Excellent post, IR. TR would be HORRIFIED at how far the Republican Party has slipped from its roots. There is no way he would be a part of the current crop of Republicans, and it is interesting to note that he formed the Bull Moose Party over some of the same issues.

What a great way to start a new week. History is one of the great teachers if only we will listen. If not then we deserve what we get. Great post.

Boehner fired back with his own statement accusing the White House of engaging in “class warfare.”

To quote the Lord of Darkness who now has to plug himself in at night – SO!

It’s about time someone stood up for what remains of the middle class… it’s sure not on the right wing nuts agenda!

Nice job out of the gate this morning IR...

A most excellent and appropriate post IR . . . I feel enlightened . . . thanks! :o)

So, today we are suffering under the tyranny of a minority that steals our money to give to others, imposes legislation without the consent of the governed, and threatens those who speak the truth with punative policies.

This is so much better?

The majority did not want the stimulous-er, ARRA, (so-called so that democrats can run away from it more easily). Draw as many graphs as you like that 'prove' that it worked; the electorate understands that the only thing stimulated was the deficit.

The majority did not want this HCR bill-it got rammed through, and democrats on the campaign trail are reduced to saying "HCR? What HCR bill? I'm sure I didn't vote for it. Never even heard of it." Meanwhile, Kathleen Sebelius is writing to health care insurers and threatening them for daring to speak ill of the bill, and for rightly pointing to its mandates as the cause of rate increases. So much for the First Amendment.

Then, we've got Axelrod telling us yesterday that we WILL like it, eventually. We're just too dumb to know why it is good for us.

So, nice job, IR-too bad you've proven the opposite of what you wanted to prove.

Nice job on Boehner's part, too-Axelrod thought he had THE weapon, and Boehner blunted it in his hands. So much for the Republicans 'holding middle class tax cuts hostage". Obama is going to have to go back to "take your medicine, it's good for you."

Somehow, that doesn't have the same ring to it.

But I am waiting for you, No Jo to justify the continual selling of this country by Boehner and his group of merry men. Perhaps you could give us a history of how this country finds itself to be in the fiscal situation it is in, starting with Reagan.

So, today we are suffering under the tyranny of a minority that steals our money to give to others, imposes legislation without the consent of the governed, and threatens those who speak the truth with punative policies.

Imposes legislation without the consent of the governed?

Uh, they were given the consent when they were elected.

Well said. Roosevelt really knew who did the work in our society and he actively worked on behalf of those people...

I've been reflecting on history this weekend also. It occurs to me that we like to think of society as static and unchanging, but in reality things were much different only 50 years ago. At this point we were debating whether it was appropriate to elect as President someone who "owed allegiance" to someone outside the United States...the Pope. Jim Crow ruled most of the South. If you were in a white-collar position you could look forward to working your way up an extensive corporate ladder for decades and retiring comfortably. If you were in a blue collar job you made a solid, middle class wage and your union pension meant you'd retire comfortably. If you were a woman in the workplace the concept of sexual harrassment was unknown and you could look forward to being pinched as you walked around the desk. Or even be requested to go on a business trip with your boss...one hotel room only.

So keeping things the same or putting them back into some imaginary "perfect" time isn't an option. The best we can do is to constantly work to make the changes more democratic, more egalitarian, more fair to the middle class engines of our economy than they would otherwise. That isn't a bad thing...it's how society advances.

NDD:

I'm still waiting right along with you... from the looks of things NJNB was too busy 'demoralizing' 12 years over the weekend and couldn't find the time to answer our questions... lol

Ahhh... priorities... lol

No Jo Glad to see that your consul to give in to the will of the Minority is as consistent and as specious as ever

As far as what I’ve proven or not I do believe I’ll leave that up to the judgment of wiser heads than yours.

Feisty: to give credit where credit is due, that question is originally yours. I thought it bears repeating.

Speakig about the HCR Bill, in about 2 weeks several important features will be implemented.

Starting September 23rd, less than two weeks from today, many provisions of the PPACA take affect:

• Young adults will be allowed to stay on their parent's plan until they turn 26 years old.
• All new plans must cover certain preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charging a deductible, co-pay or coinsurance.
• In the past, insurance companies could search for an error, or other technical mistake, on a customer's application and use this error to deny payment for services when he or she got sick. The new law makes this illegal.
• The law provides consumers with a way to appeal coverage determinations or claims to their insurance company, and establishes an external review process.
• Insurance companies will be prohibited from imposing lifetime dollar limits on essential benefits, like hospital stays.
• Insurance companies' use of annual dollar limits on the amount of insurance coverage a patient may receive will be restricted for new plans in the individual market and all group plans.
• For new plans and existing group plans: The new law includes new rules to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to children under the age of 19 due to a pre-existing condition.
• New funding to support the construction of and expansion of services at community health centers, allowing these centers to serve some 20 million new patients across the country.

NJNB: The simple truth and fact is that a huge majority voted for President Obama. You spend an awful lot of time on these boards making claims with no facts. The fact is that I can now purchase affordable health care insurance with my pre-existing condition, something I was unable to do until healthcare insurance reform passed. The fact is my mother is in the donut hole with her prescription medication costing almost $2,000 per three month supply. As a result of health care insurance reform she received a $250 check and those costs will decrease over the years. The fact is that I will no longer be paying for individuals who decide to "take a chance" and go without health care insurance and then go to the emergency room when they get sick or have an accident. There are many other facts relating to how health care insurance reform will benefit millions of Americans.

http://www.healthcare.gov/

"THE great fundamental issue now before the Republican party and before our people can be stated briefly. It is: Are the American people fit to govern themselves, to rule themselves, to control themselves? I believe they are."

So, if the voters toss the Dems out of one or both Houses of Congress, the FR lefty liberals will celebrate the will of the people?? And advise Barry to recognize the will of the people also?? And whine and complain if the Senate Dems in the minority "abuse" the filibuster??

Yeah, right.

LOL!!!

The additional fact is that my youngest, who is graduating college, will be able to stay on our health insurance while he waits for grad. school to begin.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

It's so good to have people like You , Feisty, IR, Nash, Ron, newdayDAWNING, John B, Des Moines, IA the 2 Pats and many others I who present succinct irrefutable facts; rather than spin.

Young adults will be allowed to stay on their parent's plan until they turn 26 years old.

It's so obvious both young adults and their parents will see and appreciate that.

New funding to support the construction of and expansion of services at community health centers, allowing these centers to serve some 20 million new patients across the country.

What's more the impact will be more jobs as well as saving lives; Navy.

Your is a Great Post or as VP Biden would say a BFF.

You know, I don't normally fall into the Alinsky trap of answering questions for those who truly do not want answers, but want to change the debate, but there may actually be some on this board who are interested, so I will answer for THEM:

the seeds of the financial crisis of 2008 were planted in 1993. Up until that year, only one of two hundred mortgages were written to people with three per cent or less as a down payment on the property; all of these mortgages were insured by the government through the auspices of the FHA. FHA loans, it must be noted, involved reams of paperwork-much more than privately insured loans. These loans were almost exclusively granted to first time home buyers with little credit history, so evidence of good payments for other obligations were a necessity. Landlord statements, utility bill statements, medical bill payments-evidence of 'good faith' in repayment were required.

In 1993, congress set about to loosen the requirements; a case of 'no good deed going unpunished'. It sounded like a great idea-remove the stumbling blocks of home ownership-so the down payment requirements, as well as the paperwork requirements, were loosened, and woe betide the bank that continued to set the bar too high! FHA requirements were considered 'too onerous'-but, no matter, the government had other, quasi-private entities it could rely on: FAnnie and Freddie.

By 2003, one in seven mortages were written with three per cent or less down; credit history requirements were constrained, by congress, so that they became a formality. A bank writing a loan that would be sold to Fannie and/or Freddie went through the motions of running a credit check, knowing that the loan would be approved no matter what the credit check said.

In 2005, the danger signals were clear-while the overall foreclosure rate was still 5%, in the lower market of loans, the foreclosure rate was rising dangerously. At that time, legislation was proposed in both the house and the senate that would tighten requirements for both down payments and credit history to any loan sold to Fannie and Freddie. In the Senate, the bill was blocked in commitee by the Minority leader on the committee, Chris Dodd, and in the House, the same was done by his counterpart, Barney Frank.

By 2007, one in three loans were written by those with little or no 'skin in the game' and poor credit history.Legislation proposed in 2005 to tighten both cash and credit requirements was now dead, as those who were successful at locking it in committees as minority leaders were now the chairmen of those committees.

It bears remembering that, to a bank, a mortgage is an asset-while it is a liability for the person paying the mortgage, to the bank, it is money owed to them. The highest rated mortgages, those with an almost guarantee of being paid on time, get an A rating-those with the lowest guarantee, a C. In the world of risk/reward, the C ratings get the highest rate of interest, as they involve the greatest risk.

The bundling and selling of mortgages has been going on for quite some time-still today, in case you did not know. One of the assets banks could trade were mortgage bundles-bundles of A, B, and C rated mortgages. Again, it bears remembering that the default rate on mortgages remained, throughout all of this time, at its historical level of 5%. As you can imagine, the vast majority of those defaults were in the C rated mortgages-of which Fannie and Freddie held the majority.

As the pure NUMBER of foreclosures began to rise, banks began to get more particular about what mortgage bundles they would buy-J.P Morgan Chase made a decision to only purchase bundles of A mortgages, for example. This left the market for B and C rated mortgages depressed. It was here that Bear Sterns ran into trouble. They were holding highly valued assets, but had no market for them.

Enter FASB. This is a board of appointed individuals who set the rules for accounting standards, primarily. One of the rules that is enforced is the 'mark to market' rule-that is, by the close of the day, banks and investment houses must prove that they have assets to cover their liablilties. Remember that for a bank, a mortgage is an asset-money owed to them. Well, FASB decreed that EVERY SINGLE MORTGAGE in this country was going to default.

Therefore, banks were told that their assets were worthless, and the crisis came to a head.

It might be interesting for those on this board to understand that the very things that led, inexoribly, to this crisis were not covered in the bill signed by Obama that was meant to 'reform' the system.

The down payment and credit worthiness issues that led to this were left OUT of the bill. The same legislation that could have averted the crisis by depriving those who could not or would not pay back their mortgages OF mortgages is still not enacted-and found no place in this reform bill.

Therefore, the stage is set for yet another crisis. Some of you might want to ask Obama why that might be. The rest of you will just continue to chant.

Good try NJ into spinning this into a one party problem. This problem began LONG before '93, and starts with Reagan. Try again.

It is eerie how the same things TR was railing against at the beginning of the last century are again part of our society today. Thank you for the reminder IR.

I just love how you marxists pick and choose from you progressive heroes.

How about this from Teddy, a believer in eugenics.

Progressive Theodore Roosevelt summed up eugenicist theory: "Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce."

Right up your marxist -----.

babina-53%-or three per cent more than half- is by no stretch of the imagination a "Huge Majority".

Moreover, Obama campaigned as a pragmatic centrist, rather than the far left liberal he is, actually. Take a look at his polls now-were the election today, he'd be lucky to garner 40% of the vote.

As a person with a serious kidney problem caused by a birth defect, I know, from my own experience, that there is never a problem getting health insurance with a pre-existing condition-but you have to be willing to PAY for it. It's called risk/reward. Many young people do not have health insurance becaue they believe that the risk is not so great that they will need it. That is their choice. And, no, they don't all go to emergency rooms to get care and stick it to the taxpayer-they pay out of pocket.

The 'overwhelming majority' of people getting care at emergency rooms on the taxpayers' dime are illegal immigrants. Supposedly, they are not covered under this bill. So, beyond escalating costs and constrained benefits, what, exactly has changed?

I'll answer that for you: nothing.

No jo, very good. You get a B- for your essay but not an A.

You never mentioned the role that CDOs, synthetic-CDOs, CDSs and the ratings companies, such as S&P and Moodys played in this downfall. It has been posited (see Michael Lewis' 'The Big Short') that the biggest cause was the unadulterated greed that the investment banks and the originate and sell mortgage companies participated in that was the largest problem. And this problem actually started a lot earlier than 1993, it started when investment banks started going public and started to create exotic financial instruments that were not based on actual productivity, market capitalization or economic output.

Yes, government had a role to play and they blew it. But I would posit that this is more of a problem of lobbyists and campaign financing plus the fact that not even the people trading in the exotic financial instruments understood them. It's a lot easier to fool someone who does not have knowledge of that being presented than it is to fool someone who has knowledge. I see it as more of a problem of the former than the latter.

Aaaannnnd then there is your second post, no jo. All opinion (except for the 53% number . . . which, by the way is an historic high, maybe not the highest but it is definitely historic) with nothing to back it up.

You get an F on your second post.

No joe, no bo, nj:

Let's start here. You write: "The majority did not want the stimulous [sic]-er, ARRA, (so-called so that democrats can run away from it more easily). Draw as many graphs as you like that 'prove' that it worked; the electorate understands that the only thing stimulated was the deficit."

What you write is pure speculation with respect to what "the majority" wanted. Cold, hard, indisputable fact shows that the majority elected Barack Obama as President and gave him a rather handy majority in the Congress.

The stimulus did work. Those who contend otherwise rest their specious argument(s) SOLELY on the fact that the current unemployment rate exceeds eight-per-cent. I remember at the time the 8% figure was thrown out and thinking how utterly foolish it was to use ANY number. When an economy is based on consumer confidence, which is incredibly mercurial, one should avoid making numerical projections. I'm quite sure this administration has learned that lesson. Nonetheless, while agreement that the stimulus worked is not unanimous, the consensus is that indeed it did work.

Here's another pearl from your keyboard: "The majority did not want this HCR bill-it got rammed through, and democrats on the campaign trail are reduced to saying 'HCR? What HCR bill?'"

Again, you have the temerity to tell us what "the majority" did or did not want. Until you can show that the majority did not elect Barack Obama as President, your contention is worthless. That candidates are afraid to campaign on the merits of the bill is hardly a surprise. Gosh, a gutless Congressman, imagine that.

More garbage: "the seeds of the financial crisis of 2008 were planted in 1993." BS! The seeds of the current crisis are carried in the human genome. There is no readily identifiable "greed gene" but it's there and that is the reason we have societies governed by law. The last horrible meltdown we called "The Depression". The lessons we learned told us we needed some serious laws and regulation to rein in greed that would obviate similar disasters. Of course, as soon as the laws were put in place, profiteers began their odious work of tearing them down.

Trying to find THE demarcation line in this destruction of law is rather difficult, but if I were forced to make a determination, I would say Gramm-Leigh-Bliley and the evisceration of Glass-Steagall is about as good as it gets.

The CRA is a straw man. The "bundling" to which you refer, or what we have come to know as CDO's, are at the root of this great fraud. If you were truly interested in the truth, you could take an hour or so and learn about Lehman and AIG.

While you're busy telling us what's worth remembering, I'll suggest something to you about learning something to remember. Those bank mortgages are in all too many cases not "assets" at all. Call them what you will, upside down or underwater, those mortgages are carried on the books and valued much higher than they are truly worth. That No joe, is a liability, and those "assets" were liabilities long before 2007. It was only with the collusion of appraisers, rating agencies, bankers and their ilk that this bubble came into existence, and make no mistake, it remains.

Enter FASB? Are you joking? Mark to Market did not just magically happen in 2007. It's been around since the 90's, but son-of-one-gun, accountants and auditors just didn't care much for it. So, why bother with the law?

The Republican alternative to all this is more of what got us here. There is not so much as a scintilla of proof that tax cuts for the wealthy lead to job creation. To the contrary. The only thing the Republicans have going for them is a constituency that CAN'T remember. I've said it before. You can't remember what you don't know. If it wasn't clear before, it's blindingly clear now; those who find comfort in the G.O.P. also find comfort in having someone put a boot on their neck, a tap on their phone, and a camera in their bedroom. That's some sick folks.

no joe, no bo, nj

When i bought my house i put 10% down, its like sucide to put nothen down on a home. but what your missing is that it was the responsibility of the banks to not lend to questionable people. i don't care what was passed to increase home ownership. when the melt down started the banks acted like they were suprised that this was happening, but they had to know approving so many morgages with little or nothen down would lead to this.

my approach is from the banks who knew they were committing banking sucide.

we know how this happened, and what lead up to it, but the underlinging factors in this was that banks were writing morgages on propertys that were over valued, they were writing morages on homes with no value, it was like the wild wild west on banking. you can't blame the clinton adminstration for all this, yes they had a hand in this but No Jo the banks were doing things they knew they should not have.

the stimulas No Jo take a road trip and you will see miles and miles of new road and bridges thanks to the stimulas. namely I76 from nebraska in to denver. thanks to the stimulas over 100 miles of some of the worse road i have ever been on has been replaces with a new concrete expressway, in Iowa interstate 80 have many new bridges. get out and see

David Walker - A++

Great analysis and rebuttal. On the money and factual with opinion clearly labeled as such (although I do agree with your opinion). Keep it up.

Jeff-1541632

no joe, no bo, nj

the stimulas No Jo take a road trip and you will see miles and miles of new road and bridges thanks to the stimulas. namely I76 from nebraska in to denver. thanks to the stimulas over 100 miles of some of the worse road i have ever been on has been replaces with a new concrete expressway, in Iowa interstate 80 have many new bridges. get out and see

Jeff, may I add one more point for no jo to consider?

The stimulus has been used to "invest in our future". See the Times article below.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013683,00.html

So in addition to the projects that are right in your face there are those that start us down the road to future projects important to our entire country.

Note: I'm a transplant to Colorado, I-76 was so in need of rework....to the point of being dangerous in many places...excellent use of stimulus funds!

I-270 in Columbus, Ohio was downright dangerous with all of the potholes that it HAD; the stimulus monies made those potholes go away. Also, I-70 between Columbus and Indiana is a NICE stretch of road now - and widened - because of stimulus monies.

The stimulus did what it was supposed to do - stimulate growth in our economy, and the excellent side benefit is that our roads are fixed.

I have no idea what no joe is talking about. Maybe she should get out more often.

NJNB: Well, you must be a millionaire or billionaire. I am more than willing to pay for my insurance but unfortunately, I could not get one private insurance company to even consider insuring me for any amount of money due to my pre-existing condition. That is now a non-issue and I will pay for my insurance now that I can get it. It really is not free you know. You seem to be under the distinct impression that no one wants to pay for anything and you could not be more wrong. Sure, there is an element in every society that is what you say, but that is a vast minority and the majority should never suffer because of these individuals. There will always be these types of people but that is what it is because you can't completely eliminate that element.

Oh, and I am certian this was an oversight but you forgot to mention Bush's role in the housing debacle. I'll be happy to remind you.

"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home." — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?_r=1

No joe wrote:

Enter FASB. This is a board of appointed individuals who set the rules for accounting standards, primarily. One of the rules that is enforced is the 'mark to market' rule-that is, by the close of the day, banks and investment houses must prove that they have assets to cover their liablilties. Remember that for a bank, a mortgage is an asset-money owed to them. Well, FASB decreed that EVERY SINGLE MORTGAGE in this country was going to default.

You brought this up awhile back and I had roughly the same response/question, but didn’t receive an answer – you may not have seen it. First, the ‘mark-to-market’ rule doesn’t state that banks have to have assets on hand to cover their liabilities. That rule comes from the SEC, which governs (but remains very hands-off on) the FASB. The mark-to-market rule is closely connected, however, in that it requires companies to reevaluate their available-for-sale and trading securities for market fluctuations on a daily basis, forcing banks to reevaluate whether they have the assets to cover their liabilities on the same schedule.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but FASB doesn’t have the power to declare marketable securities worthless, for the purpose of the rule you stated or any other. The market became too wary of mortgage-backed securities, slowing trading significantly, which dropped the prices and made such securities much more difficult to evaluate. This was the tipping point of the bubble.

No joe wrote:

As a person with a serious kidney problem caused by a birth defect, I know, from my own experience, that there is never a problem getting health insurance with a pre-existing condition-but you have to be willing to PAY for it. It's called risk/reward. Many young people do not have health insurance becaue they believe that the risk is not so great that they will need it. That is their choice. And, no, they don't all go to emergency rooms to get care and stick it to the taxpayer-they pay out of pocket.

I lost all vision in my left eye just before I turned 19 due to a malignant tumor. Fortunately, I was on my parents’ insurance. Radiation therapy killed my vision in that eye, but other than not being able to catch worth a damn, I’m fine now. I do see several expensive specialists regularly though. At age 23 I was uninsured because I couldn’t afford insurance. I worked full time while in school, but my employer’s plans didn’t have vision plans or were too expensive. I was effectively priced out of insurance. I went uninsured for just under three years. It’s not simple laziness or the overconfidence of youth that keeps us from being insured.

VermontGirl

Note: I'm a transplant to Colorado, I-76 was so in need of rework....to the point of being dangerous in many places...excellent use of stimulus funds!

I 76 was down right dangrous, i drive back and fourth from denver to chicago, and they fixed about 100 miles of I 76 and and in nebraska they have resurfaced alot of miles of road, iowa they must be atleast 50 new bribges and in Illinois, a section of I 80 from the Iowa border to I 55, about 90 miles of new road. because of these improvements my trip home from denver is alot safer.

but in defense of No Jo the amount of the stumulas could have been less, there were pork projects in there that were not needed along with tax cuts put in by republicans, but in the end not one voted for it. the 50 billion proposed for infastructure, just think about that gas explosion in california, our infastructure is due, interstate HWY system was put in 60 years ago, and was was not designed to last for ever!!!!!

Jeff - good to hear you are personally benefitting from the stimulus projects. I am too. I work for civil engineers and land surveyors. Our firm does a ton of public sector work. There are 14 mortgages being paid and 14 families who do not have to face the desperation of job hunting due to stimulus projects we're working on. We are a small firm and certainly have a better chance of weathering this storm than many. I thank the current administration every day for their good decisions.

How right you are....interstates are very rough in many areas and they are such a huge part of jobs, such as yours, and commerce in general. I'm all for additional spending in these areas.

As far as pork is concerned...that is a separate subject altogether and probably one that we CAN all agree on...the way in which Congress OPERATES.

VermontGirl

I'm a plumbing estimator for a large plumbing contractor in denver, they were saved by the stimulas, there are working projects now that were created by the stimulas, the company i use to work for in chicago benifited with work through the stimulas as well, as i told No Jo last week, i would have been layed off a years ago if the stimulas had not been passed. i was layed off in january because there were no new projects to bid on, through the privite sector, but here in denver things are still going, slow, but its going.

Just the other day I said we need a Teddy Roosevelt in office. Why? Because he broke up the monopolies.

Nonetheless, I do not understand why someone posted his letter in regard to taxes? What's the point?

To the person who disagreed that the majority of Americans were against the Health Care Bill by saying we voted for Obama is not really an argument.

That health care bill DID NOT have overwhelming support of the electorate so the statement was a true statement.

Does that mean that when a majority of Americans turned against the Iraq war it was irresponsible of the Bush Administration to have not ended it immediately?

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.

IR; Bev; Navy; Pat: What you all have in common are excellent posts. Wow!! What a way to start a Monday. I noticed that 40% of Republicans watch Fox news on a regular basis. No wonder they can't debate and are getting failing marks.

Ron;

Good point. Remember the old saying"you do not know what you do not know". This is what Fox news does. Hannity got caught over the weekend doctoring President Obama's speech by selective editing. Got caught and showed no shame. Journalism is dying and it is scary that 40% of the people in this country are being sold out by people like Beck, Hannity, Rush and a bevy of others that just lie period. They are being spoon feed by the right only the rhetoric they want to push their agenda to destroy the middle class.

This is what Fox news does. Hannity got caught over the weekend doctoring President Obama's speech by selective editing. Got caught and showed no shame.

What else is NEW?

Nothing more scary than a Faux follower...

I'd say John Boehner can make whatever statement he wants on the tax cut...it doesn't matter because his buddy Mitch McConnell can block them over in the Sentate! The Republican Party gets to CLAIM they're for compromise while demonstrating that nothing has changed about their politics of NO.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41915.html

Ron Indiana

IR; Bev; Navy; Pat: What you all have in common are excellent posts. Wow!! What a way to start a Monday. I noticed that 40% of Republicans watch Fox news on a regular basis. No wonder they can't debate and are getting failing marks.

Thanks Ron

It's going to be an exciting week. Context matters. What kills me is how Fox Noise after stirring the pot on Islamophobia for months has the unmitigated gaul to say the media blew the story out of proportion.

My survey says Glenn Beck and all Fox Noise pupils are kinda like Glenn Beck; they are going blind. Did anyone see that that "revisionist history" of progressives Judge Andrew Napolitano scribbled on Beck's blackboard jungle last week? LOL

Napolitano claimed In Glenn Beck's Revisionist crash course, falsely claimed, that SEC is "exempting itself" from Freedom of Information Act

Clearly, the provision reportedly only protects proprietary information gathered from regulated firms during the course of examinations or investigations, which mirrors exemptions that exist for bank regulators.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201009090044

I realize that’s questionable, tea baggers; because you won’t see that on Beck’s chalkboard.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201009110001

Hey Tea baggers;

The best way to get back on your feet is to miss a car payment and a Fox Noise Lesson. Don’t let these facts get in your way. Time wounds all heels!!

If tax cuts to the rich is what creates jobs and stimulates the economy then we'll see a few million new jobs created any minute now since the wealthy have been enjoying the Bush tax cut for the past 10 years.

We're still waiting for those jobs. Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock.

Jobs anyone?

US Navy, Fiesty and Beverly

Typical progressive half truths.

In 2006 Exxon paid $28 Billion in taxes and in 2007 they paid $30 billion in taxes. Why did you not list that info? Oh the progressive's favorite company GE received a TAX Benefit of $1.1 Billion in 2009 from the feds. Well since they own NBC ans MSNBC I didn't think you would mention GE.

Yea, another circle jerk.

Your guys are SO OUT of there in Novermber, and you just can't deal with it, can you.

What do any of you have to say for the lie you have been perpetuating for the past 8 years that the Bush tax cuts were ONLY for the wealthy?

OBVIOUSLY, that was a lie.

But that's okay when the entire Democratic and Prognozzle party lies, right?

No one is saying that ALL the benefits went to the wealthy. What we're saying on a daily basis is that the MAJORITY of the benefits went to the wealthy and that the plan was heavily biased toward the rich from the beginning. The average taxpayer gets $100, the wealthy taxpayer buys a new car. Every year. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-10/biggest-earners-lose-cost-of-new-bmw-after-bush-tax-cuts-expire-next-year.html

But that's OK, keep telling the Conservative lie that the rich are some endangered species.

Pat, Boston,

Great post to start the week. With President Obama showng his new agenda to create jobs (infrastructure bill) it should be interesting in how the republicans respond. If history is any indication I look for the following.

Hypocrisy: Is defined as pretending to having beliefs, opinion, standards etc. that one does not have. Hypocrisy involves deception of others and is thus a form of lying.

As President Obama laid out his agenda last week for the creation of new jobs and moving the economy forward many republicans are already in arms against our President as they were last year for the ARRA Bill.

Last week a new report was released by Mark Zandi (McCain’s Economic Advisor) and Alan Binder, Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve. They claim their study of the ARRA “empirically proved” that the stimulus bill did save over 8 million jobs and the bill was a good thing.

Some excerpts about only a few of those that voted no or opposed the stimulus bill (ARRA) as found on the web:

Crapo (R-ID) called the stimulus bill an “Avalanche of Special Funding”. So what does he do? He shows up Wednesday at a ribbon cutting ceremony for the Health West Clinic (which provides health care for people with special needs) with money from the stimulus bill. Did he mentioned that the $600,000 plus came from the stimulus bill. No, he took the credit for the funding.

Blunt (R-MO) In July of 2009 attends ribbon cutting ceremony for Neosla National Fish Hatchery 1.1 Million in federal stimulus. Ozone Disinfectant Systems, 16 Million in stimulus funds and in Feb of 2010 announces $940,000 for Homeless Assistance, again made possible by the stimulus bill.

One of my favorite, Governor Daniels of IN who said “only a blind zealot” would say that the stimulus bill did any good. Not only did he take the money he also asked for extensions of some of the programs. He took over 434 million dollars even though he was one of the staunchest opponents of the bill. This is the same governor that claims fiscal responsibility for his state by declaring a $400 million dollar surplus. He forgot to mention the 2 Billion dollars that the stimulus bill gave his state. Instead he takes all the credit. He also took the education funds but instead of using the money to pay for teachers and improving education he puts the money into the states rainy day fund, causing the lost of thousands of jobs. Guess who he blames for the job lost????

Barton (R-TX) This is the guy that defended BP and said that President Obama owed BP an apology. He was at the ground breaking ceremony of an Ellis County Clinic last week and forgot to mention that it was funded by stimulus money. Again taking the credit that he did not earn.

Seeing a pattern yet? Last one.

Governor Stanford of S. Carolina said the stimulus bill will lead “to a thing called slavery” and akin to “fiscal child abuse”. He said he would not take the money. Guess what, he is taking the money.

These are just a few examples floating around the media this week at ThinkProgress, Politico, WP, NYT, and others. Just Google stimulus opposed.

There is an article on ThinkProgress that covers the first year of the stimulus bill that includes the above an over 100 others that have voted no or opposed the ARRA bill. It includes all the source information, much more details than the few excerpts here, the votes and dates everything. You must read this 1 year analysis of what the party of NO has done. The URL is as follows.

http://thinkprogress.org/touting-recovery-opposed/

The agenda of the republicans is pretty evident. They campaign on creating jobs, reducing the deficit, making much needed capital and tax cuts available to the small business market (which creates most of the jobs in this country), improving education and supporting the middle class. I do not believe one word of their rhetoric as their deeds speak for themselves. They have virtually defeated any legislation that our President proposes that address the above issues. And then when they loose, they take the money from the bills and go prancing around their states going to ribbon cutting and ground braking ceremonies claiming the credit. This is hypocrisy!

If they cannot defeat a bill they promise to repeal it. If they cannot repeal it they promise to cut off funding. If they fail both of those they will take the money and claim the credit.

Sorry guys, this is wrong, it is hypocrisy and in some cases just outright not being honest with your people that elected you to office to work for them.

Michael Douglas in the sequel to Wall Street had a great line; “GREED WAS GOOD NOW IT’S LEGAL”.

Great post US Navy. We don't have the media (since most of them get paid big bucks and don't care about us. They only care about their cocktail parties and who they know). So they're not going to talk about the lying phony hypocrites in the Republican Party, who are useless.

I truly truly hope Democrats all across the country vote Democrat in November for their Congressperson. The Senate? Eh. Even Nancy Pelosi can't stand them. She's got all this legislation she wants passed to help this country move forward, and it's just sitting there in the Senate. Doing nothing. They are brutal.

Pat, Boston.

I hear you. If the democrats come out in November we have a chance. If they do not then we enter another dark age of failure lead by the republicans. Makes no sense, but time will tell. It always does.

Awesome posts, Pat and USN. I was unaware of www.themiddleclass.org . Looks like an awesome resource to determine how the actions of Congress are actually impacting the majority of Americans.

I recommend that each of the GOP 'ers who bad-mouthed the stimulus yet took the $ for thier state should be forced to give it back! Then we'll see how their constituents poll!

Nice way to spread the lies. Now here is the truth. 40 % of Americans pay no income tax, 20 % get money back even after having paid nothing in, he 7 % top earners pay 82 % of all the taxes collected in America. Your spreading of the lies and the hate of the rich is absurd since it is the rich that build the hospitals,schools, libraries, Hospitals, Factories that give people work or stores or hotels or restaurants or etc... and it is the rich the at give more money every year to charity than all the world's GOV's combined and it is the top 40 richest men in America that have just pledged 1/2 of their fortune to charity a sum greater than all the monies the GOV's of the world have given to charity in the last ten years. So it is the middle class and the poor that should be if there were any honor or justice in the world saying thank you for the hospitals the factories and for paying 82 % of all the taxes collected. I am a retired military Col. I did not fight to see your vision of a Communist America come to past. If you are a navy vet you dihonor your service and the oath you took to defend America against all enimies foriegn and domestic.

Wade-- excellent post.

When I look at the way that the far left demonizes different segments of the country, I don't think I could ever cast a vote for a Democrat again.

I don't hate the rich, I hate that I pay about 30% of my income in income tax and they only pay 15% - 20% of their income. Where are those jobs their lower taxes are supposed to generate?

Wade, your statistics are red herrings and specious. STTS.

Actually it's the top 20% who pay 70% of Federal income tax http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/how-much-americans-actually-pay-in-taxes/ and why not? They make half of ALL income in the US http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/DistributionofIncome.html and are making record amounts of money http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38935053/ns/business-us_business/ even while the rest of us suffer. Insulated from the effects of the recession, carrying their lowest tax burden in 50 years and the rich still whine about how they're mistreated. Poor babies.

Joe in Albany

I find it Hillaryously FUNNY that House Dems are running for office by running away from themselves and their voting record. Seems like they find Nancy Pelosi as scary and toxic as most of the rest of the country does.

Really, Joe?

I find it even stranger that Tea Baggies have no idea why they are being scammed.

John Boehner's confused MANY do not even know that half of the stimulus money has gone out and that a lot has been repaid. Not to mention that Tarp was signed into law by Georgie Boy. Many of Tea Baggies have already taken advantage of the health care reform bill. Why, oh why, would they want to repeal something that saves several million people from the right wing of their have pre-existing conditions and will NEED health care reform?

Oh Snap!

Shotgun Joe: Do you really find that to be funny? You are sounding like your old friend Eric more and more every day.

STS

As a NYT article, lefty liberals are required to believe it’s the truth.

*YAWN*...wake me when you have something interesting to say, Joe.

Ron Indiana-

Except that Joe isn't a homophobic, obscenity spewing bigot.

Minor detail...still worth mentioning.

jestor:

Nice post. People just do not understand that they are being sold down the river. Those who have a taxable income of less than 250,000 should get a thank you card from the richest 2%. After all us 98% will be paying for their tax cuts to the tune of $830 Billion dollars. Do you think they will say thanks, use the money to create jobs? I think NOT.

Navy, how do you figure the "98%" are paying for the wealthy when it's estimated that the "98%" receive about $2T from the tax cuts, which is considerably less than the $830B?

As always, Navy, thank you for your service!

Absolutely jeustor, we're PAST time to realize that the rich aren't looking out for us, they're looting the future that generations of middle class Americans depended on to enrich themselves now.

OK dirt, make it the top 20%. That's the group that received over HALF of the benefits from the Bush tax cuts. That means only 80% are paying for 20%.

Feel better?

I love the smell of "class warfare" in the morning!...Let's demonize the rich! Like my dry-cleaner, who is one of those "rich" bums looting our futures...Does anyone here own a small business?

John B, Des Moines, IA

OK dirt, make it the top 20%. That's the group that received over HALF of the benefits from the Bush tax cuts. That means only 80% are paying for 20%.

Feel better?

Maybe dirt would feel worst once he finds out we'd have to borrow money from China to permit the 2% to live luxuriously and ship their money to that Post Office Box scam, Ugland House, in Cayman Islands; John.

http://havenworks.com/world/cayman-islands/

The examples of the waste, fraud and abuse are legion. Shell companies in Cayman Islands allow KBR to avoid Medicare, Social Security deductions." ... "Kellogg Brown & Root, the nation's top Iraq war contractor and until last year a subsidiary of Halliburton Corp. [Corporation], has avoided paying hundreds of millions of dollars in federal Medicare and Social Security taxes by hiring workers through shell companies based in this tropical tax haven [Cayman Islands].

Ugland House is a building located at South Church Street, George Town, the capital of the Cayman Islands. The building is the registered office address for 18,857 entities.

The GAO found that only 5% of the entities with a registered office address at Ugland House are wholly-owned by U.S. persons. Also, the GAO validated the reasons why the Cayman Islands has become a popular jurisdiction for international finance and business, including the country’s reputation “as having a stable and internationally compliant legal and regulatory system.” In an interview with the GAO, representatives from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) cited “the Cayman Islands’ reputation for regulatory sophistication as a potential factor in attracting legal financial activity from the United States.” The IRS also cited the Cayman Islands “legal protections for creditors and investors.”

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

Dagerfield;

your are not even on the right page. Most small business owners (about 98%) do not have a TAXABLE INCOME over $250,000 after all their deductions. These people will continue to pay the same tax rates as before.

STTS

beverly-you DO realize that there is no serfdom in the United States, do you not? Therefore, any company can incorporate in any country in the world they so wish.

If you want to keep companies incorporated here in the United States, it must be done reasonably and rationally.

First, the question: WHY would a company choose to incorporate elsewhere? Answer: the tax burden.

Companies are not charities; they exist to earn a profit. They will do what they can to maximize their profitablilty.

As to your FICA and Medicare argument: no company pays those taxes for employees who are not employed in the United States, no matter where they are incorporated; likewise, every company must pay those taxes for employees employed IN the United States.

If this country seeks to keeps more companies here, it needs to level the playing field. It is that simple. Obama and the Democrats continous demonization of employers isn't going to keep them on these shores. In fact, it will drive more of them away.

and, John? nobody is paying for anybody's tax cut: you get taxed on the income you EARN. Get it? cutting taxes allows you to keep more of the money you EARN, rather than giving it to bureaucrats.

Unless, of course, you are in the 47% who not only don't pay income tax,(to which I do not object; let people keep their own money), but get a welfare check in the guise of a "refundable tax credit",(to which I DO object. That is not their money, but mine-and others-who have EARNED it.).

Good grief, I am sick unto death of the liberal pocket picking, and then trying to rationalize by saying that those who earn more owe THEM. They don't. You want more? Go earn it-and keep you hands out of others pockets.

dangerfield,

My husband and I own a small business, and the day it generates $250,000 of taxable income, I will personally deliver the extra tax money to Washington DC wrapped with a bow!

Making the rich pay their taxes is not demonizing them, so what in the world are you talking about?

Most of the rich don't even pay what we pay in taxes, thanks to good accountants, off shore accounts, and all the laws they pay to have written.

Give me a break.

Beverly,

Nice post. I think there is serfdom in the US, it used to be called the Middle Class.

Dear Experts,

My dry cleaner here in NYC thinks you're a bunch of heartless know-nothings...his rent is over 50 grand a year...you do realize that 250k is less than $5,000.00 a week right?

Most small business here have to generate at least that much to simply SURVIVE...

Obviously, dangerfield does not understand the difference between gross income and taxable income.

STTS

No, Matt

It is more that I do...thanks for trying and notice that I don't need to resort to the cover of talking to my "pals" instead of directly addressing the person I'm replying to, like this;

...Matt thinks he knows about.... lol stand on your own little man, it's what grown-ups do.

BTW-What is YOUR small business?

Liberal pocket picking? Now THAT's a narrative created by the Right if I've ever heard one. The REALITY is that the wealthy have been working to keep wages for most of us flat for decades http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/gdp-per-capita.html while stuffing the "savings" in their own pockets http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38935053/ns/business-us_business/ . And even that isn't enough. They've benefitted disproportionately from tax cuts for years http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html and tax rates are at the lowest level in 60 years http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm it's the MIDDLE CLASS that's stealing from the rich. Irony doesn't even describe this one.

dangerfield,

Your posts suggest that you do not know what you are talking about. When someone calls you out on it all you do is attack/insult that person because you can not support your assertions. It is a recurring tactic of yours.

I repeat, STTS.

Mathew, Houston:

Unfortunately Dangerfield is completely clueless as what Gross Income is as compared to Taxable income. In the example he posted that 50,000 in rent would come off his taxable income. The problem is that many people do not understand what taxable income is. Dangerfiled is just ignorant and he proved it above. AGAIN

I guess it makes some of the folks here feel good to vent and rant, hope it helps assuage your anger and feelings of inadequacy.

I posted my dry cleaner's rent total as an example of the "nut" he has to make monthly. Everyone knows that you can deduct expenses on your taxes. to pretend that I said that is lie, and don't you hate the lies and the liars?

"...his rent is over 50 grand a year...you do realize that 250k is less than $5,000.00 a week right?

Most small business here have to generate at least that much to simply SURVIVE..."

Where did I post?

he posted that 50,000 in rent would come off his taxable income.

You, sir are a deliberate liar.

Some of us who come here bring their education, experience and accomplishment to the discussion.

If asking you if you HAVE, or have ever had a business is an attack then I'm guilty.

If calling someone out on their little cliquish "so-and-so says" style of reply is an attack, I'm guilty.

now go and STS to the clique all you two like, but as someone who has made a pretty good living in the REAL world of business and taxes, I repeat;

You don't know what you' re talking about and I am pretty sure based on your replies that neither of you owns, has owned or probably ever will own a small business.

My dry cleaner is on Broadway between 85 and 86th street. I emailed this page to him. I can't reprint his response to you two, except for the laughter...

. . . and dangerfield's head explodes!

dangerfield,

Why would I care what your dry cleaner thinks? If he thinks the same way that you do, then he is as confused as you are. Your posts make no logical sense and you often repeat assertions that have been disproved over, and over, and over again, and again, and again.

And if anyone has the audacity to dare to disagree with you, you proceed to question their intelligence and insult them. You try, unsuccessfully, to prove you have superior intelligence and if someone hasn't owned a business, then, in your opinion, they obviously have no credibility. Here's a little piece of news for you, dangerfield, someone does not have to own a business to understand economics or how a business works. In fact, just because someone owns a business, it does not bestow special knowledge about economics or tax policy. In fact, I've known (have actually worked for) people who ran successful businesses in spite of their being totally incompetent (hint: they hired people who knew what they were doing).

dangerfiel, needling you has almost become a sport for me. It would be a lot more fun if it wasn't so easy to spin you up and watch you implode. Your factually bereft posts with their illogical arguments, misstatements of facts and misplaced superiority complex are a joke. Keep it up, dangerfield, I love the entertainment.

The President followed him to Cleveland, ostensibly to "respond" to the minority leaders speech, and is trying to morph him into W for the midterms by giving him far greater name recognition than he has ever been able to garner by himself. Now that he's helped give Boehner a "platform", Boehner is using his nowfound status to out-flank the president's campaign-style rhetoric and position himself as a conciliator...

Bravo Mr. President..Maybe you two can share a smoke, now that you're practically equals

dangerfield,

You are funny . . . the media follows Mr. Boehner around like a puppy while he proposes numberless budgets, says the President should fire his economic team, and pretends like he had nothing to do with the sh!tstorm we are currently in.

The media eleveated Mr. Boehner, and presents every word out of a Republicans mouth as if it is legitimate even if it is a bunch of bull.

So it is quite the stretch for you to fault the President for repsonding to this foolishness, seeing as fellow "democrats" like yourself are unwilling to do so, but would rather just criticize the President for doing it.

If he doesn't who will?

We want to see your "Democratic" credentials, dangerfield...

Papers please.

Mixed Bag:

No credentials required . . . just common sense and fact based criticisms will do. . . both seem to be in short supply.

The PRESIDENT elevated the minority leader in his speeches and by looking like he was responding to Boehner when he made his speech in the same place, and many are wondering why as most people don''t know who he is.

Obviously I am far from alone in thinking this...

So The media made the president do it...lol

What is funny and sad Nash are your characterizations above. The president claimed that he and the administration were not influenced by the 24 hour news cycle, yet they for all intents and purposes that are like marionettes dancing to that tune.

I admire your steadfastness in the face of the ever-encroaching reality...:)

Mixed Bag

We want to see your "Democratic" credentials, dangerfield...

All kidding aside...that is a sad trend here...

from friday

jomama72

"Mark, will one of you let that idiot Ed the melon head Schlitz know that his hard on for Gibbs and Rahmbo is totally unacceptable to us libs, progressives whatever we call ourselves now, he will be out of the club if he has one more outburst. Tweedy is bad enough but this buffalo headed pundit gets a little bit out of control. And one more thing, what is Dylan rattle-cans up too, I keep hearing his phony whining crap but no solutions, he is quickly turning into a puke bag."

Fail to walk in lock step-be prepared to be "out of the club"...Bob Herbert is definitely out. Jon Stewart has one foot out the door and the other on a banana peel..and I share many of their stated views, so...:)

dangerfield,

Let me break it down for you . . . the President of the United States can put whoever and whatever he wants into his speeches . . . doesn't need your permission or approval . . . nor does he need the permission or approval of polls, pundits, or various and assorted political know-it-alls.

He ran for President, and won, doing it his way . . . and he is going to continue doing things just the way he wants to for another 6 plus years.

All without your input or approval.

Get used to it.

"Get used to it."...lol I AM used to this particular tactic from you Nash...:)

When confronted with something you can't refute, you abandon the topic to personal positive affirmations like..."don't need your permission...approval, etc..."

It is neither germane, nor relevant to the discussion at hand.

"breaking it down" for me that the president can do whatever he wants?

What does that have to do with

"just common sense and fact based criticisms will do.."

The president is human. The president has made mistakes. This may turn out to be one.

dangerfield:

Everything I wrote is a fact . . . you just don't like it! ;o)

The President is human and has made mistakes, and they are HIS to make. You don't offer any alternatives, only carping.

So I am forced to call you out for what you are - a complainer.

Pure and simple.

My feet hurt dangerfield . . . but that ain't a political argument . . . that's a personal problem.

Many of your posts are as well.

When you can't win on the facts you devolve into the same tactics..disagreement and dissent IS input When Bush invaded Iraq, were we just "complaining" when we decried the the foolishness of the idea and the potential dire consequences? I and many other loyal democrats questioned the wisdom of doing health care before the economy. Your sunny disposition evaporates when confronted with "facts", and suddenly you are attacking the messenger like the president of the Justin Bieber fan club.

This is about the PRESIDENT and the administration, what they have wrought, and what the consequences are and will be, so any criticisms of me, Bob Herbert, Jon Stewart, or any of my fellow travelers are misplaced, meaningless to the discussion and the last gasp of a losing argument.

I am sadly forced to point out that your "opinion" is a minority one and losing traction, based on the facts with every passing day.

My posts about the economy and the administrations failures thereto are "personal" problems? If you include the tens of millions unemployed and the mushrooming number of disaffected democratic and independent voters, I will agree.

You don't realize that your belief that everyone EXCEPT the president is responsible for our current situation is the source of your upset...and I know that it must hurt, and not just your feet to see what began with such golden promise fall so far, but shooting the messenger(s) is going to get harder and harder as the messengers are beginning to outnumber the "shooters"

dangerfield,

You type alot of words, but you don't say much.

Let's clarify some things:

1. I don't use "tactics", I post my opinions.

2. You keep claiming that I am being confronted with "facts", but I am having trouble finding them. Your initial response indicated that President Obama was elevating John Boehner by addressing his lies, which of course is your personal opinion.

You then moved on to assert that the President was "following" Mr. Boehner to Cleveland, OH, as if that is not a battleground state that the President visits frequently, or as if Mr. Boehner owns the city. That is, of course, your personal opinion of the reason why the location was selected for which you offered no facts.

3. You keep trying to group yourself with John Stewart and Bob Herbert, as if you all are a single entity, which at best must represent wishful thinking on your part or at worst is yet another attempt to put words into my mouth which are not in fact there.

4. I have not "shot" you or any other "messengers". I have refuted your opinion with my own, and based it in just as much or more "facts" than you offered.

5. I assure you that my sunny disposition remains in place and unaltered by your daily doses of cherry picked gloom and random complaints about the President's style.

We can pick up this "discussion" at a later date (or not), as you seem to have run out of ammunition, and alas, I think that other readers must be bored with our intereactions at this point.

I know I am.

"You keep trying to group yourself with John Stewart and Bob Herbert, as if you all are a single entity, which at best must represent wishful thinking on your part or at worst is yet another attempt to put words into my mouth which are not in fact there."

to help you understand; the reason for including messers Herbert and Stewart is that I and they are LOYAL DEMOCRATS who disagree with the administration and their stated opinions are in line with mine.

Those opinions and views are attacked as being NOT DEMOCRATIC republican, fox news etc, so don't pretend that you don't know why I include and list links to democrats who share MY opinions about the administration.

What are your friends on the board doing when the cite Keith, Rachel, Lawrence etc? You give ME a break here.

For all the talk about "facts" it always comes down to ad hominem, bs negative characterizations

daily doses of cherry picked gloom and random complaints about the President's style.

My cherry picking is on the front page and op ed pages of the NYT

and some variation of "

I have not "shot" you or any other "messengers". I have refuted your opinion with my own, and based it in just as much or more "facts" than you offered.

"So I am forced to call you out for what you are - a complainer.

Pure and simple.

My feet hurt dangerfield . . . but that ain't a political argument . . . that's a personal problem.

Many of your posts are as well."

Nothing but facts and rational criticism, all delivered with a sunny disposition...sorry but I think you lost this argument big time...

dangerfield - 0

nashville_fan - 10 (I also counted the 5 points made in one post)

Loss goes to dangerfield!

Nashville_fan is THE WINNER! (Yayyyyy, crowd goes wild, etc.)

I think it's time, Nashville_fan: STTS ;-)

Matt

Doubt Nash needs or wants your "help"...

You were a stalker, now you're just a troll...lol...you're funny!

EMSYLT

What is it with Dangerfield - Mixed Bag & the other one JoAnna Smith...

Do they SERIOUSLY think that ALWAYS having the last word somehow make their argument credible? When in reality they come across as nothing more than childish & petty?

Aren't these clowns the same ones who constantly WHINING about the level of discourse & name calling around here...

Since they come across as 12 years olds... maybe their good friend NJNB can give them a dose of 'demoralizing'...

Looks to me like it's a win-win situation! ;0)

Feisty:

What else do they have? They do not have any ideas, Dangerfield does not even know the difference between Gross Income and Taxable Income from his post. So when you have no new ideas, and the ones you have do not work, all you can do is what you see above.

Really kinda depressing try to scroll past their rhetoric. Super STTS to the lot.

What is "STTS"? Stop talking the smack? :)

Not trying to be disprespectful - I just haven't kept up with the alphabet soup.

Thanks

Wow a Special (not to mention unnecessary and uninvited!) comment/attack from the worst of the bunch (Sorry Bev, but she has you beat when it comes to cringe worthy statements)

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

"What is it with Dangerfield - Mixed Bag & the other one JoAnna Smith..."

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Well isn't this brilliant? Can't attack the message - so ATTACK the messengers...

Make up your mind...lol

As to addressing the "group"...Same tactic...Whom are you addressing? God? Are you simply talking to yourself?

It is amusing to see how for some what is "sauce for the goose" is not so tasty when they are being marinated in the same. lol

STS!!!!!!

Like I was saying about the last word...

You NEVER disappoint there dangerfield... lmao...

Jody,

Good morning and nice post. It is the same old rhetoric all over again. The republicans campaign on lowering the deficit and helping the middle class. So they vote no for virtually every bill that helps the middle class, create jobs, provides tax cuts to small businesses, provide capital to them and complain about the cost to help the 911 first responders. They then in turn try to sell us a tax cut that will create a record deficit. Their rhetoric does not even closely match their deeds.

How are the republicans going to reduce the deficit?

How are the republicans going to create jobs?

How are they going to improve education and our crumbling infrastructure?

What are they going to do for the middle class?

Tired of the rhetoric, now it is time for their ideas.

That's the sad reality. Class warfare is real. The rich have been making war on the middle class for 30 years and the rest of have been shamed and browbeaten into just putting up with it.

Tax Wars Indeed!

George W. Bush in 8 years added $5 trillion dollars to the national debt. No balanced budgets submitted in his 8 years, an unfunded Medicare Part D program and two unfunded wars later, the Republicans and the MSM seem to have bought into the notion that the electorate has every right to be pissed with the Democrats and the President.

Are you serious?

They need to don their thinking caps and deduce that 20 months is an unreasonable time frame to expect this economy (which teetered on the brink of a Depression immediately preceding Obama's inauguration) to have stabilzed and turned around!

Is the electorate really that uninformed or just willfully ignorant?

Shelia,

You make a valid point. It took at least 8 years to get into this mess and we are not going to get out in 20 months even if we had cooperation from the obstructionist party which we do not. The whole agenda of the rebublicans is to stop President Obama and make him fail which is having the effect of hurting all Americans. They republicans just do not care about the middle class as long as they get what they want, even if they are not entitled to it. When you have 40% of the population relying on FOX News to make their decesions for them, this is what you get. A percent of the population that does not know what they do not know. Make no bones about it. This is totally by design from the right.

Have any of you heard people say " I don't care, I don't want that Ni@#erto succeed!" I have. Kinda sad doncha think.

dangerfield,

Good morning to you . . . I am here to take may cue! ;o)

Did you really post a link with a "smoking gun" question as nebulous as "that MAY be fuzzy math"? As in, "it MAY NOT be fuzzy math" is the other choice?

So in the battle of dueling projections, all based on a best guess of what will happen with a law that is 95% unimplemented, you choose to go with the worst case scenario, which still represents a slower rate of growth in health care costs than what we would have had if nothing was done?

Mark me unmoved, no cheerleading required.

Riddle me this . . . what do you think could REALISTICALLY be done to improve health care in our current political envirionment, when one side maintains that we don't even have a health care crisis and clamis that most folks are perfectly happy with the current system (Which of course works great if you don't actually have to use it!)?

Good morning to you too Nash,

It's the associated Press..aka fox news...

When the other side proposed something, say INVADING IRAQ, did you look for the most POSITIVE ROSY projections and estimates? How about the "Prescription drug plan?

Frankly, I am always more prone to look at the least favorable projections on government proposals as those are usually the most historically realistic.

REALISTICALLY;

I would have listened to Bob Herbert and Dangerfield and NOT tackled the HCR bill until I had gotten people back to work...I feel that the year plus and the political capital squandered has been the reason why the administration is in their current situation...

How about tort reform?

It should have been a part of any comprehensive HCR package.

As Howard Dean told an audience in response to a question at a HCR townhall in Virginia in the summer of 2009, the Democrats didn't want to take on their powerful patrons in the trial lawyer lobby.

Thanks for the candor, Governor Dean.

It was good to hear some rational explanation for the exclusion.

dangerfield,

When you are dealing with folks who lie, it is never going to be a "good time" to do the "right thing".

You and Bob Herbert are insured, so you have the luxury of "waiting" for the "best time".

President Obama put those who are in the most need ahead of his political needs, and I applaud him for it.

It wasn't a "good time" for civil rights, voting rights, the civil war, or the Americans with Disabilities Act either.

The world is never gonna stand still and present a "good time", you have to make the time.

Based on what President Obama has already accomplished, I have already gotten what I voted for.

I hope I live to see another leader with his courage and vision come to power, but based on the cowardly voices of "reason" I see all around me, I won't hold my breath.

Mixed Bag,

Is there some reason why we cannot still pursue tort reform?

Are there any members of Congress currently promoting a tort reform bill?

Tort reform is not always the "panacea" that it is presented to be . . . President Obama indicated that he was willing to negotiate this point, but of course, the GOP chose to "sit out", so it is a little late now to be complaining about what wasn't in the bill, when the GOP plan was "do nothing" as usual.

President Obama got what he could get. . . that doesn't mean more can't be done . . . how about instead of 24 hour carping, somebody work up a proposal based on stuff that is actually true and try to get it passed?

Ohio's tort reform law hasn't lowered health-care costs

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Sep/13/fact_check__white_house_health_savings_challenged.html

The article concludes with:

Foster says it's acceptable to divide the number by the total U.S. population. In that case, per capita spending would $13,652 as a result of the law, and $13,387 without it.

The difference: just $265 per person more.

That sounds pretty good, considering that more people will be covered and insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse coverage of people with pre-existing conditions or drop coverage for ridiculous reasons once someone gets an expensive illness. ThE reduction in the death toll the current system takes might be worth the $265 per person.

"President Obama got what he could get..."

Exactly right...from a Democratic Congress.

They own Obamacare.

They don't appear to be too happy about that...do they?

Seen many campaign ads touting this enormous "legislative achievement"?

I haven't. The omission is glaring.

Still...they might be happier with Obamacare than the public is, eh?

Mixed Bag:

Read your final post twice . . . didn't see the name of any Republican Congressfolk who are proposing a tort reform bill . . . didn't see any response to the fact that Ohio has tort reform and their health care costs are still rising.

All carping and no substance makes Mixed Bag a dull boy. (And that goes double for you dangerfield!)

Health Care Reform from RTT. http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1414092

The last couple days I have seen a lot of discussion on the Health Care Reform Bill due to the media coverage of several companies announcing increases in their premiums. First, we have seen increases virtually every year long before the HCR Bill was even a consideration. Second, the Insurance Companies are pulling the same bogus stunt that Credit Card Companies did, namely increase their rates before the new legislation took effect. The Insurance Companies are pulling the same scam and as with the Credit Card Companies are blaming the increases on President Obama’s HCR Bill. This is bogus BS by Big Business to try and hide the fact that they are ripping off America again.

Critics of the bill are trying to spin that they are not seeing the benefits yet, giving costs values that are premature. This is bull. The bill is not fully implemented yet so any judgment (good or bad) on its performance is false and misleading at best. The bill will not be fully implemented until 2018.

The WH web site has a chart that shows the time frame for implementation of the various provisions of the bill.

Below [in bold] is from RTT News.

The report from the CMS Office of the Actuary predicted average annual growth in national health care spending over the next decade of 6.3 percent, a modest increase from the 6.1 percent average annual growth anticipated before the bill was passed.

Additionally, after implementation of the health care reform bill, health care spending is expected to account for 19.6 of gross domestic product in 2019, up from the previously projected 19.3 percent.

"In the aggregate, it appears that the affordable care act will have a moderate effect on health spending growth rates and the health care share of the economy, said Andrea Sisko, a CMS economist and the lead author of the study.

Critics of the reform bill argue that while modest, the slightly faster than expected increase in the pace of spending growth contradicts President Barack Obama's claims that the bill would reduce health care costs.

My note: This is the critics talking point we keep seeing.

However, Nancy-Ann DeParle, Director of the White House Office of Health Reform, noted that the report also showed that health care spending per insured American will be more than $1,000 lower due to the addition of 32.5 million people to the rolls of the insured.

My Note: The critics talking point always leaves this out. Only the cost for the 32.5 million is presented and also the real cost for not insuring those people would be to us. CBO claims the swing to be about 450 Million dollars we would pay than if they were covered by insurance.

"Specifically, by 2019, overall health spending per insured person will average $14,720 instead of the $16,120 projected by the Actuary before the Act was enacted into law," DeParle wrote in a White House blog post."This is great news for many Americans."

My Note: The critics always leaves this out.

She also noted that the report predicts that out of pocket health care spending per person will decline an average of 6 percent to $1,310, a savings of $80 per person per year.

My Note: The critics always leaves this out.

While DeParle noted that the additions of millions of uninsured Americans to the insurance rolls will result in a short-term increase in spending, she said, "The rate of growth in spending will slow in the second half of this decade."

"A close look at this report's data suggest that for average Americans, the Affordable Care Act will live up to its promise," she added.

There is a very good article on Fact Check for HCR on the top 20 misconceptions of the bill. I suggest everyone reads it.

"President Obama put those who are in the most need ahead of his political needs, and I applaud him for it."

over 25 million Americans are unemployed, underemployed or have stopped looking...

The people most in need were and are the unemployed...The administration blew it by making the wrong choice and the consequences, economically and most likely electorally are devastating to the party and the country. Read Bob Herbert in the NYT (Fox News) he's as "funny" as I am on this topic.

Nash-

You must know that no serious Republican tort reform proposal would have made it out of a Democrat-chaired committee...

Didn't you understand what Governor Dean said?

Regarding substantive changes to Obamacare...let's see what happens after November 2nd.

dangerfield,

What do you propose that the President could have done for unemployment that he didn't do?

There was that big fat stimulus bill that was passed BEFORE health care reform that you seem content to ignore?

It did reverse the trend of losing a quarter of a million jobs a month into positive private sector job growth, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

He did save GM, saving millions of jobs and an entire state, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

He did keep the WORLD ECONOMY from imploding with the targeted bailouts of "too big to fail" institutions and AIG, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

He did negotiate an up front $20 Billion settlement with BP so that folks who are currently unemployed because of the oil spill don't have to wait 10 years for payments like the Exxon Valdez folks did, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

President Obama has provided money to the states to shore up important jobs like policemen, firefighters, and teachers . . . and all those governors who claimed they weren't going to take the stimulus money took it and are still begging for more.

The stimulus represented the greatest investment in green energy in our nation's history, and the newly proposed infrastructure bill is another step.

So the President has done a whole hell of alot to fight unemployment, and is seeing results.

Now if you can't see that, then perhaps it is because you CHOOSE not to.

But don't pretend like up is down, and black is white.

President Obama is working hard EVERY DAY to fight unemployment, so you can take your irrational complaining elsewhere.

Mixed Bag:

Is that your cute way of saying that there is no Republican tort reform bill? Because whether or not it makes it out of committee, there is nothing stopping it from being written and discussed is it?

Also, still no word about how tort reform in Ohio has not lowered costs?

Nash-

Still no word on Governor Dean's assertion that tort reform was omitted from Obamacare because the Democrats controlling Congress weren't willing to alienate the trial lawyer lobby?

Just curious...do YOU believe that tort reform should have been part of Obamacare, as Governor Dean does, as do most physicians?

Mixed Bag:

Is this the same Governor Dean that didn't get the nomination for President because he said "YEEEEHAW!" too loudly? lol

Governor Dean is entitled to his opinion. I don't work in Congress, so if he feels that way I am sure he has a good reason to.

I just don't see how that changes anything about what was passed, and I didn't hear many Republican Congressfolks saying that they would support health reform if tort reform was included.

What I heard was lots of lies and distortion.

Me personally?

If torts need to be reformed (lol), reform them. But don't hold that up as a cure all when it isn't and don't pretend like you wanted that added to the bill when you were trying to kill the bill.

So why do you think that the tort reform in Ohio did not work as advertised?

Dangerfield, if the 25 million Americans who are unemployed or underemployed are the most in need, then why on earth are you and the republicans against them? The Democrats are trying to do something for the unemployed and the republicans keep voting against every bill to help the unemployed. So quit trying to act like you care. We're not buying it.

Nash,

That was a nice laundry list...but it has been inadequate to the task by any metric you choose.

Even the administration admits that they should have focused more on the economy, so who or what are you defending, your opinion?

No need to go personal and nasty remember Nash? Just Facts and rational criticism, right? no need for stuff like;

Now if you can't see that, then perhaps it is because you CHOOSE not to.

But don't pretend like up is down, and black is white.

President Obama is working hard EVERY DAY to fight unemployment, so you can take your irrational complaining elsewhere.

C'mon Nash, you're better than that...

dangerfield:

I said it just the way I meant it, because its true.

Perhaps you should take Michael Jackson's advice and start with the man in the mirror . . . if you think all the things the President has done in the past 20 months is equal to nothing . . . then that is not rational.

Sorry.

That's it, Nash?

Attack Howard Dean for being honest?

As far as tort reform in Ohio, I really don't know...the link you provided was to an Associated Press article that didn't mention tort reform at all.

I did find an editorial from a physician in a Youngstown newspaper who insisted that tort reform in Ohio actually did work.

Nash, I spent months online debating all the issues surrounding HCR.

I discussed HCR with my friends and co-workers.

I sent numerous e-mails to my two U.S. Senators and my Congressman, all Democrats, telling them how I felt that the final HCR legislation would not positively impact rising premium costs for most Americans...I told them how the "Cadillac" excise tax (now delayed...not deleted) was grossly unfair to millions of middle-class workers like myself who have modest salaries, but good health insurance.

I have a friend at work whose wife had elective surgery on a defective heart valve now because they decided they might not have the same coverage if the same condition became life-threatening later.

For most middle-class Americans, "health care reform" meant primarily controlling the rate of increase in premiums...most (around 80%) are generally pleased with the quality of the health care they receive. What they wanted the President and Congress to address was rising costs...so that they could keep their present health care.

Ultimately, the President chose to focus on increased coverage rather than measures designed to limit the rate of increase in the cost of health care...which was what a majority of the public desperately wanted. So be it.

You got your "landmark" HCR legislation. You also got legislation that a majority of the public believes, in poll after poll, will raise the cost of their present healthcare (with higher premiums and greater co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses), while lowering its quality. Anecdotally, I can tell you that my union, which runs its own non-profit health care plan, notified its members of exactly that, and urged us to contact our members of Congress with our concerns.

Democrats running for Congress either appear ashamed of Obamacare, don't want to talk about it, or if they're lucky enough to have opposed it, are bragging about having voted no.

You're proud of Obamacare, Nash?

Fine.

Just don't delude yourself into thinking that most of the rest of us are.

Elections have consequences...so do bad laws.

Dear "Sunny" Nash,

Herbert, Stewart and I (lol) did not say that the administration's actions have been "nothing"..

inadequate, half-assed, not enough, less than was required, miscalculated, pale, puny, too little too late...

but not nothing...:)

that silly characterizing again from someone who doesn't want anyone "putting words in" her mouth...

;o)

President Obama is out doing, while others complain.

As a wise man once said: "Grab a mop!"

It took moving the sky, earth and sea to get the stimulus we did get. And now that is judged "not enough" by those who could not have even gotten what was passed through the current Congress.

It has been 60+ years of folks trying to reform the health system in this country. But instead of celebrating the positives and trying to improve the rest, we get alot of complaining about stuff that is not even in the bill, lies about death panels, and folks pretending that one magical day it would have been the "right time" to pass healthcare.

In my most sunniest tone, I call bullsh!t.

President Obama took the only path available to him, and he got what he could, and that is enough because that is all that was there to take.

And it was good.

Period.

Now if anyone can do better, they've got my support and they've got my vote. But these warmed over and debunked talking points about "tort reform" and "jobs first" simply don't pass the smell test.

Health care is an economic issue, so dealing with that is dealing with the economy. And tort reform was on the table, and the Republicans walked away.

Present a plan, back it up with facts, or support the President's plan.

Them is the choices, if you are actually trying to move America forward and not just "be right" or score political points.

Dangerfield

I've been watching the conversation here. Regarding your post that Obama's efforts have been less than adequate and miscalculated...

Would you agree that the bills and reforms that he passed were all that he could have passed, due to the blue dogs and the obstructing GOP? Did he make a mistake in letting them take the reins and not outline specifically what he wanted for HCR, Wall Street reform, etc.. Maybe, but after all Congress writes the laws, the POTUS just signs them. In my case I feel more of a disappointment toward the democratic Congress. First off they didn't rally to push through his agenda and now have run from him and aren't even trying to defend their accomplishments.

I choose to give Obama a break on this one.

If you care to comment how are you going to vote? You've spoken about the bad economic news and shortcomings of the Democrats. Spoke against the "We (democrats) suck Less mentality" With the majority of stories beginning to focus on the moderate/independent or "dissapointed" democrat. I would like to get your idea, do you think voting republican will cause anything other than more gridlock?

Nash-

"And it was good."

Fortunately, we're about to have a national referendum on your assertion in a matter of weeks.

We'll see whether or not the electorate agrees.

Think I'll vote for Mark Levine for state senate, though some are trying to promote Espaillat or NY state senate in tomorrow's primary...must have received 20 robocalls today alone...:(

That's the DEMOCRATIC primary.

The President and his advisors miscalculated the severity of a situation they claim to be a second great depression, by their own admission, and didn't do enough when it would have done the most good. We needed a 2nd, CCC and we got "cash for clunkers". We will be paying the price for not paying the price for the next few years and I am an optimist in that projection.

There was a crisis. It was an opportunity to do big things. The administration did big things. They were not the things that would re-start the job engine. People saw reducing unemployment and financial security as National security, and not passing a massive HCR bill as Priority #1.

I fault the administration for their failure to focus on JOB #1 before attempting to enact the agenda they seem to believe was mandated by their election and a small portion of the coming electoral verdict is driven by the reaction to this hubris...

I hope that was what you were asking...

It's always the economy.

Dangerfield, thanks for stating your position. I do appreciate that really, it's easier to discuss a situation when you're actually discussing it, not just the peripheral things that swirl around the edges.

I get that you're upset about the legislative priorities and it's certainly possible that they may have gotten more in terms of economic progress had they done things differently. As a nation we absolutely should have done more to get the economy moving again. I'm not so sure more could have been done though, because the Republicans made it difficult to get a package as good as we got. You've frequently expressed frustration with the inability to properly use a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate as well. Valid criticism but again more complicated than it appears. Joe Lieberman has functioned as a saboteur at least as often as he's been a true member of the caucus though, including on this issue. Several of the others are closer to the more liberal members of the Republican caucus than they are to the rest of the Democratic caucus.

You can see that as making excuses, but I see it as a realistic look at the limits of dealing with a situation in which you're guaranteed to get zero cooperation from the opposition. I'm willing to concede the possibility that different tactics could have turned out better, but I'm not sure how to determine that.

Mixed bag, you may want to go back and look at Charlie Cooks predictions in 2008. You might not want to put to much enthusiasm into what Cook has to say. But hey if he tells you what you want to hear go ahead and follow him over the cliff. Good luck bag.

Don't like Charlie, Mo?

Try Cook's fellow Democrat and political handicapper Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight.com.

Then try Larry Sabato at the non-partisan University of VA Center for Politics.

Try anyone you like.

They're all saying roughly the same thing.

The real question is: Do I trust Charlie Cook's forecast for the midterms more than yours?

Hmmm...that's a tough one, Mo.

Be here the morning after Election Day in November.

I will.

We'll chat then, eh?

Absolutely, Houston. We're right to the edge of repeating the mistakes of 1936/37 that caused the Great Depression to last years longer than it should have. The Republican Party was wrong then, they're wrong now.

Myth #2

Allowing the high-income tax cuts to expire would hurt small businesses.

One of the most common objections to letting the cuts expire for those in the highest tax brackets is that it would hurt small businesses. As Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) recently put it, allowing the cuts to lapse would amount to "a job-killing tax hike on small business during tough economic times."

This claim is misleading. If, as proposed, the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire for the highest earners, the vast majority of small businesses will be unaffected. Less than 2 percent of tax returns reporting small-business income are filed by taxpayers in the top two income brackets -- individuals earning more than about $170,000 a year and families earning more than about $210,000 a year.

And just as most small businesses aren't owned by people in the top income brackets, most people in the top income brackets don't rely mainly on small-business income: According to the Tax Policy Center, such proceeds make up a majority of income for about 40 percent of households in the top income bracket and a third of households in the second-highest bracket. If the objective is to help small businesses, continuing the Bush tax cuts on high-income taxpayers isn't the way to go -- it would miss more than 98 percent of small-business owners and would primarily help people who don't make most of their money off those businesses.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1001423

So after many years of hard work and taking risks they earn the President’s magic number of $250,000 a year. And in many instances, plow back money into their business to help it continue to grow.

President Obama also is trying to get tax credits through Congress for small businesses that hire new employees and that spend money on research and development. So the business people you're praising could still do pretty well without the Bush tax cut if they concentrate on activities that help the economy. The wealthy who ship jobs overseas or use their Bush tax cuts for foreign investmests and or upkeep of their villas on the French Riviera, not so much.

Great point Houston . . . more pesky "facts" that don't fit into the media and/or tea party "narrative".

That 2% figure is factually correct AND highly misleading.

The 98% includes a lot of people that will NEVER be in a position to create a new job such as a sole proprieter contractor that works out of his pick up truck and consider his glove compartment to be his office or the guy who made $600 on E-bay or the house cleaning lady that works alone for 10 customers to support herself and has no interest in being a business owner.

The 2% includes a lot of people that can and will create new jobs such as the owner of a $20 million dollar business that currently employs 100 workers. Below is a report from the Tax Foundation that shows how much of the tax increase will come out of the pockets of small businesses. It's a lot:

September 13, 2010

Over One-Third of New Tax Revenue Would Come from Business Income If High-Income Personal Tax Cuts Expire

Special Report No. 185

Key Findings

• The frequently cited statistic that only 2 or 3 percent of tax returns with business income pay tax in the top two brackets and would face higher tax rates in 2011 is factually accurate but misleading. Those 2 or 3 percent represent the fortunes of larger, growing, profitable businesses whose continued prosperity is important to economic recovery.

• Assuming that business income is the last dollar of income a taxpayer earns, Tax Foundation economists estimate that 39 per­cent of the $629 billion tax increase on high-income taxpayers proposed in the Obama 2011 budget would be extracted from business income. Over ten years then, an extra $246 billion would be taken out of business income.

• In 2007, the federal government taxed more business income under the individual income tax code than under the traditional corporate tax code.

• More than 74 percent of tax filers in the highest tax bracket report business income, compared to 20 percent of those at the lowest bracket.

• Of the roughly $864 billion in taxable business income reported on individual tax returns in 2008, nearly 68 percent was claimed by taxpayers earning over $200,000 and 35 percent was claimed by taxpayers earning over $1 million.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/26696.html

Joe,

If folks were given a tax cut, but we had no way to pay for it, maybe we should ask for a rebate, kind of like how they do with the folks who are unknowingly a part of a ponsy scheme.

How do you like that proposal?

Pay back all of the monies you robbed from the U.S. treasury.

I kind of like it! :o)

Or you could just let the tax cuts expire, continue to hoard your ill gotten gains from that period, and stop your whining.

Either choice works for me.

Houston;

Good points and don't forget the tax break on capital expenditures like new machinery etc at 100%

xyz

Your right w bush and it's the end of America as we know her. And the sad thing is, the teabaggers and republicans don't see it.

Thanks for sharing this article, Pat. What a sobering analysis.

Pat that's a brave stance for a member of the press to take in this day of MSM groupthink. We've dramatically overresponded. Osama may be in a cave somewhere, but he has the satisfaction of knowing that he's goaded us to accomplish much of what he cannot.

Alan,

I am on record saying that letting all of the tax cuts expire is just fine with me. . . we should call it the "Pay for the Iraq War so your great grand kids won't have to" Act.

But under any scenario, no more tax cuts for billionaires. Period.

"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

That is exactly what the Bush tax cuts did in 2001. Gave Filet to the rich and peanuts to the other 98%.

STTS

Me too Nash...

Geeze... what EVER would we do if the biggest dilemma we were facing was making $250K per year and having to pay an additional 3%...

Oh the SHAME! lol

You know what I mean Feisty . . . I don't know how we are gonna sleep at night knowing that rich folks may have to move 3% more of their money into offshore accounts to avoid paying their taxes.

Good grief.

Amazing that so many of us are willing to mortgage the country to the tune of $100,000/year in the pockets of the wealthiest and what do the rest of us get? $100. I guess that makes us a cheap date. Hope that rich guy asks us out again.

I agree Alan, let all the Bush tax cuts expire. No one would notice except the rich if it weren't for the republicans and the media telling everyone how bad it is.

I actually agree with you on letting all the tax cuts expire, but I also think it will be a political disaster for the party in power when it happens. My wife who is not political and works per-diem complained to me the other day about the deductions from her "small" pay check. Between pay-roll and state taxes in NJ she pays almost 40% of her gross.

I understand where the money goes and what is needed but as I said she is not political and I doubt she could name the VP, but if her taxes go up she might actually vote for a party who say they are going to lower them. I know taxes would go up because of the marriage penalty and the child credit reduction. Sad but the political reality.

Alan - let's assume that NOTHING will be passed and the Bush Tax cuts expire. We WILL see an increase in taxes for the middle class which will also include the dreaded AMT.

This is why the President is trying to get legislation through that will PERMANENTLY keep the cuts for those that make under $250,000.

Frankly, I do NOT see the President being successful in getting that middle class tax cut legislation through THIS congress, or even the next one. It will be enough for the GOPers to say that President Obama raised everyone's taxes, and people will believe it.

Although this tactic is more political than not, I have been reading that if the GOPers take over congress, they MAY want to SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT to get what they want. This is an eerie throwback to the Congract with America days with Newt Gingrich.

So THAT is what the GOPers have in mind if they take over Congress...

"Your socialist policies have failed."

No, the Bush policies failed. We lost 2.6 million jobs in the last year of Bush's presidency.

President Obama was forced to pass the stimulus to save jobs and keep the economy from sliding into a Depression.

There is this wonderful new invention called the Internet, which helps keep us accountable. Here's an article you might want to read, to refresh your memory, it's entitled "Worst Year for Jobs since 1945" and it was posted January 9, 2009:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/09/news/economy/jobs_december/

Let's return to un-regulated Capitalism like the Republicans salivate about constantly, that will right the ship, let the greed driven bastards screw the American citizen out of the last few shreds of dignity they have left, comonors should not have money anyhow, just let them live in corporate cubicles and shop at the company store like in the good ol' days right afloatinasea.

Starting off the week with a lot of anger afloatinasea. Pace yourself it's a long week.

Wade,

I will be there voting these Demrat, progressives out.

afloatinasea

I am 99% sure you are of the same pack who gave us George W. Bush. Thanks for nothing.

If the Tea Parties are so independent why are they represented and organized by longtime Republican operatives like Tom Delay and Grover Norquist? Why does so much of the funding come from the same longtime Republicans who've funded the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and similar think tanks for decades? http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=1 If it's so new and different why does the Tea Party want exactly the same things the Republican Party has been working toward for the last 30 years? http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/welcome-republican-tea-party Why are tea partiers overwhelmingly Republican? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/17/cnn-poll-who-are-the-tea-party-activists/?eref=marqueeflipper&fbid=XbKAgA9wIv1

Good job wade, you got all the Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'reilly and Beck talking points in early this morning. Now what are you going to post the rest of the week?

." This is the worst congress ever and the worst president in history, In Nov be American vote these killers of America out of office."

Ok Wade so you and Afloatinasea win, you vote all the "evil progressive" types out in November, replace them with good Republicans, now just what are the good Republicans going to do to put everybody back to work? Do tell. I mean come on they don't have a plan to miraculously "fix" the country they worked for years to destroy, get a grip the country is right where they want it, the rich are getting richer by the day at the expense of everyone else, please look at the facts once, don't vote against your own best interests, again.

W bush - no, if the GOPers get back into office, they plan on shutting down the government. I am sure THAT event will help the problems with this country...

You hit the nail on the head Amy . . . its like watching re-runs.

Bad ones.

The great thing about America is everyone has their opinion. However anyone that finds enjoyment watching the CNN Failed liberal biased extremist Christine Amanpour gives me great pause and concern.

I mean the only person she would ever attract and the reason she failed at CNN are Liberals with no ability to see both sides of an issue. She will fail at ABC as well. Actually ABC,NBC and CBS are all failing their viewership has fallen to the point of absurdity. This week was one of the only good shows ABC had now it is being ruined.

Numbers for the week of August 30, 2010.
NBC ABC CBS
• Total: 8,040,000 6,980,000 5,400,000
• A25-54: 2,360,000 1,710,000 1,640,000

FNC FOX : 15,580.00 So basically more than twice of ABC Three times of CBS and nearly twice of NBC.

OK lets get your numbers straight wade. You say that 15 thousand five hundred eighty is twice as much as 8 million. Even if you take out the period it's still just 1.5 million not even close to twice as much as 8 million. You might want to go back to your source and check the numbers they don't add up. The numbers are probably right you just interpreted them wrong.

BTW: you just explained why your so out of touch whith the rest of America. You watch Fox.

Mo28420:

He is taking math lessons from Dangerfield.

Hoping somehow its gonna reach the rest of the world

LOL... What's the matter Steve... why does putting the FACTS out there bother you so? Could it be you're intimidated that we have the truth on our side and all you've got is chest pounding and bravado?

BTW... there's a lot more than 5 or 6 of us... ;0)

Steve, would you like to explain to the class why disagreeing with Republicans and wanting to make our great country even better is "hatred of the American people"?

Explain please, how your talking point does anything other than seek to drain reason out of the conversation and destroy compromise. I'd be most interested in how advocating policies that would be helpful to the majority of Americans ends up being destructive.

Feisty you have to remember teabaggers can't count, all they know is what Fox tells them. If Fox says there's only 5 or 6 Democrats in the world then teabaggers like Steve believe it.

Yawn.............. you can disagree all you want. but come the Elections of November of this year you will find that you are on the wrong side of the Arguement..

Please keep believing that there are more then 5 or 6 of you if it makes you feel better.. the same posters day after day posting your hate of anything you dont believe. Most of the time you dont even address the Article you just post your vitrol to change the subject off what is usually the failure of this Administration and the Democrats..

I hear you Mo...

Poor Steve can't count either... for someone so bored around here he sure spends a heck of a lot of time lurking! lol

Wonder why he didn't bother to answer John's question?

*yawn*

Yawn........

Feisty, John didnt ask a question.. he spouted Talking points.

You 5 or 6 people can continue day after day after day after day come to FR and spout to the same Liberal Crowd.. You will never Change anyones mind.. but you act as if you're having some kind of effect. Stay on the Sinking ship that is Obama .. I dont care.. The man is a failure and Most of the coutnry knows it.. They like him as a Man but think he is Terrible as a President. I think he is a Nice guy.. His Policies are just wrong..

Most of the time the thoughts you post are not even your own. they are copied and pasted from your daily Breifings then you come here and act as if it is the"Liberal Gospel".. I laugh because it has run its course in this country..

So. Yea.. YAWN..

Whatever brings you some much needed comfort Steve... whatever... lol

I like to think of it as what brings you the most Discomfort.. Because that is what you got coming..

But i am sure after the Novermber Elections we will really See your Hatred Spewed on these pages..

YAWN... Fiesty .. You and your ilk are boring and predictable...

Steve, you said Liberals hate America. I asked you to justify that statement. You refuse. That's all that's required to prove that you HAVE no argument...just stock Conservative narrative. Thanks for playing.

Run along now, apparently it's your nap time.

John,

Yawn.. you and Fiesty fit in the same mold.. Boring and predictable..

did i say Yawn....Cry me a river come november

There you have it folks, an admission from Steve that facts don't matter, only the Conservative talking points as handed down by the billonaire-financed think tanks matter. He's doing a great job of imitating the dismissive attitude that the wannabe-aristocracy of the Conservative Movement feel toward those on lower rungs of the economic ladder.

I'm PROUD to be in the same 'mold' with ya John!

I'll take rational thinking & facts any day over... the daily right wing bleating points!

Yawn..

Same old same old with you John.. Yawn..

and the same with Fiesty.. You guys are just Boring.. I can't wait for november to listen to you snivel even more

And there you have it, again, folks. Steve concedes without presenting anything to back up his statements and only attacks, insults and disparages those who dare to challenge him to present facts and ideas.

Ya just gotta love ole Stevie boy. At least he is consistent.

Steve, the irony of your posts is almost overwhelming.

Isn't it funny when Steve doesn't have anything to say which is all the time, all he can do is yawn and yawn and yawn and yawn and yawn and yawn, well you get the point, it must be past his nap time I'll bet his babysitters mad.

Right you are Mo... can someone..anyone give poor Steve some NO-Doze?

Ok. OK.. .. I conceded that you are all Liberals and that you have nothing to say, except to Stroke each others egos when you say nothing.. Yawn....

I can't wait for November when the American Voter fires a bunch of Democrats in Congress, I will be here Gloating.. Saying I told you so.... Wondering why you stayed on the Sinking Ship.. but hey if you choose to Drown. Its your Choice... .. Now.. Back to MNF...........

It has been widely reported that a Boehner led House will immediately begin investigations of the Obama administration on all sorts of things beginning with the New Black Panther voter intimidation fiasco.

The New Black Panther Party is a half dozen idiots who are unemployed and had nothing better to do than to show up at that polling place in Philadelphia where there were largely ignored!

Boehner and Issa want to investigate these guys with our taxpayer money. Really!

Instead of discouraging these lawmakers from engaging in this bad behaviour the MSM seems to be encouraging them to take on these non-starters.

Sorry MSM, this will not be Clinton redux.

Most of us are hip to you guys. You are looking for ratings any way you can get them and a scandal a day would suit you just fine but the rest of us are interested in things that will make America a better place.

Shelia, MD

I couldn't agree with you more!

All the evidence http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41915.html points to Boehner and the other Republicans IMMEDIATELY taking us in a destructive, divisive, radically Conservative agenda after the election as required by the wealthy masters that pay their way into office.

John B,

Excellent article and I couldn't agree with you more, we've had enough! And I do think that Republicans are betting the farm on a November take over and MSM is trying to sell it, knowing full well that it would mean utter destruction for many of them with portfolio's...

You know where you've been and in the case of the Republican Party...YOU KNOW WHERE YOU"RE GOING with them...in the toilet...circling...ready to flush and Boehner as Speaker of The House will hit the lever.

KeepN it Real:

To quote that noted thespian, Forrest Gump, " stupid is as stupid does"

"and thats all I"m going to say about that"