I think having a moratorium on

new federal regulations is a great idea [because] it sends a wonderful signal to the

private sector that they’re going to have some breathing room.”

17

Boehner’s spokesman later walked back from this statement to exclude oil

companies, but his original comment clearly reflects Republican thinking—all

government regulations are bad, whether they prevent oil spills, stop the sale of

contaminated foods, protect passengers from car, train, and plane accidents, or in

fact prevent the U.S. government from doing most anything to protect Americans

from the excesses of corporations focused on their bottom lines.

It is hard to put a dollar amount on a “no new regulations” decree, but U.S. households

lost $14 trillion in wealth due to the financial crisis in 2009 alone. And

8 Center for American Progress Action Fund | Republicans’ $10 Trillion Giveaway

Moody’s Economy.com estimates that the gulf oil spill will cost the Gulf Coast

region 17,000 jobs and about $1.2 trillion in lost economic wealth.

the difficulty of calculating these costs, we leave them out of our analysis here. But

make no mistake, conservatives utter disdain for prudent supervision of corporate

excesses could well cost the American people far more than the $10 trillion we

estimate their deficit-driven tax cuts would cost.

18 Because of

Conclusion

The Republicans’ economic policy program couldn’t be more fiscally irresponsible,

proposing nearly $10 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years without any meaningful

way to pay for more than 95 percent of them. Their plan also cuts sharply

across the grain of the common good, benefiting a tiny minority of the wealthiest

Americans at the expense of everyone else. Finally, their plan would not create

the millions of new jobs our economy needs to put the Republican-induced

Great Recession behind us and ensure broad-based job opportunities and economic

growth in the coming decade.

In short, their plan would place an overwhelming majority of Americans at risk of

a second Great Depression only a couple of years after their Great Recession. This

isn’t an economic policy plan. This isn’t a jobs plan. It is a second, and more damaging,

economic disaster in the making if Republicans ever get a change to enact it.

Pat Garofalo is an economics researcher and blogger at the Center for American

Progress Action Fund. Michael Linden is Associate Director for Tax and Budget Policy

at CAPAF. And Ethan Berman is an intern for the economics team at CAPAF.

9 Center for American Progress Action Fund | Republicans’ $10 Trillion Giveaway

Appendices

Distribution effects of H.R. 5029, “The Economic Freedom Act”

Introduced by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on April 15, 2010 in conjunction with the Republican Study Committee

2011 effects

Income

group

Average

income

Average tax cuts

Cut payroll

tax in half

0% rate on

capital gains*

Corporate 12.5%

rate and expensing

Estate tax

repeal

Total

Percent of

total tax cut

Lowest 20% $13,100 -$559 -$4 -$64 $– -$626 2.3%

Second 20% $26,300 -$1,227 -$13 -$201 $– -$1,441 5.4%

Middle 20% $42,300 -$2,228 -$30 -$400 $– -$2,659 9.9%

Fourth 20% $69,200 -$3,874 -$94 -$662 $– -$4,629 17.3%

Next 10% $105,300 -$5,857 -$256 -$973 $– -$7,086 13.2%

Next 5% $148,000 -$7,621 -$630 -$2,119 $– -$10,371 9.7%

Next 4% $258,100 -$9,050 -$2,255 -$5,713 -$827 -$17,845 13.3%

Top 1% $1,405,600 -$15,351 -$35,884 -$68,944 -$33,439 -$153,618 28.7%

All $71,300 -$3,019 -$527 -$1,370 -$362 -$5,278 100.0%

2012 effects

Income

group

Average

income

Average tax cuts

0% rate on

capital gains*

Corporate 12.5%

rate and expensing

Estate tax

repeal

Total

Percent of

total tax cut

Lowest 20% $13,700 — -$5 -$68 $– -$73 0.5%

Second 20% $27,500 — -$18 -$215 $– -$233 1.8%

Middle 20% $44,200 — -$40 -$427 $– -$467 3.5%

Fourth 20% $72,500 — -$118 -$705 $– -$823 6.2%

Next 10% $110,500 — -$333 -$1,024 $– -$1,357 5.2%

Next 5% $155,700 — -$827 -$2,181 $– -$3,007 5.9%

Next 4% $273,600 — -$3,061 -$5,860 -$895 -$9,771 15.3%

Top 1% $1,551,500 — -$50,215 -$70,983 -$36,324 -$157,522 61.5%

All $76,800 — -$745 -$1,455 -$406 -$2,606 100.0%

*Includes corporate effects, calculated after the cut in the regular corporate tax rate to 12.5%

Source: ITEP Tax Model, July 2010.

10 Center for American Progress Action Fund | Republicans’ $10 Trillion Giveaway

Estimated effects on the federal deficit of H.R. 5029, “The Economic Freedom Act”

Introduced by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), in conjunction with the Republican Study Committee

Annual cost, calendar tax

years, billions of dollars

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2011–2020

Cut payroll tax in half in 2011* -$444 $– $– $– $– $– $– $– $– $–

-$444

Zero percent capital gains tax rate** -$78 -$111 -$119 -$126 -$132 -$139 -$145 -$151 -$157 -$164

-$1,322

Allow expensing of business

equipment purchases and cut

corporate tax rate to 12.5%***

-$247 -$265 -$278 -$286 -$269 -$277 -$278 -$281 -$283 -$292

-$2,755

Repeal estate tax -$52 -$59 -$66 -$73 -$77 -$81 -$87 -$91 -$96 -$102

Subtotal -$822 -$435 -$462 -$484 -$478 -$496 -$509 -$522 -$537 -$558 -$5,305

-$784

Added interest on the national

debt (–)

-$14 -$35 -$58 -$89 -$124 -$162 -$206 -$250 -$296 -$346

Total cost -$835 -$471 -$520 -$573 -$602 -$659 -$715 -$772 -$833 -$904 -$6,884

-$1,580

* H.R. 5029 calls for cutting the payroll tax in half in 2010. Since 2010 is more than half over, the analysis here moves that tax cut to 2011.

** The zero percent rate on “long-term” capital gains would apply to both individuals and corporations. The corporate effect of this proposal was calculated after the proposed cut in the regular corporate tax rate to 12.5%.

*** These are two separate proposals in H.R. 5029, but they interact so much that they are analyzed together.

Note: All revenue estimates are compared to current law (under which the Bush tax cuts will all have expired).

Source: CBO, OMB, ITEP Tax Model, CTJ calculations, July 2010.

11 Center for American Progress Action Fund | Republicans’ $10 Trillion Giveaway

Endnotes

1 Congressional Budget Office, “Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and

Economic Output from January 2010 Through March 2010” (2010), available at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/

doc11525/05-25-ARRA.pdf.

2 Arloc Sherman, “Stimulus Keeping 6 Million Americans Out of Poverty in 2009, Estimates Show” (Washington: Center on

Budget and Policy Priorities, 2009), available at http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2910.

3 Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi, “How We Ended The Great Recession” (2010), available at http://www.scribd.com/

doc/35001645/How-We-Ended-the-Great-Recession.

4 Michael Linden and Michael Ettlinger, “Three Good Reasons to Let the High-End Bush Tax Cuts Disappear This Year”

(Washington: Center for American Progress, 2010), available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/

let_cuts_expire.html.

5 Recovery.gov, last accessed July 29, 2010.

6 Elizabeth Warren, Testimony before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, “An Update on the TARP Program,” July 21,2010,

available at http://cop.senate.gov/documents/testimony-072110-warren.pdf.

7 Linden and Ettlinger, “Three Good Reasons to Let the High-End Bush Tax Cuts Disappear This Year.”

8 Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative, “Decision Time: The Fiscal Effects of Extending the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts” (2010), available

at http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Economic_Mobility/PEW-Tax%20cut%20v15.

pdf?n=6878. This does not include the cost of permanently patching the Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT, which would

add an additional $1.3 trillion to the cost.

9 Matt Corley, “Gingrich Pushes 90s-Era Proposal To Eliminate Capital Gains Taxes As ‘A New, Bold Idea,’” Think Progress,

February 17, 2009, available at http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/17/gingrich-bold-capital-gains/.

10 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Total tax revenue as percentage of GDP,” available at http://

www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/27/41498733.pdf.

11 Mark Zandi, “Assessing the Macro Economic Impact of Fiscal Stimulus 2008” (West Chester, PA; Moody’s Economy.com,

2008), available at http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/assissing-the-impact-of-the-fiscal-stimulus.pdf.

12 Congressional Budget Office, “Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2010 and 2011” (2010), available

at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10803/01-14-Employment.pdf.

13 Mark Zandi, Testimony before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, “Using Unemployment Insurance to Help Americans

Get Back to Work: Creating Opportunities and Overcoming Challenges,” April 14, 2010, available at http://finance.senate.

gov/imo/media/doc/041410mztest.pdf.

14 Chuck Marr and Gillian Brunet, “Stalled Proposal to Cut Estate Tax Further Is Deeply Flawed and Should Not Be

Revived” (Washington: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2010), available at http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.

cfm?fa=view&id=3189.

15 Ibid.

16 Ben Furnas, “Douglas Holtz-Eakin Returns To Spread Shoddy Research Defending Tax Breaks For Wealthy Heirs,” Wonkroom,

June 6, 2010, available at http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/06/10/dhe-estate-tax/,

17 Greg Sargent, “Boehner: No more new Federal regulations!” The Plum Line, July 16, 2010, available at http://voices.washingtonpost.

com/plum-line/2010/07/boehner_no_more_federal_regula.htm

"I would appreciate your thoughts on Newsgroup's recent 1,000,000.00 contribution to the RGA."

Ted, I would appreciate your thoughts on municipal employees union AFSCME's $1,275,000 contribution to the DGA.

From the Center for Public Integrity:

The DGA receives most of its contributions from corporations and labor unions. It began filing as a 527 with the IRS after Congress passed public disclosure legislation in 2000, and has amassed $21.8 million in contributions since then. Individual contributions made up less than six percent of the total during this period.

The top contributor to the DGA is the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, which represents state government workers. AFSCME has given $1,275,000. The next four largest donors also are labor unions, with tobacco company Philip Morris (now Altria) and drug maker Pfizer Inc.

Holy Crap Joe! When did AFSCME become a media corporation that's "fair and balanced"?

Jose Von Hussein

Holy Crap Joe! When did AFSCME become a media corporation that's "fair and balanced"?

Jose you are talking to one of Fox Echo Chamber's low information voters. Fox's Echo Chamber gives no complete facts.

Touche Jose Von Hussein, Fox is a media outlet with a microphone to spout their propaganda the AHSCME doesn't have that microphone. That's a big difference.

No Jo,

I have not heard of the "journo-list" or whatever it is. I will investigate and respond when I have enough information to form a reasoned opinion.

I did not find your answer to my question satisfactory though. Are you saying that it's OK for a media group with the platform of FOX and several major papers to be totally in the tank for a political party?

Joe in Albany,

I beleive that unions throw their weight behind the party that is going to best look out for the interests of it members, as it should be. If the Democrats have earned the support of a large organization that works to improve the living standards of middle class employess, I'm very glad to be a democrat.

However, comparing a union contribution to a contribution made by the media who is supposed to be a journolistic news outlet is like comparing apples to spaceships. The repercussions of our media throwing their wieght behind ANY party is preposterous. And in my opinion denigrates the whole concept of a free press

So,

I did a quick search of the journo list (or whatever) couple things strike me at first glances.

#1) it has been exposed for a long time now, and no one seems to think it's a big deal besides you and conservative bloggers.

#2) from what I see it was a bunch of like minded people (lefties and journalists albeit) that wanted to share personal opinions in private.

#3) Anyone making a comment like the ones stated in the stories I read would definitely be introduced as commentators or strategists or thier work as opinion peices.

#4) This is in no way relatable to a "Fair and Balanced" News organization throwing their weight behind a political party.

I summary, I beleive that all people, even journalists need to talk to people about how they feel about politics. The message board reminds me of first read in the fact that people come here to complain about what they don't like about this person and that and vent. Where they can't vent in their professions. And discussion space was supposed to be private (for whatever that's worth) and secret so it did not infect thier profesions.

Were some distastful comments made yes. Were they made by liberals and dems, yes. But, I don't feel that this is anywhere in the same galaxy as Newsgroup's contribution.

What is that you're always talking about; the "journalistic code of ethics" How does Newsgroup's one way contribution fit into that?

"I beleive that unions throw their weight behind the party that is going to best look out for the interests of it members, as it should be."

And News Corp which donated this money to look out for its own interests shouldn't be allowed to do so? I believe the Supreme Court just ruled that "unconstitutional".

News Corp. Spokesman Jack Horner emails, "News Corporation believes in the power of free markets, and the RGA’s pro-business agenda supports our priorities at this most critical time for our economy."

And MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS , NY Times, Wash. Post which all lean to the Dem left in their "news" coverage don't count in "The repercussions of our media throwing their wieght behind ANY party is preposterous."??

I do not beleive a "news outlet" should be given the same leniency, no. I feel that fox has crossed a line and should no longer be able to call themselves a news source. political commentary, fine. but not journalism or free press. they should not be allowed to carry those credentials anymore.

I do not agree with unlimited corporate campaign cash (not that it matters what I think; the supreme court has ruled)

The news stations you have mentioned REGULARLY hold Dems feet to the fire, present both sides of the stories and don't make up lies as news.

Fox does not have ANY counter weight. and the pro-growth Agenda their all for; where is it. I have seen NO platform, NO policies, NO ideas from the GOP. besides that is, the same ones that blew our deficit up and decimated the middle class being rehashed.

I think somewhere deep inside Joe, you know this is wrong and not what the press is supposed to be.

We get Fox and a handful of conservative talk radio shows. You get MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR (publicly funded no less!), Air America, a good number of local newspapers, etc, etc etc... What are you folks so scared of? Seems like my side's the one who's outnumbered but we aren't crying for privately funded corporations to be silenced or forced to give equal time! So freaking what if Fox News leans right. If you don't like what you see, hear or read there, CHANGE THE STATION. News hasn't been unbiased since Nielsen started handing out ratings on it. Don't pretend that you're somehow wiser for getting all your news from a liberally biased source than someone who reads the headlines on Fox. If you aren't getting the story from both sides and forming your own opinion you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.

Jeff-1541632,

You do realize, I hope, that this "10 trillion dollar giveaway" was written by the Center for American Progress Action Fund (a progressive think-tank). Not the Republican Party. Not a Republican or Conservative candidate. Why not read this one in the name of "fairness"? one http://frontpagemag.com/2010/08/18/obamas-entitlement-nationx/

I'm not scared of anything, damn sure not Fox news. I am simply stating that Fox has crossed a line in giving to one party and not the other. I watch fox for a bit each day to get a counter point. The lies and misrepresentations and outlandish statements are laughable, if it weren't so sad. The press receives special privilages so the population can stay informed. Fox is no longer news, simply right wing entertainment.

FYI: MSNBC contributed to the DGA and RGA equally. Now that's "Fair and Balanced"

Where is is written that anyone needs to give equally to both parties? Cuz man oh man, the republicans ought to run away with the mid-term elections if the AFL-CIO, UAW, IBEW, teamsters, teacher's unions, etc, hand over all those catch up contributions the republicans are owed to keep things fair and balanced.

It cracks me up that this is such a one sided tantrum. You don't cry when organizations give exclusively to democrats, only when they give to republicans. You don't cry when 90% of the media is rampantly liberal, only when 10% (and I'm being extremely generous here) is conservative. At least Fox has the tenders to own up to their bias!

Angela S

Ok angela i read it, now lets be fair, the web site was a right wing site, but i'm not above reading it and seeing what is said. most is true, and i don't have a problem with the president trying to advance our education system, if we are a world leader then our kid must be apart of it. i would rather invest in our education sytem then tax cuts for rich people who could give less than a da* . also let me remind you that when former president bush put those tax cuts in affect he said that these would pervent a recession for years to come, well guess what angela he was wrong. lets also not forget the tax cuts were unfunded, just like his perscription drug program that is expected to add 6 trillion to our deficets. i got that from the CBO.

Intiltlement programs, were not a problem untill Bush reduced the government revenues by giving the tax cuts. Now angela i don't have a problem with the tax cuts, my problem was that when we went to war, he should have recended those tax cuts to fund both wars, he will go down as the first and only president to reduce taxes during war, roosevelt, truman, eisenhower, johnson increased taxes during the korea and vietman war, and we all know roosevelt raised taxes before and during WW2.

so now we have Obama, A tax and spend liberal, he is called a socolist, communist, but what he did for big busniess proves all that wrong. TAARP, bail-out for GM and chrysler and the banks shows he is a capitalist.

HCR is not a finished produce, but you must admitt we have to reduce our cost for health care just like every industrialised nation has.

so now i have read your link, please read my post about the 10trillion dollar republican plan, its only fair.

Jeff:

Some things don't cut and paste here very well. I regard the Center for American Progress on about the same level as you do Newsgroup.

What the President stated about foreign corporations influencing US elections is coming true. Although News Corp. is now (as of 2005) organized in Deleware (all big corps are) it has many significant foreign shareholders. The number one being Murdoch. Number 2 is a Saudi Corp which owns 7% of voting shares.

Wait until Toyota and others start running our elections.

So true. The concept that money is speech has to be the most corrosive idea to come down the pike in a generation.

Hey Joe in Albany

Blago definitely has some kind of dirt on the higher-ups in the Chicago Democrat crime syndicate. Maybe it’s Rahm, maybe it’s Axelrod, maybe it’s Jarrett, maybe it’s Mayor Daley, maybe it’s even the Messiah himself. It’s the Chicago way. Regardless, at least one juror was tampered with. The lesson here is that the Obama organized crime family has tentacles that reach deep. If I end up in the Potomac with cement shoes on, you’ll know who did it.

What a waste of space you give!

What is so confusing to the too whinny, whinny, trolls here about the Blago trial? It’s obvious, Patrick Fitzgerald is incompetent. He let Cheney go. Stop spending tax payers’ dollars on this Blago circus. Give Chicago a break; let us and the rest of the nation move on. This isn’t funny anymore. These are tax payer dollars about to be wasted. Did any one she that big grin on Blago’s face; HAHA? When political corruption is aimed as the accepted norm in Chi-town, don’t exclude Republicans.

Shame on Fox Noise slash that it should be called Fox Entertainment since it reports no news. Anyhow Fox Entertainment’s conglomerate owner just gave a cool 1million to the Republican Governors Assoc.(read) to keep lambasting President Obama and the Democratics. Shame, Shame this is just so it advances the slanted agenda of Sarah Palin, Karl Rove, Newt Gringrich (he defaulted on his Contract with America)

Haa haa Fox Entertainment just gave a cool 1mil to the

gave a cool 1mil to the

I’d like to point out the hypocrisy of the Grand Old Obstruction Party. 19 of the 22 states suing the government over ObamaCare have acceped grant money fromthe health care law.

I’d like to point out the hypocrisy of the Grand Old Obstruction Party. 19 of the 22 states suing the government over ObamaCare have acceped grant money fromthe health care law.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger announced she is ending her radio show due to her five-minute-long rant of (read hate fest)using the “N”-word 11 times. Dr. Laura regaining her First Amendment rights to allow her to be able to say what's on her mind and in my heart. Pluezze-eese that woman should SU. It’s obvious; she wants to fan bigotry and her 11 condescending slurs are not going to change her. The next two to go should be Glenn Beck and Hannity..

Most Muslims were horror-struck by 9/11. It’s strange Christians aren’t repentant of eliminating the Native Americans, the Slave trade, or Tim Mc veigh!
Hitler look alike John Bolton (looks like he’s on crack too) wants to attack Iran. Why does “Bolt-on”stop there; why not waste taxes dollars to strike the rest of the world and raise the prospect of eliminating the planet? . Maybe, maybe, just maybe, if there is anyone left, the rest of that world will see how ridiculous Republican neo-cons like him, Cheney, and Rove are.

Correction: Did any one see that big grin on Blago's face? Or that News Corp., the Fox News parent company run by Rupert Murdoch, donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association (RGA) in June.

How about this flagrant violation?

$1 million contribution to the RGA violations company policy:

Employees who have dealings with government officials shall conform to the following standards:

1. All employees who contact public officials must be familiar with the applicable lobbying laws and public disclosure requirements, particularly those laws or regulations pertaining to registrations or filings that must be made by the Company.

2. No payment shall be made to, or for the benefit of, any public official in order to induce or entice such official to: enact, defeat or violate any law or regulation for the Company's benefit; influence any official act; or obtain any favorable action by a governmental agency or official on behalf of the Company.

3. Social amenities, entertainment and other courtesies may be extended to government officials or employees only to the extent appropriate and reasonable under applicable laws and customs. Gifts of greater than nominal value to, or lavish entertainment of, public officials are prohibited.No gifts in the form of cash, stock or other similar consideration shall be given, regardless of amount. Any gift about which an employee is uncertain should not be made without the prior written approval of the Company's General Counsel. Any expenses incurred by a Company employee in connection with the matters discussed herein shall be accurately recorded on the Company's books and records.

Beverly, I'm curious. You keep calling people racist. Can you give me some specific examples of Beck or Hannity being racist? Apparently, you must watch their shows a lot since you seem to know so much about their philosophies. I've seen them both but don't watch regularly; but, I've not seen what you seem to indicate is very overt racism.

Dirt:

You must be living under a rock. Glenn has consistently compared President Obama to being a Nazi for just one example. Their are hundreds just google it but be prepared to spend the rest of the day reading them.

Or how about Glen consistantly stating that President Obama has a deep seated hatred of white people...

Yeah... no racism there! lol

dirt-303814


Well for starters, dirt I say so because when the Beckester who is a seriously disturbed individual

***Crickets***

Hey... where did the 'dirt' ball go?

Bev,

So you say Beck says it, you deemed that it's OK for you? Now that's classy.............Believe me I'm not defending Beck, I don't watch his show. I find it funny that you just justified your reason to be that way. Don't you think YOU'RE just has bad as Beck? He said it, so can I mentality. Just a thought........

Navy,

Comparing Obama to a Nazi is not a racial term...................Maybe a style of Governing, but not a racist..

I did Google Beck on racial issue and there's a lot there, so yes, you can say he's a racist you are correct and you can also say Beverly is a racist too.......

Maybe I dont see racism the same way you guys do, but nothing you said there apints him as a racist. I think it's how you interepted it.

Saying Pres. Obama isn't racist.... at least not that I can think of.

Having the opinion that the president has certain feeling towards "White people" doesn't make him a racist....

In all of the examples you three cited I dont think I read one thing where he was actively promoting doing harm to a "race", I put that into quotes because what they actually are are "Ethinc Groups". There are only three truly genetic races, but you would know that if stepped off the tall donkey you think is a horse.

But "racism", at least as I think of it. Would be demeaning, holding back, or demonizing a specific ethnic group of people. I have not seen any of that demonstrated in you examples. Now I don't watch or listen to either of these men, but from you have said here, I dont fond either of them to be a racist.

My opinion, is you three are so busy worrying about trying to find fault in them that you will interpret whatever they say to be offensive.

But I'm just calling it as I see it.

Try explaining that to the Jews that the Nazi's put in ovens, gas chambes etc. They tried to destroy a whole race of people. I cannot think of anything more racists, except maybe for some of the roght wing opinions on this board. You people that think glenn, rush and others are not racist are sick.

Beverly in Chicago

To only be fair to Dr. Laura Schlessinger that caller should have called her a heb, and kept calling her a heb untill she understood how black feel about the N-word or call her a U-boat driving heb, maybe that would have hit home!!!

Brilliant!!

John B, Des Moines, IA

Brilliant!!

well John, some times you have to show people, that what they say can be countered with a racial term they understand, she kept saying the N-word thinking all blacks call each other that, well by calling her a heb, that is as offensive as using the N-word.

I thought "Dirt" asked you for examples of racism...you didn't list any....why not ?

"Crickets"

Nothing in replies was racist (except in your hyper-inflated Liberal ignorance...I guarantee you that you cannot find a statement by Glenn Beck that you can disprove...he ALWAYS backs his comments up with audio or video tape or a direct quote from a reputable source...I wish the looney left outlets would do the same...

The term "racism" has no value anymore. It's been cheapened to the point that it's meaningless.

I'm a racist, he's a racist, she's a racist, wouldn't you like to be a racist, too?

I'm a racist because I voted against Obama. It had nothing to do with his being a Democrat. It matters not that I didn't vote for any Democrats. Just suffice it to say that if I voted against a Democrat congressman in my district, I'm a racist.

I'm a racist, I'm a racist, I'm a racist, racist, racist, racist, racist.

You're a racist, racist, racist, racist, racist, racist, racist, racist.

Racist, racist, racist.

More than a dozen "racists" here and together not worth a dime.

Cheap, cheap word for cheap, cheap people.

We have met the enemy and he is racist.

Richard, I believe the word you are looking for is BIGOT. Just helping you out.

"I guarantee you that you cannot find a statement by Glenn Beck that you can disprove..."

hehe. hehehe. hehehehahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAW!!!!

http://mediamatters.org/research/201008170082

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201008180058

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201008180026

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008170057

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008170054

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201008170045

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201008170016

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201008160030

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201008130043

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201008120039

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008110047

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201008110013

http://glennbeckreport.com/glenn-beck-lies/

Sorry most of these are from only a few sources, but I don't have a lot of time to deal with a statement that ridiculous. Google "Glenn Beck lies" and there's a universe of education.

Jose VH:

Nice post. I made a copy (hope you do not mind) for future reference.

Thank you and no, I don't mind at all, sir. It's the least I can do for an honorable veteran such as yourself.

Excellent post, well said.

Geat post JVH.

I remember when Presidential Candidate Obama used the phrase for Republicans to "Own Their Mistakes"!

It still hasn't happened.....We await!

To funny.....

in the past 10 years the national debt has risen by 7.9 trillon dollars.. in the first 6 years the Republicans Controlled Congress. and the National Debt rose by 2.9 Trillion dollars.. Since the Democrat took controll of congress the National Debt has Risen by 5 Trillion dollars.. See. I ddint blame Obama. I put the blame right where it belongs.. When the republicans controlled congress the Unemployment rate was at 5 percent or below.. Our Economy was Booming and the dow was over 14000, when the democrats took control of Congress the Economy Tanked and the Unemployment rose to 10 percent.. Now. See i ddint blame Obama.. I put the blame right where it belongs.. on the out of control Congress..... Now the way i see this is.. the republicans had an Average Defict in those 6 years of 500 billion dollars.. While the democrats that controlled congress had an Average Defict of 1.25 Trillion dollars.... Again i didnt blame Obama i blamed the Congress... But.. Obama is steering the Car right now .. the same as Bush was when they were running Deficts...

Jose

I don't blame President Obama he came into a terrible economy. However, I do feel that in the 20 months so far very little has changed. His focus on jobs, jobs, jobs is a joke as he was too busy creating his legacy HCR.

As to your post, play it on the worlds smallest violin. This is the job he wanted. The economy crashed during the campaign and he used it to get elected. Stop the whining!!!

Hey Steve - just so we don't try to "blame a Democratic Congress" either, guess how many vetoes Bush did before the Congress went Democratic? Don't know? Didn't think so.

ONE.

Guess when he took out his veto pen and started using it? Yup - you guessed it; after Democrats took control of Congress.

Hmmm... now was that blaming Bush, or stating facts? HAHAHAHA!

And Alan, methinks it's YOU who's whining. 20 months and "little has changed"? Watching too much Beck, are we?

Do you remember that we were losing 700,000 jobs when Obama came into office? We're gaining jobs now - not enough, to be sure, but being in positive territory is better than the negative he was handed.

Do you remember that the Dow was on it's way down to 6,800 from 14,000? Where is it now? Oh yes - back UP to the mid 10,000's.

Do you remember how Bush NEVER put the war money into the budget, and did it all OFF budget (this is aimed at Steve too)? So now that it IS in the budget, we actually KNOW what we are spending - isn't that the RESPONSIBLE thing to do?

And how much of Medicare Part D did the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS actually bother to PAY FOR in a vote that they kept open for 3 hours to get it passed? Oh yeah - none of it. They CUT taxes, and put all that in the DEFICIT. Democrats fault? Hardly. But idiots like you will say, "Oh, look - Congress went to the Dems when Medicare Part D kicked in, and the deficit went up." and you won't bother to look at WHY the debt and deficit went up.

Pay for those wars? Yeah - all off budget, and done with TAX CUTS in place. Wow - no one could do the math on that, could they? (Less money coming in, plus more money going out for wars equals... ummmm... ummmm - OH YEAH, BUDGET PROBLEMS FROM REPUBLICAN CONTROL OF CONGRESS!).

See, it takes some actual THINKING which I can tell you're not real good at to understand how this stuff works.

That's just a few things, so I hope you'll take that into consideration when you try to say "very little has changed." A LOT has changed, but despite the sneering from the right that Obama is "The Messiah!" he's doing his best given what he can do. For all the "Free market fixes everything!" types out there, my question is this: Why has the market fixed everything yet? It's not like Obama did anything to STOP the free market from working, despite you wanting to blame him for doing so.

NEXT!

yea.. alot has changed.. about 5 Trillion dollars more Debt since the democrats took control in 2007.. .. you are right. and Umemployment has gone up 5 pts.. too.. you are right.. again. i didnt blame Obama.. i blamed the Congress....

Next

Ah yes, Steve, I see you're STILL not thinking about this. Maybe I'll have to spell it out more clearly:

Tax cuts in both 2001 and 2003, what does that do? REDUCE REVENUE OVER TIME.

Pass Medicare Part D without paying for it, what does that do? INCREASE SPENDING OVER TIME.

Fight two wars without paying for them OR increasing taxes, what does that do? INCREASE SPENDING OVER TIME.

Now, listen closely, and read carefully so you don't miss this: Does all the spending and tax cutting magically happen immediately? (Hint: The answer is not 'yes.')

So the POLICIES put forth by WHOM? Oh yes, REPUBLICANS (both Bush AND Congress) were what contributed to the debt situation when the Democrats DID take over so simpletons like you would blame them WHEN THE BILL COMES DUE, yes?

See how that works? If you'd actually read a budget or see what Congress passes and when, you'd know these simple facts, but listening to Beck and Limbaugh, you'll just get the ideological spin.

(NOTE: My apologies to Alan for editing my previous comment above and placing some points directed at Steve under the part where I replied to him.)

ALAN, NJ:

President Obama has done a lot in 20 months, more than many previous Presidents have done in their whole terms. There are numerous listing of his accomplishments to date on the net. Go read them.

The reason he is not getting jobs, education etc is that virtually every bill that has these components in it gets shot down by the minority republican party. Even though on the media they claim to be for jobs, for education, for tax cuts for small business, etc - the list goes on, they vote against the very same bills.

It is the obstructionist that are stalling our economic growth. See my post previously.

Jose..

Tax cuts allow people to keep more of their money that they earned.. It is the Budgets that the congress pass with Deficts spending that add to the Debt.......

Tax cuts allow people to keep more of their money that they earned

I'm so glad you said that Steve. If that's the case, WHERE IS THE TRICKLE DOWN? Why haven't rich people created jobs? Tax rates are AT THEIR LOWEST IN SIX DECADES. Why aren't there more jobs, right now? Hmmmm?!?!? If there were more JOBS, then there'd be more REVENUE to help pay down all the stuff Bush put on the nation's credit card. But no - Obama was handed a MESS, and now you're STILL NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY.

Somehow, that's NOT surprising at all.

It is the Budgets that the congress pass with Deficts spending that add to the Debt.......

Hello? McFLy? Are you not paying attention? The Republicans passed budgets that cause spending to happen LATER (Medicare Part D didn't kick in right way - LOOK IT UP), so they can then blame Democrats and simpletons like you believe them. I'd link to some pictures for you, but if you can't even comprehend the basic math, I'm not sure a picture would help even you....

Jose.

we understand that you can't comprehend that it is congress that is spending money.. it is congress that passes budgets, congress is spending money they dont have. .Right now. the republcans are not in control of Congress right now. it is the Democrats.. They control it all.. that blame the Republicans for the Debt that the Congress is spending right now is just incredible.. Like i said before.. The Republicans added 2.9 Trillion dollars to the debt from 2006.... I blamed that Congress.. is there something about the fact that you can't put the Blame on the Democrats for the OVER spending they are doing.. Or is it your contention that everything the Democrats do is the Republicans fault?..

Geez Bif.. Figure it out.

Steve,

I think I have responded to you before about the cause and effect of laws and how there is an offset in the impact to the deficit and debt. I know that you discuss the National Debt but that come from the deficit when the money is borrowed to cover the deficit.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/study-bush-tax-cuts-cost-more-twice-m

So Steve what laws from 1/1/2007 thru 12/31/2008 did the Democratic lawmaker pass that added to the deficit & debt?

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired ALAN, NJ: President Obama has done a lot in 20 months, more than many previous Presidents have done in their whole terms. There are numerous listing of his accomplishments to date on the net. Go read them. The reason he is not getting jobs, education etc is that virtually every bill that has these components in it gets shot down by the minority republican party. Even though on the media they claim to be for jobs, for education, for tax cuts for small business, etc - the list goes on, they vote against the very same bills. It is the obstructionist that are stalling our economic growth. See my post previously.

I guess the 1T of stimulus wasn't anything to do with jobs then? BTW If there's still 400B still to be spent why do you need to appropriate more money? Also, if it wasn't big enough why hasn't it been spent yet?

I guess the 1T of stimulus wasn't anything to do with jobs then? BTW If there's still 400B still to be spent why do you need to appropriate more money? Also, if it wasn't big enough why hasn't it been spent yet?

First, some facts: It wasn't "1T." It was 213 BILLION LESS than that. And you do realize that about half of the stimulus was Republican-demanded tax cuts, right? And that tax cuts are the LEAST stimulative of government measures to get an economy going?

Gee Steve, your condescension is pretty amusing considering that it's an attempt to keep anyone from noticing that you blame spending for the budget deficit but not taxation.

How 'bout the next time you're a little tight for cash we cut your pay to compensate. See how that works?

OK Jose you got me. It started at 787B and is now above 820B because of higher unemployment payments. You didn't answer though was it a jobs bill or not?

BTW Why do I care that half was tax cuts (apart from the fact that I have more money in my pocket). Can you prove that the non-tax cut part has been more stimulative? Either way some one called President Obama signed into law and he has stand or fall with it. If it was working would you be complaining about tax cuts or would you be praising the President's wisdom in signing the bill?

The whining never ends.

Why do I care that half was tax cuts (apart from the fact that I have more money in my pocket).

Because Republicans / conservatives are always yammering that "tax cuts creates jobs." So I want to know how many jobs you've created with that 'extra money in your pocket."

Can you prove that the non-tax cut part has been more stimulative?

YES. I noticed a least several dozen people WORKING around my little town over the last year and a half, with these signs indicating where the money came from. So they were WORKING because of the STIMULUS.

Can YOU show me how many jobs were created from Bush's tax cuts?

If it was working would you be complaining about tax cuts or would you be praising the President's wisdom in signing the bill?

Please try and read carefully. I'm not whining about the stimulus package; I believe it's working, and was a good thing because of the SPENDING that was done in it. I couldn't care less about the whole $8 per paycheck that it reduced my taxes (wow - a whole $144 per year - my health insurance went up by that much PER MONTH!).

It does seem though, that it's YOU that's whining about the spending and whatnot. Keynesian policies work, and yes, it will take time to pay it off. But they are more stimulative than most any tax cut.

I'll wait for YOUR proof on how many jobs the tax cuts created....

Ouch! Great job Jose!

Better luck next time Steve and Alan.

Jose 1 the Steve and Alan show ZERO. Thanks for playing.

Well Alan, a Nobel Prize winning Economist says yes, spending is a more effective stimulus than tax cuts http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/is-obama-relying-too-much-on-tax-cuts/ . He isn't the only one http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/2009/0203/which-stimulus-is-better-tax-cuts-or-spending to believe that the stimulus package hasn't been as effective as it should have been because the WH bowed to Republican pressure for more tax cuts, either.

Where do I say tax cuts create jobs? However to get back to your original post about how this poor guy, President Obama, found himself in such a terrible environment.

1) Yes George W Bush was primarily responsible for the economy in 2008. He was president and he lives and dies by the state of the economy.

2) He had a democratic congress complicit for the last two years of his presidency. This congress included a freshman Senator called Barak Obama. As one of 100 Senate members and one the 535 members of congress, the so called leaders of our country, he bares some of the blame for economy in 2008.

3) He ran for the freakin job of president. What did expect in January of 2009? That the seas would stop rising and the planet would begin to heal? Or the same economy that he ran against in November of 2008?

As I said before cry me river.

BTW George W Bush was one of the most Keynesian presidents ever. What do think two unfunded wars and an unfunded Medicare D program were? What exactly is you definition of Keynesian economics? Mine is to spend more than you receive. How did old GWB's economics work out for you?

BTW George W Bush was one of the most Keynesian presidents ever. What do think two unfunded wars and an unfunded Medicare D program were?

So "making stuff that goes *BOOM!*" is Keynesian? I thought it was about jobs that actually make USEFUL things that continue to get used.

And pray tell, oh-so-wise Alan, why would Bush magically want "Keynesian" economic policies during what Republicans fondly recall now as "strong economic growth" years? And if that's the case, why are Republicans so opposed to those ideas now? And why didn't they actually bother to fund the programs if revenue was great then? If revenue was just dandy at that time, why weren't they "fiscally responsible" and actually PAY for it, like they're demanding Dem's do now?

John B, Des Moines, IA

Well Alan, a Nobel Prize winning Economist says yes, spending is a more effective stimulus than tax cuts http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/is-obama-relying-too-much-on-tax-cuts/ . He isn't the only one http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/2009/0203/which-stimulus-is-better-tax-cuts-or-spending to believe that the stimulus package hasn't been as effective as it should have been because the WH bowed to Republican pressure for more tax cuts, either.

Kind of confused over your tenses here John. You're quoting two opinion pieces from before the stimulus was passed, and then following it up with "the package hasn't been as effective as should have been." Predictions are not empirical evidence of what actually happened. Also Dr Krugman predicted that the stimulus was too small and that we need another urgently. I don't follow his logic as we haven't actually spent the first one yet.

And pray tell, oh-so-wise Alan, why would Bush magically want "Keynesian" economic policies during what Republicans fondly recall now as "strong economic growth" years? And if that's the case, why are Republicans so opposed to those ideas now? And why didn't they actually bother to fund the programs if revenue was great then? If revenue was just dandy at that time, why weren't they "fiscally responsible" and actually PAY for it, like they're demanding Dem's do now?

Excellent questions. Much better than the poor "President" posting that started all this.

I don't know the answers as I didn't agree with GWB's economic policies, but my personal opinion is that they're a bunch of hypocrites playing politics. (this is also my opinion of most politicians)

Alan, are you daft?

The ENTIRE premise of tax cuts is that the effect will TRICKLE DOWN. You don't have to state it explicitly. It is a given.

AND they DID NOT Work. for 7 years under Bush with Tax Cuts in place, the NET effect of job losses was catastrophic. Did not keep pace with population growth, etc. THESE ARE KNOWN FACTS. These are not untested theories.

What the heck is wrong with you?

Clara KCMO

Alan, are you daft?

The ENTIRE premise of tax cuts is that the effect will TRICKLE DOWN. You don't have to state it explicitly. It is a given.

AND they DID NOT Work. for 7 years under Bush with Tax Cuts in place, the NET effect of job losses was catastrophic. Did not keep pace with population growth, etc. THESE ARE KNOWN FACTS. These are not untested theories.

What the heck is wrong with you?

I'll ask again where did I promote or endorse supply side economics?

All I said was that GWB was in effect a Keynesian because of his unfunded spending on two wars and Medicare D. Keynes argued that increasing aggregate demand would lead to higher employment. By running a deficit, the Government adds to aggregate demand. It doesn't matter what you spend it on as long as it increases demand. So to get back Jose's point buying things that go BOOM actually does count as creating demand, and by inference increases employment in the munitions industry (re: Germany 1933).

So Clara I don't consider myself daft. I just don't understand the content of your post based on what I have been posting. To be honest it seems totally unrelated. Maybe you were replying to somebody else.

Good job Jose, you exposed Steve and Allen for what they are, all their response's were word for word Fox talking points. You took them to school and spanked them, keep it up their at this moment trying to figure out how to respond to you, they see the Fox talking points aren't working, just as there losing steam throughout the country.

Alan,

Perhaps I am misreading your intent in comment #6.18?

It appears that you say the TAX CUT put more spending money in your pocket. The discussion was predicated around the Stimulus Package. The counter point was that tax cuts don't stimulate.

In re-reading your post, I think you've done a really good job of not saying anything substantively For or Against Tax Cuts. I went ahead and made the LEAP that since you were in opposition to Jose's finer points - you were (ergo) in support of the entire 'opposition' platform (if we can call it that).

In rewinding through MANY of your old posts (at least in August), I have come to the conclusion that you are really just a contrarian with basically nothing of substance to say. If I am wrong in my assessment, I welcome your rebuttal.

EXACTLY!!!!! That is merely one of the issues I have with the Republicans. None of them will take responsibility for their part in this cluster. According to them, all this happened on January 21, 2009.

The truth is Alan, you have more money in your pocket because of tax cuts implemented by current admin. The difference is the 'who'. Do you and I receive the cuts or do corporation get them along with top 2% ers?

P.S. Corps don't use tax cuts to create jobs. Corps create wealth for share holders, if creating jobs adds wealth, they do that; if cutting jobs add wealth, they do that. Period

Clara KCMO

Alan,

Perhaps I am misreading your intent in comment #6.18?

It appears that you say the TAX CUT put more spending money in your pocket. The discussion was predicated around the Stimulus Package. The counter point was that tax cuts don't stimulate.

In re-reading your post, I think you've done a really good job of not saying anything substantively For or Against Tax Cuts. I went ahead and made the LEAP that since you were in opposition to Jose's finer points - you were (ergo) in support of the entire 'opposition' platform (if we can call it that).

In rewinding through MANY of your old posts (at least in August), I have come to the conclusion that you are really just a contrarian with basically nothing of substance to say. If I am wrong in my assessment, I welcome your rebuttal.

If I have nothing to say then I fit in well with the majority of posters on this board.

However, just because I don't support either GWB or Barak Obama does not mean I have nothing to say. The majority of my posts here oppose the current administration because they are the party in power and I do not like many or their policies. This does not mean that I automatically endorse the oppositions position either. As I said above their [Republican] current embrace of fiscal responsibility when they still support tax cuts is disingenuous at best. My position is that we have to face the reality that we are living beyond our means. I do not believe we can borrow and spend our way out of this crisis nor do I believe that we can simply cut taxes and hope for the best. It is not a contrarian point of view it simply different form the policies advocated by either of the two parties. It is also a consistent position as I was against the Iraq war, definitely against the fact it was unfunded (a real President would have called for shared sacrifice and raised taxes), and against Medicare D as an unfunded entitlement. (Although I do agree with it as a social policy).

If you would read further I also propose policies that neither party advocate. It's called being independent.

And to Mo-1852032, if you think these are Fox News talking points you are watching the wrong channel. You win the prize for the most inane comment today.

Alan, NJ

I sincerely thank you for your response. It is crystal clear now where you stand and my sincere apologies for misjudging you.

Thank you for sharing your perspective, I can honestly say I did not derive your position from the previous postings I had read.

While it is basically true that we cannot spend our way out of trouble. I think it is entirely disengenous to presume a "no spending policy" effective 1-21-2009. That is where I get frustrated. The treasury was already in the tank. What were the reasoned suggestions to stem the absolute FREEFALL?

The reality is that throughout the country during the 'lost decade' we were so focused on wealth creation and not focused on Rainy Day savings. And this was a direct result of Republican Policies. There isn't a person or party that exists that can walk this thing back from the ledge. I think the focus of bailing out the banks with TARP was wrong, shortsighted and obviously rewarded those who caused the meltdown. I think targeted stimulus spending ON INFRASTRUCTURE made sense. I think those who have more certainly reaped an insane amount of benefit during the free for all and now should suck it up and pay more.

I think Healthcare for all by whatever cost model necessary is tantamount to a 'right' as defined by the Preamble. I have always found it completely bizarre that medical treatment should be determined by your employer and only available to those with full-time benefits. That is so short sighted.

I don't think it is reasonable by any estimation that someone takes the family car out for a daredevil journey, totals it and then hands the keys back with the implication - "you're on your own - figure it out without help".

Unrelated to you or your post I feel the need to point out that if Mitch McConnell postured in that first meeting at the Whitehouse the way he recently did on camera about how he will only entertain policy discussions that are RIGHT OF CENTER; well you bet your butt I would have responded with a hearty, "I WON!"

At any rate,...thanks for clarifying your views, I appreciate it.

During his campaign he swore he had the answers to every problem...he didn't start the presidency wiyh that either....he also didn't start with any experience in ever running anything...he DID start with a lot of criminal friends and a family background wrapped up in Communism...

Hmmph...last I checked, Westboro Baptist Church hates everybody.

yeah, buzz, welcome to Missouri - ain't it grand?

PS. Even Fred Phelps doesn't garner 100% spawn participation. I believe at least two of his children have 'left' the family.

Drive by,

Good point. Not only do they have no bounds, they consistently move the current ones even further into the twilight zone.

FYI: Republicans and responsibility are two words that should not be used together.

Drive by-I have repeatedly criticized that - well, group is as close as I'll come -

see, I refuse to refer to it as a 'church'. I normally refer to it as 'that nut who leads people around protesting at military funerals'.

I've had personal interactions with the group. They had the unmitigated gall to go to Key West and spew their hatred around the HIGH SCHOOL. They specialize in signs that say 'you will eat your young', (whatever THAT means), and "God Hates You".

They are vile, disgusting, and, I suppose, entitled to their beliefs. However, the one thing they are NOT is a 'church'.

Just like Republicans have exercised such "personal responsibility"? HA! See my post above for details about you hypocrites.

Go Jose:

Republicans and responsibility are two words that should not be used together. Great come back.

And just llok at all the jobs being created by those tax cuts that are STILL IN PLACE!

(Lord, do I need typing lessons, or what?)

I know - I keep waiting for someone to show me just ONE JOB that was created by a tax cut. I just see millionaires and billionaires getting richer and richer.

I was in NYC and stayed with family in Queens. Never went to the city without my family. But that was several years ago and I went without an escort and went all over the city from Harlem to Staten Island exploring for seven days. Man that was a fun trek that I am going to take again. Used the buses, ferries and subway; and the subway map for my guide.

LouisJ: There's nothing like spending a few days in NYC. It always saddens me when I have to leave. September is a great month to visit I have found.

Pat: I know of no one who loves the history of locations more than you. Boston, New York, Beaches of Normandy,Germany; you seem to soak it in and it becomes a part of who you are.

Duly noted. I went in August last year and it was hot, Hot, HOT.

NYC is one of our favorite places. About every other year we go down there for a week or 10 days to visit friends and relatives. We try to catch a few plays on Broadway, go to the Bronx zoo, tour the neighborhoods etc. And the food - Yum Yum Yum.

Manhattan is probably one of the safest places on the planet.

I also feel a little sad on leaving. It is just a great place to visit. I did some consulting work at Queens College which is the most diverse college campus in the world. I was like traveling to every country on the planet. I was sad when my contract there was up.

I still root for the Buffalo Bills over the Jets. Cost me a lot of pure Vermont Maple Syrup to the VP of Enrollment at the college.

Thank you Ron for the lovely comment.

Great post, Nash--we are on the same page, although you say it more eloquently than I can! Just think how much more we could accomplish if we spent our time focusing on ways to work together instead of rehashing old differences and pointing fingers.

Nashville wisdom!

Here's the problem, Nash:

in the real world, you don't get credit for 'trying'. You have to start succeeding.

Obama CANNOT or WILL NOT admit that his wonderful Ivory Tower plans have FAILED. It is an incontrovertible fact, but he will not face it. He complains that the republicans voted 'no' on stimulous, and leaves out that it passed anyway. He complains that they voted 'no' on HCR, and leaves out that it passed anyway. Same with the TARP funds used to purchase GM and Chrysler, (in violation of the law, by the way. That didn't seem to matter to him then).

So, Obama got his way with the legislation, which has both a) failed; and b) is extremely unpopular. His complaints boil down to - it must not have worked because the republicans put a pox on it. Or something equally petulant.

The truth is that for the above two reasons, there is going to be a republican wave this election cycle. Let's hope it washes away those unpopular, failed programs with it.

Nash:

Great Post. You write with great insight.

Steeler Fan: I agree with you 100%. Saw some really nice post today. Keep them coming.

no joe:

You know that programs are not implemented on the day they are signed into law. So it is too early to declare President Obama a "failure" for all those who are rational.

Give the President a chance no joe. You owe him that much. . . he is your Commander in Chief. :o)

What are YOU going to do to help YOUR President succeed?

P.S. The Stimulus Bill has done a great job at stabilizing our economy, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

P.S.S. You said just last week that we don't even have a health care crisis in this country, so that makes it difficult for me to take you seriously.

You said just last week that we don't even have a health care crisis in this country, so that makes it difficult for me to take you seriously.

Problem is Nash 85% of the people saw the crisis as one of out of control costs. President Obama saw the crisis as one of access to the system. His solution was to give greater access to a system that still cannot control costs.

well, I guess it had to happen.

Nash, put down the rules for radicals, take a deep breath, and remind yourself that they may have worked once, but they won't work again.

Too many people know about uncle Sol.

Alan,

I don't know where you got that 85% number from , but I do agree that health care costs need to be addressed.

But for millions of Americans who need healthcare today, I would say that access is more important. Being human or being poor should not be grounds to be denied access to health care in this country.

And nothing is stopping you, me, or our elected representatives from continuing to work on ways to control costs, it is not an either/or proposition, we can do both.

No Jo:

Like I said, hard to take you seriously some times.

Nash,

Like Keith O says "that lady is an idiot".

85% was the percentage of the population that had insurance before HCR

Alan,

Sometimes you think you have insurance and you actually don't.

Restraining order issued against United States Benefits

"Authorities have placed a restraining order on a Nashville-based health insurance company accused of fraud.

Authorities had learned of complaints from consumers, who believed they were purchasing health insurance, but later discovered they had been enrolled in "membership plans" that offered dubious discounts. According the WSMV, the company had been doing business as United Benefits of America before shutting down and re-emerging as United States Benefits.

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/2010/08/09/daily26.html

"85% was the percentage of the population that had insurance before HCR"

In other words Alan you just made it up.

You should know Nash you can't trust what comes out of Nashville!

Restraining order issued against United States Benefits

"Authorities have placed a restraining order on a Nashville-based health insurance company accused of fraud.

(tongue firmly in cheek)

Touche' Alan! :o)

You can trust little old me . . . I won't bite . . . (too hard)! lol

Larry,

I take blessings from wherever they come . . . blessings to you as well.

Nashville I would like to personally apologize to you. The confrontations I have had with you are inexusable and in no way have I treated you like a brother in Christ.

Well, it's good to see that you've decided to turn the cheek for the day. See you tomorrow when someone says something to piss you off and you're back to your usual personality.

Larry,

That means alot, but no apology is necessary, as none of us are without blemish. We are all under a tremendous amount of pressure these days . . . it is easy to lose our heads and lose our way.

Even though we disagree about a lot of things, I do appreciate the fact that you care.

Here's hoping you never lose that passion, and we can all find ways to channel our feelings into things that will make this country better and not worse.

"I for one am turning back to the ONLY One who can (and will -- in HIS time) save this country and that is Yahweh."

Nicely put, Larry in Minot, N.D. I agree with you that Yahweh or God is the answer. Politics often seems like the devil's work. I think it's fine for people to disagree, not because there is a right way or a wrong way, but through disagreement and discussion, a smarter way forward emerges. There is definitely a place for a "loyal opposition" in American politics, whether its conservative or liberal. Where everything breaks down is when partisans resort to lies, slander and misinformation to win votes. Voters need to start demanding politicians make arguments based on facts, not character assasination.

Good thoughts to you, too, Larry.

Peace be unto you, Larry.

"I for one am turning back to the ONLY One who can (and will -- in HIS time) save this country and that is Yahweh."

Larrry- you're a good man, but don't sell yourself short. Include your very own self in that statement in quotes above....HE won't mind, Honest.

Larry M.

Welcome aboard. Civil discourse is all we ask here. We know that all people have different views and myself and most welcome these views. This is how we learn as a people and Nation.

I too several months ago made a statement similar to yours and I have a special appreciation for what you are saying.

What was is gone, we need to focus on now and forward and I look forward to chatting with you in the future. No need to apologize.

With that being said you may still have the random idiot say unkind things to you, ignore them no matter who they may be. You have risen above that now and I thank you for your post and kind words.

Michael I understand that I deserve that criticism. Actions speak louder than words.

I hope that in the future I make you look back at that post and say "I was wrong"

To the others who have offered me kind words thank you. That means a lot. I have been greatly humbled in the last 18 hours and pray that God continues to humble me.

While we may not agree on the direction our elected leaders are taking us it is our job to pray that God give them wisdom and to protect them -- not only from those that wish to do and see bad happen to them but also from themselves -- in that they not become too smitten with themselves to the point where they no longer listen to the very people that put them in those positions but most importantly that they NEVER forget that true wisdom and strength comes from God ALONE.

Larry,

Good response to Michael. I take you at your word and as you say time will tell. We all fall off the wagon, so to speak, every now and then. The question becomes is what do we do when that happens and it will.

I am pulling for ya.

Good to see that civil discourse is reigning once again. Pulling for ya, Larry. ^_^

Now this is what America is all about. Lets disagree on the policies not the politics. You really made me feel good Larry, thank you.

Now imagine that it was ME who wrote all of Larry's posts.

Richard,

My EYES, My EYES! kidding.

Good Morning Pat,

Nice post, I read that last night. It is a well deserved honor for Rachel and she joins great company in the past recipients.

Rachel does an outstanding job in educating those who want to know more of a story. She does it with such grace and good humor, fine attributes to have in her line of work.

Go Rachael, One vote for journalism.

I am always in awe of Rachel's intelligence and thoughtfulness in the stories she covers. And she is fair to guests of opposing views when they come on the show (although I always wonder why they think they can best her--I've never seen one do that). Glad that she is getting the recognition she deserves. Wish she had a broader audience.

Congratulations to Rachel Maddow on her well-deserved award.

Yes, let's compare, shall we?

First of all, not everyone on Wall Street has repaid the TARP money that was shoveled to them by President Bush. Secondly, Wall Street is STILL getting basically a ZERO PERCENT overnight funds rate, so they are making money BY DOING NOTHING. WOW! HOW PRODUCTIVE! And it's SOOOOO incredibly stimulating to the economy that those 35% tax rates those rich guys are paying should cause them to create the MILLIONS of jobs we need!

Wait.. what's that? Those millionaires and billionaires HAVEN'T created any jobs even though they had tax cuts since 2001 and 2003? Well... why not?

On to GM: They MAKE a product. Not only that, they make one that is EXPORTED. What does that do? CREATES JOBS. It also means that as the company becomes more profitable, the government can sell off more shares, and make more profit.

So let me get this straight: The government invests in GM, saves and creates jobs, sells shares at a profit, and you think that's a "bad" thing? Sounds like the government is doing something... right! Oh, sorry - I forgot. That doesn't fit your talking points narrative you got from Beck and Limbaugh. Sorry to have "facts" intrude on your ideology.

love it when someone brings up the Bush Tax cuts..

Jose.. .. Us Republicans Understand that if the Bush tax cuts Sunset that the govt will have to take more money from the American people that they Earned to pay for the Deficts spending the Democrats have created by the Budgets they are passing, We also Understand that if they continue the Bush Tax cuts and allow Americans keep more of their Money that the Budgets the Democrats are passing will Add more to the Deficts and debt

Jose you bring up a very interesting point about the ponzi scheme that is currently being carried out between the Fed and the major financial institutions, why in the world should these financial institutions be allowed to borrow money at nearly 0% interest when they are doing absolutely nothing but enriching themselves? Why don't they make money available to someone that would spend it to help the country create jobs at 0% interest? I will tell you why, because that would mean less for the greedy bastards that are enriching themselves and they own the government ,the Fed and the United States of America, us taxpaying commoners are just here to keep making them wealthier while we do without. Very sad. The Capitalist failure we are enduring should be a warning for all other countries that unregulated Capitalism is as dangerous as any terrorist organization.

Us Republicans Understand that if the Bush tax cuts Sunset that the govt will have to take more money from the American people that they Earned to pay for the Deficts spending the Democrats have created by the Budgets they are passing

Steve STILL doesn't want to take responsibility for Republicans CUTTING taxes WHILE starting two wars AND passing Medicare Part D WITHOUT paying for it, and causing much of the debt and deficit we are facing now. The American people know this, but Republicans have gone full tilt into "Blame Obama for our mess" mode.

Remember what I said about Republicans NOT talking about "personal responsbility" anymore? Steve makes a good poster child for that!

Thanks for being a good stooge, Steve.

Jose.. ..

it is you that doesn't want to take responsiblity for the out of control Spending the Democrats are doing right now.. They control Congress .. not the republicans... they have passed budgets using money from the future .. Just as i said above in my previous post that the Republicans did.. But the bottom line is.. CONGRESS is spending money they dont have.. why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

That's right Steve... Bush's tax cuts didn't reduce revenue.... (NOT)

That's right STeve... Bush's wars didn't cost a dime... (NOT)

That's right Steve,... Medicare Part D that REPUBLICANS passed was FREE! (NOT)

That's right Steve... Republican control of Congress and reduced regulations didn't cause the conditions that led to the collapse of Wall Street starting in March 2007 (don't tell me two months of Democrats in control caused THAT)

Am I saying that Democrats aren't spending now? No, they are. But AMAZINGLY they are using PAYGO rules - something those "fiscally responsible" Republicans NEVER DID WANT TO DO!!!

WHO are the "responsible" ones here? And did the debt go to zero when Obama took office? Did the war costs reset when he took office? Did the economy magically go from shedding 700,000 to creating jobs the day Obama took his oath?

Ooooh... hard questions Steve... answer carefully!

Jose:

The republicans are never going to admit that they nearly put the USA into bankruptcy. They have no ideas on how to help get America out so they just spit out the republican talking points.

They have ideas on how to increase the deficit and then blame Obama. They have ideas on how to stop his bills in the Senate and then blame him for doing nothing.

This is their agenda. This is basically what they said they were going to do shortly after he was sworn into office, calling HCR his Waterloo, etc.

No to Unemployment Extensions

No to 9/11 First Responders

No to Disclosure

No to Jobs Bill

No to State aid saving 150,000+ jobs unless we cut Food Stamps to the needy.

And 100+ other bills geared toward helping America.

This is their sole function in life and Steve just does not understand that supporting that agenda is going to hurt him every bit as much as it hurts the rest of America.

Jose..

No.. but the Deficts went from 480 billion to 1.4 Trillion.... and rising.. didnt the democrats in congress just By pass Paygo when they added 26 billion more to the defict to add more weeks to the unemployment benifts?.... please.. i could be wrong on this.. correct me if i am wrong.

Hey Steve - you must have holes in your head, because your brain is leaking out what I already said:

"Obama didn't start his Presidency with a budget that INCLUDED war spending – he had to take the responsible step of ADDING it to the budget"

Oh yeah, I did say that previously.

Now, a questions for you: How do you get 26 billion when you subtract 1.4 trillion from 480 billion? You can't seriously be suggesting that the entire budget deficit is the result of one highly stimulative unemployment benefits bill, can you?

So yes, I'm correcting you're math that is off by 894 billion dollars.

Now, back to "Republican responsibility" - why aren't Republicans taking responsibility for their IRRESPONSIBLE, NON-Paygo actions when they WERE in power? They created much of this mess - why not take responsibility for what THEY did? You're on this "Blame Obama for everything" kick. It ain't true - no matter how many times Beck regurgitates the lie.

"It also means that as the company becomes more profitable, the government can sell off more shares, and make more profit."

Jose, the American taxpayers are about $48,000,000,000 away from making ANY PROFIT.

Get back to me when Government Motors pays back the first dollar of profit by returning the American taxpayers $48,000,000,001.

Bristol Palin's infant child will be President before that ever happens.

LOL!!!

Hey jose..

wow.. show me where i blamed Obama.. Please.. Other then the one time i said he was Driving the car.. in an earlier post.. as i said Bush was driving the car at times.. I know you wish to keep saying i am blaming Obama.. but i never said that .. BIF...

Man this Jose Von Hussein cat is handing out some major "ass whoopin's" on here today, cool.

Little Stevie must be a true masochist!

He's taking a licking but keep on ticking.. lol

Jose, the American taxpayers are about $48,000,000,000 away from making ANY PROFIT.

I guess on Fox News they don't report when the government get repaid loans - with INTEREST (known in banking circles as "profit").

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/21/autos/gm_loan_repayment/

So since they repaid those loans 5 years ahead of schedule, Joe, I'd say that they'll be paid off LONG before Sasha Obama beats Bristol Palin's baby in a future Presidential election.

And Steve, I never said you blamed Obama - you really should take some meds or something. This whole "I'm a victim" thing you're trying isn't working, and you've STILL not managed to take responsibility for anything the Republicans HAVE done that I've pointed out.

Nice job at avoidance though. Maybe a therapist could help you with those avoidance issues.

You're on this "Blame Obama for everything" kick. It ain't true - no matter how many times Beck regurgitates the lie.

these words above are yours.. see those Words.. YOU're on this "Blame Obama for everything kick."

You are such a liar. you use words then try and convince people you didnt use them. Same liberal Tactics as always...

Jose, are you really that poorly informed?? I thought liberals considered themselves to be well informed on pretty much everything. Oh well, another lefty liberal myth swirling around in the toilet.

The loan GM paid back is about 10% of the taxpayer bailout of the UAW. The other 90% (about $50 billion) was converted into stock which the Barry Investment Corp. is still holding.

Get back to me when Government Motors pays back the first dollar of profit by returning the American taxpayers $48,000,000,001. The interest they “paid" came out of the taxpayers $50 billion GM still hasn’t paid back.

Using the taxpayers own money to "pay" them interest on 10% of the bailout is NOT "profit".

LMAO@U!!!!

In typing quickly, I should have said, "they" - if you look at the paragraph I wrote where you took that from, I was speaking about Republicans in general - here's the exact paragraph as a wrote it:

Now, back to "Republican responsibility" - why aren't Republicans taking responsibility for their IRRESPONSIBLE, NON-Paygo actions when they WERE in power? They created much of this mess - why not take responsibility for what THEY did? You're on this "Blame Obama for everything" kick. It ain't true - no matter how many times Beck regurgitates the lie.

That should have read, "They're on this 'Blame Obama for everything' kick." My apologies for the typo, as I did not intend that comment to be directed at you. Look at the context, and you'll see that I am being sincere.

Hey Joe - get back to me when Fannie and Freddie pay back the $150 BILLION that they owe taxpayers that GEORGE W BUSH took over when HE was in office. GM's paid back money; how much have the Bush Inc Mortgage Companies paid back? And where were/are the calls of "Socialist Fannie and Freddie takeover by Bush"?!?!?

See what I'm saying everyone? All Republicans want to do is blame Obama, and NOT take ANY responsibility for their actions.

Period.

Prove me wrong, Republicans and conservatives! Show me that you can be "stand up" people and take "personal responsibility" for your actions. Go on. We'll wait.... (probably for eternity, though).

I know that you wish to Qualify your words now but it doesn't fly with me.... You have been proven a Liar TWICE by me now.. . Once when you claimed the Democrats used Paygo .. and now when you claimed you didnt use those Words.. YOU directed it totally at me and then Said i should go see a Therapist.. For someone that can't even remember what they wrote perhaps its you that should seek the help..

"Hey Joe - get back to me when Fannie and Freddie pay back the $150 BILLION that they owe taxpayers that GEORGE W BUSH took over when HE was in office."

Jose, again showing how poorly informed you are: Yeah, GWB put them into conservatorship to keep them from collapsing. However, Fannie and Freddie always have been the love children of the Dems. Fannie was founded in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. Freddie was founded in 1968 by LBJ and a Dem controlled Congress. Many of their recent CEO's have been retread Dem politicians. And Barney Frank and Chris Dodd conveniently left them out of the recently signed Finreg bill.

So, yeah, You can blame GWB for the takedown, but, the reasons for their failure rests squarely on the Dems laps.

Man I'm enjoying the butt whipping Jose is giving to Steve, Alan and now Joe. Joe you should have stayed out of the discussion, now your going to have to put some sav on that tush.

Haha.. I always love it when Liberals come on here and try to convince Jose is kicking anyones ass because they Agree with him.. Jose has been proven a Liar.. .... I have done it twice just in this Tread alone.. to agree with a liar is to admit that you yourself are a Liar..

Mo, is your last name ron?

Moron.

What a thoughtful response Joe, shows your intellect. Keep it up Jose your turning Steve, Alan and Joe into pretzels. All though it looks like Alan had taken all the spanking he can take and bailed on the other two.

Gee, Mo, your hero, Jose, doesn't seem to have any response to my post on the Fannie and Freddie failures being on the Dems.

Just like he shut up about the "profit" he was claiming on on the UAW bailout when I pointed out that paying interest on the 10% of the bailout that was a loan using the taxpayers own money from the 90% they still haven't paid back is NOT "profit".

And you think I'm the one getting "the butt whipping"?????

Moron.

LMAO@U HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good Morning Frank: You are right, fund raising is a tailor-made role for Sarah. (but) When I see how much she enjoys being in the spotlight, with people cheering, I think she is "hooked" on the adrenalin rush and she can't walk away from it. The bigger the role the Tea Party plays in the GOP convention, the better her chances of being on the ticket. That's kind of a prediction.

More wisdom from Frank. Always enjoy reading your comments!

Ron...If Sarah Palin ends up on our 2012 ticket in any capacity, we will deserve the landslide defeat that we get. I just hope that our primary voters and eventual nominee have more wisdom than to put her on the ticket.

Heated primary battles by either party always puzzle me. Not that I long for the days of smoke-filled rooms, but it would seem smarter for the party's chances in the general election to avoid these.

Ron--I think you are right about Sarah Palin--she seems to enjoy the limelight.

Watched a movie over the weekend--The Edge--featured Anthony Hopkins & Alec Baldwin trying to survive a plane crash in remote Alaska and being menaced by a bear. Couldn't help but think it was a berserk Mama Grizzly!

Couldn't have anything to do with a heavily contested race on the Republican side, not so much on the Democratic side, could it?

Please define "heavily contested race", John...

Can you show me any political analyst who thought Dino Rossi was in serious danger of losing the Republican nomination for Senate in Washington State?

He's been the odds-on, prohibitive favorite to win the nomination since he tossed his hat into the ring. The fact that he did not run unopposed doesn't change that one bit.

No, John...there's something else going on here.

Read FR carefully this morning on the subject, John...and you'll see references to it.

Before I forget, John-

The Senate primary race in Colorado between Democrats Michael Bennet and Andrew Romanoff was what I would call a "heavily contested race".

The Washington State Republican U.S. Senate primary...?

Not so much.

Washington State does not have a Party Primary... The Top two Vote Getters move on to the General Election.. Whether it be 2 Democrats.. 2 Republicans. . Or one of each....

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washington-primary-bellwether-november-midterms-patty-murray-dino/story?id=11425191

not sure what 'heavily contested' means to you, MB; but there were several Republican candidates, one endorsed by Palin and another getting 11% of the overall vote,...this article explains that while the count is not in,...the Dems probably won the overall vote count.

I liken this to our Missouri primary where Roy Blunt was by no means the 'walk on' favorite. He got 71% of the Republican vote; but less than 50% of the overall votes cast. AND that was with a 'repeal healthcare' item on the ballot. Clearly, he won the nomination; but I would say his enthusiasm gap is real.

Clara.. at present Patty Murky is getting 46 percent of the Vote here in Washington right now.. The 3 Republicans have a Total of 54 percent of the Vote....sorry to burst your Bubble but since i live here in Washington . I am watching the vote counts..... Thanks for your time.. and No other Democrats are running against Patty Murky..

Steve-505729-

I stand corrected...there is no Republican primary in Washington State.

Clara KCMO-

Did you even read the article at the ABC News link that you put up?

It says, in part:

"Add all the Republican votes and put them up against Murray for Democrats, the sides are tied. Republicans in blue Washington might even have the edge when the final tally is in."

Which was pretty much the point of my original post, Clara.

MB

Yes, I read it and MY point is that she was in a 3 way race and the Rep were in a 8 or 9 way race. No question that MANY Dems didn't bother to show up, feeling confident that their candidate (Patty) would easily advance.

Essentially the same thing happened here. You really don't do nuance at all, do you?

It's going to be close. Follow-up polls on a Murray-Rossi race currently show a result within the margin of error, Murray with the edge, but with less than 50% of the vote. The other "nuances" don't really matter right now. The state of Washington can be a bit quirky.

as can missouri, thus the comparison.

Yahweh is believed to be the original name of God by certain religious groups. Also known as "YHWH" or the Tetragrammaton, the Jewish faith prohibits its utterance; hence the use of "G-d" or the word "Adonai".

How do you know Glenn Beck is lying? His lips are moving.

http://studwithswag.com/5242/glenn-beck-thinks-he%E2%80%99s-martin-luther-king-jr/

One of the interesting things about this piece http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/17/the-tea-party-civil-rights-and-glenn-becks-rally-on-mlk-anniv/ is the description of how the date was selected. On his radio show I heard him say just after the announcement that he just picked the date out of thin air at a public appearance. When he came offstage one of his aides supposedly was in a panic, saying "we can't do that, don't you know what that signifies?"

Of course Beck has dedicated the entire Summer to rewriting American history. Rewriting himself is old news. Des Moines has a really good Liberal talk radio host on weekday afternoons (available streaming over the web also). He sometimes points out that the secret to Glenn Beck's success is that he kept changing the formula until he hit upon a character to play on the radio that really resonated with an audience. True that, it wasn't long ago that he was just a "regular guy who can't figure out why things look so different to me than to people in power." Now he's morphed into some sort of bizzaro-world college professor who teaches lies in the most scholarly way possible.

I'll tell you what, it REALLY annoys the Conservative callers when the local host Bradshaw opines that it's all an act.

Beverly:

The fact is that people like Beck, Hannity, Palin, Bachmann the Tea Party and others are rallying themselves out. By the time the beginning of the 2012 campaign season really begins they will be sick and tired of all their scheduled rallies. They have rally after rally after rally where we see the numbers showing up begin to dwindle with each new rally. I always wondered if these folks and the tea party are supposed to represent your average hard working and struggling American how the heck are these average Americans affording to travel around the country to all these rallies? If they are so broke, pay too many taxes and are struggling economically where are they getting the money to spend on attending all these rallies that require travel, overnight stays, expenses, donations to Palin, etc.

Whoa there, CA.

Not so fast...

We still have the little matter of the midterms this November...plenty of time for speculation about 2012 afterwards. Let's see what the post-midterm political landscape looks like after we clear the dead from the battlefield.

First things first, right?

Ca

The fact is that people like Beck, Hannity, Palin, Bachmann the Tea Party and others are rallying themselves out. By the time the beginning of the 2012 campaign season really begins they will be sick and tired of all their scheduled rallies. They have rally after rally after rally where we see the numbers showing up begin to dwindle with each new rally. I always wondered if these folks and the tea party are supposed to represent your average hard working and struggling American how the heck are these average Americans affording to travel around the country to all these rallies? If they are so broke, pay too many taxes and are struggling economically where are they getting the money to spend on attending all these rallies that require travel, overnight stays, expenses, donations to Palin, etc.

___________________________

Ca, I read some where the make up is mostly elderly who pay no income tax. I think that gives them the opportunity to use whatever their disposable income is to pay, perhaps, the reduced rates the organizers like Rick Scott and Dick Armery give them to ride on their buses.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/14/us/teaparty.html?ref=politics

Mixed Bag:

And how are the results of November going to impact or change anything? The Republicans are able to stop legislation now even though in the mnority using the filibuster. If they gain the House and/or Senate or both nothing will change, they will continue to obstruct and block legilsation. The President will have veto power and the Dems will have use of the fillibuster if necessary. The Republicans will offer nothing as according to their recently released plans such plans are centered on what they won't do or do not want to do and therefore they are looking to obstruct rather than to propose any forward moving legislation of their own. The players and their party affiliations may change but the roles they choose to play will remain the same. And this will continue on into the 2012 election season. So you see, the mid-terms in a sense, mean nothing.

Not necessarily, CA.

They could behave like the Democratic White House under Bill Clinton, and the Republican Congress after 1994's midterms.

They worked together to produce legislation that both parties could live with.

If Republicans gain majorities, they'll be able to propose and initiate legislation. Of course, the President and the Democratic minority could stop those initiatives...but I believe after Congress and the President hear and experience the anger of voters on Election Day, they'll consider making the effort to work together.

I'm guessing that after the governing class actually feels the fury of the electorate on Election Day, we'll find that the surviving incumbents and the newcomers will have at least one big incentive to begin working together...that incentive would be the NEXT Election Day, CA.

MB

Mixed Bag:

Sorry. I am not as optimistic as you that the Republicans are going to want to work with Obama no matter the November results, even if they win the House, Senate or both. I have this complete utter lack of confidence that the right's agenda is anything but the total destruction of the Obama Presidency. And as I stated, if you read their recent plans (and I have skimmed them) there is absolutley nothing in the Republican agenda other than to simply oppose anything Obama has done or wants to do. If they propose any legislation it will be legislation directed at appealing or reversing those things already passed by the Dems and the Obama admnistration. Nothing new, nothing to take its place, simple no's with no other options, alternatives or answers. And if you think otherwise I am sorry to say I think you are dreaming.

Keep telling yourself Mixed Bag the it's going to be a landslide for the teabagging republicans. As you teabagging republicans say if you repeat something enough times we'll eventually believe it. You can keep saying it MB but reality will set you free come November, unless you keep trying to convince yourselves it will happen in 2012 then you have 4 more years to try and fool yourselves.

"They could behave like the Democratic White House under Bill Clinton, and the Republican Congress after 1994's midterms."

Tell me another story MB, I liked that one. http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/debt_limit/11-16/budget_gingrich/

Yep, once they had control of Congress the Republicans turned their attention to constructive activities. http://www.standard.net/topics/opinion/2010/04/23/bill-clinton-ken-starr-whitewater-saga-recalled

President Clinton and the GOP made a powerful alliance in the fight against terrorism, too. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/155252.stm That's OF COURSE a topic on which all reasonable people can agree. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/

Civil as always, eh Mo?

Be here on the morning after Election Day...I will.

We'll see which of us has this right.

'Morning CA........nojoe would know sarcasm too, she is a master at it, she cant take it. This so typical of the right, do as I say not as I do.

Thank you Frank. That's very kind of you to say, and it's greatly appreciated. :-)

Thanks so much Frank!

United we stand... divided we fall...

Come join us Frank, we welcome your input. Got to keep the Flag flying.

Welcome to the FR lefty liberal echo chamber/mutual admiration club.

Please check your brain at the door and pick up the Dem talking points memo on the counter next to the Kool-ade pitcher.

Note, as per usual, Joe's hatefulness and nothing positive to add to the discussion.

Joe,

Your comment makes me laugh. I have yet to see you or any other Repub make a valid point on anything. All I hear from you all day everyday is regurgitated talking points with nothing to back up your ridiculous claims about the Democratic President and Congress.

So I ask you sir, who has really left their brain at the door? Where did your ridiculously redundant memo come from?

Kool-aide pitcher? <---You really bore me Joe. Please come back when you have a valid fact based point to make. I won't hold my breath though because I know you are an empty vessel without any real purpose or thought of your own.

CA, Ron, Fiesty, USNavy Ret, Beverly, Jose, Grimey

You guys are in great form today and have posted some thought provoking comments. I guess thats why most of the more rabid of the trolls have chosen to lay low. I'm learning from each of you so please keep it up.

Thank you FRANK, I try. Let me remind you do a fanatic job too.

FrankH.

Thank you for your very kind comments. I learn from your posts as well, and I try to search them out. I will keep posting as long as I can and I really hope you do the same. We need input from people who actually think and do research. Agains thanks and keep your posts coming. Stay safe and be well.

daveNJ:

GM has a bright future in this country and it was wise to bail them out. Many people do not realize that those who were able to maintain their jobs were not just auto workers in Michigan. There are thousands upon thousands of suppliers and other businesses connected with GM throughout the country where others were able to keep and maintain their jobs as well as a result of the bailout.

CA,

Good point. I have a small parts mfg here that makes electronic components for some of GM'S engines (cadillacs and Buick). He won twice once with the stimulus that alowed him to expand his plant and hire 30 more people and renewed GM contract. Also more than 900 dealerships that were scheduled for closing will be open for business as usual.

unpopular, failed legislation.

Oh yes. I know. So does the majority of the electorate.

See, this is another reason Obama complains that the republicans voted 'no' on all his failed legislation. That way, they could share in the blame.

So, he does the republican party a favor every single time he reminds people that they stood against this mess.

The election is going to be historic-unprecedented, even. Too bad Obama and the rest of the dems are on the wrong side.

I'm scratching my head here wondering what legislation under Obama has failed. The major portions of the HCR have not even been implemented yet. Economic experts (conersvative and liberal) all admit that 1) the Presidents's choices (and authority and power) regarding a failing economy and the loss of jobs are limted and 2) any economic policies put in place cannot truly be evaluated for success or failure for another 4 years or more down the road. Equal pay for women in the workplace? This legislation has failed? Reversing don't ask, don't tell? This legislation has failed? Allowing for stem cell research? This legislation has failed? Removing middle men from those needing college tuition assistance thereby lowering the interest rate on student loans has failed? Requiring that the oil industry begin complying (and having monitored) better oil rig safety procedures and prcatices have failed? Placing more regulations on wall street in order to protect consumers has failed? There are many other actions that have been taken by Obama but for the life of me I can't think of a one that has failed or that has reached an end result where one can properly evaluate whether they have failed or not. Can anyone list any failures? Or are these feelings simply based on a dislike for the legislation rather than based on fact that the legislation has supposedly failed?

No Joe--I have my focus more on the election of 2012, when I expect President Obama to be re-elected. We'll see if you feel the same way then. By the way, do you ever refer to him as "President"?

CA - in No Joe I don't Know's world, the word 'unpopular' is synonymous with the word 'failed'.

In your post, if you replace the word 'failed' with the phrase 'unpopular with No Joe', then everything makes perfect sense.

Trying to decipher No Joe-isms is like learning a new language...

CA,

Nothing has failed yet. NoJoe is just repeating republican talking points. That is all she does, day in and day out and about 1/2 the time they are old and debunked points as well. how can any bill fail that has not been implemented yet??? Nice trick if you can pull that one off.

You notice that she makes these outlandish claims, but where is the proof. Where is there any proof that HCR has failed, in fact most reports are starting to show it becoming more favorable. Financial Reform was just passed, and how can you say the plan to help the auto industry failed. They are showing profits for the first time in 8 years, Cadiallac and Buick just won customer awards against ALL auto makers. That sounds like a failer to me, and GM is getting ready for an IPO as well. As Keith O says "that lady is an idiot".

Haha..

And nothing has Succeded expect to Piss off 70 percent of the Population..

I am on the left but I have to tell you. If the President has an approval rate lower than 50 percent, he is failing.

Thanks Elise!

I'm sorry but when someone starts talking about hearing voices whether or not they're 'God' I can't help but think about that being one of the first symptoms of schizophrenia!

Ladies, I consider myself the queen of skepticism; but perhaps we shouldn't use the olive branch for kindling?

just a thought.