Run, Super post. I saw several comments yesterday on tax cuts and thought I would respond here today. Too crowded yesterday.

The tax cuts issue just will not go away any time soon. We are not seeing the air waves peppered with ad’s saying cutting taxes to big business especially big oil will create jobs. Exxon in 2009 paid ZERO income taxes, how much lower do you want to go. Should, we the American people pay them?? A few comments taken from Think Progress, NYT, WSJ.

When the GW Bush Administration took office the National Debt was at $5.73 Trillion Dollars. When he left, the National Debt had increased to $10.63 Trillion Dollars, an increase of 85%.

When Clinton’s Administration left office they left a $86.4 Billion Dollar budget surplus and created 23 million jobs with a tax rate higher than today’s. Under the Bush’s Administration of mismanagement and incompetence, they left America with a $1.5 Trillion Dollar deficit. This is the deficit that our President Obama has inherited and is still dealing with 20 months after the fact.

So it's comes down to this. David Stockman, the legendary Reagan budget chief who presided over the Gipper's supply-side tax cuts, announced that the "debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts." The next day, the former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, who famously helped sell the 2001 Bush tax cuts to Congress, declared them simply "disastrous."

Sadly, Stockman and Greenspan are just about the only voices in the Republican Party speaking the truth about the fiscal devastation wrought by the expiring Bush tax cuts. After all, the national debt tripled under Ronald Reagan, only to double again during the tenure of George W. Bush. And as it turns out, the Bush tax cut windfall for the wealthy accounted for almost half the budget deficits during his presidency and, if made permanent, would contribute more to the U.S. budget deficit than the Obama stimulus, the TARP program, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and revenue lost to the recession - combined. Of course, you'd never know it listening to the leaders of GOP.

And that's just the beginning. Here, then, are 8 of the biggest Republican Lies about the Bush tax cuts:

Lie #1: Democrats Plan Across the Board Tax Hikes on January 1st

First the Democrats did not plan anything. The tax cuts were signed into law (via reconciliation) by President Bush and his administration; they imposed the 10 year time frame. When the time runs out in January, an the cuts expire, everybody will get a tax increase back to President Clinton’s schedule, but this is on the Republican Party, NOT President Obama. And President Obama’s plan will only increase the taxes on the 2% that got 50% of the benefits last time. Continued on #2.

Lie #2: Democrats Want a $3.8 Trillion Tax Increase

Of course, this second Republican fraud is merely the flip-side of the first. Restoring upper bracket tax rates to their Clinton-era levels will impact only a sliver of American taxpayers (richest 2% that got most of the bennies the first time around). Families with a taxable income of $250,000 ($200,000 for individuals) will see their rate go up 3% - 5% depending on their bracket. Everybody else will stay at the current rates. The plan presented by President Obama will reduce the deficit by $830 Billion Dollars.

Lie #3: Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves

The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for almost half -- 48 percent -- of this $539 billion in increased costs." How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018. How about George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.". And guess what, we do not either.

Lie #4: The Bush Tax Cuts Didn't Add to the Deficit

CBPP found that Bush tax cuts accounted for almost half of the mushrooming deficits during his tenure: Lie busted. And as another recent CBPP analysis revealed, over the next 10 years, the Bush tax cuts if made permanent will contribute more to the U.S. budget deficit than the Obama stimulus, the TARP program, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and revenue lost to the recession put together. This was and is the most asine lie yet.

Lie #5: Expiring High Income Tax Cuts Will Hurt Small Business

Of course, they're not talking about small business. As CNN concluded in October 2008, "fewer than 2% of small business owners would pay more under Obama's plan." But in case there was any doubt about the Republicans' deception on the point, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center quickly put it to rest:

Out of 34.7 million filers with business income on Schedules C, E or F, 479,000 filers fall into the top two brackets, according to an analysis of projected 2009 filings by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

The other 34.3 million - or 98.6% - would be unaffected by Obama's proposed rate hike

Lie #6: The Estate Tax Devastates Small Businesses and Family Farms

The Tax Policy Center quantified just how few family farms or small businesses are actually impacted by the estate tax proposals under consideration:

We estimate that under the Obama proposal, 100 family farms and businesses would owe tax. (We define such estates as those where farm or business assets are valued at under $5 million and comprise the majority of estate assets.) The Lincoln-Kyl proposal would cut the number to 40. Even under current law, fewer than 2,700 family farms and businesses would owe tax. To date we have not had any report on a single farm paying the estate tax, Rachael Madow, NYT, WP, etc., same story.

And that wasn't good enough for Arizona's Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate. Thanks to his obstructionism in December, the estate tax temporarily expired for one year as of January 1, 2010. (Barring new legislation in Congress, in 2011 the rate will jump back up to its pre-2001 Bush tax cut level of 55%, starting at $2 million per couple.) That could cost the U.S. Treasury billions this year. In the mean time, the message from the GOP to the wealthiest Americans is "die here, die now, pay less."

Lie #7: The Bush Tax Cuts Helped All Americans

As the Center for American Progress noted at the time, "for the majority of Americans, the tax cuts meant very little," adding, "By next year, for instance, 88% of all Americans will receive $100 or less from the Administration's latest tax cuts."

And as the New York Times uncovered in 2006, the 2003 Bush dividend and capital gains tax cuts offered almost nothing to taxpayers earning below $100,000 a year. Instead, those windfalls reduced taxes "on incomes of more than $10 million by an average of about $500,000." As the Times revealed in a jaw-dropping chart:

"The top 2 percent of taxpayers, those making more than $200,000, received more than 70% of the increased tax savings from those cuts in investment income."

Lie #8. Extending Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy is the Best Way to Stimulate the Economy

Analyses from the Congressional Budget Office and former McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi concluded that upper class tax breaks provide just about the lowest return on investment (32 cents on the dollar) of any federal stimulus activity. The Washington Post said out of 11 stimulus policies it look at, the tax cuts provided the smallest bang for the buck.

Great comment Ron of Indiana! Now it's all about everything for the rich and greedy few and nothing for the vast majority, just like the good old days of feudalism where a few rich feudal lords lorded over the vast number of peasants or serfs as they were called in old Imperial Russia. With 30 years of tax cut welfare bailouts for the rich and greedy the repugnant ones have ensured that wealth is being redistributed upwards and being stolen from our future generations. Why do the dopes of nope hate the vast majority of Americans? Why are so many Useful Idiots voting against their own best interests except that they've been dumbed down mightily by the Fox Noose channel.

Good morning Ron, Excellent post today! I was beginning to wonder if I were the only person who remembered this, also don't forget the Authoritic form of government, similar to Oligarchy in that it gives all the government power to a few wealthy men. It did not survive in ancient Greece, and it will not survive in the USA. Without the middle class there will be no economic revival in the USA. The wealthy are far too often way past greedy (some are not, but most are) for econmic success and revival for the rest of us. And I sure do remember what trickled down on me in the 80's - did not look very pretty and smelled real bad!

A better question is; what makes someone like you think you know what's best for other people? Are you smarter than all of them? That's a laugh. Oh yeah. Must be FOX News, which has only been around since 1996. Sort of cancels out all the people that voted for Nixon, Reagan and Bush I.

Hi Eric,

Why are so many Useful Idiots voting against their own best interests except that they've been dumbed down mightily by the Fox Noose channel.

I think I know, they are low information voters (illiterates) who aren't on Glenn Beck's blackboard hit list.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Retired, i know your right in what your saying, the republican knows your right in what your saying, but the problem is retired, the republicans and alot of americans including the tea party are completely ignoring the facts. we all know Bush came to office with a operating surplus, and we know he left office with a operating deficet. but retired they don't care. all they care about is the preisdent fixing the problem that was caused by the last president at the same time saying don't blame bush. to them he had no part, in what we all know what happened.

retired i'm waiting for a post giving Bush credit for the withdraw from Iraq, they will say the surge did it, and Bush should get all the credit. on one hand they want to remember bush one the other hand to them he was never president.

like yesterday Steve, wanted to put all the blame on katrina on the state governer and mayor of NO. He gave me a typical republican response, every thing is some one elses fault but ours. we(republican) have never in our nations history, cause any problems for our nation, its the bleeding heart liberal that are the emeny. so i have stopped trying, i will let history tell the true story, but retired they will say that historian was a liberal and, you know liberal are the problem.

that is what is most furstrating about all this, its like a part of our nation has stopped taking there memeory pill, and from 2001-08 never happended.

Iraq war was not based upon lies,

katirna was a thunderstorm,

we did not have defictes when Bush left office,

the banks did not almost go broke.

To them retired non of this never happened.

SAD, retiired just really sad.

Wow, powerful stuff today. For 30 years we've been shamed for trying to speak truth, namely that the rich are breaking their social contract to fairness in society http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html?_r=1 . The greed is breathtaking, and we've been sold on a spectator sport in which we thrill to the exploits of these titans. We get video tours of their enormous houses, dream of traveling on private jets, are pleased that they deign to own the pro sports teams of which we are fans. Lost in all of this is the increasing degree to which they gain their wealth by making society LESS fair, that in fact more and more of their wealth would once have been OURS!! http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/gdp-per-capita.html

Ultimately the fall of every great society begins with the selfishness of those at the top. We owe it to OUR great society to reestablish fairness before we end up looking back at the glory days with a mix of nostalgia and sadness. As we establish this new generation of Robber Barons we may not be too far away from that point.

Addressing the symptoms rarely cures the disease:

I've been struck for some time by the wide-eyed innocence of those who firmly believe that the government can ever interfere with the business cycle without making things worse, or, at least, prolonging the downturn. Since 1946, when congress passed the 'full employment' act, (an act that called for full employment, but really did nothing to interfere with the economy), the government has sought to interject itself into the market place, with little or nothing good to show for it. In 1978, congress passed the Humphrey Hawkins Act, which sought to put some teeth into the full employment act of 1946-and the result was an economic disaster of truly unprecedented proportions-stagflation.

Specifically, the act sought to reduce unemployment to 4%, a full percentage below the full employment number, and to reduce inflation to zero. In 1978, it is interesting to note, unemployment was one tenth of one per cent above the full employment level of between 5 and 6 per cent, (6.1%), and inflation was 7.6%. The next year, while the act was still in its infancy, unemployment was down to 5.8%, but at a cost-inflation was up to 11.3%. By 1980, when the act was fully implemented, unemployment had risen to 7.6%, and inflation to a whopping 13.5%.

So, how do these altruistic plans go so far awry? Mostly, due to the misapplication of barely understood economic theories.

For Keynsians, it is a simple misunderstanding of one law applied to a flawed economic theory. Keynes positted that the government could step up spending during the down side of the business cycle, with no ill effect, because the optimum productivity of an economy was not being utilized to its full effect. Therefore, government spending could pick up the slack, and there would be no inflation because there was room for growth.

Years later, enter Arthur Okun, who quantified the amount of unused productivity resulting from downturns. Okun's law states that, for every one per cent increase of unemployment over full employment, there is a corresponding 2.5% optimum GDP gap.

Put into plan language, he proved that every per centage of unemployment over full employment meant that two and half times as much productivity was lost.

To a Keynsian, this seemed to be the prescription necessary to break the business cycle. If the government stepped in and supplied the amount of money lost by that productivity loss, unemployment would surely decrease.

This kind of thinking amounts to going to the hospital with severe stomach pains and a high fever, and being treated with a powerful pain reliever/fever reducer. You may feel better for a little while, but eventually, your appendix will burst and you will be sicker, if not dead, as a result.

I suspect that there are so many Keynsians because so few people understand economics. Anyone with a degree in economics still stuck to Keynes, despite all the the disproof available, is likely a professor, rather than a working economist.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has few, if any, people in positions of any consequence with real world experience. He is surrounded by theorists, who seem completely unaware of the law of unintended consequences; sadly, they show absolutely no desire to learn.

I hear a lot of democrats and complaining about the Bush tax cuts. When complaining about these tax cuts, they cry that only the rich benefited. Well that is completely untrue. And US Navy, I'm going to have to call you out on these so called Lies.

I am not denying that these tax cuts will add to the deficit (after all, they were passed with a sunset provision to get around having to cut any budget expense item to offset the lack of revenue). However, on Lie #5 you state that it will not hurt small business. You say the 98.6% of Schedule C, E, or F filers will not be affected, well how do you figure? The Bush tax cuts created a new lower level bracket. Before the Tax Cuts, the lowest tax bracket was 15%. The tax cuts added the 10% tax bracket. It also lowered the 28% tax bracket to 25%, the 31% tax bracket to 28%, the 36% to 33% and the 39.6% to 35%. Are you saying that 98.6 % of these small business fell into the 15% tax bracket?

On lie #7 you say it was a lie that the tax cuts helped all Americans. Yet you only cite the NYT article which talks about capital gains tax and dividends. How can you say most Americans were not helped by this? The Tax cuts doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000 and lowered almost all the tax brackets (see above). The tax cuts also eliminated the marriage tax penalty (in which the personal deduction for marred filed jointly is not doubled the amount of single). I do believe a lot of Americans are married and/or have children.

There were also higher phase out limits for personal exemptions and itemized deductions which I will give you, probably benefited the higher income individuals, but to demonize the tax cuts complaining that only the rich benefited, well that is the BIGGEST lie of them all.

Ron, thank you for your insightful thoughts this morning. I'm adding a reply that may be off topic, but one that I believe is important.

First Read used to be a place for ideas to be bandied about with civility. Recently, it has become a free-for-all of vicious name-calling and bullying. Free speech is not welcome here anymore, it seems, when comments can be collapsed by five people who disagree with you.

You who are deliberately doing the collapsing...are you afraid to let voices that differ from yours be heard in the marketplace of ideas? Is this what the first amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing free speech means to you?

With free speech comes responsibility. Newsvine has a Code of Honor, and when we sign up with Newsvine so that we can post on First Read, we all have to agree to follow that code. The first pledge we make is to:

"Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks. If you see something disrespectful or inappropriate, report it - rather than further inflaming the situation.

1. Adding a personal attack to an otherwise valuable comment or article serves only to
render that contribution invalid in its entirety. Such content is subject to
moderation.
2. Harassment and/or intimidation of others on Newsvine will not be tolerated, and
patterns of such behavior may result in account cancellation."

Furthermore, "recurrent counterproductive behavior or negative contributions - even if not specifically addressed in the Code of Honor or the User Agreement - may still warrant removal of that person from the Newsvine Community."

We now have a moderator, Tyler, who is monitoring our behavior on First Read. Based on the Code of Honor, Tyler is empowered to ban you from First Read for a day or ban you forever. If we value the privilege of coming here to present our views and read others' views, I suggest we take the Code of Honor seriously.

This should go without saying. We're all adults here. People of integrity can discuss and disagree respectfully. We can make First Read one of the best blogs around, or we can ruin it.

Let's do the former, shall we?

Plutocracy is another societal term that could describe our country, no matter what you want to call it a handful of corrupt greedy bastards make all the laws and rules to favor themselves with complete disregard for the good of the country or its citizens. Ron my question is how do you change it? Voters attempted to when they elected Dems into the majority, but in actuality many of those Dems were owned by the greedy and powerful so the legislation passed through the Senate ended up being watered down Corporate written thrash that helped no one but the wealthy, that pissed everyone off that had worked very hard to get the Dems in control, and now instead of elected more true Dems looks like people have decided to put the Repubs back in power as a poke in the eye to Dems, which is stupid in the extreme, but the Dems failed miserably on the legislation they passed and looks like they are going to face the consequences, but what the angry voters refuse to acknowledge is they will be putting a Republican Party back in power that is beholden to the wealthy few that will squeeze the few remaining drops of wealth out of the people and leave them with nothing and no safety net, this country will be a miserable third world existence for all but a few, and the people seem intent on destroying themselves for the most ignorant of reasons.

Excellent comparison, Ron.

The Citizens United case making corporations people with unlimited control and influence on elections, empowering the few over the many. Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorna all spending millions of personal wealth to buy elections. Democracy in name only. Oligarchy is closer to what we have.

Gail: Well said in a respectful manner. I too am troubled when posts that fit into the guidelines are collapsed...and not restored until several hours have passed.

Gail: thanks for your insights on the "Code of Honor". I think what you have said is important, and should be considered by all who post here. I would add but one thing: if you have a "Code of Honor" it must be applied across the board. If some posts are going to be collapsed or deleted for reasons pertaining to that "Code" than all in a similar vein must be collapsed too. That is not what is happening. If Newsvine is going to assign a moderator to this site, he/she either reads ALL posts and deletes those of the same vein, or you don't "moderate" at all. Currently, it is capricious, one poster can get away with some pretty vile things, another poster is deleted for posting a view, either from the right or left that someone does not agree with. It is specious to suggest that any true "Code" exists unless it is taken seriously by Newsvine staff. I am quite willing to play by whatever rules are established, as long as it is applies evenly to all. That is not the situation currently. Ron: to your fine post, I would also add a reminder of what the Founding Fathers actually fought against and that was an Autocratic Monarchy. In George III time, he held absolute power, only by right of family inheritance, not due to any particular competence on his part. We are seeing a bit of that with families thinking they have right of ownership to power in this country. Witness the Bush family, the Koch brothers, and those who would steal this country for the wealthy to the detriment of the rest of us. You can trace the fall of power in Great Britain, Russia from the time of the Czars to the current time, and Prussia to certain families who felt a God given right to rule. That could happen here, and it is a cautionary tale.

Jody, Iowa: Why is it any of your concern how Carly Fiorina or Meg Whitman spend their own money? And speaking of buying elections, it would seem that that has been going on for a while. I mean, who spends more than 3/4 of a billion dollars to become president? Oh, that's right - the man currently in the White House. Presidential campaign spending doubled from 2004 and tripled from 2000. (Source:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5002832.ece)

So, your contention that only republicans spend money on races is flawed. (My apologies if you didn't mean to only point out republican candidates.)

Jeff 1541632;

Thank you for the feed back and excellent post. I agree with you and you got a vote. It is sad and a lot of people are going to get hurt I am afraid. You are right in that many people just no longer care about the whole picture. Thanks again for your post, you are right on with your analysis.

Way to miss the point, Go USA. The man currently in the White House accumulated that money largely through vast numbers of small donors who saw in him enough to give what they could.

Fiorina and Whitman are spending more of their own money to win these races than they're likely to make in their entire careers in office. Clearly they see more value in winning the offices than the mere government paycheck. It puts them in an ideal position to game the system and change the rules so that they're more friendly to themselves and their friends.

That's reason enough to be suspicious.

Thanks for making that excellent point it, NewDay. That the rules should be fairly applied should go without saying.

Oligarchy and monarchy are appropriate terms, as is, I believe, aristocracy. The aristocracy who truly rule America have the populace on a short leash. When we start to venture too far into democracy and equality, they have learned how to use the power of the media to brainwash us back into submission.

Pretty neat trick, if you can get away with it, which they have for centuries using the tools available at the time. And they even convince people that it's in their own best interests and that they should try to win others to their cause...it's truly amazing.

Since 1st Reads reporter's need to hear someone with authority say "Mission Accomplished", I nominate TYLER. From what i've seen lately, he's the Only one around here with any Authority, other than Folks who get thier Little feelings Hurt so easily, & Vote to have a Post 'Collopsed by Community". Whatta Chicken $h-- way to Silence Dissent, that You have No need to Hear.

Sit back on your puter & laugh as the Vote total goes to 5, then WallaW, Collapsed by Community, Destroys 99 % of Readable & useful Knowledge, just so 1 that you did'nt like so much, can be sent Rolling thru these Tubes, that connect us all to Each Other. Some Post do go over the Top(Very Few) & maybe, just maybe, should'nt be allowed to stay up on this board, but when All post tied into that 1 post goes down also, then something is Seriously Wrong with the System.

Thats when Tyler,marches down here with his best George W. Bush Impression & declares:

Mission Accomplished!

It was a Joke then & it's a Joke Now!

You Betcha!

Ron, I love your post today. I love them all, but this one is really terrific.

Excellent comments today containing "food for thought" from Ron, US Navy, Eric, Jeff, John B, Gail, W.Bush.

The problem for America is an unwillingness to take the opposition's information and digest it. Instead, the response of some to a comment is to attempt to change what it said into something that suits their way of thinking. Each of us is guilty at times. But facts are facts, and an unwillingness to accept them as such is why this country is in big trouble.

Instead of taking a hard look at the facts which show that big oil, big coal, big banks and huge corporate conglomerates have slowly been taking the power from the middle class American people of BOTH political parties, they rise in defense of, in this case, conservative principles. Failing to realize that the size of government has nothing to do with it nor does religion, gays/lesbians, 9/11, terrorists, illegal immigrants, or abortion. The difficulty for everyone is to recognize what is happening and why it is happening. Why has the middle class declined for 30 years? Why have middle American incomes stagnated for 30 years? What took place to cause this? Why does big oil and coal fight so hard against clean, renewable energy? Why is our legislative system hampered in doing what is right for the people? These are American issues, not democratic or republican ones. The only way to solve the problems is to view them separate from either liberal or conservative views--do your own research and think for yourselves--think outside the box of politics.

Ron,

Don't like all the old "ism"s. How about Plumberism? After all, didn't Obama tell Joe the Plumber that he wanted to redistribute wealth -"spread it around"?

Banking and Wall Street supported Obama and the Democrats by a 4-1 margin in the last election cycle. They are jumping ship due to Obama's "ist" agenda and the damage being done to the economy. Big Business has jumped and joins Small Business. Big Oil is doubling down against Obama after he shoved all in for the destruction of the energy industry. (BTW - Before any of you suggest Wall Street and Banking turned on Obama because of FinRef, read Newsweek's How Obama Got Rolled by Wall Street article in RCP yesterday)

Obama lied about the experts recommending the moratorium. He ignored Bromwich's memo saying 24,000 jobs would be lost. He dismisses the Federal Judge's order and sends a 27,000 page appeal. He says it won't effect shallow drilling, but changes the rules that cripple shallow drilling. He uses the E.P.A. to block foreign assistance to protect his unions and lets the spill go.

Obama's latest use of the E.P.A.? The E.P.A. is seriously considering a petition filed by the bull shtt Center for Biological Diversity to ban all traditional lead ammunition under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976. Since most other materials are considered armour piercing, this in effect bans all ammunition. Gun Control by Stealth?

Circumvent the Constitution, Congress and the will of the people by a powerful few? Government run by the few, a small group exercising control for corrupt and selfish purposes?

Oligarchy is actually a good a word to describe Obama.

Great posts all . . . but this line from U.S. Navy's post bears repeating again and again and again:

"And as it turns out, the Bush tax cut windfall for the wealthy accounted for almost half the budget deficits during his presidency and, if made permanent, would contribute more to the U.S. budget deficit than the Obama stimulus, the TARP program, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and revenue lost to the recession - combined. Of course, you'd never know it listening to the leaders of GOP."

Somebody needs to repeat this each and every day. . . the tax cuts BLEW A HOLE in the U.S. economy, WERE NOT NEEDED, and DID NOT CREATE JOBS!

Enough deficit hypocrisy! Enough being lectured on the economy by the same folks who screwed it up!

What is it gonna take to awake America from her slumber!

Hi Ron,

I just read a great biography on Alexander Hamilton by Ron(?) Chernow. It was actually an very easy and excellent read that had some newly discovered sources to draw on. Hamilton was a bit conflicted but seemed to always come down on the side of the common man. He set up systems to benefit capitalism and the free market but also put controls in place to prevent the abuse that he knew, from first hand experience, could happen.

Good post and good explanation of the term. It seems a few posters still missed the point, though.

US Navy,

Thank you very much for that post. I copy and pasted it to save for my sister who is one of those who think supply-side economics is right for all situations.

No Joe,

Still trying to sell that 'Keynesian economics failed' line, I see. You are definitely a dittohead as he also keeps trying to sell that tall tale. Again, just where did you get your economics degree? Oh, that's right, it's an MBA not an economics degree. Gotta watch that bottom line at all costs, right?

Supply side economics has it's place as does Keynesian economics and to say that one is the best at all times is to show a fundamental lack of understanding of how macroeconomics works.

Steve-505729

Thanks President Bush and to the Brave men and Women that Made this all Possible, Clearly those on the Left, those like Now president Obama, and vice president Biden claimed would Fail.. they said there is no way it would work, People that Denegrated General Patreaus by calling him a name i wont even repeat.. But better fits the the Actions of this administration that is leading this country now.

See retired here is steve, the great guy that blamed the aftermath of katrina on the state and local government, he TRIED to give bush a pass on the 1100 dead New Orleans residents.

well i told you that there would be a post giving bush credit, for the withdraw from Iraq, but Steve according to you and others, Bush was NEVER president, we did not have a persident from 01-08 so how can you give credit to a person that you will not give blame to. Steve you can't remember things from the bush years then don't comment on any thing from his presidency, your being a hypocrite, if you must give him credit, them you must

give him the shame for going in there in the first place

give him shame for allowing our defiects to grow

give him shame for not giving the troops in afgan the equipment and men to win there

give him shame for listioning to rumpsfield and chenny when he knew they were wrong on any thing they touched.

i will agree with you steve, only if you agree with me on the drak side of the bush years, if you will admitt he was president from 2001-08. i seriuosly dought you will do that.

have a nice day steve, and retired i told you this kind of post would surface.

Good posts to start the day. Ron--the thing that continually amazes me is that the Republicans gather support from so many of the people who their policies hurt. I'm not surprised at a wealthy person voting Republican but I am surprised at lower-income people who don't see the harm of the policies. Which brings me to Navy's post---the lower-income people buy into the tax myths--maybe because they want to much to be in the upper 2% but they aren't. Warren Buffett is quoted as saying he shouldn't be paying a lower tax rate on his dividends (15%) than his secretary pays on her wages (25%).

And finally, Gail & New Day--thanks for your posts about First Read. I hope I am always respectful to those I disagree with and would ask everyone who posts here not to abuse the system. I don't usually agree with the more conservative posters but I enjoy the back-and-forth with them when it is civil. I hope we can keep it that way.

Steve

don't be ashamed of the fact you voted for him, i did as well in 04. one of the biggest mistakes of my life.

Actually, Mathew, it's a Ph.D.

In economics.

Next question.

no joe, no bo, nj

Actually, Mathew, it's a Ph.D.

No Jo you have A Ph.d in economics, wow, girl. they why the hell did you work for bush, i think we would have been better off. if you want to criticize Obama economic team, given the fact you have a Ph.D then what was your imperssion on the bush economic team.

Wait your must believe in VOODO economics. this would explain your opposition to Obama team.

No Jo, VOODO economic expert. or DOODO expert. DOODO expert, your use to seeing our economey flush down the toilet by republicans.

Here is the next question:

Was it a blue light special, no jo?

Ron,

I have been on that train for years; ever since Ronnie RayGun busted the air traffic controller union. Check out "Corporate Personhood" for more information and organizations fighting it.

Matthew: Thank you for your comments. No, I'm not Ron Chernow, and I confess I have not read his book on Alexander Hamilton. Much of my comments come classes taken a long time ago. I knew he was a Federalists, but never knew much about his personal beliefs. Because he placed some checks and balances on what is now the Bank of America, I wonder what he would think of today's greedy conservatives.

Jeff-I had a lot of problems with the Bush economic team.

Let's start with the tax cuts: I did support them, but you might be interested in knowing WHY.

We hear much about the Clinton Surplus, which was a projected surplus of funds collected. At the same time, the economy had entered a shallow recession, due, mostly, to the bursting of the 'dot.com' bubble. These two things, added together, could have spelled economic disaster. How?

Remember that, for every dollar the government taxes, two are taken out of the economy. This would be a great solution if the problem were inflation, but, in a contracting economy, a government surplus is disastrous. There was no other solution than to cut the tax rates across the board.

It might interest you to know that I am for a sunset clause in such circumstances; however, I think it should be five years, rather than ten. Ten years ago, no one was predicting this economy. Five years gives you a better chance at predicting the economic future, given all the variables. It also gives you the opportunity to enact new tax cuts, if needed, for their stimulative effect. The tiny tax cuts in the Obama stimulous bill had no effect, because they were too small to make a difference. I agree that they could not have been larger given the tax rate we currently have-which only bolsters my argument. If the Bush tax cuts had expired after five years, NEW tax cuts of a larger amount could have been instituted to fight the recession. We don't have that arrow in our quiver right now, so the best we can do is extend them until the current recession is over.

Since we're on the current economy, allow me to say that I was, and remain, against the TARP program. The Bush administration forced banks that did not want or need TARP funds to accept them, on the grounds that, if all banks were involved, the weaker banks would not be penalized by the public. They then inserted language into the bill that made it difficult for the banks to return the monies before their due dates. It was public outcry about this when it was exposed to the light of day that led to a revision of the language; the healthy banks have all returned the funds, but the precedent was set.

It would be far better if the government had siezed the opportunity to exert some oversight on the FASB, which sets accounting standards, given the cataclysm THEY set off. How? By declaring that EVERY SINGLE MORTGAGE in the country was going to default.

Banks and investment firms have to 'mark to market'; that is, they need to show that they have sufficient assets to balance out what they owe. An asset to a bank is a mortgage-money that is owed to them. A debit to a bank is a deposit account-that is money they owe to you.

Banks and investment firms had used mortgages, and mortgage backed securities, as assets for many years. Suddenly, the FASB declared that all were worthless. Does that make any sense at all to you, Jeff?

Consider this: the default rate on mortgages has been 5%-and never varied, even in 2007,2008, and 2009. This year, due the the Obama mortgage 'fix', which prolonged foreclosures, it spiked up a tad, but has since reverted to its historic level.

If, to be on the safe side, the FASB had declared that all mortgage backed securities were now worth five per cent less, there would have been no crisis. It was rating them at 0 that caused it.

In the 1990's, FASB declared that companies could no longer deduct the costs of providing health insurance to their retirees from their tax returns. As you can imagine, every company that could stopped providing health care for their retirees.

So, we have an unelected board who make policies that effect the economy in a large way. They have no oversight, which is needed. Bush and congress should have exerted that oversight, but let the opportunity pass.

I was against Medicare part D. I was against quite a lot of the spending that was done, by the way. In fact, I saw nothing truly conservative about Bush's economic agenda.

There are many like me-folks who vote republican, but who were disenchanted by the republicans who spent like drunken sailors. You have only to look at Bush's ratings to understand that-his approval was far below his base.

So, if we did not like the Bush spending, how could you expect us to like Obama's spending?

The Wall Street Journal was the only news outlet that correctly summed up Iraq. 1) Kudos to the men and women that toppled Hussein and fought in an unpopular war and got the job done. Yes it was victory. 2) Toppling Hussein was absolutely correct. He used nerve gas on his own people. He refused to cooperate with UN Weapons inspectors. He was a menace to his people, the region, and the world. Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorists. 3) It took 19 years too long to get rid of him. The first George Bush should have taken him out when we had the chance. Allowing him to regroup made the process many times more difficult.

What do we have now? Glad you asked. We have a military presence with 50,000 troops in a dangerous and strategic part of the world. We have rid the world of a despot and we probably scared Khadafi to resign before we took him out. Eventually, Iraq oil production will ramp up, helping with world wide supply.

What are the lessons learned? Here's what we did not learn from Vietnam: 1) The media lies and corrupts all it touches. LBJ and Nixon caved in to the lies. Kudos to George W for ignoring the media and democratic bullcrap and staying the course. 2) Go in to every engagement with everything you got and don't quit until the job is done. In Gulf War 1, we went in with everything and we quit before we got the job done. In this war, we did not go in with everything we had, we did not have a clear plan, and we got bogged down. (Yes, I am capable of criticizing Bush and Rumsfeld. This was a huge mistake). 3) Despite the media lies, political incompetence of both parties, panty waisted generals, the men and women of the US armed forces are the best in the world. I feel safe knowing the good guys are on our side.

We should be having parades to welcome our men and women home. Some of these folks have done 3 or 4 tours at great personal sacrifice. Say thanks to a service man or woman when you see them on the street or in airports.

Iran is the next problem and we are sleeping through it. Let Israel take out the nukes. We cannot let these pukes go nuclear.

No Jo,

There are many like me-folks who vote republican, but who were disenchanted by the republicans who spent like drunken sailors. You have only to look at Bush's ratings to understand that-his approval was far below his base.

your post explains alot of where your coming from, but i pasted this part because for some reason, steve, farley and others don't think openly. they don't see things from both sides.

what i really have a problem with the bush cuts, that reagan did do, (except with military spending) he cut domestic spending. i did not agree with the cuts, i guess that the liberal in me. had bush cut spending when he came in to office, with the economy doing so well, the spending cuts would have equaled his tax cut. I'm not a ecominic expert but that would made since.

I have said that bush will go down as the only president to lower taxs during a war, let alone 2 wars. if his tax cuts were for only 5 years, that would have given him the chance to end his cuts get tax rates back up to help fund 2 wars.

So, if we did not like the Bush spending, how could you expect us to like Obama's spending?

No Jo we would have never had some of the exchanges in the past 2 years if we had known this about you.

what kills me about the republicans is that to them non of what you put in your post never happened. Bohner and cantor are acting like the republicas when they were in office never made mistakes, they just have over looked the facts.

if Obama extend the cuts, look for him and gates to cut military spending to offset the extending of the cuts. that the only place he can cut soending and get a bang for his buck.

Sorry for my last post. you know me, when i'm wrong i admitt it.

You most certainly wouldnt be referring to charlie Rangel,Barbara Lee and Tim geitner when you mention "tax cheats" would you?

Certainly your great leader Obama has never been involved with convicted felons (other than those who arranged "special real estate deals on his home),certainly no involvment with internal terrorists who blew up police stations in the U.S. and complained about not killing Americans?

You are not upset that your beloved Democratic Congress just voted themselves a $10,000 raise, and exempted themselves and THEIR families from the wonderful,new "Obamacare" health bill that incidentally Obama and his family will not join? You are not too upset about the new "first lady" taking a $2 million vacation in Spain when that money could have been spent at a hotel and restaurants on the Gulf Coast that has been so badly hurt by the recent oil spill,you are not overly concerned with the 65,000 oil rig workers put out of work by the idiot in the White House closing down off-shore drilling. No,none of the above,what concerns you is that taxes should be raised on the 10% of people who pay 75% of the taxes that keep your sorry ass receiving financial aid.

Anyone know where this new fairytale comes from, that for every dollar the government spends, the economy loses two? This one is very new so I'd like to study it. It naturally runs counter to the fact that the salary of a government worker has the same multiplier effect as any other income in the economy, and totally ignores the fact that different kinds of spending has different multipliers. Defense, for example, is the least effective jobs program in existence because the cost per job is astronomical.

The very idea that you can sum up a complex of interconnected economic factors in a bakers dozen words tells you it's oversimplified.

Good summary of the Neocon position, Gary. Good thing the vast majority of Americans realize it was a horrible mistake.

Gee, I always leave this group feeling so enlightened. Then, I have to think my way back to reality.

Clinton surplus=republican majority

Worst years of Bush spending= democrat majority

All of Obama's spending= democrat majority

Repubs were in favor of the small biz reform until last minute dems threw in a bunch of waste money.

Im not a fan of Beck but let go he had a peaceful rally that was not political at all.He is very conservative but at no time did anyone talk politics(before you answer back watch it first).There was no violence either. MLK jr. daughter was even there and gave a speech. So before you say it was tea-party racist look and see how many black people were there.

Thought liberals were gonna move to Canada if Bush got elected to a 2nd term? Another lie.

gary 420 wrote: " The Wall Street Journal was the only news outlet that correctly summed up Iraq. 1) Kudos to the men and women that toppled Hussein and fought in an unpopular war and got the job done. Yes it was victory. 2) Toppling Hussein was absolutely correct. He used nerve gas on his own people. He refused to cooperate with UN Weapons inspectors. He was a menace to his people, the region, and the world. Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorists. 3) It took 19 years too long to get rid of him. The first George Bush should have taken him out when we had the chance. Allowing him to regroup made the process many times more difficult."

(1) Of course credit should go to the men and women who fought in Iraq. They're the ones giving up their home lives, risking their necks, shedding their blood, not the people in Washington who sent them there. And, yes, they toppled Hussein. But it was not "an unpopular war" when it began, only when its complexity became clear and when the misrepresentations that led to it were revealed. We leave a fragile democratic government behind, and we've removed any checks the biggest check on Iran's ambitions. If this is "victory," we need to write a new dictionary.

(2) How was toppling Hussein "absolutely correct"? He HAD used gas against his enemies, to which we didn't object at the time because his enemies were our enemies too. But he had no weapons of mass destruction, his armed forces were a hollow shell that promptly collapsed, he was a stalwart enemy of any rival power center in Iraq, especially al Qaeda. There were no training camps for terrorists. Osama bin Laden hated Hussein and called him an "apostate." A murderous thug, yes, but when did it become our responsibility, alone in the world, to unseat all dictators? BTW, UN inspectors were hard at work in Iraq and withdrew only when we advised them to, because of the impending invasion. Also BTW, we gave Hussein some 48 hours to get out of town, then we jumped the gun by 2 hours hoping to catch him with his pants down and kill him.

(3) The first President Bush didn't "take him out" for good reasons, which we have seen over the last nine years of warfare and a hundred thousand deaths in Iraq. It's not a high school football game with a clear winner and a clear loser. It's bloody warfare and complicated politics in which brains and prudence are as important as military strength. It's hard to know where you or the WSJ came up with its having taken 19 years to get rid of Hussein. Nobody was trying to get rid of him after his withdrawal from Kuwait until we took it upon ourselves after 9/11. And in the 1980s he was our bosom pal. We supplied him with intelligence and moral support in his war against Iran -- in which he used gas, a WMD.

The WSJ is free to print whatever opinions it likes. It's a fine newspaper. But they should probably bend their opinions in such a way as to conform to the facts.

No Joe wrote:

Jeff-I had a lot of problems with the Bush economic team…

No Joe – I very much enjoyed your post. It was quite interesting. Kudos on being less combative than usual. I wish more people on this board would do the same.

I do have a few questions/comments though. Many argue that the Bush tax cuts might have helped stimulate the economy, but growth was pretty weak after the recovery from the tech bubble (fewer jobs created,etc). These same people, myself included, say the same thing about the Obama tax cuts. I believe the Obama tax cuts were substantial in size, considering they were enacted over a very short period. Do you believe a more targeted tax cut would have benefitted the economy more, instead of spreading small cuts over the entire population?

Is your only complaint about TARP that some banks were required to take funds for the benefit of the weaker banks? People seem to be either for or against the entire program. Your take is an interesting one. I can agree that the level of government intervention wasn’t optimal, particularly for these stronger banks, but I feel that confidence might have waned more had we immediately found out which banks were weak (we eventually did, of course).

The SEC does have oversight over FASB, though they choose to leave FASB to set accounting policy most of the time. FASB, however, doesn’t have the power to set prices on available-for-sale securities (I could be wrong – I am only currently studying for the CPA exams and am not an experienced accountant). Are you saying that FASB’s declaration that all mortgages were worthless was just a statement they made and not policy? That this statement caused the near full-stop in the market for mortgage-backed securities? That this declaration caused the entire bubble? In any case, could you provide a link with information regarding this declaration?

Good post Ron from Indiana.

I just wanted to point out that corporations support the Republican agenda even when they are publicly owned. So, if you have a 401K, like I do, instead of returning money to the shareholders, some of that money is going to advocate for tax cuts for the rich.

One reform we need is more power for shareholders in public corporations, including controlling excessive compensation. As it stands right now, CEOs can run their company in the ground, return profits to the GOP to maintain the status quo, screw shareholders trying to build a retirement fund, and meanwhile still get a big golden parachute and then ride off into the sunset super rich ...

... with little tax to pay, thanks to the GOP they support. Garbage in, garbage out.

And small shareholders like many of us get screwed.

The Bush Tax cuts for the top 5% really did a good job at keeping us out of a recession.

Later in his life, Hamiltons greatest fear was the control of capitol.

Opposing Civil Rights?

Maybe you are to young to realize that the Republican party pushed that through not the libtards!

And I guess we would be better off continuing to take from the middle class and give to those who just refuse to work?

Dear Randy: Do the names John and Bobby Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson mean anything to you historically with regard to civil rights legislation? And I agree with you. It is time to quit robbing the middle class for the benefit of the rich. Dear Ron, Indiana: it is time for you to re post the history you did on the evolution of the Republican party. It appears that there are some that have missed it, and it should be required reading!

Wow randy, you're right and wrong in the same sentence! Yes, Republicans were instrumental in passing the Civil Rights Act--LIBERAL Republicans. Then Richard Nixon produced a Southern Strategy to win the the votes of bigots who were furious that a Democratic President signed a law to ensure the rights of "those people", Dixiecrats changed parties to Republican en masse to protest equal rights for people they hated, Ronald Reagan ran a campaign loaded with "states rights" and other code phrases designed to attract reactionary southerners, George HW Bush ran the Willie Horton ads calculated to jolt people who were afraid of scary brown people, and the Republican Party purged anyone with a tendency toward moderation.

The Republican Party of 2010 isn't the Republican Party of 1964. Those people had more sense and WAY more ethics.

Exactly right, John.

Kudos to the posters on this thread...impressive in the well thought out and written posts. Not to mention there has been very little name calling and even fewer internet Rambos going off the deep end.

I seem to recall a reporter asking Bush if he saw the horizon to the end of our combat troops being in Iraq...He said something to the effect of..."Horizon?...there is no horizon to see, it doesn't exist" Something like that....Kind of gave me a sinking feeling in my stomach at the time.

I applaud Obama for doing this and the way he's done it....He's no glory hound like Bush was with his, "Mission Accomplished" message.

I wish our President the best of luck and encourage all Americans to get out and vote this November. P.S. I need to change my screen name here....I'm definitely leaning Left. Go Mr. President!

YES Joe, you have won. Yes the Republicans will take back the House and the Senate. It will be such a time of rejoicing amoungst the populations of this country. Just imaging how happy everyone will be in January. Everyone will have a job. No one will have to pay any taxes at all. There will be a church on every corner in every town. I will make a guess as to the type of church..Fundamental?? None of those business will have to follow any regulations at all.

This time come January is going to be so exciting. Grandma and Grandpa can move in with their children so they do not have to live on the street, and those children will be able to assume responsibility for their healthcare I amy sure that all those who are cheering for the Democrats to lose can afford to support Grandma and Grandpa. Just remember that the heart medications cost about $600 a month, so if you don't want to pay for their funerals, be sure to start saving over the next the few months. Of couse, just feed them lots of eggs from Iowa and you won't have to worry about them much.

Then we can pick a country to invade!! I wonder if throwing a dart at a map is the way to choose? Then the troops, where are they going to come from? Is the draft going to start up again? Or maybe the solution to all those illegal immigrants would be to put them into the services. Win=Win?

Yup it is going to be a great time. I am really looking forward to all the investigations of everything. I hear Darryl Issa already has everything ready to serve all those people in the White House so that investigations can be done. Maybe the first one is why does the White House keep having Italian Wedding as the soup of the day so often.

Yup, the economy will be great and growing at a rate of 7% a month the day after the Republicans take over Congress. I just can't wait.

Will be so much fun to read how great this nation has become the middle of January, 2011. Are you this excited too?

Nice cut and paste job Joe, but as usual from you, no original thougts worth considering

"A new poll shows that public support for health care reform dropped sharply in August – a dagger in Democrats’ hopes that their landmark legislation will help them in November’s midterm."

The problem is the Dems did not pass any landmark health care legislation, what got passed was an insurance lobbyist written mandate to buy insurance from a greedy and corrupt industry with all the price controls and competition stripped out, it sucks, and everyone knows the people got sold down the river by our Corporate owned Senate.

Well said, sonokursh2.

The ones who will be celebrating most--big oil, coal, Wall Street, health insurance providers--they will again have duped the American people.

sonokursh2

that was a great post. hey Joe in albany and No Jo, in january all your problems will be solved. read sonokursh2's post and i think you will agree that in january after the republican have retaken the house and senate, all YOUR crying and whinning will be over. thank god the republicans that got us in this ditch will get us out, after all, only the fools that cause the mess 2001-08 should be the ones to get us out, and i just can't wait to see them fall on their faces. Bohners face instead of being orange it will be red due to the pressure from the tea party, you know No Jo and Joe, if the republicans fail AGAIN, the tea party will become liberals!!!!!

Good spin Joe, to you as long as the country fails your happy. BTW I was a participant in one of those polls, here's how it went, the questioner said he wanted to ask me four questions, he ask if I was a registered voter, I said I was, he then ask if I was a Democrat, republican or Independent, I said I was a Democrat, he said think you and click, at that point he didn't figure he was going to get the answers he wanted, I suppose I was counted as an undecided. So see Joe your polls you tout so much really don't mean anything. But by all means keep relying on them you'll be sorely disappointed come November. Remember they did such a good job in 2008 (sarcasm).

Mo, I don't think that was a pollster. The vast right wing conspiracy is probably compiling a list of Dems so they can round them up and put them in jail once they regain power.

LMAO@U!!!!!

Hey No Joe No Bo--You can dismiss theorists and pontificate all you want to about the rise and fall of Keynsian economics. But the bottom line is that most of our advances in science, technology, the very birth of this nation were all based on unproven theories that ultimately proved correct. Some of their components were flawed but they were indeed successful overall. What is a proven fact however, is that the tired diatribe that you Republicans spout about "Big Government", "Tax Cuts" have been proven to be flawed time and time again and, in fact, have been debunked this campaign cycle by their very proponents in recent Republican administrations. In fact, any suggestion that recent Republican economic policy (macro, micro or nano) was based on any theory other than the "greed" principle is laughable. Yammer all you want, but I'd bet on Obama's economic "theoretical" team any day of the week and twice on Sunday over someone who spouts far-flung, theoretical economic inanities in a doctoral thesis to justify their Ph.D.

Mad in CT-you've heard of Greece, I presume? How about the rest of the PIIGS-Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain?

All Keynesian 'success' stories.

Then, there is the U.K, France, and Germany-all economies shedding to one degree or another, their economic ties to a theory that works-so long as there are no variables. That never happens in reality.

Money does not grow on trees. Stimulous must be paid for eventually.

Especially when the only thing stimulated is the debt.

Mad in CT,

No jo has a PhD in economics. From where you might ask? Don't know but from her posts, it was definitely from an extreme right wing institution that does not teach anything that does not fit the right wing agenda. Anything that does not, such as Keynesian economics are dismissed as failures despite history showing otherwise.

Now, that being said, I am not an economist, I am an engineer. I have, however decided to try and educate myself as much as I can by reading economic history and even college text books. This still does not make me an economist but it does give me one advantage, I am not subject to the prejudices that an institute or instructor may have. Because of this, I have sought out not only economists that agree with my political philosophy but also those that do not. In fact, how would I know if they agreed or not until I have read what they have to say?

Because I am free to select which texts and authors I read, I have actually - very recently, in fact - changed my mind about supply side economics. I now accept that under certain circumstances, supply side is called for while under other circumstances Keynesian is called for. No jo's statement that if someone doesn't like the spending under Bush, why would they like the spending under Obama points up the biggest weakness in her view and her education: it assumes that all spending is bad and that only supply side economics is the right policy to apply at all times.

So, Mad in CT, the only time I engage no jo is to have a little fun and tweek her nose. Do I really care where she got her PhD? Nope. Do I really think she got it at a blue light special? Wel . . . okay, nope. Do I completely read her posts? Hardly ever.

Thank you and good night.

Matthew, have you notice that no matter what the subject is no joe all blow always has a degree in it or she has been their and done that. She must be at least 200 years old to have done all the things she claims to have done. She doesn't realize when you make things up we can go back and see all the things she's claimed to do in the past.

No Joe wrote:

Mad in CT-you've heard of Greece, I presume? How about the rest of the PIIGS-Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain?

All Keynesian 'success' stories.

Then, there is the U.K, France, and Germany-all economies shedding to one degree or another, their economic ties to a theory that works-so long as there are no variables. That never happens in reality.

These countries are adapting to a bad economic environment and, at least in the case of Greece, realizing that they went overboard on benefits. Recalibrating available resources and cutting waste isn't really solid evidence of your position. It's something you and I both agree should be done in this nation, I'm sure.

Perhaps aligning your economy to a weak currency (Euro) was more the problem than Keynesian Economics?

Matthew, Houston is spot on. A hybrid of theories and actually a theory to be named later is what is needed in our current Service Focused GDP. We no longer manufacture things in this country. In fact, due to NAFTA and other bad policies (sorry, but I've been clear all along I wasn't a huge Clinton fan - he capitulated too much, too and it cost him his congress in 1994); we've encouraged corporations to send their mfg. to countries who don't pay a decent wage or offer benefits - and the problem with this is that we have cut the legs right off the Middle Class. And now the wealthy want to complain about all the Great Tax Sales coming to an end. They should be much more concerned about no longer having a customer base to buy the crap they produce. But they are a very slow crowd and they won't actually CHANGE their behavior until we have a complete meltdown. Drastic means for drastic times,...

Exactly, Da Noid

Great. How about next time you not waste our time by starting a bogus war with lies and deception?

These exclamations are nothing more than Machismos of Vast Right-Wing. I agree with you.

Da Noid;

Excellent point. Two unfunded wars, one pushed on the American people based on lies (no wmd's, or yellow cake etc.), the other totally mismanaged.

Yep, how about next time they attach the country that actually harbors that attacked us? That would be too difficult to do considering Old Ollie North is the reason they are in power in the first place.

Let's not forget that "The Surge" was only PART of what changed at that time. Prior to Barack Obama's campaign providing a place to hook hopes for ending the war THERE WERE NO PLANS TO END THE WAR. All the talk was of the "long war" that would take as much as 40 years, with a friendly government in Iraq providing a jumping off point to extend our military reach throughout the Middle East. Sure, the Surge helped turn the desperate tide brought by years of incompetent civilian planning under Rumsfeld and the other Neocons, but there was NO plan to actually end the war.

Pretending otherwise is the worst sort of revisionist history, the sort that allows the people who brought us this mess to not only hide their mistakes but continue to represent themselves as experts. In that capacity they will be an internal threat and danger to our country as long as they have influence in our society.

Thanks President Bush and to the Brave men and Women that Made this all Possible, Clearly those on the Left, those like Now president Obama, and vice president Biden claimed would Fail.. they said there is no way it would work, People that Denegrated General Patreaus by calling him a name i wont even repeat.. But better fits the the Actions of this administration that is leading this country now.

War is a Terrible thing, the war in Iraq was a neccesary war .. it removed a Terrible Dictator that was in Violation of 28 of 33 UN Sanctions. that had killed many of his own people, it cost the lives of many Men and women. a Sacrafice that those in this country should never forget or degrade in any way.

The CBO has come out with a Recent Report that the War In Iraq cost Less then the Stimulus package that was Passed by the Obama Administration. a Package that infact has done NOTHING to improve the situation here in america except to make Many of the people that Obama and the Democrats in congress Complianed about Richer. while doing nothing for the rest of the country. its taken nearly 8 years to come to this point in Iraq. . but the fact still remains that it cost less in 8 years for a noble purpose as opposed the 1 trillion dollars spent in 2 years that did absolutely nothing.. and Now the Obama Administration and the Democrats tell us We need more..

There you have it, I don't remember who it was but early this morning someone on this blog said there would be some teabagger republican would come on FR and give Cheney/Bush credit for the pull out. Well Steve your the stooge of the day, congratulations it's an honor every teabagger republican is proud to wear.

War is a Terrible thing, the war in Iraq was a neccesary war .. it removed a Terrible Dictator that was in Violation of 28 of 33 UN Sanctions. that had killed many of his own people, it cost the lives of many Men and women. a Sacrafice that those in this country should never forget or degrade in any way.

...and, thus, the revisionist historian Neo-Cons chime in.

A necessary war? All evidence to the contrary.

We were lied to by the President (damn...I still can't remember his name because we're not allowed to say it) who said Iraq posed an immediate threat to security because he was building chemical weapons and had acquired uranium to begin a nuclear weapon program. We were told that Saddam Hussein conspired with al Qaida in the 9/11 attacks. This didn't become a mission to liberate the Iraqi people from a terrible dictator until we found no uranium and no chemical weapons and we found no link to al Qaida.

IT WAS A PACK OF LIES!!!

So we simply changed the reason why we invaded.

I will not cheapen the service of the men and women who served in Iraq but here is the shameful stain that the Neo-Cons must wear...

...a precedent was set...it became acceptable for the President of the United States to use military force under false pretenses and to simply change the reasons why we invaded when the original reasoning no longer fit the narrative.

Such a move by the current President would leave you positively apoplectic...you would not stand for it but you'll stand for it from the last guy?

Stick that in your Bush Derangement Syndrome!

Mo..

Yawn.. You bore me

If you think Bush lied then clearly Da Noid.. you also agree all these people lied

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Steve,

All of those letters and statements were made by people WHO HAD BEEN LIED TO by the Bush administration. They were based ON THE LIES they were told and the SELECTIVE intelligence they were presented BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

Selective memory and disingenuous arguments do not help your credibility.

Mattew .. Clearly you dont read well. Many of the Statementss were made BEFORE.. I REPEAT.. BEFORE President Bush was Elected president. So.. it seems to be True during the Clinton administration. But not during the Bush Administration. Nice try.. I just dont get how all these Smart Liberals were lied to by Bush.. I guess by your Standards they were not that smart

Golly, Steve, you're right, a whole 5 of them were before the invasion and were pertinent when they were written. But the point is, we did not go to war based on those from 1998 while we did based on those written in 2002. I must admit, I did skim your post because I had seen this list before and it has been roundly criticized for it's misinformation and containing letters and statements that were based on LIES or were not pertinent to the invasion.

Now, Steve, you might want to go back and read real history again as the authority that was given was conditional on there being proof that there were WMDs (which there were not), ties to al Quida (which there were not) and Hussein presenting an immediate and imminent danger to our security (which he did not). The Bush administration lied about all of those things. Check out Bob Woodward's books on the Bush White House and learn a few things.

Give it up, Steve, you are wrong.

Matthew..

Thank you so much for telling me what you think you know. . but as Ronald Reagan once said.. "its not that our liberal friends are Ignorant.. it that they know so much that isn't so".

Now here is the Resolution which Granted President Bush to use Force agasint Iraq.. Please Read it and Learn.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101102a.htm .. You seem to think that all of this was not determined before hand.. but you continue to tell people that which you know little about.

Matthew--Psst! You can't assume too much with Baggers. Re-reading history requires that one possesses the ability to read in the first place. That's a tall order for some baggers like Steve!!

I know, Mad in CT, but it sure is fun giving them all of the rope they need. Steve knows how to read, it's the reading comprehension I would question. Note the e-mail he cut and pasted and is trying so hard to defend.

Glad I bore you Steve, at least it shows you have some emotion.

Steve; I'd be interested to know who supplied you with all those quotes. Seems like something my cousin got from a right wing PAC, by mistake.

The war was a mistake and there would be no recession if we were not in Iraq.

Michael:

Very well stated. My biggest complaint then and now is the lack of a backbone by some of our elected officials. They let the other party dictate the agenda instead of sticking to our guns. They basically sold us out to try and get some votes from the right that never materialized anyway.

They should have fought harder for what we the American people wanted and let the chips fall where they may. Instead we got bills that were gutted (when passed), concessions made and still the bills got filibustered my a minority. There is a major problem when 41 people get to dictate over 59.

The Dem's instead of fighting back and holding their ground caved in time and time again. Notice the the rep's are much more united. They may be wrong, but Boehner and McConnell make them ALL sing the same song.

The Republicans only have a 26% approval rating and they are putting up a better PR program than we are. Granted most of it is spin and a return to the voodoo and trickle economics of Regan and GW that did not work but they are still putting out lies about the tax cut, President Obama not a citizen, is a Muslim, etc., and getting people to believe it.

Agreed Michael, I would not trust a republican to assist me regardless of the danger I was in, heck I don't trust a republican to do anything except fatten their own pocket books. Someone once asked me if my husband votes the way I do, I said of course, you don't think I'd crawl into bed in a locked house with a republican do you? And, no way on earth I would. Never met a republican I could trust as far as I could throw them, don't expect to either.

It was the stimulous, Michael.

No one wanted it. It was too big, too full of pork, and the polls showed general opposition. There was also Obama's proposal to buy down mortgages for people who were in over their heads-there was general opposition to that proposal, as well.

Obama banked on the idea that, if these things worked to stabilize the economy, they would become more popular. They didn't, it didn't, and he lost the bet.

This actually ties into my post above:

Using Okun's law to say that government stimulous 'saved or created' 3 million jobs didn't change one mind. It is well to remember that all Okun did was quantify the amount of production lost to unemployment-he never prescribed any fixes. Cobbling Okun together with a Keynes 'fix' is what they base their numbers on.

Spending real taxpayer dollars on hypothetical jobs is what started the TEA party movement. Total disregard for the consent of the governed strengthened it. Belittling those who believe in it, or are members, hurt this administration. That, and their seeming unwillingness to listen to the voice of the people.

A well written post, Michael, but what's interesting is you could replace every democrat reference with republican and every republican reference with democrat and it would remain equally accurate. The power cycle has been exactly the same for as long as I've been alert to politics. When the Reps are in charge, the Dems cry foul, they're bullying us, we'll block everything. When the Dems gain the majority, the Reps take over that role. THIS is what's wrong with our system. It's not who has the majority or the minority blocking anything, it's blind refusal on both sides of the aisle to actually work together for the good of the public at large.

Michael that's right on target. The Republican Party has been purged of the statesmen who once populated their rolls. They've been replaced by hit men, heartless killers who see every action not in the best interests of the nation but in terms of "if you lose, I win." Cheaters do not play by the rules, as you've illustrated in your post. They only use the rules as one more means to prevent you from winning. That's why they're so quick to point and whine "they do it too." That's why they don't hesitate to switch tactics, defending with all their strength something that only yesterday they decried as shameful, even unconstitutional. They'll pile on this thread and try to prove that the other side does it too, and they'll come up with enough examples to make it sound rational. But remember which side does it most consistently, most egregiously.

Democrats need to remember that Republicans REALLY DO see this as a fight to the death. The "permanent Republican majority" wasn't just a pipe dream, it's a long term goal. They mean to enact one-party rule and oligarchic control.

Suzy:

I am not talking about the behavior of politicians toward each other. I am talking about the behavior of fellow citizens toward each other. The behavior and rhetoric of politicians is largely to be expected, however the moment that we buy into that rhetoric as truth and begin to believe all the nonsense is the moment that we lose our bond to each other as citizens. I am not saying that this is a new phenomenon. In fact, as you say, it has been going on as long as I have been politically aware.

However, in 2008, we had the opportunity to change that. Whether you like the president or not, during the election campaign, there was a mood among the majority in the country that perhaps we could move to a time that was less acrimonious and where fewer of the types of behaviors that you described were acceptable to the people as a whole.

The right wing of the nation - politicians and citizens alike - made the decision that victory in the next election cycle was far more important than reducing the partisan hatred that has permeated the body politic since the rise of right wing talk radio in the 80's and early 90's. The moment was lost and the left, partially because the belief among the left was so strong that we were going to be moving into this supposedly post-partisan period, was completely blindsided by the rise of the tea party movement because the rise of the tea part movement ran completely counter to the way that political movements have arisen in the past.

After all, the right had been in power for most of the last two decades. Political movements generally arise via the discontent of people who have been out of power for quite some time, not people who have been out of power for, say, six weeks. So it was pretty unreasonable to expect that this nonsense notion that the country was somehow moving toward socialism and totalitarianism would become set in people's minds, especially considering that the only thing the president had done to this point was to prop up capitalist institutions like banks.

So the long and short of it is that the moment has been lost. Whether you believe they were right in doing so or wrong in doing so, the right wing chose the path they want this country to take and they have been largely successful in sending us spiraling down that path. As John says, they view this as a fight to the death and you can make the claim that you think the left does as well, but the proof is in the pudding. The only attempt to stop this eternal cage match between the right and the left to have taken root in the minds of the general public in the last thirty years came from the left. It did not come from the right and the right moved as quickly as possible to squash the sentiment and ramp up the rancor.

NJ:

As I said to Suzy, it is largely irrelevant what justifications you use for the behavior. The point is that your side did it, the moment was lost and now we all have to live with the result. However, I think it is pretty unreasonable to expect us to watch your side punch ours in the mouth while we are in the middle of talking about how great it would be for us all to get along, then gird yourselves for war, then spend two years talking about the war, and expect us to just never get it.

Fine. We're at war. Do you expect us to fight it to lose?

You hated the stimulus. Fine. There were plenty of things that Republican administrations have done during my lifetime that I've hated, but I've never chosen to behave in such a way as to let everyone who supported those things know that I believe them to worthless. I may have called politicians names, but by and large, prior to the proliferation of the internet, there was no real widespread name-calling and hatred among the citizenry. Or maybe I was just too blind to see it, but I seem to recall working in places that had lots of conservatives and other places that had lots of liberals and never walking away from any of them thinking that these people wouldn't spit on me if I was on fire just because of my political ideology.

That is what the right wing owns. Not because they are the sole people doing it, but because when we had the moment in time to put a stop to it, the right wing instead chose to crush the moment.

So it's likely to be a long time before another moment like that comes along. And the truth is that I doubt it'll ever come along in the same terms again, because it'll be a cold day in Hell, after the treatment we as people have received from you as people during the last two years, that we'll even care enough to try to reconcile with you. Personally, I've reached the point where I absolutely do not care. You've declared the war. You've set the terms of the engagement. And you've scorched the earth to the point that there is no return.

We are not going to be the ones to extend any olive branches this time around.

If you view it as a cage match fight to the death, then I guess that's what we'll fight.

Well said!

Michael Thompson, Charlotte, NC-

I don't generally initiate a discussion with you Michael, and it's not my central intention now...but I found your post so compelling, I have to weigh in.

First, let me compliment you on being among the first (if not the first) regular on this site to fully comprehend what's likely in store for the Democratic Party in November's midterms. There is so much denial here that it gives First Read an air of unreality...not dissimilar, I imagine, to the vibe in the Fuhrer's bunker in Berlin in the days before the arrival of the Russians in 1945.

After sorting through the bitterness and self-pity, you had some interesting thoughts about the post-election political environment going forward...basically, you seem to be suggesting that Democrats adopt what you regard as the Republicans' "just say no" strategy that you insist the GOP has employed since President Obama took office in January, 2009.

Democrats in Congress could adopt that course...but I doubt that they will. The relative positions of Congressional Republicans in January 2009, and Congressional Democrats in January, 2011, will likely be substantially different...and not directly comparable.

In January 2009, the Republican Party faced Democratic control of the White House, and overwhelming Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. The public's perception (filibuster and cloture rules of the Senate aside) was that the Democrats...if they REALLY, REALLY, wanted to, could do whatever they liked. Further, the public's perception, at least in part, was that Democrats couldn't form a unified front to pass the legislation their own leaders wanted them to pass. In effect, the Democrats' problem wasn't really the Republicans...it was recalcitrant fellow Democrats.

In January, 2011, you'll likely have Republicans controlling the House, a divided Senate (with a tiny majority for one party or the other), and a Democratic President sitting in the White House. In short, Michael...a government split right down the middle. In any event...Republicans will not be in charge, as Democrats were, so completely, in January 2009.

And that, Michael, changes the whole "just say no" dynamic.

In addition, many of the policy initiatives that the Republicans said "no" to, did not have majority, or even plurality support with the public. Obamacare, the economic stimulus, closing Guantanamo, civilian trials for KSM and the other 9/11 conspirators, the Justice Department lawsuit against Arizona...all of these are things that many Americans WANTED the Republicans to say "no" to. Such policy initiatives are the major reason the Democrats are facing a midterm wave election in the first place.

No, when the dust settles, I suspect that the newcomers and survivors from both parties in the new Congress will find it in their mutual interests to work together wherever possible...and we'll all find out whether or not President Obama is really and truly prepared to forfeit a second term.

Well said, Michael.

Suzy, you must be fairly young because I haven't seen anything like this since the late 60s during the height of the Viet Nam war. It is the ugliest political environment I have ever witnessed and it has been mostly caused by the right wing. Just take a look at the responses from those on the right to this post.

And so we see the rhetoric already start its inevitable shift. See how reasonable it all sounds? The left wing will go along with the right wing agenda because it is 'in their mutual interest to work together.' And the truth is that you are probably correct. It probably will work. After all, it is how this nation has reached the point where we are a helluva lot closer ideologically to 1880 than we are to 1964.

You also seem to believe that there is some sort of room in the immediate future for reconciliation. There isn't. You can only go to the well with it so many times before the inevitable answer is 'screw you.' You and yours passed that point somewhere between the time you were calling all of us communists and the point where you were telling us that you had 2nd Amendment solutions for us.

A unified America is essentially over for the duration of our lifetimes. Maybe one day our kids and grandkids can try again, but do you seriously believe there's a chance in Hell I'd sit down with you and have a beer after all of this? Seriously?

Screw that.

Buy a clue. If you treat me like crap, I am not going to be your friend just because in the end you got what you wanted and are now ready to play nice because your side is in charge again. We aren't friends. We'll never be friends. Trying to talk to me like your trying to be my friend at this point only tells me one thing.

It tells me you think I am stupid.

Michael-I attempted to present to you the facts about what people were against in this administration, but your response makes it seem that you think that facts are irrelevent.

Do you honestly expect people to support spending vast sums of money they know will be wasted, because not to support it wouldn't be 'nice'?

Do you really expect people in a democratic republic not to voice their dissent, because to do so wouldn't be, well, supportive?

If that is truly the argument of the left, then I do understand your disappointment that the election of Obama did not transcend politics. It didn't because it couldn't.

Obama was elected by 53% of the electorate, and enjoyed almost 70% support on inauguration day. It was not until his 'centrist' stance and 'pragmatism', displayed during the campaign, were shelved after he took office that his numbers began to drop, and keep dropping.

Every day that he pushed his far left agenda, every day that some new, crackpot idea was rolled out, every day that he moved forward without the consent of the electorate, his numbers dropped.

In response, his supporters became more shrill and angry. How dare anyone question Obama!?!

We, the American people, dare. It is our right.

Michael Thompson, Charlotte, NC-

And, you seem to have me confused with someone else, Michael.

I have never called you or anyone else at First Read (or elsewhere, for that matter) a communist...not even a socialist.

With regard to the 2nd Amendment...outside of my military service, I've never had a firearm in my possession.

Forgive me for saying so...but you seem to be doubling down on the bitterness and self-pity.

Sad.

On the money Michael. I have often been frustrated at the lack of PR on the Democrat side. And it does not help when they publicly fight. I was tired of hearing the President needs to do this or do that. We seem to shoot ourselves in the foot and then blame the President. I hope and pray the Republicans do not make the inroads which the pundits seem to think they will. We who want to move forward need only think one thing to get us fired up and ready to go - Speaker John Boehner.

Republicans do not care a hoot for the middle class. Their actions belies their rhetoric and it's a foul rhetoric at that.

njnbnj,

I can't tell you how exhausted I am from reading your posts where you continually claim to be stating FACTS about how the American People feel. I am an American person and YOU DO NOT speak for me.

I think the DNC needs to come up with our own 'Squawk Box' alert system for 'controlling the masses by fear'. If it hadn't been for the handy dandy Orange alert code (and Blackwell in Ohio), "W" would have NEVER had a second term.

As someone stated earlier today, a FACT is that in a recent poll EXISTING Republican Congress has a lower approval rating then the Democratic Congress. FACT is that disillusioned Democrats are frustrated with capitulation by Dems; but would NEVER consider giving the keys to the car back to the reckless drivers (Repubs) of recent past. FACT is that while you'd like the landscape and narrative to be a NATIONAL momentum, it is still confined to about 18-20% of people who are being given a very big microphone. And, FACT is that depending on where your team is geographically and the specific candidates on the ground November is an unknown. Given the push polling and other ridiculous antics occurring, I won't believe any poll prior to October 25th. The only thing you can say about the political landscape right now is that it is unstable. Much like your political analysis. Still holding out for Obama to resign? Good luck with that.

NJ:

You did not present facts. You presented revisions of what actually occurred in February, 2009. The stimulus package was signed into law on 2/17/10. The first Tea Party rally occurred on 2/27/09. You're telling me that in a period of 10 days, before ANY of the provisions of the bill were enacted, the right wing was so incensed by the thus-far non-existent effects that they felt the need to begin a political movement based on the socialistic intent of a bill that primarily lowered taxes, provided unemployment insurance to the millions being dumped from their jobs, and created infrastructure projects?

I don't care what you believe NOW. I care what any reasonable person could have predicted 10 days after the passage of the law. On that level, your assertion that all of this was about the stimulus package does not pass the smell test. Any measure he took - ANY measure - would have resulted in that first Tea Party rally. Why? Because Limbaugh, prior to the man even taking office, had decided that the era of post-partisanship was over before it ever began and declared it on his radio show. Winning was more important than healing the nation and you and yours demonstrated it over and over and over again until it took root.

And I personally don't care if you voice dissent. All free society has dissent. I care that you and yours have decided to scorch the earth to the point that you've irrevocably ripped the body politic apart to the point where there is no repairing it and THEN, when the opportunity arose that maybe, just maybe we had a chance to do that, it was more important to you to regain what you'd lost 8 weeks prior.

However, all that being said, it is basically pointless at this point to rehash all of it, because you will remain convinced that what you did and how you behaved and how you treated anyone and everyone who disagreed with you is somehow justified by what you were going to gain by doing it. Congratulations. You've gained an election. You'll have a small majority, perhaps in both houses. In return, you've lost whatever chance the right wing and the left wing had in our lifetime of achieving any degree of reconciliation.

And yes, if reconciliation requires that you somehow be 'nice' in voicing your disagreement with a policy, I would hope that you'd have the basic humanity to voice the objection in a 'nice' way for one. Try it. It really isn't that bad. It ends up with fewer people really, you know, hating you just on principle.

Again, however, this is all water under the bridge. The only thing left is to live in the future that you and yours have plotted out for us. So at this point, I guess we on the left really have only a couple choices. We can cling to the illusion of hope and change, knowing full well that it's never going to happen because you don't believe in it and will never let it happen. We can lay down and die and allow you to destroy us, which you want to do.

Or we can fight you on the same level you've chosen to fight us.

Which one do you think is the most reasonable option out of the three?

MB:

No, you may not have personally called someone a socialist and you may not own a weapon, but you own the choices of your political movement. Look through the Beck thread yesterday at the outpouring of love from the right. You own that because you are part of the right and have done nothing to distance yourself from any of it. That means that when I use the collective 'you,' that includes the personal 'you,' because as long as you are part of something you get the good parts as well as the bad.

You can't pick and choose which parts fit you during those uncomfortable moments when someone points out that your side has collectively treated my side for the past two years like a bag of crap. If you don't believe these things, then maybe you should have mentioned it somewhere along the way to those on your side who were saying them. They aren't hard to find. In fact, the Beck thread is chock full of them and you could have opened your mouth at any time.

But you didn't. Instead you chose to continue to make snarky comments to the left wing posters to demonstrate that you are brighter than they are and to assume an air of hip moral superiority because you are somehow part of the right wing without becoming emblematic of its lunatic fringe. But the unfortunate truth for you is that the lunatic fringe has become a part of you because you, like other 'moderate' right wingers, feel free to use it when it is convenient and to ignore it when it isn't.

You can't have it both ways.

And me recognizing that deciding to roll over and pal around with the people who have collectively punched my side in the mouth repeatedly over the last two years is a bad idea does not make me mentally ill or self-pitying or bitter. It makes me realistic and means that I have my eyes open. I knew this play would start as soon as you guys decided that you'd won. You would choose to use language to marginalize those who pointed out what pricks you've collectively been by painting us as 'angry' or 'bitter.'

Fine, I am bitter, but your side is still full of pricks who have destroyed any chance for the two sides of the country to reconcile. And I would still be a country rube to fall for your 'it's in our mutual interest to cooperate' line, but you and yours are essentially hoping that the country is full of country rubes.

People who will go, 'Gee my face sure hurts a lot, but I sure am happy you aren't hitting me anymore.'

sorry, meant to put these links in here:

Dem Approval

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm

Repub Approval

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

Spin it however you must; but EXISTING Dems have higher favorabilities than EXISTING Repubs. This is a contest by contest election. The only poll that matters is on November 2nd.

Late to the discussion today... but wanted to say Michael... you are on FIRE!

Very refreshing to read your posts!

Clara-I try not tomake it a habit to 'read into' what poll standings mean, but, given that even Gallup has the republicans with a ten point lead in the generic ballot, (an historic high), one could infer that those responding as to their 'approval' of either party has to do with how effective the republicans have been at stopping the Obama agenda.

Which has, I might add, pretty poor ratings.

This is going to be a bad year for democrats. How bad, remains to be seen.

Michael Thompson, Charlotte, NC-

On the whole, I couldn't disagree with your response more...although, there are parts I take particular exception to.

First...I don't watch Glenn Beck and I tend to take his word for it that he regards himself as a "rodeo clown". That said...even a broken clock has the correct time twice a day. By any objective standard, his National Mall rally was an astonishingly serene, positive, non-confrontational event...I sincerely doubt that you're much more surprised by that than I am.

For the most part, however, I have no desire to wade into a heated debate about a self-styled "rodeo clown". Are you really going to take me to task for that, Michael? And, while we're on the topic of Glenn Beck...how many hateful comments do you suppose he's been the target of right here at First Read for the last two years, and before? Perhaps others who post here regularly "can't have it both ways"...eh, Michael?

Second...I'm still a bit taken aback at the degree of hostility you're displaying towards me, personally. I almost always disagree with you politically, Michael...but that's about as far as it goes. You're smart, and I enjoy crossing swords with you in political debate.

But...I haven't made any sweeping judgments about who you are as a person. One's political views are simply one part of a much bigger picture, and honestly, I really don't have enough data (you can tell how much I love polls and polling, eh?) to offer a substantive opinion about you much beyond what your political views and debating skills are.

That's why I'm surprised that you have me pegged so thoroughly.

Switching gears, I'm pretty sure (regarding you), that I got the bitter, self-pitying part correct...but you've made that pretty obvious, and I don't apply the observation to anything other than your political views. How could I?

MB

Michael, I was willing to take you at face value until this statement "No, you may not have personally called someone a socialist and you may not own a weapon, but you own the choices of your political movement. Look through the Beck thread yesterday at the outpouring of love from the right. You own that because you are part of the right and have done nothing to distance yourself from any of it. That means that when I use the collective 'you,' that includes the personal 'you,' because as long as you are part of something you get the good parts as well as the bad."

By your own admission, you are part of the problem, not the solution. Yes, in the last few election cycles I have tended to vote Republican, not necessarily because I agree with everything the candidates stand for but because my fiscally conservative views align more closely with the ideals the republicans put forth (not necessarily practice, of course, but promise) than I do with the democrats. Socially I fall pretty solidly in the middle, tending more democrat but when it comes to governing our country as a whole, I don't believe social politics are the most important issue. I do believe that continuing the "my side vs your side" mentality and labeling whomever you believe is "against you" with blanket statements. How can we expect better of the politicians when we don't expect better of ourselves? "Your side" punches at least as hard at "my side" and it's all pointless. For those of is in the middle 80% (I figure 10% fringe on either extreme), there is more we agree on than disagree on if we all stop flapping our gums long enough to open our ears and hear what the other side has to say. Our government shouldn't be about what's best for the democratic agenda or what's best for the republican agenda, it should be about what's best for the American people, plain and simple. But as long as we continue to fight amongst ourselves, there will be no change.

Well said Michael, and I'm sick to death of people who called me a TRAITOR for disagreeing with a falsified case to go to an unjustified war, who have systematically blocked EVERYTHING the legitimate winners of the last 2 elections tried to do, and they're ALREADY making a case that everyone needs to cooperate and do "what's best for the nation" now. They mean EXACTLY what they've meant all along. "Compromise" means doing exactly what the Republicans want to do, exactly what we've been doing for the last 30 years, exactly what got us into this sorry mess and exactly what's required to establish an oligarchic, aristocratic system where upward mobility is a thing of the past and our "betters" get to make all the decisions for their own benefit.

I won't forget, I won't compromise, and I won't go away.

Michael,

OMG! Great posts!! <ctl> C and <ctl> V are getting quite a workout today. Don't get frustrated, MB just doesn't get it and Suzy seems to be a bit too young to get it. MB is very eloquent in his pontificating but in the end he says nothing with any meaning. You and your words are appreciated.

Switching gears, I'm pretty sure (regarding you), that I got the bitter, self-pitying part correct...but you've made that pretty obvious, and I don't apply the observation to anything other than your political views. How could I?

MB

*****************************************************************

On what level does this make any sense whatsoever? On the one hand, you admit you have no knowledge of my life or my personality whatsoever, but feel free to engage in a nasty personal attack targeted at my personality. However you then exonerate yourself from any accountability for the personal attack by claiming that your judgment regarding my personality and what you presume to be my psyche at the current time by saying you only apply it to my political views?

Either you regard me as self-pitying and bitter or you don't. The reason that I am hostile to you is because you engage in the exact same practices that nearly every right wing poster I've ever met throughout the years engages in... that is... extrapolating first my disagreement with his/her political views as something 'aberrant,' engaging in sideways cuts regarding my state of mind because I disagree, then characterizing me as 'angry' because I happen to take offense that some guy who has never met me has decided to pretend that he does.

Here's a hint. Debate the issue. Don't debate the person. I don't presume to know anything about you. I do presume to know what you do and what you don't do within the limited spectrum of this board. What you never do is engage any of the lunatic fringe of your party and tell them that they are, you know, 'angry' or 'crazy' or 'bitter.' However, you feel free to do that with me probably because it's safe for you to do so and you lose no 'cred' with your fellow right wingers by doing it. It doesn't matter if you didn't choose to do it in the Beck thread, because you never choose to do it at all.

And if you look at the thread, you'll notice that there are a hell of a lot more of them than there are of you. So guess, in the face of your complete ambivalence to it, who becomes the face of your party? Not the guy who makes the snarky comments to left wingers on a daily basis. Instead, it is the massive horde of people who DO call every left winger who posts a socialist and threatens 2nd amendment solutions and paints signs of the president looking like the Joker.

I am hostile with you because presumably you are better than that, but you choose not to be. Instead, you choose the easy path and get to sound witty and smart and watches the nation around him swirl around the toilet bowl because he can't be bothered to tell people who say things that are whacked out and crazy to shut up because they are idiots.

And by the way... calling someone self-pitying and bitter? A pretty sweeping judgment, just in case you didn't know and weren't being, you know, just a little disingenous with that claim.

Suzy:

Everything you are saying is essentially correct aside from the fact that I spent months trying to engage the right on these boards in intelligent ways with precious few successes. Aside from the that, I don't excuse myself from the 'problem,' but to me it is no longer a 'problem' that needs to be solved, because it isn't going to be solved. The last, best chance that we as a society had to solve it happened two years ago, but your side couldn't be bothered and decided that the better course was to ramp things up to such insane levels that even stubborn, old, pigheaded me had to face the reality of the situation.

No, it will not be solved.

And recognizing that it isn't going to get solved, there are only two real possible outcomes. It escalates to the point of civil war - which I don't really count out given the level of it now. If it does escalate to the civil war level, I certainly am not going to just let myself get shot in the early stages of it by some lunatic who has it out for civil servants and decides to visit my place of employment one day. And I am certainly not going to passively sit by and say nothing while one side is obviously preparing for the war to come and the other side, (mine), is sitting around banking everything on the outdated notions of 'hope' and 'change.'

Or it can burn itself out, in which case, maybe a couple of generations down the road, (our kids or grandkids), might try this all over again. However after the treatment that my side has received throughout 2009-2010, expecting us to just kick back and make nice with you once you get what you want is a little bit ridiculous. Life doesn't work that way. Expecting me to 'like' you at this point now that you've decided to stop screaming at me and calling me names and to repeat some of the things I told you two years ago, then again a year ago, then six months ago, and so forth, isn't just ridiculous, it would be downright insane of me.

You are absolutely correct. "As long as we continue to fight amongst ourselves, there will be no change."

That is what I said all along, but you decided you wanted to fight, so now I guess we're going to.

I guess I'm not ready to run the white flag up the flagpole just yet. I like the prospect of getting rid of the establishment candidates in this year's election cycle. It would be a good start to ending politics as usual in Washington. From where I sit, the Democrats had an excellent opportunity with a sweep of the Executive and Legislative branches in 2008 to show a genuine interest in compromise, in working WITH the minority party toward a better future but they squandered it almost immediately with the passage of the (debt) stimulus bill that passed with no republican support at all. Same with healthcare. The mentality I saw from the Democrats was we will pass this with or without you. The American people were given the same treatment- we don't care that you don't like what we're proposing, we know it's best for you so we're going to pass it anyway. How does that foster cooperation?

That is the whole point of this. Bridges were not burned because the government did things legislatively that you did not like. Governments have been doing things that portions of the citizenry did not like since there have been governments. Bridges were burned because instead of merely voicing their opposition to the government, the right wing also chose, at the moment in time when post-partisanship seemed like a real possibility, to include not just the government in their deluge of scathing attacks, but also every citizen who believed in the president and in the government.

The relentless assault on the left has not stopped for the entire duration of this presidency. And it has all been done with the expectation that as soon as you decided to stop and turn on a dime and start to ask for conciliation, we would be happy to follow you.

I don't care that you disagreed with the government. Let me repeat that. I don't care. What I do care about is how you chose to treat your fellow citizens and that you and yours, even though we've been talking about it all day, still don't seem to get that even though I've said it in every post.

The fact that you and yours are so oblivious to it - the fact that MB doesn't seem to get that calling someone self-pitying and bitter might be a little offensive to that person - and that fact that his 'self-pitying' and 'bitter' remarks are actually quite mild in comparison to the abuse that you and yours normally heap upon us - indicates to me that it might not even be intentional. At this point, this might be so ingrained in the right wing mindset after years of Limbaugh and Hannity and Beck that it might be utterly impossible for you not to behave in hostile, unintentionally abusive ways.

However, as I said before, at the end of all of that, just don't expect us to come running like puppies the minute you stop kicking us and decide that you want to play.

Michael Thompson, Charlotte, NC-

I was going to post a detailed response to your last set of comments to me, but after reading what you had to say to Suzy, I realize you're far more upset than I realized.

When I'm engaging in political debate here at First Read, elsewhere online, or face-to-face, the context is never, ever, armed civil conflict...something that you apparently consider a very real possibility here in the United States. I now understand that your use of the word "war" isn't intended as a metaphor for particularly heated political debate...you're talking about pitched battles between left and right with bullets flying.

And, I'm really not there yet...I hope I never do get there.

I've spent time in a country at war...I don't believe that the vast, overwhelming majority of Americans are anywhere near ready to take up arms against one another.

Sorry...I just don't see it.

If I did, I would have exercised my 2nd Amendment rights and armed myself for protection long ago, Michael.

Michael,

here is the article to support what you are saying. and it is stunningly arrogant even to the professional writers.

McConnell is OUT OF TOUCH with Mainstream Americans. It is that simple.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_08/025065.php

to quote a friend, essayon!

Don't forget trying to pin Obama as a socialist....

That's one thing that stands out for me, how adamant they are about labeling him and dems as socialists. The reality is, Republicans are proving themselves to be socialists. Look at the way they vote, the way they speak about liberals and our President. All goose stepping to the RNC leadership.

When was the last time you heard a Republican agree with anything the President had to say or align themselves with any of his policies. At least in the liberal voting you can see a smattering of "No" here and there....on the right...it's all no!

The reality is, they are projecting. Like a spouse that is constantly concerned/accusing their other half of either cheating on them or is going to, it has little to do with the spouse and more to do with the fact that given the chance, the suspicious/insecure one would cheat given the opportunity, thereby projecting their actions/potential to do so onto their partner.

Bottom line, Republicans=socialists.

I don't know that I agree with the socialist label, but projection is absolutely critical to the Conservative agenda. Their program is built around establishing a new aristocracy, but Liberals are the Elitists. Their strategy is to block EVERYTHING the opposition would do, even things that they favor in principle, but Democrats aren't bipartisan. They brand the Left as hating the troops while reducing their benefits and making it harder to get medical and psychiatric health. They claim to be all about freedom while systematically making us more dependent upon the largesse of the moneyed class.

Joe in Albany

Mr. Ed delivered the expected laughs in his Beck rant last night. But, as is the case many times, truth is stranger than fiction. Below is a story from the NY Post's 08/25/10 edition. Yeah, Yeah, it's a Murdoch rag, but, Mr. Ed and MSNBC haven't issued any denials and it was considered credible enough to go up on HuffPo.

Folks, this is FUNNY STUFF!!!!!!!!!

Hey,Joe this even funnier...

Crazy, Crazy, Crazy Glenn Beck thought it was a "miracle" that the geese flying over mall during his 8-28 "Restore Honor "rally since Beck couldn't get a military flyover.

Behold God's miracle-- Beck's zombie Geese (right wing nuts and Tea Baggers from the rally and his university)as they migrate to FR to hiss Beck's Right wing Noise .

Beverly:

Glenn Beck has a record of racism and bigotry. He talks about God. Who's GOD? Yours, mine, his?? What does GOD want us to do about the current social and economic situation. Many theologians are calling Beck a "false profit". He spoke a lot of words but said nothing.

This man is nothing more than a snake oil salesman trying to divide this country to push his agenda.

They birds flying over in a V formation are an every day common occurrence in DC. He said GOD sent the birds because he could not get military plans to do a fly by. Give me a break. THis guy is so full of himself.

US Navy & Beverly,

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me about Beck's religion. Where does he worship, how many classes does he teach, does he sing, does he take up collections for the poor, does he tithe? If he can question anyone elses religion, he opens up questions to his own.

Glad we are getting out of Iraq - should never have gone to begin with.

More cut and paste, Brilliant work there Joe

Navy

They birds flying over in a V formation are an every day common occurrence in DC. He said GOD sent the birds because he could not get military plans to do a fly by. Give me a break. THis guy is so full of himself.

I agree Glenn Beck is so full of Himself and so is Sarah Palin. Personally, I think Glenn has some serious mental problems that will eventually bring him down. How Glenn Beck can cry in one mintue and laugh in the next befuddles me. Beck now seems to believe that in 200 years his rally will change history. Really, I see this as nothing more than the His-Tory conjured up in the head of Glenn.

Glenn is an ego manical hypocrite and is developing a messanic complex, I also belive. It shouldn't be long before the paramedics carry Glenn off stage.

Sarah Palin is whining because she thinks (interesting she thinks) that Brian Williams should have asked “What is Presdent Barack Obama. In the ususal FOX NOISE’S interpretation of balance Oops, I made a mistake (read , unbalanced ) Sarah said on Hannity last night. Monday 8/30/10, that “mainstream, lamestream media” is not asking “those basic questions”

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/index.html#/v/4325173/vast-right-wing-conspiracy-revived/?playlist_id=86924

Insinuating much? Yes, indeed.

In April, two students at Cal State Stanislaus found a partial copy of a speaker’s contract for former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. The partial copy revealed that Palin, who was due to speak at the university in June, has “more demands than an opera diva when she hits the road,”.

Many doubted the authenticity of the contract, and Palin blasted the students for digging it up, accusing them of trying to “silence” her. But on Friday, a California judgeordered the release of the full contract under a freedom of information law, proving the partial copy is indeed authentic. The full contract confirms her “diva” demands, and provides new details, from her $75,000 price tag to other extravagances she requires:

– Jet: Not just any private plane will suffice: “The private aircraft MUST BE a Lear 60 or larger (as defined by interior cabin space) for West Coast Events; or, a Hawker 800 or Larger,” for East Coast events. But even if organizers arrange for a private jet, if Palin “changes her mind and opts to fly via commercial flights for US events, the Customer must be prepared to cover the cost of first class round trip airfare for two, and full, unrestricted round trip coach for two.”

Visiting with heads of state: For international appearances, Palin “reserves the right to visit privately with the host government’s Head of State,” as well as “accept the invitation of [the] host government to overnight at an official residence.”

– Hotels: All hotels have to be “deluxe” and pre-approved by her representatives, with the room booked under an “alias.” Even non-overnight stays require hotel rooms, including a “holding suite” and “one or two single rooms.”

– Stage: The contract has very specific instructions about how the stage and lectern should be arranged. Lighting should be “comfortable, but at an appropriate production level for the Speaker,” and the lecterns should be made of wood — “no Plexiglass or thin lecterns.”

The contract also makes numerous demands to limit the public’s and the media’s access to Palin:

The tight restrictions on access reflect Palin’s media strategy, which insulates her as much as possible from tough questions by confining her to Facebook statements and Fox News.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/30/palin-speaking-demands/

Why, oh why, I wonder, does Sista Sarah think people can believe *anything* she says? Sista Sarah should take off her glasses, and have a good look around the country, and notice the difference in living conditions; especially, those in states devastated by Katrina. Certainly, American does not need a misfit, corrupted, lying, half- wit, half-governor to lie about misinformation the media is giving or Nit witlike Glenn beck..

About Glenn Becks religious affilation, I seem to want to say he is a Mormon? I am not 100% certian of that though and will look it up and report back later if I am wrong. Anybody here know? Not really important, Beck is just a salesman no matter what his affliation, but since he is calling on GOD (or GOD is calling on him), is it his GOD? If so who is his GOD.

Last night while Flipping thru the Channels I stopped on Msnbc when Madman Ed was talking about Michael Steele going to the Small Island of Guam.. A US Territory of whose Citizens are Born American Citizens and Whose Citizens Enlist in our Military on a Higher per Capita Rate then any other US Territory or here on the Mainland.. Ed pretty much Claimed it was a Wasted Trip the the Elected Officals of Guam dont even have the Right to Vote in the US congress, that they pretty much dont matter.. Those US citizens do Matter Mr ED.. your Rant about this Small Island and the Chamorro People that inhabit her is an Insult MR ED.. you should Be ashamed of what you said on your program

I just know that Beck's God is not the one I know--my God teaches tolerance of others, that lies are sins, that helping those less fortunate is right (not some Nazi plot).

Ed Schultz strikes me as a liberal version of Glenn Beck.

I have always considered Mr. Ed to be the liberal version of Archie Bunker. Take a way the bad red hair dye job and they even look alike.

Great post, IR. When you strip away the character that Beck puts on like a cheap suit, the religious fervor that he wears in thick layers on the outside like the Pharisee http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/pbl39.html his defenders always come to the same place. "Yeah, well he's sure successful. He makes more money than you." Yes, he does. Is that what we've come to? Andrew Carnegie made more money than the rest of us. Did that justify sending an army of mercenaries to slaughter millworkers at Homestead? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/peopleevents/pande04.html Joe McCarthy had more power then the rest of us. Did that justify destroying the reputations and lives of innocent people? George Wallace ha the backing of a lot of people. Did that justify stopping children from attending public school based on the color of their skin?

Terrific post, I.R.

Beck reminds me of the old-time huckster who drove his wagon from town to town selling elixir for $1 a bottle, guaranteed to cure every ailment known to mankind.

It reminds me of the Emperor's new clothes fable of our childhood. Do they still tell that one? When I first heard about Beck and his rally, I couldn't believe that he could say this stuff with a straight face. And the same ego that thinks the ambulance trick is a good idea would think God focused on him personally and sent him geese. I hope none of the geese did what geese are prone to do on Mr. Beck.

CUF,

Most all of your post on this site clearly says you do not embrace “America First” because you always put People Last.

Dennis,

I agree. Same old, same old.

Farley, you're talking about how conservatives CAN fight? Cheney? Gingrich? Boehner? Cantor? Real fighters there! Not a sphere in the bunch!

Where's the honor in fighting for the powerful? Where's the honesty in defining rich, white, fundamentalist Christians as the only group worth fighting for?

STS

Da Noid: Who cares?

Btw, by criticizing Bristol Palin's parenting skills if she "gets a nanny" for her son while she's competing on the show, you impliedly criticize millions of hard-working American moms, who have to take their children to day care or babysitters while they work. Do you mean to say that women who take their children to caretakers also "have [a] sudden aversion to raising their own children?" I certainly hope not, as I would find a remark such as that to be quite sexist.

Btw, by criticizing Bristol Palin's parenting skills if she "gets a nanny" for her son while she's competing on the show, you impliedly criticize millions of hard-working American moms, who have to take their children to day care or babysitters while they work. Do you mean to say that women who take their children to caretakers also "have [a] sudden aversion to raising their own children?" I certainly hope not, as I would find a remark such as that to be quite sexist.

Unlike the Palins, the women you speak of are out with real jobs and aren't running around the country selling books and delivering paid political speeches in support of the latest Tea Party Flavor of the Week or going dancing for mindless reality television viewers.

"Real jobs"? Care to define what satisfies your definition of a real job?

Da Noid, your hate for the Palins makes you sound foolish. Who really cares what these people are doing? If Bristol Palin wants to learn to tango on national tv and be paid for it, so be it. She is a single mom, after all, and she should probably support her child to the best of her ability. If people want to pay Sarah Palin to write books and give speeches (which, by the way, President Obama will probably do after he leaves office....would him doing it qualify as a "real job"?), so be it.

I do not understand why people like you are so fascinated by the Palins. If you would stop freaking out about every little thing they do, they would probably disappear into the Alaskan wilderness to continue living their lives privately. I'm not a Sarah Palin supporter, but unlike you, I don't really care what she or her children do on a daily basis.

Jody,

I agree with you. The war in Iraq was wrong and I was not in favor of it. It was sold to America on pack of lies. I still remember Genral Powell showing the pictures of tankers that supposed to hold WMD'S, but did not. Bush not only lied to the American people, he lied to his staff as well.

Afghan was totally mismanaged. Troops pulled from there to go to Iraq. He fought Afghan as a part time war and cost America a lot of lives.

I have sploken about his before, I you are going to go to war then you must fight it as a war. You cannot do it half way.

I remember when the news came that we'd entered the war in Iraq. I'd considered the evidence and already believed there were no WMDs. I felt that, tyrant that he was Saddam was safely contained and that starting a war there would be destabilizing to the entire region. All of that proved to be the case.

And I prayed. I prayed "God, please forgive us for what we've just done."

Good points Jody. The GOP can get away with all the manipulated talking points they want. They have a full court media to echo whatever they have to say. Unfortunately, most of the media hasn't a clue.

Tony Blair. It was he who suggested that we send in inspectors, assuming Hussein would not cooperate with them. He was wrong.

http://crooksandliars.com/2007/09/28/saddam-wanted-out-bush-lied-about-it

How much money does Bush think a US soldier's life is worth? How much money does Bush think the lives of our allies' soldiers or innocent Iraqis are worth?

As we're finding out, not very much. On March 17, 2003 President Bush issued the warning: "Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing ," yet now thanks to a transcript leaked to the Spanish newspaper El Pais, we learn that more than three weeks prior to that Bush had told former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar that "The Egyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein. It seems he's indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1 billion ..." When confronted about the leaked transcript yesterday, Whitehouse spokeswoman Dana Perino did not dispute its accuracy.

Just last week we learned from former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan that the real reason behind the war in Iraq was oil , and now we are finding out that the entire war could have been averted for letting him get away with $1 billion. That's just than one tenth of 1% of what this insane invasion and occupation of Iraq, that continues claim the lives of our country's bravest men and women, has now been forcast to cost. Think about that just for a second. Every single death, Iraqi and American coalition alike, could have been saved and Bush could have had Saddam's oil, but apparently he didn't even seriously consider it. Topping that, he then lied in public to the entire world about it just so he could have his war regardless. How's that for compassionate conservatism?

In addition, the Iraq war empowered Iran. Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator but he kept Iran in check. In eliminating one man, Bush created a bigger problem.

And why do we never hear anything about how the Iraqi oil revenues would pay us back for the war?

We get a whopping less than 1% of our oil from the Iraq...all this talk about the war for oil is pretty much ridiculous.

Weird that the Pais leak is coming out 7 years after the fact.

Chef Darrell,

That was not necessarily oil for the US, it was oil for the oil companies to own and sell. In other words, it was about oil for money. Oil is a fungible commodity and saying we get less than 1% of our oil from Iraq is what is actually ridiculous.

The biggest thing I see is that Bush delcared "War on Terrorism" not on any country specifically. We had alreadt been fighting "Communism" for about 50 years before that and with the crumbling of the Berlin wall came the end of that perpetual war. That's why we were in Korea and Vietnam under the guise of fighting communism. The Red Scare was the spectre behind the war that was used to justify constant defence spending. Now I completely understand that war can be good for business if you are in the business of guns, armor, etc. However with the fall of communism it was harder to justify continually pouring money into the military if they weren't doing much. So by declaring war on "Terrorism" Bush was actually leaving the door open to another 40 years of war. By declaring a war on an ideology they can say "Well now that we've taken care of Iraq and Afganistan, now we can look towards Iran and North Korea, then Pakistan and Palistine, then etc. etc. etc..." You can spin this war any way you want, West vs. East, Christianity vs. Islam, Freedom vs. Terrorism, Democracy vs. Theocracy. What it comes down to though is the Gov't getting a blank check to keep military expenditures up through ongoing conflict.

Good morning Bill.

Thanks for making your case using reality and not a "capitalist fairytale"! ;o)

I have a question for you:

Why can't we do what President Obama proposed during the campaign and raise the current cap which stops folks from paying Social Security taxes on any amount they make over $106, 800?

Why should lower and middle class Americans pay Social Security tax on 100% of their income, but not those above it?

What is the purpose of this arbitrary divider?

And for those who don't believe anything unless they read it in a poll, how is this:

"In a new poll, raising Social Security’s retirement age got a resounding thumbs-down as a potential solution to shoring up the system’s long-term funding shortfall. . .

In 2010, the 12.4 percent Social Security tax is levied on the first $106,800 of earnings. Above that amount the tax disappears. Two thirds of poll respondents favor subjecting 100 percent of wages to the Social Security tax, effectively raising the contributions for wealthier Americans making more than $106,800. That potential fix was twice as popular as the idea of raising the Social Security tax rate for everyone (34 percent tagged that a good idea.)

A recent CBO study of a variety of Social Security fixes calculates that if the earnings cap was removed, it would indeed solve Social Security’s long-term financing needs for 75-years (the standard testing term) assuming the extra contributions did not also come along with higher benefits. If benefits were raised to reflect the higher tax paid, the program would still be solvent to 2083.

But if the vox populi have any say in the matter, the wealthy won’t be in line for increased benefits. Nearly two-thirds of Americans polled said reducing benefits for the wealthy was another good idea."

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/retirement-planning/blog/retirement-beat/poll-fix-social-security-by-taxing-wealthy/813/

Sounds like a solution to me . . . reduce benefits for those who don't need it and increase ontributions from those who can pay.

And the all knowing "poll people" agree . . . so everything is right in the world! ;o)

Nashville,

Good post.

Bill does not like to let the facts cloud his talking points. The facts as I presented them are accurate.

Over 75% of the people polled(NYT, WSJ and others) said they would pay more into SS to keep it solvent. Currently there is no immediate collapse of SS. That does not mean that we should not be looking at ways to maintain it past 2037 at 100%. 75% benefits after that (under current status) but in no way ZERO. In the 75 year history of SS, they have never bounced a check.

Bill is just off base on this again. The facts speak for themselves.

Nash-the same thing was said about Medicare, remember? So Bill Clinton removed the cap, and voila!

Congress spent the money.

In the case of FICA, if you remove the cap, there MUST be a corresponding increase of the top pay-out. That is the way the law was written. Therefore, you would net zero, as those top earners would be getting their money back, eventually.

Stopping congress from spending is the only way to keep Social Security solvent.

Nash,

To reinforce your question there is statistical data that shows, on average, higher wage earners, live nearly 10 years longer than lower wage earners.

"Why should lower and middle class Americans pay Social Security tax on 100% of their income, but not those above it?

What is the purpose of this arbitrary divider?"

Ask FDR, that's the way he set it up. The first full year (1937) the tax was 1% on the first $3,000 of income.

Bill, sadly we are wasting our time on this subject. It is an unshakable article of faith among those that "think for themselves" that any discussion of SS financial problems is Republican propaganda. Even when you take the info from Barry appointees in official U.S. govt reports.

Personally, my retirement planning presumes nothing from SS, so anything I get is party money.

Joe,

I think you could provide a more thoughtful answer. 75 year old law that has been modified many times and you suggest we look at the President that signed the bill into law.

I exceeded the limit a few times and wondered why. I wouldn’t have missed the money?

So Joe why not modify the program once again to include taxing all income?

Fact is this country has the resources to fund SS, if that is what it wants to do. A whole lot of people will be depending on that money to survive, if you take it away when everyone knows there are several ways to fund it blood will be shed, and under the circumstances that's probably what should happen.

Don't disagree Nash except what other posters already have said. The current administration (whoever they are) will spend the surplus. I think they should adjust the tax rate every couple of years to keep revenues and expenditures in a rough balance. I agree they should remove the cap, but I also think they should raise the retirement age (because of the baby boomers) so that the number of retirees and the number of workers stays in a manageable ratio.

"So Joe why not modify the program once again to include taxing all income?"

Actually, I don't oppose that as long as you are referring only to W-2 wages income and Schedule C self employment income. But, I do want something in return for it: permanently and automatically indexing the full retirement age to changes in average life expectancy in order to have the approximate ratio as when it was first established in the 30's. Early retirement could stay at 62 with an actuarialy sound discount rate for the early access benefits.

With no changes, social security can continue to pay 100% until the year 2037. If the cap is raised back to what Reagan set, pay on 90% of income, it solves the problem because the solution is built in today--not 20 or 30 years from now. This is what bugs me about the modern republican leadership--they complain but are unwilling to solve it the most logical way--raise the income cap. Why should only middle and low income workers pay on ALL their wages while those making considerably more money not do so? Those making more will receive higher benefits.

US Navy Disabled Veteran Retired
Tue Aug 31, 2010 9:59 AM EDT

Bill is just off base on this again. The facts speak for themselves

At least you got that right. The facts do speak for themselves, that's why I posted them. I'm still waiting for your fact-based rebuttal.

Joe -- You're probably right about wasting our time trying to convince the ideologues on this board. But there's eyeballs all across the country who cruise through here every day to monitor this board, and they deserve to be presented with the facts instead of the noise from the left. That's why we need to continue fighting the good fight.

Bill-I would be interested in your thoughts on raising the cap of Social Security wages. I am in favor of keeping the cap (i.e. stopping Social Security contributions) at the present level but having it come back in for those whose wages exceed $500,000.

I read the first few paragraphs of Bill's post and then stopped. I don't need to eat a whole egg to know that it's rotten!!

The only thing that I can forecast with reasonable certainty for the next 75 years is that somewhere in there I'm gonna die! Social security has been a target of conservatives from Day 1, but has yet to bounce a check! This is a track record worthy of continuing as long as possible.

Jody, Iowa
Tue Aug 31, 2010 11:12 AM EDT

With no changes, social security can continue to pay 100% until the year 2037

Wrong, "social security" can't pay anything because there's no cash in the trust fund. The Treasury could pay the benfits, but first they have to come up with the cash too. And the only alternatives are raise taxes, issue more debt or reduce other government programs. All of which puts additional pressure on a federal system that's already stressed. So just what is it about those facts you don't understand?

I'm also amused at your cavalier suggestion that everything is just fine until 2037 (which is untrue as I have proven). So what you're saying is you've got yours and the hell with those who start drawing benefits after 2037. Let those poor dumb schmucks take their 22% cut and stop complaining. Darn, and you people always go on about how Republicans are allegedly the "me first" crowd.

Nashville fan said, "Sounds like a solution to me . . . reduce benefits for those who don't need it and increase ontributions from those who can pay."

Typical liberal bait and switch. They want you to pay in to the system but take nothing out.

Ultimately, the answer is a combination of many of the components indicated above, as well as means testing. Social Security is a program that has grown well past it's original intent, which is fine, as there are many people that need that level of assistance in their retirements. What I expect, and have planned for, is a complete absence of Social Security as a funding source for my retirement. I'm fortunate, in that I am (I hope) able to self fund thru a 401K program, as well as ESOP ownership in the firm that I work for. That being said, I acknowledge that not everyone has had the good fortune that I've had, and that their need is greater than mine. I'm not thrilled about it, but means testing for recipients would probably exclude me from benefits, but that probably is as it should be. Means testing, retirement age indexing, adjusted limits for application of the tax, all of these should be on the table so that we have a valid solution, and a solution that provides a long term answer to what may or may not be a perceived funding issue.

Chef Darrell:

The rich take "nothing out" of our economy?

Really?

And you say this with a straight face after "we the people" just bailed out the financial industry to the tune of billions of dollars, and "the rich" could not even be bothered to stop giving themselves bonusus after imploding the WORLD economy?

I mean, "the rich" get endless tax breaks and subsidies for the businesses, use offshore accounts and financial tricks to pay zero taxes, and now you want me to feel "sorry" that a billionaire doesn't get the same Social Security benefits as a poor person?

Nothing for the rich indeed . . . they own the Congress and the Courts, they own the media, and now they tell us it is too much of a hardship to continue to fund a safety net for all the folks that no longer have a pension because they STOLE IT. . . remember this?

"United Airlines Cleared to Shed Pension Plans

May 11, 2005|James F. Peltz , Times Staff Writer

A bankruptcy judge Tuesday approved United Airlines' historic plan to dump its underfunded pension plans on a federal agency, a move United said it needed to survive but one that could trigger a damaging strike against the airline.

At a hearing in Chicago packed with scores of United employees and retirees, union officials and lawyers, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Eugene Wedoff said United could shift all four of its major pension plans -- and their combined $6.6 billion of liabilities -- to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.

The ruling clears the way for the largest corporate pension default in the 31-year history of the nation's pension insurer, and it added to the massive financial problems that the PBGC itself is grappling to contain."

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/11/business/fi-united11

You got that? WE THE PEOPLE get to pay the pensions for the employees of a PRIVATE BUSINESS . . . sound like something for nothing to you?

When it is profits time, keep the government out . . . when it is dump your pensions time . . . governement rocks!

You just can't make this stuff up.

Bill, Fairfax VA

Joe -- You're probably right about wasting our time trying to convince the ideologues on this board. But there's eyeballs all across the country who cruise through here every day to monitor this board,

Ahh.. yesss... I do recall you making the reference once to ALL '12' of them... lol

Appears somebody has flip flopped...

Jody said "If the cap is raised back to what Reagan set, pay on 90% of income, it solves the problem because the solution is built in today--not 20 or 30 years from now."

Jody, where did you get that "Reagan 90% of income" stat?

Move on.org?? Daily Kos??

Maybe you should emaill the SS Administration because they've never heard of it either:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/1983amend.html

Social Security is a CONTRACT with the American Worker.

TRR;

you hit it right on the head. This is nothing more the the rights agenda to destroy the middle class. They are going to do everything they can to stop bills that create jobs, privatize SS so Wall Street can make more money (not to mention putting SS at risk), stop any new regulations etc. This is their agenda, to stop President Obama's plans so they can call him a failure in 2012.

How come the Rethugs won't pass the Small Business Lending Act?????

Same question from me - How come the Rethugs won't pass the Small Business Lending Act!!!! What a bunch of hypocrites and losers. Who don't give a damn about the American people. The country knows this, but their dislike for Obama is so strong evidently, that even this act by the Republicans won't deter them in November. How pathetic this country is becoming.

Do you want help or don't you?

___________

Think Progress: While virtually every Republican and conservative leader has come out strongly against the construction of the proposed Park 51 Islamic community center near Ground Zero in New York City, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) strongly defended the organizers’ right to build the center today, saying, “what made this country great is we have religious freedom.” In an interview with Fox 13 News in Salt Lake City, Hatch — who has long been a proponent of religious liberty — said it shouldn’t “make a difference” that the majority of Americans don’t support the center’s construction, because religious freedom is too important, and noted that the proposed site is actually “a few blocks away” from Ground Zero.

_________

We have an abundance of stuffed shirts on cable. But then we have Keith and Rachel. When Keith had his segment where he was speaking to Glenn Beck during his rally the other day, it was hysterical, with the accent and sunglasses. So so funny. And then Rachel with the right and left feet being found in the northwest?! Are you kidding me? My goodness. Who would do this kind of "reporting" like Keith and Rachel did, except Colbert and Stewart? And Rachel, after she tells a story, there she is, with pen in hand, circling her "notes".

__________

“Humor is the great thing, the saving thing. The minute it crops up, all our irritation and resentments slip away, and a sunny spirit takes their place.” Mark Twain
"How come the Rethugs won't pass the Small Business Lending Act?????" TRR Barboursville

"Guess who will be on MSNBC, September 27th at 10:00 PM with a new show The Last Word. You guessed it.... Lawrence O'Donnell." TRR Barboursville

"It was President Obama's fault". "It was too big". "All they had to do was make a phone call and ask." - Governor Christie, NJ.

"Governor Christie is lying". Pat, Boston, MA

Two reasons, one, the dems added another government agency into the bill to manage the new loans, thus expanding government more, two, this is typical Liberal tax policy. Give us your tax money and we will give it back to you in ways we think are best. These are targeted tax cuts and only apply to specific situations. If your business does not have the to which the tax cuts apply, you get nothing out of this. Why not just put a bill out that cuts the rates accross the board with no strings attached? The dems won't do this, why?

Pat, Boston;

Yep. Gov. Christie (NJ) was exposed for the liar he is. His response was to fire the person that told him the truth. Way to go republicans. Blame somebody else for your mistake, then lie about it and when caught, fire the guy that told the truth. Sound like a familiar agenda???

Good Morning Pat: Thanks for the compliment. Actually you are the authority on history. I wasn't sure you would agree with me regarding Alexander Hamilton. When it comes to history; I look to you.

Gov. Christie, President Obama is just that - PRESIDENT! He's not the auditor general. Do your own damn math!!

"Why not just put a bill out that cuts the rates accross the board with no strings attached? The dems won't do this, why?"

Because, the budget's out of balance!

The funny thing is TRR and US Navy, the teabagging republicans who want to do away with the middle class are middle class themselves. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. The teabagging republican creed, vote against your own interests.

Pat,

I am NOT kidding when I tell you that Lawrence O' is starting his show on my Birthday! Yippee! Sorry, Feisty, he must love me just a little bit more (even though I'm not a redhead!) tee hee

Pat, you made my day AND - the rest of your post was excellent, too!

YEA!!! Double special day!

I'll have to mark my calendar!

*hugs Clara*

I don't understand why so many are for the proposal to privatize social security. With the massive meltdown in the market that we just experienced, what makes people think that it makes sense to put more money in. The vast majority of people know next to nothing about investing, so telling them to invest their own money wisely is like telling a rock not to throw itself. Many other people think they know a few things about investing and that's worse. You put your money where you think it might grow, or wherever some talking head tells you to put it. There are far fewer people that actaully know how to work the system and come out ahead. This is what I see happening. The gov't ends social security and sets up private investment accts for the average worker. The average worker now has more money in their pocket and is told to invest for retirement. Half of the people spend that extra money (like they already do) and come retirement they have no money, no savings, no pension from their job (who has one of those anymore) and no SS. We would have a entire generation of people too old to work but can't afford to live because they spent it all and didn't save. The other half of the people take the advice and invest in their retirement. You save all your life, maxing out your 401k, an IRA, and a new SS acct. Then we have a financial collapse like we just did and half of your wealth is wiped out overnight. Granted some people will know that these things go in cycles and will wait it out, and some people will have the foresight and/or the extra cash to make some big market gains. But historicaly, when there's a market downturn, people take their money out of the market. That means you are playing it safe by saving, getting screwed in the market, and then getting out at the worst time. I may be rambling a bit here but essentially what I'm saying is looking at how many people lost alot of money in the market recently, how is adding social security to that mix going to make people's money more protected when the market drops again?

1) some might argue that working the system is an erroneous way of thinking about it. The concept is called the efficient market theory, which states that the second news is reported, stocks change in price to reflect that news. Therefore, stocks can't be "gamed." There is some data backing this up, showing that picking random stocks is no worse than doing your homework and investing with a gameplan; likewise, index funds generally perform better than actively managed mutual funds. Most believe in moderately efficient markets, in which the theory holds, but prices are never 100% accurately reflected due to the weight specific investors place on whatever information is available at a given time.

2) Despite the downturn, statistics show that, over any 10 year stretch during the history of the stock market, the average return on investment is 7%, much higher than one would receive by investment in government bonds.

3) Studies have stipulated that privatization wouldn't actually create greater wealth compared to the current social security system. Whether that is due to poor investing, downturns, or fees paid to manage that money in a private system, I can't say. However, I would like to think that a well-managed private system (or even a public system allowing participants to invest in something other than treasuries) would get people involved in the market, educating them about it in the process. If this was the case, perhaps people would learn to appropriately manage their risk. Perhaps people would save even more for retirement.

NASH:

TOUCHE'. I agree 110%. Polls are useless, I never did like them and still don't. They are way too easy to manipulate to achieve a desired outcome. I, like you, rely on facts from respected sources. Polls are often wrong, Scott, Lincoln, etc.

Serious, civil discourse seems to be on a walk about lately replaced by the same one,two year old talking points, lies, half truths, etc.

We are all headed down a very slippery slope.

Wow Nash, that was really good. Washington has become it's own private circus, with process being more important than product, the game more important than the results brought for the American people. Worst of all I think is the social aspect of the game. Who gets invited to which dinner or cocktail party, who gets on who's campaign bus, who provides the best anonymous information is more important than who can produce the right results for America. The press behaves like Courtesans in the court of Louis XIV and it's ridiculous.

I disagree Nash and US Navy, polls aren't useless. It gives the teabagger republicans and Fox something to talk about. When they see a poll that they agree with they can come on here and other blogs and talk about how it's going to be a blood bath come November.

You've got a point Mo . . . polls serve the purpose of keeping us distracted and focused on foolishness, and getting us discouraged so we don't speak up or go vote. . . here's hoping that more and more Americans wake up to the game that the corporate media is playing in an attempt to make us think that nothing we do matters.

Once again I say, they wouldn't spend so much money trying to brainwash us if that were really true.

P.S. Thanks for the kind words U.S. Navy and John B.

4. Glen wore a bulletproof vest at the request of his wife because of her fear that someone who opposes him and what he believes would try to kill him.

Oh, well, that changes everything, now, doesn't it?

*YAWN*

That's a very real possibility in light of the hatred and viciousness constantly spouted by the left on sites such as this. Some Lee Harvey Oswald-like leftwinger is probably plotting right now.

Barf!

Larry,

Good morning.

How did you feel when Glen Beck said that the President was a racist and didn't like white people?

Did you/do you agree with that statement?

How do you reconcile what you heard Saturday with some of the things that Glen Beck has said since President Obama has been sworn in?

Do you think it is appropriate for Glen Beck to sit in judgement of the President's Christianity? If so, what gives him that authority?

How about when Glen Beck was mocking Malia Obama?

I mean the list goes on and on, but let's just stop at those . . . what are your thoughts?

That's a very real possibility in light of the hatred and viciousness constantly spouted by the left on sites such as this. Some Lee Harvey Oswald-like leftwinger is probably plotting right now.

But, Chuck, don't you remember? Were the "Lefty Libtards" and we hate the Second Amendment so we don't have guns. Right? That's the way it works, right?

...and, seriously, did you just equate killing Glenn Beck to killing President Kennedy? Really?

Nashville

What most people are upset about is that if President Obama actually is a Christian (and again if hes not and hes pretending to be one -- and that is what I feel he is doing -- he has bigger things to worry about then getting re-elected) shouldnt his actions prove it? Siding with Islam on almost EVERY subject does not do that.

Now onto whether Obama is racist against white people....I cant disagree with that statement. Im not saying he is beyond a shadow of a doubt but by the same token he attended a black Liberation Church and listened to Rev. Jeremiah Wright who is an out and out racist. Youre telling me that that man sat in those pews all those years and didnt learn anything from Rev. Wright? Come on now.

I think he believes that black people are still owed from the slavery generation and he intends to make sure that black people "get theirs".

And this is the problem. If ANY black person feels I owe them anything because their great great grandparents were slaves they need to take that up with my great great grandparents. I didnt have anythingto do with that. Why should I have to suffer because of it? ALL people need to take care of themselves, black white purple....whatever color you are.

More than anything I feel that Obama is so narcisistic that he NEEDS for the American people to need HIM. I think that is what he feeds off of. Power.

Is he a Christian? I dont know....I hope he is....but only for his eternal future. God will use any and all of us for His glory.

Is he racist against white people??? To a point probably.

Larry,

What facts are you using to support your beliefs?

President Obama being born to a white mother and raised by white grandparents and being biracial is all wiped away by the church that is selected?

What is the litmus test for "real Christians"?

Who is authorized to give such a test and by what authority?

How is following the Constitution and the laws of the land "siding with Muslims"? I'll let Jesus' words in the Bible explain it better than I ever could:

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’"

- Matthew 7: 15-23

How can you say that the fruit that Glen Beck is bearing is good fruit?

How can you turn a blind eye to all of the malicious lies and hatefulness?

How can you tolerate the mixing of Christianity with so much ugliness?

Oh Larry, enough of this bullsh!t. We have bigger things to worry about.

Come out of the woods and live for a while, in a world where people of all races, religion and cultures interact daily with respect. Then and only then will you understand others and not let your mind be infused with such nonsense.

Good Morning Nashville,

All you would have had to do was watch Glen Becks Interview on Fox news Sunday.. Glen would have answered all those Questions for you.. I will not try and explain.. but clearly if you would watch something other then Msnbc you would have answered your own Question about Glen Beck calling the President a Racist..

Gingerbread Mamma:

Thank you, hey Larry GMB is giving you some good advice. Take it!!

Sorry Steve, the answer to one question in a friendly venue will not wipe away a pattern that Glenn has spent years establishing.

Beck spends a great deal of time working to establish his reputation for honesty. Funny that, the only people I've ever met who felt the need to do that turned out to be crooks. Most people realize that your image will be created by your actions. Anything else you have to say about yourself won't change the perception that their experience with you will create in others.

Still, it works well enough to keep those folks at work, creating a false image of themselves. It fools enough people at any given time to keep the liars going.

Steve,

I saw the interview, and the question was for Larry, not Glen.

If you are fine with a person spewing bile by day and "the gospel" once a year, then it would seem that it is YOU that needs to broaden YOUR horizons.

Still waiting for someone to explain to me who died and left you , Larry, and Glen Beck as the judges of who is religious and who isn't.

Larry

It sounds like YOU are the one who is pretending to be a Christian. You better get to work on that. If you want any politician to lie to you ask him about his faith. Even the "born again christians" are lying to you.

Nashville,

Wow.. its all you liberals spew on this page all day long. . Look at the post that some of you have posted..

We have found the WMD............ It is you Liberals.. each and everyone.. . Weapons of Mass Distraction

We have found the WMD............ It is you Liberals.. each and everyone.. . Weapons of Mass Distraction

My, aren't we the witty one?

Did you think of that one all by yourself (don't hurt yourself) or did you need your Lords and Masters at FreedomWorks to plant that one?

I think that Lawrence got jobbed by MSNBC tv putting his new show on at 10PM Eastern, 7PM here on the Left Coast. I mean who's going to waste time at 10PM to watch his new show? Sorry but after Keith I try to lighten up my evening by finding other shows to watch like Science shows or music videos or movies but never regular network programming. A real shame that MSNBC tv didn't give Lawrence the 7PM Eastern, 4PM Left Coast, time slot that is merely a rerun of Hardball. I certainly hope that MSNBC tv gets smart and gives Lawrence a better time slot so more people will watch his intelligent talk about the daily issues.

Happy Birthday to me!!

I will gladly 'waste' my time watching a smart man analyze the political news of the day!

I'm with you on that one Clara KCMO.....Happy early Birthday!!!!

Well said

It's so dumb that an athiest moron like Eric would even comment on religion. Go pray to Obama and STFU. Adults are working here. Hey, I know Eric, try getting a job. You'd be happier without your welfare hand outs.

gneubeck, you're ignoring that without President Obama there was never actually a plan to END the war in Iraq. The plan for the Surge was that it STABILIZE Iraq so it could serve as the long-term base needed to continue "the long war" for decade after decade, extending our reach throughout the Middle East. Yes, the Surge helped stabilize the previously mismanaged war. Without Barack Obama it still wouldn't be ending.

That alone is reason enough to not give Republicans credit.

I thought that there was a Status of Forces Agreement that was signed in December 2008 that addressed a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq. It was set up to establish the appx timeline and also the establishment of contractors and signed by our government and the Iraqi government. there have been some variations in the dates but is seems to be what is being followed at this time.

Carla,

There is in fact a Status of Forces Agreement . . . but the reason it is worded the way it is was at the insistence of the Iraqi president Nuri al-Maliki who agreed with then presidential candidate Barack Obama. Here is a story from July 2008:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.

In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

It is the first time he has backed the withdrawal timetable put forward by Obama, who is visiting Afghanistan and us set to go to Iraq as part of a tour of Europe and the Middle East.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL198009020080719

Ironically enough, there was a great effort to backtrack this information . . . here is how the situation was covered by our very own First Read on July 21, 2008

The New York Times says that on the eve of Obama's Iraq visit, "its prime minister tried to step back Sunday from comments in an interview in which he appeared to support Mr. Obama's plan for troop withdrawal… Mr. Maliki's interview prompted immediate concern from the Bush administration, which called to seek clarification from Mr. Maliki's office, American officials said… After that, the government's spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, issued a statement casting doubt on the magazine's rendering of the interview. The statement, which was distributed to media organizations by the American military early on Sunday, said Mr. Maliki's words had been 'misunderstood and mistranslated,' but it failed to cite specifics."

However, it turns out that once the original interview was reviewed, the Prime Minister's words were quite clear and not misunderstood at all:

"But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki's office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki's interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama's position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence. . ."

And Der Spiegel is standing by its reporting of the conversation with Maliki. "A number of media outlets likewise professed to being confused by the statement from Maliki's office. The New York Times pointed out that al-Dabbagh's statement 'did not address a specific error.' CBS likewise expressed disbelief pointing out that Maliki mentions a timeframe for withdrawal three times in the interview and then asks, 'how likely is it that SPIEGEL mistranslated three separate comments?' Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, was astonished by 'how little effort was made' to make the Baghdad denial convincing. And the influential blog IraqSlogger also pointed out the lack of specifics in the government statement. SPIEGEL sticks to its version of the conversation. Maliki's comments immediately hit the headlines of US papers and Web sites across the country, partly the result of a White House employee inadvertently sending out a news alert to its full media distribution list. The White House said it was an error and that it was meant to be sent internally only."

Reporting from Baghdad, NBC's Andrea Mitchell says that the Maliki government is trying to put pressure on the Bush Administration to set a timetable for withdrawal.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/07/21/4437385-obama-vs-mccain-iraq-politics

So there you have it . . . the truth that has been so conveniently "forgotten" by the media . . . so now we are all told that the Bush Administration negotiated this withdrawal, except that ain't what happened.

Here is another talking point that I heard this morning on Morning Joe and someone asked about in the First Thoughts thread:

I did not realize that my post was thought of as a talking point. I simply recalled that Sec'y Gates had spoken of the agreement in January 2008 and it then came up again in early July regarding an immunity agreement between the 2 countries while they were negotiating the SOFA. I simply put it out there.

My daughter was serving in Iraq at the time and there was a reason that I was following the SOFA at that tie quite closely.

I am just glad that we are out of there and I am not sure why it would be such a bad thing if a former POTUS had a hand in it but it seems that is the case here.

The real credit goes to the troops weather we were right are wrong in leaving or going into Iraq. They follow orders right or wrong...Great Job Troops and Welcome Home and many thanks for your service.

Carla:

My comments were in no way meant as an attack on you or your question, and I apologize if my comment on the other thread made you feel that way.

My bad . . . I deliberately left your name out for that reason . . . but I had been gathering the info for the comment that Joe Scarborough made and shared it with you first.

It is not a bad thing that President Bush agreed to the timeline . . . I am here all day battling misinformation and so if my tone was overly harsh, again, I am sorry.

P.S. Thanks to you and your family for all you have sacrificed for us all.

Very true, Keepertrout.

I believe it is a violation of the Military code of justice to obey orders that you know are "wrong".

Which has what to do with anything, Paul? The issue here isn't anyone in the military, it's the civilian management.

Fundamentalist Christians have chosen a mormon as their leader. They have been duped.

Kind of funny, isn't it Ramboet?

I think it's hilarious. Now I know why Beck followers are all tea-baggers..........Mormons are not allowed to drink coffee. ha ha ha ha!!!

Just a pity they didn't smell the coffee before drinking the tea.

Ramboet and John,

I fear this is the Mormon Litmus test Mitt Romney has been hoping for. If Glenn Beck can 'convert' the masses; perhaps Mittens thinks he'll be a shoo in in 2012? Just a theory I'm testin'.

Good post.

Glenn Beck is about $$$ and megalomania. It's just a game and a ploy to the densest segment of the population to sell his books and TV show. Nothing more. And his own exaggerated sense of self-importance.