LouisJ

Headlines Today Reflect an earmark for Lame Ducks and the 30 year Republithugs that are still in office – period of time to continue doing their job even for those that spat upon the job they already accomplished. I'm also sure that the article will be another referendum on Democrats as doing this when they should have done that.

The Media emboldens this message because of all their “analysis” beyond seeing Red and Blue, they do not promote the moral concept behind entitlements.

You are so correct.

What kind of narrative is this the media has? President Barack Obama's readiness to compromise with ascendant Republicans gets a test in Congress before the opposition party even takes control of the House of Representatives. Hey it’s not tea time. it’s coffee with cream and sugar time. They have said“No” to everything for nearly 2 year and now they want to test the President’s willingness. Pleassease

Sen. John Boehner said “extending tax cuts for everyone "will be the most important thing we can do to help create jobs in the country."it’s those kids of statement from the republican/tea Bagger Party which jutiefies Boehner’s tears. the republican/tea Bagger Party certainly are displaying intellect for a Mensa reunion.

Cutting taxes for the rich is so like take a bulldozer that will knock US back into the ditch. Republicans want to cut spending and reduce the size of government. Reduce government jobs, it can be easy get rid of Republican/Tea Party that’s where the problems lie.

Republicans are not embarrassed to flip flop, mainly MCcain, Mitch MConnel, and Ran Paul. If they say Obama will continue to dig a deeper and deeper financial hole in which our children and grandchildren will never be able to climb out, then why do they want to keep earmarks.

Somehow the Republican/Tea Party does not see the benefit of moving forward. Mitch l McConnell's own tally for earmark projects has steadily approached $1 billion according to government watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

LouisJ,

I am gonna have to agree with Carl D. You had some great points going, then as usual, you throw out the race card. Is that your only message, that white people can't stand Obama because he is black? And for some I am sure that is true, but you have never thought that some of his programs are just wrong, or at least parts of his programs are wrong.

And what are entitlements these days? What was Social Security suppose to do in the beginning? Maybe a supplement to one's retirement? Was it suppose to be a person's only retirement? And why now is does it cover people who are not retired? Why can't the system be reformed to make it actually, you get what you pay into the system, instead of depending upon today's workers to take care of today's retirees?

Gee most American families are just getting by, and we have to pay more in taxes to take care of people who did not save for their retirement, and expect more each year. I'd love to debate about all government programs, as long as you don't have to throw out the race card.

Carl D.-580212

I was enjoying your post .. then you had to go and throw the ole race card in there and ruin my experience and make an Ass out of yourself didn't you.. just can't miss an opportunity to throw that out there..we are only talking about earmarks and off you go.. WOW you guys took the the Nov. 2nd election personally didnt you ?? Ta Ta

Then Beverly jumps in with her wisdom less diatribe of nothingness what a combo you two make, Frick and Frack... Cute huh

It's the truth and the fact that the comment was collapsed speaks volumes about your failures to acknowledge peruse and understand the truth. If you are literature readers, I challenge you to read W E B Du Bois, Darkwater: Voices From Within the Veil. It has a piece titled, The Souls of White Folk. I challenge you to view the world through the eyes of black people by reading this and ask yourself if your mind is truly open.

Perhaps this is why Louis is so upset:

"Republicans have already gained as many as 60 seats in Congress, but when GOP gains are looked at on a state-by-state basis, the bloody picture for Democrats nationwide becomes even more gruesome. Several state legislatures made historic transitions to Republican hands-some for the first time since the 19th century-and nearly an entire generation of state Democrats saw its ranks obliterated."

-Jessica Taylor, Politico, November 16, 2010-

President Obama's supporters must rationalize this disaster somehow.

Hurling accusations of racism is much easier than accepting the harsh truth...that the electorate has issued an unequivocal rejection of the Democrats' stewardship of the economy and the policy agenda of President Obama.

Many First Readers simply can't get their minds around what happened in the midterm elections...and they're lashing out.

That's all this is.

Sorry Mixed Bag of Nuts, but life goes a little deeper than a political issue. There are many issues that are embedded that you guys just fail to understand. Philosophy is not in the repertoire of the Republithug thought process, case in point, always saying "NO". There's no thought to that, very easy to say.

But people that think beyond circumstances and benefits, say "yes" and back that up with a plan and action. These type of people have been attributed as being progressive. These are innovative thoughts and ideas practiced through stagnant and hard times.

But hey, I'll be back to post again and you can collapse my comment again. It will not matter. I will give my thoughts as you give yours. Just know that I don't report you, nor take action to suppress your voice.

LouisJ,

Is your mind truly open? Sometimes we have to look in the mirror before judging others. Besides, I have never met anyone who's mind was truly open to everything, although I have seen many that have tried to be, yet somewhere, sometime, they themselves have be bias.

My mind is open enough to the fact that there are people in this world that blindly follow some unseen force that would otherwise imprison their abilities to comprehend the structure of government and how it is supposed to function. Listening to Talking Heads day in and day out as their guiding light is the most dangerous and irresponsible thing anyone can do to Democracy and its purpose. It doesn't allow people to think for themselves. That's not judgment, it's mere observation.

LouisJ,

Since we both seem to be somewhat open minded. What should we do about the entitlement programs of the USA? How should they be funded? What should be cut out of them?

The problem starts with the actual term "Entitlement". Entitlement is a misused term of the poor stealing from the rich. That's a lie from the Devil.

Entitlement is the practice of a rich and well meaning nation, its people and governance to help the less fortunate. It is inscribed in the annals of Liberty...

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

If that isn't enough, the Bible tells us, "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." Matt 11:28

You know, for all the Republican TEA Drinkers that keep beating the message of hate with the Bible, they would do well to actually follow it. My Bible says to help the less fortunate. "Give" is the most used term in the Bible (over 2000 times), even more than "love".

louisj - and you fit right in

My mind is open enough to the fact that there are people in this world that blindly follow some unseen force that would otherwise imprison their abilities to comprehend the structure of government and how it is supposed to function

Since you are of such an open mind and full of knowledge on how the government functions I anxiously await your response to big bears request. Please don't forget verifiable and preferably neutral links to support your side.

"...and you fit right in"? What does that mean? And I answered his question... even gave the most needed quotes in the worst of times.

You use the American moniker... I assumed you knew.

LouisJ,

I am so glad that you can quote the statue of liberty & the bible. Where is the open mind? Is it the responsibility of our government to take care of everyone?

Case in point – the elderly Republican that was cozy in their Social Security and Medicare all of a sudden heard some cries from the Republithugs that their entitlements were jeopardized by entitlements of others through the redistribution of wealth from a poverty stricken populace that actually contributed to their entitlements (the elderly that are drawing Medicare and Social Security). If that didn’t confuse you, then that’s the purpose

You started the talk about entitlement programs, the programs that will bankrupt the system in the future if they are not controlled, or reformed. What plan do you have?

I will re-submit a plan that I have.

My plan, as stated before, is start say on January 1, 1990 with a new system. That system would do the following.

Employee pays 6.5% of salary into Social Security under their Social Security Number.

Their Employer pays 6.5% of salary into Social Security under the employees SS#

Each year that SS# gets a 3% APR on the money they put into their SS account.

At the average private sector salary of $37.000 the employee would put $2405 in their account, while their employer puts in $2405 and on December 31 of the next year, the government places .03% into their account. 1st year interest would be $144.30

After 10 years w/o salary changes that person would have $56,795.50

After 20 years w/o salary changes that person would have $133,123.90

After 30 years w/o salary changes that person would have $235, 702.88

After 40 years w/o salary changes that person would have $373,560.46

After 50 years (making that person 70), w/o salary changes that person would have $558,828.52

whatever they have in their accounts, is what they have for retirement. They keep getting their interest, if they keep working they keep replacing their money.

Other items, their accounts do not go to the federal government when they die, it gets handed down to the dependents, split among all beneficiaries listed. Equally.

Everyone prior to January 1, 1990, they stay on the same plan, those working keep paying the same, and we raise, yes I am saying raise, the federal gas tax to 20 cents, taking 2 cents per gallon and placing it in the SS system 1 cent per gallon to keep the old system going, 1 cent per gallon to pay the interest for the new program, until all those born prior to January 1, 1990 have passed away. Then the 2 cents per gallon would be used to pay help pay the interest for the new program.

So LouisJ, Can you help us out here, help out a plan to carry to Americans and let them vote on it?

You're talking about privatization... it would likely collapse before it even began especially with today's shady economy.

Social Security goes well beyond moving numbers around. But numbers is obviously the only motive behind many that wish to privatize it. There is also the fact that it benefits all people and not just the people that invest in it. How do you suppose to help people that are out of work, underemployed? Those that are sick? Those that have nothing because of circumstances where someone that had something took everything from them?

There are more questions to such a complex issue that putting a monetary theory into place defeats the simple purpose of what Life, Liberty and Freedom represent.

But if a business would be willing to invest, then they need to be help liable for any misrepresentation and there certainly would be plenty of that. I'm always open to differing ideas, but I ask this question, do they benefit all as the Social Security system is designed to? Assuredly not.

Actually Louis,

I don't think of it as privatization like those in the GOP. I don't want to allow outside investors to get their hands on this money. Because we are using it to protect people in their retirement years. But yes, your account would be your private account--based on your social security number. What you have in your account when you decide to retire is what you have to spread over the years.

Why wouldn't it benefit all of those who pay into the system? What we are saying today is that people are not responsible enough to save on their own. But our system is flawed, because we have to many discrepancies in the system. A system that use to have 154 workers per retiree (1940) to 2.9 workers per retiree (2009). By using my system, the average employee at the average salary would save about 13% of their money, up from the less than 11% we save today--ABC last night comparing us to China. (Chinese workers save an average of 22% of their money). So if the Average American saved just 10% on their own, plus had this 13%-with accrued interest, then they would have over 20% savings during their retirement.

And Louis, taking your last line, I think it would help out more, because Social Security is suppose to be a supplement to ones retirement, not their only retirement.

Big Bear - interesting concept. So how would you keep 'outside investors' from getting their hands on the money?

I had a conversation with Bill, Fairfax, VA about this very subject. He had the same sort of idea as you do. I stated that MAYBE we should invest - if we were investing anything at all - into Municipal stocks/bonds and utilities, as this would be a DIRECT investment in our infrastructure. Municipalities have to pay for the bond issues that they float, correct? How many municipalities have gone bankrupt and did NOT pay back those bonds? (I would venture to say very few).

It is an interesting concept, but I think that Wall Street and any hedge fund that has anything to do with Wall Street should be forbidden... but who knows? Someone could change the laws... like the dud with Glass-Steagal...

Pietro,

I am kind of like you, I don't want wall street in the SS reform. My plan is based on just our and our employer SS payments, plus 3% each year as a rate of return.

My thought is, our government is never going to get rid of SS. I can live with that. So instead of depending upon workers today to pay for retirees today, what we put in is what we get out. We don't save enough as Americans for our own retirement, and since SS is suppose to be a supplement to our retirement, we would at least save 13%.

Ther are about 5 0r 6 of you that have made a professional leftist club out of the First Read, even Chuck Todd is going to get tired of you soon.

Here's a helpful hint for you J. Weasily... There are a hell of a lot more than 5 or 6 of us and we were here long before you were and will be here long after your gone! So continue on with your daily WHINE!

Oh and another helpful hint - would you use the freakin spell check for a change? It might just might make you sound a bit more intelligent!

Bg bear - I agree - Social Security is NOT going away anytime soon, no matter how much whining we hear about it. What I am getting from your post is that if we can make a little on the money in Social Security - like 3% a year - that would definitely help, as long as we can control where the investment is.

Again, I think this is a good idea as long as the investment is a SAFE one and NOT Wall Street connected.

j wesley...you have to understand, the proffesional lefties club here is the only place they can get away with it; it is, afterall, an MSN site. No respected thread would have them. This is the only place they can come with their "facts" and have people actually engage them.

I keep telling them that the jig is up, the emperor has no clothes, and the fat lady has sung on their progressive, socialist agenda, but they keep coming back. They don't seem to have the ability to learn...go figure.

It seems feisty has taken up Paul's job today; usually he is the spelling police. He must be busy condescending to others on another thread.

Seems the right is on a supposed left site trying to convert them. When it is obvious that there are really no weak minded folks here, they whine.

True......

No respected thread would have them. This is the only place they can come with their "facts" and have people actually engage them.

I keep telling them that the jig is up, the emperor has no clothes, and the fat lady has sung on their progressive, socialist agenda, but they keep coming back. They don't seem to have the ability to learn...go figure.

I have a few questions....What other respected thread are you on? If you feel they should not be engaged why are you engaging them? If you don't think they are learning why do you keep on trying to teach? Do you think everyone should leave you on this thread so you can have conversations with yourself? or are you hoping everyone will leave and you'll just have the ones you can brainwash or are in the tank with you.

Could it be that you were brainwashed, sent here to try and do the same to others and since its obvious that the people on this thread are intelligent freethinking people, who take the time to educate themselves, rather than like you, who have a ring in your nose and react only to the pull? You must be a closet progressive , socialist wannabe.

It is so obvious that you envy Paul, since your feeble attempt at condescension is so lame.

J.....They were here before you came and will be here long after you are gone.

Nice touch Fletch... VERY NICE! ;0)

Some of us old timers have been contributing to First Read & First Thoughts for years!

As far as I'm concerned... there is no better blog around!

LouisJ-

Why would I vote to collapse your post?

In doing so, I would also be collapsing my own response to your remarks.

I'm having trouble deciding whether you're extremely paranoid, just plain silly, or an amusing combination of the two.

While your comment was undeniably offensive, and a blatant example of left-wing race baiting, those are terrific reasons for it to be seen by everyone.

I have no desire whatsoever to restrain your nonsensical ranting.

Quite the opposite, LouisJ...I encourage it.

Mixed Bag of Nuts, it sounds like you are either acknowledging you are a collapser or you just want attention, neither of which are a quality I'm sure your mother would be proud of.

The debate on how to reform the social security program is a very good one. There are no free lunches. Legislating a solution should not be so difficult if the miss-information could be taken out of the mix. The idea to have the neewest entrants into the workforce who have not yet paid any dollars in get individual accounts rather than the current ponzi scheme where a new entrant pays for those collecting has the most merit. After fifty years the problem would be completely eliminated. It has taken more than fifty years to get to the point we are now.

Republicans playing Small Ball....

Earmarks are chump change when compared to Bushs tax cuts, yet the republicans made it their rally cry during the elections and today want to make it seem as though they are championing some great cause.

Similar to their "concern" over "small businesses"....code for massive corporations that put out the cash for our elections.....

How do we not see the wolf in sheeps clothing? It's not even a good costume.

Please Ron, we just voted for a President who had no executive experience. His main resume item was that he was in charge of his campaign.

Before that we voted for a President who ran Texas. That didn't turn out too good either. And you're complaining about congressmen? Out of interest how many democrats had "no political experience" in 2006 and 2008?

In my view, Dick Armey, Karl Rove and the others are planning to "indoctrinate" the TPers into their republican establishment. I don't think it will work; there have been rumblings from the original TPers about the GOP trying to take over their party. The TPers may just be a band of merry mischief makers; McConnell and Boehner may be smiling today but come January, they likely will find their established GOP without much power or control over this new crop and they may find they've been pulled down the rabbit hole with them. It should be interesting to watch.

Ron Indiana

The new Congress will have over 90 freshmen coming to Washington. Many have had no political experience, but in this day and age, no experience is necessary. Dick Armey, founder of Freedom Works, sponsored their own orientation for new Tea Party members. I'm told there were sessions on a variety of topics including economics, winning tactics, how to deal with the media, and how to "Take Back our Country".

I couldn't help but wonder, why the special orientation? Could it be that Armey plans to subvert the leadership of the Speaker of the House? Is Armey creating his own group of followers? It looks like it.

Yes, they want to take her fierceness away. But, it'll never happen. She is a strong woman.

I think Armey needs to slow his role especially since Karl Rove is facing racketeering, money laundering and election fraud charges.

Ron;

Welcome back, hope all is well. Good points. I am waiting to see how the tea party group is going to respond when they find out that they were used to win an election and the republican die hards have no intention to listen to them. Boehner, McConnell and the big money is going to tell them what to do, period. If they do not, they will just tell them we have enough money to buy somebody else if you do not want to play ball our way. And that is what they will do.

The US Chamber of Commerce and the other "Special Interest Groups" are already gearing up and holding meetings with these new recruits pushing their agenda. It is now pay back time and their Sugar Daddies want their piece of the action in repealing Health Care Reform, Financial Reform etc. Not because these are bad bills, because they do help ALL Americans, they want to repeal them because Wall Street, Big Business and the richest 2% want more of the pie and these bills will hamper their desire for more Greed and Power. It is that simple.

Good Morning Ron & Welcome Back! You were missed! ;0)

Speaking of the TeaParty/Baggers... I found this little gem from the loose cannon Rand Paul:

Rand Paul Again Comes To BP's Defense: Obama's Tough Stance 'Sends The Wrong Signal'

Late last month, President Obama's commission investigating this summer's devastating Gulf oil spill found that BP and its contractor Haliburton "knew weeks before the fatal explosion…that the cement mixture they planned to use to seal the bottom of the well was unstable but still went ahead with the job." "There is no indication that Halliburton highlighted to BP the significance of the foam stability data or that BP personnel raised any questions about it," the panel's lead investigator wrote. Despite this finding, when asked about the spill on CBS's Face the Nation yesterday, Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R-KY) came to BP's defense, saying the Obama administration's strong language towards BP "sends the wrong signal":

PAUL: But I don't think an American president should be talking about putting the boot heel on the throat of a corporation because it sends the wrong signal that the government is the enemy somehow of business. And we need to always recognize that one in 10 businesses succeeds. We need to do everything we can to encourage business because that's where the jobs are created.

As host Bob Schieffer noted, this is not the first time that Paul has stuck up for the oil giant. This summer, he called the administration's pressure on BP — a foreign company — to clean up the spill "un-American." (In the Face the Nation interview, Paul admitted this was a "poor choice of words.") Paul's comments exemplify tea party Republicans' blind hatred for government regulation of dangerous businesses like mining and oil drilling. In August, Paul suggested that mine safety regulations were uncessary because the free market would take care of the problem — "no one will apply" for jobs at dangerous mines, he naively explained. Of course, those comments followed a disaster at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia — which had been cited with thousands of safety violations — where 29 workers were killed in April.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/15/paul-bp-signal/

What astonishes me is... Mr. Paul appears to have NO issues with one of his supporters literally putting his boot on the neck on a woman outside of the venue of his final debate!!!

Navy: It's good to be back! While away, I did check in on FR and found you to be doing a great job carrying the water for many progressive. Today's post is excellent. Laundering foreigh money through the CoC is not the American way.

Thanks Feisty, Bev, and Jody. You all have been taking care of business the last week or so.

Ron,

Laundering foreigh money through the CoC is not the American way

And of course you have ANY proof of that?

Libs are still fighting the Chamber of Commerce I see. What's next, telling us how Dick Armey and Karl Rove are running the world. Whoops, already covered above.

Tell us, do you see any black helicopters out your windows?

JoAnnaSmith1

Libs are still fighting the Chamber of Commerce I see. What's next, telling us how Dick Armey and Karl Rove are running the world. Whoops, already covered above.

Tell us, do you see any black helicopters out your windows?

Lady Jo Anna

Thou art loose today; aren't thee?. Methinks the lady doth have a foolish thought, to say a sorry sight.

If your point, Ron, is that you want to be governed by professional politicians, rather than citizen legislators, then I suggest you seek residence in some other, more structured country. Perhaps the Middle East would suit you?

It so happens that this country's Founders never envisioned the sort of professionals whose lack you bemoan in the new congress. They saw the danger in that, and so structured the election cycle so that, should any elected congress get the idea that they might impose legislation without the consent of the governed, they might be removed from office somewhat expeditiously.

The system worked perfectly this cycle. I am guessing you felt it a thing of beauty in, say, 2006. Your criticism stems, I am betting, from the outcome this cycle. Too bad. The system remains in place whether the outcome suits you, or does not.

Laundering foreigh money through the CoC is not the American way

Chef Darrell: And of course you have ANY proof of that?

The Liberals don't need proof. It's not about facts, it's just a rallying point for them. Just one more thing for them to be po-ed about.

Alan, NJ. Ron can address your question to him but I have something to say about the constant belittling of President Obama's experience. President Obama has experience, just not the kind republicans embrace. He was an Illinois State Senator and state senators do not have a large staff to do all their work for them, they do the work themselves. Experience in state or local government offices provides insight into government however big or small. The right belittles being a community organizer but fails to recognize how difficult a job that is and it does involve "executive" skills. The right demeans community organizer and State Senator yet acknowledges that for all Pres Bush's "executive experience", he was a disaster. President Obama's incredible intellectual abilities are why voters chose him. Just because a person has or does not have "executive" experience does not mean that translates automatically into success or failure--it is what that person does with their abilities, their talents above and beyond experience that matters.

nj nb nj,

The system remains in place whether the outcome suits you, or does not.

Finally! A voice of reason!

@Jody

"Just because a person has or does not have "executive" experience does not mean that translates automatically into success or failure--it is what that person does with their abilities, their talents above and beyond experience that matters."

So you just made my argument against Ron that a lack of political experience is irrelevant for the freshman congressmen. If you read Ron's post and then mine you would see that I used President Obama's lack of executive experience as an argument against Ron's post. I did not belittle his lack of experience I was using it to make a point.

Alan -

President Obama had no executive experience? My God man, he was a Senator of the United States.

The GOPers who have embraced the Tea Party are in for a rude awakening. I mentioned this before the election. The GOP's Version of the Tea Party was co-opted for their energy, especially since the RNC was doing nothing to help their cause.

Like I stated before, the GOP's version of the tea party is like a rocket engine that CANNOT be turned off. That energy has propelled the GOP back into the leadership of the House. What is going to be interesting is to see how the GOP is going to 'control' this energy.

With Dick Armey providing 'orientation' for the Tea party members who were elected, do you think that they will just 'sit down , shut up and wait their turn' when the GOP leadership, as incompetent as it is, tells them to? The GOP is miscalculating - again. The GOP's version of the Tea Party, as it currently stands, will devour the more moderate GOPers and cause the whole party to become more radical.

It will be interesting to see how they govern. I, for one am not holdnig my breath.

This one is for Alan, NJ and for all who denigrade President Obama's 'experience', all one has to do is look at President Bush. He was the Governor of Texas; he ran multiple businesses; he had the 'perfect' resume for running a country.

We all know what kind of disaster President Bush was.

You can draw your own conclusions, but it seems that this 'comunity organiser' had enough sense and fortitude to keep the the world economy for collapsing. It seems that this 'community organiser' has turned around the job losses, which were in the thousands when he took office. It seems that this 'community organiser' got his Health care package passed - something that Presidents for 50 years tried to do and failed. You may not LIKE the package, but it is definitely a MAJOR legislative achievement that this 'community organiser' accomplished.

Maybe we should look at what 'community organisers' do and learn some lessons from them instead of denigrading what they are. It seems like this one gets things done.

Amazing that those who whine the most about facts offer none, they whine about ideas and offer none. They trash a Disclosure bill that had 59 Yes votes to 39 No votes in the Senate that would have forced the US COC and all the other "Special Interest Groups" to disclose where the money was coming from. Why did they do this, what are they trying to hide? So they could cover the own arses and then make the statement show me the proof when they and the SCOTUS made sure that they did not have to. People try and hide things for a reason, and it very seldom is a good one. I still want to know why 2 republican Senators did not vote?

Nobody knows where he money is coming from for sure, but we do know that the US COC is in bed with China, India etc. Still running Seminars on how to farm jobs overseas using tax loopholes to make money while doing it, and by the way, the republicans also stopped the bill that would have closed the loopholes.

@ Tom

"President Obama had no executive experience? My God man, he was a Senator of the United States."

ex·ec·u·tive (g-zky-tv)n.

1. A person or group having administrative or managerial authority in an organization.
2. The chief officer of a government, state, or political division.
3. The branch of government charged with putting into effect a country's laws and the administering of its functions.

And your point is?

re Legislative vs Executive branches of government

NJ: Again you missed the point, To me,it matters not how many times a person has been elected to the House or Senate. The right wing likes to call incumbents "professional politicians." It is not a dirty word. There are elected officials in both parties coming from "safe districts" whose primary home is Washington, DC.

My point is that the Tea Party continues to be busy doing some of the activities mentioned above. One could argue that the TP took over the GOP as early as 18 months ago, and they have continued on that quest.

Your assumption that my comments stem from the results of this cycle are also false. I'm simply describing what I see. The TP continues to be very active and Progressives need to do a better job telling their story. That is one of the many lessons learned in the past election.

"Chef Darrell

Ron,

Laundering foreigh money through the CoC is not the American way

And of course you have ANY proof of that?

• 4

• !

#2.7 - Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:50 AM CST"

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

Chef, that's funny dude, I mean you sound like Perry Mason or something with that "have any proof of that" line, truth is anytime some one asks "have any proof of that" they are usually hiding something, the Chamber of Commerce is a dirty organization, maybe you think they are "above" taking money from anyone who will give it, most would disagree, court is adjourned.

w bush:

Thanks for the back-up. I guess Chef Darrell is the only one in the country who didn't know. Perhaps he needs to get out of the kitchen more often.

@ Pietro

"This one is for Alan, NJ and for all who denigrade President Obama's 'experience', all one has to do is look at President Bush. He was the Governor of Texas; he ran multiple businesses; he had the 'perfect' resume for running a country."

I did not denigrate president Obama's experience, I cited his lack of executive experience to make a point against Ron's comment on the political inexperience of the congressional freshmen.

On President Bush's experience. I was not impressed by the way he ran Texas, nor by his many failed businesses, so I disagree with your assertion that he had a "perfect" resume.

BTW Still waiting for the oceans to stop rising and for the planet to heal. Do we have an update on the schedule?

Pietro;

Good morning. How true. The republicans still deny that they caused this mess and we the American people are still paying for it and that is why, in part, we have a record deficit. We are still paying the bills that President Bush made for the two unfunded wars (one based on lies and the other mismanaged), two unfunded Tax Cuts that gave more than 50% of the benefits to the richest 2%, and they want us to do that again. The republican/tea party wants us to give the richest 2% the same Tax Cuts they had before and get another 50% or more of the benefits. If we do not, then the Middle Class cannot have their Tax Cuts. And, not forget the unfunded prescription drug program, reduce regulations on Energy companies that has resulted in deaths of their employees in search of Greed and Power.

They want America to go back to that Agenda so they can get the rest of the scraps they missed the first time.

This is not good for America in the long run. And now Scalia is supporting taking away our right to vote by repealing the 17th Amendment.

My God, these people have no shame, if something is illegal they get the SCOTUS to make it legal and then the republicans destroy a bill that would have corrected the SCOTUS sell out of America. Just look at the deeds of the republicans this last 20+ months (over 400 Bills tied up in the Senate) and connect the dots.

Alan, NJ - I did not discount your rebuttal against Ron, Indiana. What I pointed out is that people always want to point to 'experience' when they are talkingabout the President. I just pointed out that President Bush had the 'perfect' experience/resume - he ran a state, he ran multiple businesses, he had an MBA.

What could be more perfect than that for the position of 'Chief executive'?

My point is that the ACTIONS speak volumes. Did President Bush's actions betray his 'experience'? I believe the anwer is yes. Does President Obama's actions betray his 'experience'? I would have to say YES again, and the jury is still out on a definitive yes until his term is over where we make our final assessment.

USNAVY - whenever we have some group(s) that want to 'repeal' Constitutional Amendments, then I have a problem with those groups. Those Constitutional Amendments are there for a reason. They are there to PROTECT Americans and AMERICA from some outside influence(s) to take control. If we have a SCOTUS judge that is entertaining these arguments, then we need to take steps to remove that judge from the bench. That SCOTUS justice is there to UPHOLD the Constitution, not DISMANTLE it.

Pietro, he ran a state and multiple businesses badly, hardly the "perfect" resume.

There goes Navy, reciting the same ole song and dance. Always blaming Bush and the GOP for something.

Never mind that Clinton was the one that deregulated the housing industry that really lead to the decline of the housing market. He could have vetoed that bill, but didn't, Congress had no way to override it, especially by 2/3 votes. heck the GOP had only 55 senators that year, it would take, if math serves me correct, 67 votes to carry 2/3 in the senate. And although, I agree with Navy, Clinton did have surplus budgets, he really never reduced the debt. And that is what we should be talking about.

And again, most of you hate the wealthy so much, why should they be expected to pay 35% of the earnings to the national government, when last year 47% paid nothing in income taxes? Are you all so filled with hate that you really don't want fairness, you just want someone to pay the bills so that 47%, 50% can get a free ride? When you all decide that being fair includes everyone, then get back to me, but until then, come up with solutions instead of blaming someone.

Pietro,

Good to read you this morning. I actually understood all the points that were made about experience and non-experience. Ah, the spins on here.

And I back you 100 percent on the Judge thing. I believe judges, federal judges are there to interpret the Constitution and the laws of the land, not to legislate from the bench. And those that do, conservative, moderate, or liberal, should be impeached. And any judge that publicly admits to wanting to change amendments, or the constitution should be removed rather quickly. It is not their job to make law, it is to interpret law.

Great comment early this morning.

Before we get rid of earmarks let's give ourselves a raise!!!
Our government officials are a joke, to think that they're allowed to provide themselves with a raise before the election and did it!!!
Knowing that we are in a big recession and most families can barely find a way to put food on the table these son of a bi+@%^#$ still find a way to give themselves a raise.

NOT WITH MY TAX DOLLARS YOU DON'T!!!!

You will have one less person paying taxes this year especially with the way that you people in congress are cheating in this game of finance. You pay my taxes with the raises that you've received.
It is trully not your money anyway but it is all of ours.
I don't care what happens anymore!!!
All I know is that I won't be one of the citizens that you take advantage of!!!!

STOP WITH THE NON-SENSE!!!!

Alan, NJ - I do not disagree with you about President Bush. however, if you look at 'experience' through the prism of 'accomplishments', then yes, President Bush DID have the 'perfect' resume.

Business owner.

Governor of a LARGE State.

Ivy League school Grad.

MBA.

Military Service as a pilot.

All of these items packaged together helped propel President Bush past Vice-President Gore in 2000.

The mere fact that President Obama was heavy on the Academic acomplishments, many still see him as 'just' a 'community organiser'.

Its all in the packaging, and that was the thrust of my post.

Navy guy, Ron, etc.

Annenberg Public Policy Center's Factcheck.org:

"Democrats, from President Barack Obama on down, are trying to turn an evidence-free allegation into a major campaign theme, claiming that foreign corporations are 'stealing our democracy' with secret, illegal contributions funneled through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It's a claim with little basis in fact."

But there is a real culprit of foreign millions being funneled into our elections. The real culprit -Unions. According to financial reports filed with the Labor Department, $46 million from foreign sources was was received by unions in 2008 alone.

Funny part is that the vast majority of foreign money to unions is easily hidden and not reported. Seems all the unions have to do is develop subsidiaries (such as the AFL-CIO affiliated Working America), or trusts in which unions have an interest (credit unions, pension plans, training funds, strike funds, apprenticeship programs, on and on....) - collect foreign money into these entities then move it around as they seem fit and donate it to Obama and the Dems. No trace.

Another thing - All the illegal aliens union dues? That's not foreign money? What about the reports regarding that in some cases as much as 60% of union members resent their dues being used for political purposes against their input/voice?

6 out of 10 of the largest contributors are unions. Unions give 93% to the Dems. The AFSCME alone gave $87.5 million in the last election cycle.

BTW - Big Business? Dems got 52% of that.

And you guys are still pathetically crying and whining about the Chamber of Commerce?

Conservatives are OK with hundreds of millions of dollars in anonymous funding for political campaigns. You're OK with the lack of transparency creating questions about who exactly is buying those votes. You're comfortable with policy being decided on under the table bribery. It isn't necessary to tell us that, we get it.

The point is that it's still wrong, and a strong majority of Americans knows it.

Bob - this issue is that WE DO NOT KNOW WHERE the money is coming from when it is coming from the Chamber of Commerce. You cited figures about Unions, and you could because THEY PUBLISH WHERE THE MONEY IS COMING FROM.

This is the issue.

I really don't care on WHOM the money is spent as long as we know WHERE it is coming from. If the Government of North Korea decided to pump millions into a Presidential campaign, would you NOT want to know where the money came from? Would you be WILLING to take North Korean money as long as YOUR candidate is the one that wins?

And if YOUR candidate wins, don't you think that he/she would have an OBLIGATION to the one who helped them get into office in the first place?

Candidates remember who gave the most money, too. So when a trade deal comes up, and North Korea gave millions to the Presidental campaign (for example), do you think that the Candidate that won on North Korean money would NOT give North Korea preference - even if it is at the detriment of AMERICA?

These are the arguments that we will be having if we do NOT have DISCLOSURE - on all sides - of where the money is coming from.

USNAVY is right to continue bringing up this issue. We ALL need to know - no matter what stripe you are politically - because OUR ability to control our own destiny is at risk.

Good Morning Ron & Welcome Back! You were missed! ;0)

Speaking of the TeaParty/Baggers... I found this little gem from the loose cannon Rand Paul:

Rand Paul Again Comes To BP's Defense: Obama's Tough Stance 'Sends The Wrong Signal'

Late last month, President Obama's commission investigating this summer's devastating Gulf oil spill found that BP and its contractor Haliburton "knew weeks before the fatal explosion…that the cement mixture they planned to use to seal the bottom of the well was unstable but still went ahead with the job." "There is no indication that Halliburton highlighted to BP the significance of the foam stability data or that BP personnel raised any questions about it," the panel's lead investigator wrote. Despite this finding, when asked about the spill on CBS's Face the Nation yesterday, Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R-KY) came to BP's defense, saying the Obama administration's strong language towards BP "sends the wrong signal":

PAUL: But I don't think an American president should be talking about putting the boot heel on the throat of a corporation because it sends the wrong signal that the government is the enemy somehow of business. And we need to always recognize that one in 10 businesses succeeds. We need to do everything we can to encourage business because that's where the jobs are created.

As host Bob Schieffer noted, this is not the first time that Paul has stuck up for the oil giant. This summer, he called the administration's pressure on BP — a foreign company — to clean up the spill "un-American." (In the Face the Nation interview, Paul admitted this was a "poor choice of words.") Paul's comments exemplify tea party Republicans' blind hatred for government regulation of dangerous businesses like mining and oil drilling. In August, Paul suggested that mine safety regulations were uncessary because the free market would take care of the problem — "no one will apply" for jobs at dangerous mines, he naively explained. Of course, those comments followed a disaster at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia — which had been cited with thousands of safety violations — where 29 workers were killed in April.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/15/paul-bp-signal/

What astonishes me is... Mr. Paul appears to have NO issues with one of his supporters literally putting his boot on the neck on a woman outside of the venue of his final debate!!!

Sure John,

Tell that to Obama.

Funny, Obama's labor secretary is Hilda Solis, who happens to been a California congresswoman that was a former director and treasurer of American Rights at Work, an organization funded by AFL-CIO/other unions. As a congresswoman, she voted with the AFL-CIO 97% of the time and by the way received 75% of her campaign funds from organized labor.

There was legislation, T-1, that was to clean up the mess. She came in and stopped it in its tracks. The new rule was proposed on Feb. 2, 2010 and removed the requirement that financial information be disclosed for organizations that are not wholly owned subsidiaries of a single union. So in other words, all they have to do is join a few friends and the public is in the dark.

That's Obama's fix.

Well, protecting/hiding foreign money to unions and then blaming the Chamber of Commerce.

Ron, w bush, et al.

Chef, that's funny dude, I mean you sound like Perry Mason or something with that "have any proof of that" line, truth is anytime some one asks "have any proof of that" they are usually hiding something, the Chamber of Commerce is a dirty organization, maybe you think they are "above" taking money from anyone who will give it, most would disagree, court is adjourned.

How exactly is "court adjourned"? You haven't offerred ANY evidence that the CoC has done anything wrong. If they have, fine, show me the money and I'll be all for lambasting them. Foreign money doesn't belong in our political system (unless of course, the president is courting China to get them to prop up his failing administration). Until you can get your heads out of your collective arses and offer ANYTHING of subtance beyond conspiracy theorist laden rhetoric, you have no case.

I'm confused.

People in this country don't care where the money comes from. But they do care how much of it there is and where it is spent.

People in this country decry the lack of experience of the President, many of his cabinet, leaders in the congress, members of the Supreme Court. But they are fine with "citizen legislators."

I'm confused...

fielden,

Citizen legislators are Of the people...

As far as the chief executive, I would like him to have executive experience.

Other officials I would prefer not to cheat on their taxes or hire illegals.

Money, at least in American elections, should come from American sources.

Pietro,

YOU DO NOT WHERE THE MONEY IS COMING FROM WHEN IT IS COMING FROM UNIONS, except for the confiscated dues against the will of many/most of the members.

And you guys obsess over the little Chamber of Commerce? The Chamber is nothing but a few pennies and a wad of lint compared to the stuffed pockets of the unions!

About knowing where the money comes from/North Korea example? Sure. Let's start with the BIG MONEY, not the lint.

Candidates remember who gave the most money? Duh. Read #2.37 about Solis!

In the last election, Business - 52% to Dems / 47% to Repubs; Labor - 93% to Dems / 6% to Repubs; Ideological - 61% to Dems / 38% to Repubs; Other - 73% to Dems / 27% to Repubs.

And you guys whine about the Chamber of Commerce!

USNay, has seen this before and has never been able to dispute anything. He can gutlessly keep posting his tripe, but that doesn't make it valid. You guys need to pull your head out.

Who can come up with some figures on how much unions contributed to this election cycle and how much "anonymous funders" including CoC, Americans for Progress, and similar kicked in? Without that the complaining about unions is just vague weasel words.

Coc, AFP, American Crossroads, and others are taking ANONYMOUS contributions so the public won't know what's being purchased from the seats they're buying. Anonymous is hidden, hidden is bad for our democracy. No weasel words there, it's a basic principle of fighting corruption.

So you're saying a funding source for the reps is bad, while funding sources for the dems is good?

Bob - you are totally discounting my example of the money coming from the North Koreans. That's OK though. The real question is this, Bob - just whom are you WILLING TO TAKE MONEY from to help get YOUR candidate elected?

For all you know, many of the Republicans in Congress MAY HAVE BEEN ELECTED using money from Al Queda and the Taliban!! How can you prove otherwise if the donations are NOT DISCLOSED? How can you be sure that the money did not come from Yemen? or Saudi Arabia? or Dubai?

How would that play in Middle America when they find out that the money we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan - paying people to not fight - is the same money being used by the Taliban and Iraqis to buy elections here in the United States??

THAT is our point and that is why we want to have FULL DISCLOSURE on where the money comes from.

Isn't that argument from ignorance? We don't know where the money is coming from so it must be from Al Qaeda, or North Korea, etc. Your argument loses validity when you do crap like that.

No, Chef Darrell, that is my point.

You CANNOT prove me to be a liar because there is no disclosure as to where the funds came from!! Could the money be coming from Al Qaeda? Possibly. I can't prove that the money is, and you cannot prove that the money is NOT.

The fact of the matter is this - we DO NOT KNOW WHERE the funds are coming from that are being funnelled through the Chamber of Commerce. The money could be coming from ANYWHERE.

Pietro,

No you don't. You don't want full disclosure for unions and all the Dem donators - you just want full disclosure on the Repub contributors.

"Republicans in Congress MAY HAVE BEEN ELECTED using money from Al Quaeda and the Taliban!"

Good point to bring up there, Pietro. Who do you think Al Quaeda would support? The party that built GITMO, or the party that vowed the first thing, the most important thing, was to shut it down. The party that waterboarded KSM 180 times, got him to spill the beans and was going to put him in front of a military court, or the party that won't even try him in a civilian court? The Taliban? The party that originally crushed them and vowed to fight till they were gone, or the party that says we're pulling out in a few months and you win - just have to be patient for a few months.

Who is it easier to run money thru, also? The little ole Chamber of Commerce, or all those big unions with all those subsidiaries, funds for this/that etc.?

Yemen, Saudia Arabia, all those Muslim nations? What party has done the bend over tour, won't even allow the words Muslim and extremist in the same sentence?

You worried Pietro? The unions and the Dems are a much greater worry than the Chamber of Commerce and the Repubs, don't you think?

Full Disclosure won't happen. Obama and the Dems won't allow it, they would never win another election without their unions.

You are just hacked that the Repubs try to play by the same rules, and they won, still, despite being out spent.

Chef,

What the man is trying to say is that with full disclosure you know where it is coming from. He is stating where it COULD come from, since we do not know. If it was from legitimate sources there would be little reason to hide the source.

When I read these posts, most people start out with intelligence and then they get obtuse and small minded.

The most popular line....can you give me a link? I could make up a story get a link and give it to you, because even if a respected source is given for a link, whatever the source, it's never good enough for someone who is close minded when it come to facts.

Rupert Murdoch gave money to the Republican party. His reasons were that he wanted to change things in Washington. He told his shareholders that they did not have a say in who he supports. He is also a citizen of Australia, yet he helps to decided to change Washington. Anyone from any other country can also make that decision as well. We know about Rupert (even though he did not want us to), what we don't know, is about the rest. This is a little scary and should be for both sides of the aisle.

BTW, I do not have links. I know for a fact that Australia recognize dual citizenship and I saw and heard Rupert talking to his shareholders.

Bob - listen - I could CARE LESS who the money was spent on. The GOPers and the GOP's version of the Tea Party won the midterm election.

Great. Fantastic. Outstanding. Wonderful. Awesome!!

That STILL does not answer the question(s) about WHERE the monies are coming from. You seem to be a bit miffed that I used Al Queda as an example. I am glad. More people should be miffed because YOU DON'T KNOW if I am right or not. You CAN'T know because the money sources are NOT disclosed.

You may have 'won' what you wanted in the short term usnig money from undisclosed sources, but what good does this really do for AMERICA in the long term?

Have you thought about that, Bob?

Have you thought about how our short-sightedness is undermining OUR country?

Have you thought about how our ENEMIES may bring AMERICA down without firing a single shot?

It is not about Republicans and/or Democrats, Bob, it is about US as a nation.

Fletch,

I know what he is saying. I also know you can't prove a negative. Sure the money COULD come from anywhere, but it COULD also be completely legit. And the CoC isn't required to open its books to anyone, so the searching for a boogeyman ensues.

Bob posted earlier:

Annenberg Public Policy Center's Factcheck.org:

"Democrats, from President Barack Obama on down, are trying to turn an evidence-free allegation into a major campaign theme, claiming that foreign corporations are 'stealing our democracy' with secret, illegal contributions funneled through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It's a claim with little basis in fact."

Even the New York Times says the allegations are baseless.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us/politics/09donate.html?_r=1&ref=eric_lichtblau

It's not ok because the New York Times said so, its their opinion. If that was the case, then the idea that perception is reality, is truthful and therefore, if there is a perception of misconduct, it must be real.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Why would Scalia, or anyone else for that matter, try and repeal this amendment? Before the Seventeenth Amendment was enacted, corporate interest groups were able to lean on state lawmakers and thus effectively buy U.S. Senate seats. In other words, repealing the Seventeenth Amendment “would be like Citizens United on steroids.

It's a very essential question that needs to be answered. Here's my version-- Karl Rove is facing Complaint Charges Fraud i.e. False Statement And Illegal Coordination

http://freepress.org/images/departments/complaint/Affidavit_of_Complaint.pdf

With that looming over his buddy's head, if they bring enegrny to the tea Baggers they can keep the Supreme Court in their pocket.

Really, he should have a self- imposed gag order

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/karl-rove-served-subpoena-illegal-election

Great reminder, US Navy. Scalia is just one of three right-wing Supreme Court Justices who have become politically active either directly or indirectly. The 17th Amendment provides voters the choice of who will be their senators but these right wingers want to return that choice to the smoke-filled rooms of the powerful to choose for us. Regardless of liberal or conservative ideology, that would mean Americans lose their voice, however diluted by money it currently is, completely. Today all the money spent by millionaires and billionaires still cannot match the power of one person's vote; remove the 17th Amendment and that power is gone and with it our voices.

What a fascinating contrast it is that Conservatives--the supposed guardians of ethics and morality in our endangered society--have totally abandoned the idea that appearance of impropriety has any role at all in life. If an organization like the US CoC has the ability to run a slush fund to pressure candidates into favorable legislation, and the source of those funds is anonymous so it could be ANYONE, who cares? You can't PROVE anything nefarious is taking place so you have no right to complain. If the SCOTUS decision making that possible comes from Justices who have family and personal finanicial interests who stand to benefit from that anonymity who cares? You can't PROVE that I'm taking bribes for court decisions. If a legislator known for handing out PAC checks right before critical votes ON THE FLOOR CONGRESS says he's now all about reducing reducing government spending, especially earmarks, why shouldn't we believe him?

Actually Navy there is reason to discuss this opinion.

When our forefathers provided us with the Constitution, a great debate took place over how representation would be enacted. It finally ended with the great compromise, of the lower house being done by population and the upper house having 2 representatives from each state.

Their compromise provided us with great Senators throughout the years, even though the state legislatures were picking the Senators.

I can see both sides, but I ask about the legislatures picking the senators. It would definitely be more beneficial to political parties that controlled the states. I also believe that our senators would be more beholden to states rights, more than worrying about individual groups of people to get elected.

2 Schools of thought. Senators right now represent the people more than the states, because that is who elects them. Yet, our forefathers wanted to protect State's rights, that is why they use the legislatures to pick them. So who is right and who is wrong? Who protects that states now at the federal level, the governors?

Navy, interesting. I think that both sides have an argument, but is disagree that an appointed Supreme Court judge is calling for a repeal. That should be something that the people decide.

At least we know who the judges are selling us out to these corporations.

When things hit the fan people responsible willl be held responsible.

This includes jail time for government officials and judges who go against the people of America.
They are beginning to set some dangerous precedents!!!

Corporations can now act as citizens and influence an election!!!

Forget the Supreme Court to me you are a Junior court after this ruling!!!!

I want all the monies to be accounted for. Who is paying what to whom. It has nothing to do with if they are democrats or republicans, we need to know whose agenda in apying which politicians.

The rebublicans have crafted a well designed and deceitful environment with the help of the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS took the laws that regulated the amount of money and the disclosure that went with it and threw it out the window. Now anybody, foreign or domestic can contribute any amount of money they want and the American people do not know who is funded the candidates, hence they do not know the whole agenda. Over 60% of the American people think the "Citizens United" decision was wrong. Local Chambers are leaving the US COC because of the lack of disclosure and hidden political agenda of the republican/tea party. This is a fact. The republicans further hampered the American people when they filibustered the Disclosure Act. They are using this as a shield to claim they are not doing anything illegal. Well, we do not know that. They could be funnelling hundreds of Millions in foreign dolllars and we would not know. This is the bigger problem that I allude to. When you hide things from the American People it is not because you are trying to help them. You are probably doing something that you should not and using this as a crutch to CYA.

There is no legimate reason for not disclosing where the money is coming from, and no proof that the republicans are not using foreign money either. The republicans keep on telling us all the money that unions spend and which unions they are. That is the point, we declare it and they don't.

Keith had a great line on his comeback show. He said that within 24 hours everybody knew about his contributions to candidates, he said if he would have giving it to the US COC NOBODY would know.

This is bad, period and America does not like it. I am going to keep harping on it as it is my right to do so. If you do not like it, do not read it. Very simple.

I want all the monies to be accounted for. Who is paying what to whom. It has nothing to do with if they are democrats or republicans, we need to know whose agenda in apying which politicians.

The republicans...

...the republicans...

Dude, for someone who wants an accounting of monies from both sides, you sure spend alot of time asking only about the republicans. I'll queue the broken record for you...

Man,

I thought we were going to discuss the 17th amendment on this part of the blog.

Sorry bigbear,

Nice posting re the 17th amendment. I was reading a few weeks back about how corrupt the system was in the past with the appointing of senators, though their purpose is to look out for their home state. I prefer the system we have now, where the people are represented both on the district level and the state level, though I think the terms should be offset by 3 years, so changeouts, if needed, can happen more frequently.

Chef,

I am still divided upon this. I am for voting, I love to vote. Yet, who defends that states, as our forefathers asked.

There is good and bad in either direction you go. Senators now work for the people instead of the state. If they have high populations of certain ethnicity, then to get those votes, they have to give favors.

If there were only a way for the state legislatures to present candidates to the people and have them vote in their own states on those candidates. Maybe? At least that way you don't get weirdos like Christine on the ballot.

I am also for term limits on Congressional members--I wish that would pick up steam. 2 terms for Senators (12 years), and 6 terms for House (12 years). Would work with at least 2 different presidents, maybe 3.

I see what you're saying...how can the states be adequately represented (votes or appointment)...I'd almost opt for a minumum number of candidates from the state legislature so they have some experience in government -and they could be thoroughly vetted so no crazy witch chicks appear on a ballot.

I like the term limits, though I would max it out at 18 years so they don't get the full retirement.

Independent Redneck Va.

Great post

Congratulations to Staff Sgt Salvatore Giunta for recieing the Medal of Honor.

President Obama will award to as first living recipient since 1976. He is truly a hero and a humble individual worthy of praise for his sacrifice.

Nothing is more sacrosanct than life.

IR:

My congrats to the Staff Sgt, and my thanks to all our Military People for keeping this great Nation safe. We have a debt to them that we can never repay, but we can support them, honor them and pray for them to return home to their freinds and families soon.

USA still the best country in the World.

IR. Terrific post. I watched a brief interview with this modest man, he is a genuine hero because he does not see himself as such. All Americans are proud today but Iowans in particular are busting their buttons!

Carl D. Small mind or what? This is a post about honoring a military hero. If you have something negative to say about liberals and want to accuse us of not loving our country--write that comment as a stand alone.

Carl D Comments and tone such as yours are called for on this subject matter how?

Just a man Carl D. exercising that same privilege. Spent some time myself ensuring your right to make a a$$ of yourself. I just chose not to do it as often as you seem to want to. Carry on and have at it you seem to be just doing such a fine job of it that I’d hate to slow you up now

The entire state of Iowa is proud of Sgt Giunta, and glad to see him getting national recognition for this honor.

CarlD

I agree with IR and the others. If you read my comment I said the USA is the best country in the World. To make a blanket assumption that democrats are less patriotic than you is both a lie and repugnant. Hate to tell you, but there are a lot of democrats buried in Arlington, my father is one of them.

You can either get off you high horse and help ALL Americans or keep spouting your hate based rants to yourself. It helps no one and only distracts people, which I guess may be your message to begin with.

Carl D.-580212

I was enjoying your post .. then you had to go and throw the ole race card in there and ruin my experience and make an Ass out of yourself didn't you.. just can't miss an opportunity to throw that out there..we are only talking about earmarks and off you go.. WOW you guys took the the Nov. 2nd election personally didnt you ?? Ta Ta

Then Beverly jumps in with her wisdom less diatribe of nothingness what a combo you two make, Frick and Frack... Cute huh

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

It's obvious you have no critical thinking. I challegence you to read W E Dubois "The Soul of Black of Folk, Carter G Woodson's "Mis-education of the Negro Chancellor Wiliams the destruction of black civilization. Don't get the history book.

Like I said Carl D. fine job. I know of no finer place than the good old United States of America for allowing any d@mn fool to spout any kind of nonsense to comes to his poor pea brain. Have a sneaking hunch here that if we could buy you for the actual value of your thoughts and then turn around and sell you for what you think their worth we could make a heck of profit.

Patrick Salt Lake City

So the right wing "liberal media" apologists for the republicans are still hammering away at Nancy to resign?

Only, because they fear her power. The 65 million didn't crush her resolve. Will they ever learn you can't keep a good woman down?

Carl D.-580212

Yeah we fear her Beverly, shes a Paper Tiger now with no Fangs, whats there to fear, her Botox infected brain, She sold the country down the drain so 30 million illegals can have paid for health insurance.

Would you believe the over 200 pieces of legislation she passed? She is feared; but the way you say so.

You need to watch or read the transcript of Lawrence O'Donnell's immigration townhall.

There is zero tolerance for lies about immigrants coming from people like you.

Carl D. How ridiculous. It would have made more sense to allow the illegals the opportunity of purchasing health care under HCR because they would have been paying. The short-sighted conservative view fails to mention or acknowledge a fact: that in denying them the right to buy insurance, they force you and everyone else to continue to pay the emergency room tab.

Your number is off by a factor of 3 and there are fewer illegal immigrants in the country now than there were a year ago, but why let facts get in the way of a useful Conservative narrative?

The Department of Homeland Security reported that illegal immigrant population dropped to 10.8 million in 2009 compared to 11.6 million in 2008. It was the second consecutive annual decline and the largest in at least three decades.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/11/national/main6197466.shtml

Carl D-580212

"I am Hispanic/Latino.."

Got any proof of that?

@ Jody

I'm just curious on your philosophy concerning illegal immigrants. In light of the California law and court decision regarding in-state tuition, and your view on allowing them to purchase subsidized health care, do you think there should be any limitations on the rights of illegal immigrants in the United States? If so what?

CarlD;

Now you are just outright lying. Your bogus Immigration claim has been debunked months ago.

OK, I cite sources including Homeland Security but am wrong, because you said so with no evidence to back up your assertion.

Nice try.

FR: If senators or members of Congress are no longer in charge of bringing home the bacon to their states or districts (via earmarks or another mechanism), then what becomes their primary mission?

Here's an idea, how about they run the government within its budget? You know, make the "tough choices" and all.

Do the "tough choices" include not extending the Bush Tax Shift?

To bad the conservatives did not make "tough choices" and Run the war on Iraq within the budget.

Joanna, last Night On Larry King, Colin Powell was on, he said something that so many don't realise and that is government has grown, and has because we needed it to. he mentioned the aftermath of 911 that has caused government to grow, that is the TSA, Homeland security, alone have caused to government to grow by trillions, and at the same time our revenues have not match the growth of government, and this goes back 10 years.

so as he put it, mathmust add up. he said that the tea party is not going to be able to come through with their promises made during the mid terms, he said it is impossible to cut spending, keep tax rates as they are now, keep a strong military, and provide the government services americans expect.

So Joanna i saw that interview from Colin Powell a 4 star general, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Secretary of state, MODERATE REPUBLICAN!!! he said this 10 times last night. the things he was saying i completely agreed with him, as a MODERATE DEMOCRAT!!!!!

So joanna we would love for you to stop generalising people here on this blog, liberals are not all the same as well as Conservatives.

he was asked how the president is doing, he, Colin Powell said that given the crisses we had he is doing a great job, the credit markets have stablised, the market is back, banks are solvent again, but what he said that i remember the most was that the president should have attacked the economic problems like the battle field, you attack the most important target first and concur it, Powell said that this was the mistake that cost the president the American people, and the mid term elections.

Great interview i'm really going to miss larry King,

Jeff - I trust the 4-star general, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State, and Obama supporter Colin Powell. He's never been wrong about anything in his career. Ever.

Well except for that Iraq WMD talk he gave at the UN. And supporting Obama.

Jeff -- the fact of the matter is the huge growth in the budget has come from the mandatory entitlement spending. Perhaps you and Gen Powell should check out this chart.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/budget-2010/

Unfortunately, Colin Powell, who many Conservatives once wanted to see possibly run for President, has been jettisoned by the Republican Party because he endorsed Barack Obama in 2008. They don't give a rat's arse what he says any more.

Dick Cheney would rather side with Rush Limbaugh than Colin Powell.

Pat Buchanan said Powell only endorsed Obama because they're both black.

Whatever.

JoAnna,

Could the problem with Powell's UN speech on WMDs possibly be the incomplete, faulty and, in some cases, doctored intelligence that was given to then-Secretary of State Powell when he made the speech?

Nah, that couldn't have been it.

JoAnnaSmith1

Jeff - I trust the 4-star general, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State, and Obama supporter Colin Powell. He's never been wrong about anything in his career. Ever.

Well except for that Iraq WMD talk he gave at the UN. And supporting Obama.

He addressed that in full last night.

He said that he gave a compelling speech based upon the intelligence he reviewed for 4 days and 4 nights at the CIA. the same intelligence that the congress reviewed 10 months earlier, the same intelligence that he got assurances from the head of the CIA that this was the real deal. when they were not there, and given the fact he convinced the UN they were their, he said to the president, changes must be made and he was the first to go. i guess he and Cheney were at odds consistently about everything,(makes since).

Last night he consultes with the president on a regular bases, so i can see the draw down in iraq and the build up in afgan had the blessing of Coiln Powell. i was so imperssed with him.

Joanna you are a typical tea party, right wing, republican, you turn on your own, Colin Powell is a true american hero, a man who made it, a man who is a credit to his country, and now because he supported some on you hate, he is now useless to you, my god Joanna may god help you!!!!

Bill, Fairfax VA

Jeff -- the fact of the matter is the huge growth in the budget has come from the mandatory entitlement spending. Perhaps you and Gen Powell should check out this chart.

Yes, but if you add the cost to put the TSA and home land security together after 911 alone with the other agencys that were beefed up to make sure that never happened again, yes government grew, all he was saying that government has not just grown in the last 2 years as so many want to believe, but that the growth was nessesary, the deficets that came from this time were nessesary. that all he was saying.

Jeff -that's real nice that Colin Powell explained if we want more government, we should be prepared to pay for it. I guess that makes him a member of the Tea Party, because that's exactly what the TP recommends. And that is all the TP is asking, if you think people want more government, be up front with them and tell them they must pay for it, and don't just add the cost to the deficit. And if the people agree with anyone running on the platform, they will elect them, and they should expect their taxes to go up accordingly. What the TP believes is that when most people are confronted with the choice, they will choose to go with a smaller government, or a government that makes choices based on changing priorities.

Colin Powell from a military stand point is a great American hero. I disagree with his politics which have been trending to the left for quite some time. I can manage to separate the the two them and make judgements on both.

Joannasmith1, you ignorant slut

I always loved that when Bill Murry said it to Jane Curtain. It always got a laugh from me. How about you Joanna? Didn't you think that was funny? I did. I hope you enjoyed my little homage to comic genius. You know what they say, "If the shoe fits...even if the shoe does pinch a bit.

General Powell has always been a good soldier. A good soldier follows orders. A good soldier does not backtalk or back stab his Commander in Chief.

You had only to watch General Powell as he gave that United Nations speech to know he was doing what he had been told to do. That he was following orders, without question and was not going to back stab his Commander in Chief. There have been several published accounts of the struggle over the wording of that speech. General Powell insisted that certain phrases and claims be removed before he gave that speech. He was not the author of those words, Karl Rove was.

I thought that was a quality you GOP types respected and virtually DEMANDED from all your loyal followers. I thought that was why we have seen virtually EVERY GOP moderate drummed out of the Congress by the Tea Party. Because they could not march in Right Wing, Regressive lock step with the rest of the GOP.

As for his support for President Obama over Senator McCain, that had nothing to do with color and everything to do with Sarah Palin, the person who was a heart beat away from the Presidency.

Joanna, you are nothing but a troll. You are spouting your talking points like a good little party member and leaving for dead any independent voice daring to break ranks with the GOP.

YOU are why the new GOP are so frightening. YOU bring us visions of goose-stepping Republicans marching this country in lock-step to Armagedden.

But I promise you, we will not allow it.

Back to you trollbait, shower me with your usual snarky comments, call on your minions to collapse this comment like you do all the others who dare to challenge your propaganda.

Herr Goebbels would be so proud of you.

Jeff 1541632:

You tell it the way it is. The rebubican/tea party are masters at spin. They also have selective memory. They deny the mess they created under GW Bush that dam# near bankrupted this country and the lies that were told to not only to General Powell, but the American People as well about the WMD'S etc., in Iraq.

It is all about them and keeping theirs and the he!! with everbody else. Just read the posts. They do not give one iota for the Middle Class, to them we are dragging them down and somehow less important. They are following a path that will destroy democracy as we know it today and there is no way in he!! they can convince me otherwise. Actions speak louder than words and sometimes inaction speaks volumes.

Wow Skip, that entirely uncalled for.

How would you feel if someone had that to your wife? (That is if you're married, but then who knows how you would treat your wife based on that last post)

How would you feel if someone had said that to your daughter? (Again if you have a daughter and dont say that to her yourself)

You're an amazing disgrace and should be ashamed that you made that comment. Think whatever you want, but have enough grace and dignity to know when to keep your mouth shut. I'm ashamed for you.

i believe Colan Powell got smart when he was used as a scapegoat for the republicans . that's just theway republicans do business [ but i wonder if he really believed what he was saying at the UN speech on WMDs or just taking orders like a good general]

dean 50

i believe Colan Powell got smart when he was used as a scapegoat for the republicans . that's just theway republicans do business [ but i wonder if he really believed what he was saying at the UN speech on WMDs or just taking orders like a good general]

I also believe he didn't want to make the case for Iraq. I think he didn't write about them immediately after he left because his son was over FCC. You know how the evil and vindictive the Republicans can be. Look at what they did to Valerie Plame. Look at how they are emasculating President Obama.

JoAnnaSmith1

Colin Powell from a military stand point is a great American hero. I disagree with his politics which have been trending to the left for quite some time. I can manage to separate the the two them and make judgements on both.

Joanna,(will not call you a ignorant slut) your saying he is trending to the left, Honey darling, Moderate republican often trend to the left, just like me as a moderate democrat i trend to the right on section things(abortion). being a republican does not mean you don't trend to left under any circumstance. please take off the blinders.

what policy's are you talking about, this man has served 3 presidents,he did what he was told, what policy's could you be talking about, i know it the work with education he and his wife have committed them selves to, you know Joanna i did not realise that education was a liberal agenda.

skip,

That was Dan Aykroyd.

Skip, Chef Darrell is right, bill Murry was the non english speaking guy in the cheese burger, cheese burger skit, Dan Aykroyd told jane she was a ignorant slut and gilda radner called jane a bitch!!!!

LOL LOL LOL

SNL, saturday nights was the best, you got together smokes a J and tripped out watching SNL.

great american TV

Shhhhh...Darrel and Jeff.....it's what we used to call an implanted mistake.

Lemme explain. I worked in advertising. We had clients who wanted to prove to us that they reviewed our ads/copy VERY carefully and to prove this they HAD to find a mistake even if their "mistake" was something they themselves insisted we use. So, we would implant obvious mistakes. Misspelled words, misquoted prices, etc. They'd find it and go "AHA! GOTCHA! Boy no tellin' what you people would put out if it wasn't for my careful proofreading." Worked everytime.

So, I gave Joannasmith1 something to pick at to see if she'd take the bait. RATS the cats out of the bag now.

Et tu Brutae?

It's joke. Didn't you ever watch SNL? It's a popular joke around my house. And yes, I'm married and have been married for 32 years to a wonderful woman. I have a daughter as well. No, I do not abuse them in any way.

But I have little patience for people who lie and misinform and stir the pot unnecessarily. Hence my "testy" joke at Joannasmith1. A poor troll and proud of it.

Don't defend her/him. She/he is perfectly able to defend herself. It's just hard to get caught in two out and out lies and then defend yourself for it.

Have a nice day and thanks for caring.

Nashville_fan: This is all for show and nothing else. Everything the GOP does is for show.

I will sleep so much better knowing that all earmarks have been banned. That is 1% of the budget that is all squared away!

Thanks for the giggle GF! ;0))

WHEW! At least now I know why I couldn't sleep last night! Oh well... thanks to the Repubican/Tea Baggers I can look forward to some sweet dreams the coming nights! lol

On second thought maybe it was the tea that induced the insomnia?

Nash;

Agreed, it sounds good but the bottom line is that it does very little to reduce a 1.27 Trillion Dollar deficit. The republican/tea party will pull this again and again, saying we are eliminating this and that, what we need to be asking is how much does that really Help?

I have yet to see what they are really going to cut that has any meat on it. Like the DOD which has a lot of redudant programs, obsolete programs and just a lot of fat. It has been reported by many that there is about 100 - 150 Billion that can be cut from DOD with absolutely no impact on our troops. But, with that being said, cuts (reduced spending) is not going to get us out of this miss alone. We need a combination of cuts and increased revenue.

You are correct that putting a stop to earmarks do not put much of a dent in the deficit...however, you have to start somewhere.

John,

You do have to start somewhere, like extending the tax cuts that helped create the deficit and that we still have no way to pay for.

How do you reconcile those two things in your mind?

John, Tucson,AZ: You are correct that putting a stop to earmarks do not put much of a dent in the deficit...however, you have to start somewhere.

True enough. It's a decent start. We see that the "old-guard" Republicans, like Mitch McConnell, are still in place. They obviously were not paying as close of attention to the elections this year as they should. After some reasoned explanations on how things in Washington are now run, some would call it Change, Mitch's attitude got adjusted fairly quickly. Others will soon follow.

Who would have thought that we would see Joanna Smith EMBRACE 'Hope and Change'?

The GOP's version of the Tea Party is the HOPE and Sen. McConnell's CHANGE in his position.

I guess the 'Hopey Changey' thing is working for Joanna after all!!

This should make John McCain happy now--of course, from day to day we do not know which policy view McCain has jettisoned and replaced with a new version. Rachel had a fun segment showing McCain fighting with McCain. On DADT, McCain keeps moving the goal posts. I'll give David Gregory some credit for challenging McCain Sunday about his flip flopping. But I echo Rachel, why do the Sunday talk shows continue to give McCain a seat at the table--he no longer makes any sense period, he is irrelevant because he no longer knows who he is or what he stands for.

I'm quite pleased with the Hope and Change and with President Obama's achievements against all odds and a republican blockade to destroy him and this country in the process. Hope and change with health care made available to millions more, hope that with time even greater improvements will be made; hope and change to the financial regulatory system to protect taxpayers from the abuse of Wall Street; hope and change for Veterans, for women in the work place, and dozens of other pieces of legislation. The conservatives love to mock that Hope and Change thing and then they steal it as a slogan because conservatives have no new ideas of their own right down to slogans.

Nashville,

How'd those Titans do this past weekend?

Great remarks, it may not be perfect, but I agree with you, it is a start. Now if we could start cutting some of the other billions of dollars in over payments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

The problem is we increased the budget by 15% in mandatory spending, yet we don't have TARP anymore, and we increased the budget by 13% in discretionary spending.

Health & human services cut by almost 2%, yet the State department increased by 40%--what does the state department need another 40% for. Is this where foreign aid is? Raising to $41 billion this year, from $25 billion. Shouldn't we cap foreign aid at say $15 billion until our own unemployment rate is under say 5%. That would be another $26 billion saved, so just by cutting earmarks & foreign aid, we could have this years deficit under a trillion dollars. Is that not somewhat responsible?

Big Bear - good to see you again. I saw your posts earlier, and I am glad you brought up the budget again in this one.

Your 'cuts' need to be defined a bit more in the State Department. I have to admit that I have NO IDEA what the monies are being spent on there. I do agree that something that has a 40% increase definitely needs to be looked at.

What also need to be looked at is the Defence budget at $663 BLLION. We could pare that down to $400 BILLION (I know I said $500 BILLION before) and we can realise some significant savings.

Finally, we need a revenue stream that deals DIRECTLY with the deficit, and I think that we will be seeing a VAT (Value Added Tax) on all goods and services which will be used to DIRECTLY reduce the deficit.

THe problem we have is that we are ALL going to have to pay something towards the deficit, including those who have had tax cuts for the past 10 years. We also need to bolster the Coroprate Tax Revenue (which is too low right now - it should be double or triple what it is now) and that will also help the deficit.

This earmark crap is just plan stupid. It does nothing to help with the budget.

Pietro,

Keep looking at the budget. I wish the government would learn a little about business book keeping. And the tax codes, incredibly hard.

But what I get is that corporate taxes are done pretty weird.

If a corporation makes 0-$50,000--15% tax rate.

$50,000 to $75,000=$7500 + 25% of earnings over $50,000- so they tax $25,000 at 25%

$75,000 to $100,000=$13,750 + 34% of earnings over $75,000-

and so on and so on.

Wouldn't it be easier to just tax all corporations at 25% or say 27% and leave it alone.

"Finally, we need a revenue stream that deals DIRECTLY with the deficit, and I think that we will be seeing a VAT (Value Added Tax) on all goods and services which will be used to DIRECTLY reduce the deficit."

LOL...and I suppose when the deficit is paid off the tax will be repealed? Or is it more likely that the deficit will never be paid off and the revenue stream will have to be increased to pay for "other" priorities?

Alan, NJ - you are probably RIGHT that the VAT Revenue stream will probably continue, mostly because we have politicians handling the laws and NOT accountants. maybe we can have the VAT set up to ONLY BE USED to reduce the deficit? That is a legislative issue that will need to be addressed.

The proposed budget for 2011 is about 3.8 Trillion dollars with a deficit of 1.27 Trillion. To balance the budget, we will need to carve out 33% of the proposed budget (1.27 Trillion). What are they going to cut of the budget?

Currently entitlements like Social Security (19.64%), Defense (18.74%), Medicare/Medicaid (20.98%) and Interest on the National Debt (4.63%) which comprises about 64% of the budget leaving 36%.

Popular programs like Unemployment / Food Stamps accounts for 16.13%, Department of Veteran Affairs accounts for 1.48%, Department of Education 1.32%, department of Homeland Security 1.215%. These all programs account for about 20% in total.

So what are they going to cut to make up the 33% needed to balance the budget? Even if they cut to zero (0%) popular programs like unemployment, food stamps, dept. education, dept. VA and homeland security they are still 13% short.

They will throw out some department names but if you look at their piece of the budget it is typically very small compared with what they need.

The republican/tea party is going to have to go after Social Security, Defense, Medicare / Medicaid. How do like those apples? But you do not hear the republican/tea party coming forth and being honest with America and telling us which ones and how much. It should also be noted that Social Security has no impact on the deficit. It is funded by payroll taxes and currently according to CBO and a bevy of others it is viable at 100% of benefits until 2037 or 2039.

The problem with all these little programs being repealed is that even in total they will not be enough. You are going to have to go after the entitlements as well. Earmarks make up a very very small piece when compared to the actual deficit. And that is the point.

I addition to the Earmarks, what else would you add to the list???

Carl D - the question is WHERE are we going to cut to make up the 33%??

I say that we are looking at this problem the wrong way.

I have been debating on here with many on both sides of the aisle about dealing with our deficit. While we are concentrating with a laser-like intensity on cuts, have we forgotten about the REVENUE side? Why haven't we looked at raising the REVENUES? Looking at the 2010 budget, I saw that the Corporate Revenue was down almost 12% from previous years. Why is that? Where is the REVENUE?

We are never going to get the deficit taken care of if we do not increase our REVENUES as well as cut proprtionally to our revenues. The best way to raise REVENUES is to 1) generate new Revenue streams, and 2) create the environment where we expand the revenue streams we already have.

Increasing revenues takes some INVESTMENT. Will the New Congress be willing to invest LESS in wars and police actions and MORE in America and her infrastructure?

I guess time will tell.

You CANNOT and WILL NOT balance this buget for 2011 - or reduce the deficit - if your ONLY basis is CUTTING.

We're listening Carl. How much closer will the budget come to balance after 1-3 and 5. Four doesn't really belong on this list because the rest of the discussion is a means to that end. It's a goal, not a step toward reaching a goal.

Some republicans want to freeze spending back to 2008 levels--one little problem, that was $1.8 trillion in the hole. There is selective memory in this entire discussion and that is this--republican presidents and republican-led Congresses created this massive deficit and debt with unfunded policies and two unfunded wars yet it is these very republicans who stand and yelp about the debt. Deficits don't matter was their favorite phrase yet they are willing to add $700 billion over 10 years to continue their subsidizing millionaires and billionaires at the expense of the rest of us. Their plan is to cut into the very programs that provide security and stability for seniors, the poor and the unemployed--just throw those people to the wolves. I have no respect for any of the republicans in Congress because they caused the problem and not once has any of them accepted responsibility for their failed and disastrous policies--instead, they plan to do the same thing.

CarlD;

Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Means testing instead of COLA is designed to extend the life span of Social Security and I oppose it because it also runs the risk of reducing benefits to those collecting Social Security. In my opinion a better way to stabilize Social Security is by raising the cap above the current level of $ 106,800. It has also been suggested that a 1% increase in the Social Security tax (currently 6.2%) would extend Social Security for 75 years. Maybe a combination of these two.

#4 does not count as it is the end product.

There are in my opinion some good savings in cutting DOD, streamlining the government payroll and elimination of redundant departments, eliminating the fraud in Medicare and Medicaid and eliminate the tax cuts for those with taxable incomes over 250,000. These and getting ride of current programs that do not work and earmarks will have a sizable impact. But, cutting spending in not the total answer to our problem. We need spending cuts and some sort of increased revenue stream. We need to do both to make this country whole again.

#2, If you do this what are you going to do with those people, just throw them out into the street?? How would that help?? Unemployment Benefits and Food Stamps actually stimulate the economy. Check it out, google it.

USNAVY - many of us on here have been exploring how we can cut the deficit. We have had people from all political stripes chime in on what we need to do.

The takeaway from all of this - cutting the budget is EXTREMELY hard.

We have agreements on what we COULD cut, but then someone else chimes in on why we should NOT cut. I personally think that we are looking at balancing the budget in the wrong way, and others have challenged me on my thinking.

It has been a fascinating discussion that we are still having on this blog.

When I see posts like Carl D, I see someone who has NO IDEA of the complexity of what they are asking. They can spout 'cut government spending', but cannot say where. They are using 'talking points' to make their points. I think that many of us on both sides of the political spectrum who had some ideas have abandoned that 'broad brush' approach because it is just noise and it doesn't work.

I have been bantering back and forth with Big Bear, True American, Independent, John B, Dennis, Columbus, Ohio and host of others that ALL have great ideas on what we can do to reduce the deficit and balance the budget. We have used the 2010 Budget that has been posted on Wikipedia as reference point.

Bottom line - THIS IS HARD TO DO. How do you balance a deficit reduction against throwing people out in the street with no money? How do you balance defence spending against taking away Social Security Benefits?

If nothing else, we have just a glimpse into the 'sausage-making' that goes into legislation, although many of us have never been legislators before.

Pietro,

Great remarks. Hard yes, impossible probably, especially with so many truly professional politicians still in office.

One of the first things, even the deficit committee eluded to is cut out the raises for our non-military federal employees. even though 1.4% doesn't sound like a lot, it is still a start. Average salary & benefits is about $123,000 for federal employees. That is about $1722.00 raise per employee on average. Not a lot, but when you have 1.43 million non military federal employees that starts to add up. That is about $2.5 billion dollars. So add that to the earmarks, about $38 billion saved.

Have to make tough choices, Cut non-military federal employees salaries, not benefits, by 5%, Now the average salary is about $80K, so 5% would be about $4,000. Multiplied by 1.43 million non military federal employees=$5.7 billion.

So we are up to $43 billion saved.

Cut foreign aid down to $15 billion until unemployment is less than 5%, we are suppose to give $41 billion in foreign aid this year, saves about $26 billion more.

So we are up to $69 billion saved?

Are their more cuts. I am sure there are. Any more ideas?

Big Bear - I am sure we can realise at least $160 BILLION from defense department cuts.

However, as I have stated in my other posts, we canot just look at cuts.

Corporate tax Revenues are ony $222 BILLION. Why is that? It is down from $339 BILLION in 2009. That revenue stream is TOO LOW. Corporate tax receipts would be on par orexceed what the 'regular' taxpayer is bringing in, which is $1.1 TRILLION. Why have we allowed this revenue stream to be so low?

So, Big Bear, you started out with $69 BILLION in savings. Add to that the extra $160 BILLION from defence cuts, and add the $660 BILLION from the Corporate tax Revenue expansion, we are at $889 BILLION in savings. We need to bridge the 14 TRILION deficit though.

Independent made a good point that such radical change would NOT work; the American electorate would not beable to absorb such rapid change. We would need to decrease the deficit by 1-2% a year for a good many years until it is gone. That would mean that if we could INCREASE our REVENUES by 5% and decrease our spending by 2% (through some of the cuts we have been talking about), then we could use the net 3% to balance the budget and pay down the deficit. This is going to take YEARS and we will ahve to try and maintain our numbers throughout that period of time.

Again, this is not easy, and we are just doing a cursory exploration of these numbers.

Pietro,

I understand the fact that we need to raise revenue also. That is why I personally believe that if you cut out all deductions from our tax code except a few tax credits, we would raise revenue without having to raise taxes from their current rates.

Imagine, I know that it is mean, if people weren't allowed to deduct millions for charities, and they had to pay just 10% on that money, That is an extra 100K right there from one person.

As LouisJ would hopefully agree, why should we be rewarded for giving to the less fortunate. That is what charitable deductions do, reward those who have plenty for giving to the less fortunate.

I also did some research on corporate taxes above. We should tax them like individuals, especially if they can donate and vote like a citizen. Supreme Court ruling. What is good for the goose is good for the gander?

Big Bear - I really do NOT see how you are going to get around some sort of tax hike for everyone. Using my example of increasing the revenue streams, let's just say that by letting the tax cuts expire, we increase the revenue from taxpayers from $1.1 TRILLION to $1.5 TRILLION. That would help with deficit reduction IF we continue to budget and spend like we only got $1.1 TRILLION.

As far as Corporate taxes are concerned, I believe that revenue stream is too low. I am revising my figure again, but I believe it should be on par with what the taxpayers are paying - approximately $1.1 TRILLION (up from the $222 BILLION it is now). With the new Citizens United ruling, then they should be taxed at the same rate as an individual, I totally agree with you on that.

How about a 1% transactinal charge on the derivatives market? At $1.2 quadrillion that wipes out the debt in a hurry. From there we can work on balancing the budget.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/investing-basics/risk-quadrillion-derivatives-market-gdp/19509184/

Chef Darrell - I can support that. it is also a new REVENUE stream that the Governmwnt could use to wipe out the deficit. The question is this - politically, would we ever be able to do it? The Wall Street crowd is not giving up the thing they love most - money - without a fight.

Pietro,

If the president were to push that through with the same fervor he got HCR, I would vote for him again.

They could also tier it. 1% the first year, down to 0.1% after 10 years (that's still $1T using todays numbers). Infrastructure is taken care of, we could educate our youth, and get back to leading innovation. The possibilities would be endless.

I agree wall street would fight it. It would take a true bipartisan effort to stem that tide.

As I have been saying a lot lately - there is more that binds us than what divides us.

Your idea is a really GOOD idea.

I have no faith that THIS congress (the 111th or the 112th) will ever consider this idea. Possibly we can get someone to look at this for the 113th Congress, no?

I could see pumping a little of this money into the government, but it would need to be used only for debt reduction until the debt is paid off, then the money should be placed into certain accounts to keep a deficit from happening again, but the government still needs to cut programs at the same time

Pietro,

Sounds good to me!

BigBear,

That was my thought too. Extra stream of revenue (like Pietro osuggests), keep taxes going to cover the normal day to day stuff, and we can bring this nation back to leading the world. I'm also in agreement that redundancies need to be trimmed. Streamline the government, end the debt, make this country great....maybe that's your 2012 campaign slogan :)

Chef,

You know, I would love to run for office, but I am afraid if I got elected I would be punching a bunch of idiots in Washington. I just can't handle people talking from both sides of their mouth. I think there are a lot of wonderful citizens, even on here, that could help our government out, but our career politicians make that difficult to do. That is why I am such and advocate for term limits on congressional leaders.

Pietro, Chef,

I will converse with you all again tomorrow. I have some house papers to sign. Have a great evening.

NTVAPOCR

"It’s a shame that they are exploited as they are every election these days. Congress could stop it. If they wanted. It was especially nice to see Lawrence & his guest at Ellis Island. It is quite a place. What our ancestors had to go through to come to America is almost overwhelming."

====================================================================

I am sorry but most feel who is being exploited here is the American Citizen/Worker, if the illegals would have taken the legal path through Ellis Island we would not even be having this conversation, they didn't they broke the law and snuck in. At a time when Americans are unemployed, losing their homes, have lost hope in our society you won't find much sympathy for criminals that drive down wages, exploit the system using up the finite services meant and paid for by U.S. citizens, we need to take care of the American citizen, which isn't happening right now, sorry but the illegals need to go home and get their own house in order if they don't like conditions there, this country needs to take care of it's own and stopping illegal immigration would be as good a place as any to start, otherwise this country is going to decline into a country just like the illegals are coming from, where are you and I and our children supposed to go when that happens?

w bush: I am sorry but they were brought here (invited) to work. And now they are hiding because the economy is bad. No one cared when the economy was good, especially the CEO's, who had zero problem hiring them.

They work hard doing work we won't do. At wages we wouldn't accept. Sorry, but it's wrong and I wish our Nation would speak for them.

For once do the right thing as a country. As one. Why not a good story for once? Instead of constant divisiveness? They did not create this problem.

We did. By constantly using them and then stabbing them in the back when politics calls for it.

A man from San Diego last night on Lawrence's program talked about watching these immigrants work, day in, day out, in the hot sun for long hours. He said that they are hard workers.

They deserve our attention. Finally. Will Congress do anything?

Carl D - face it - illegal immigrants are a part of our 'throwaway society'. What I mean by that is that they are used when they are needed, and when they are not needed anymore, they are 'thrown away' until the next time they are needed.

I am not saying it is right or moral; I am saying that is what is happening.

The bottom line is this- those illegal immigrant workers would NOT be in this country if they were not INVITED and ENCOURAGED by AMERICANS. They are being exploited and AMERICANS are doing the exploiting.

Why else would these people risk life and limb to come here to work? If there was no work for them, then why would they come? Why are they HERE?

The bottom line is that AMERICA will NEVER get rid of illegal immigration. The best you can do is to control it as best you can. When you have employers who are willing to 'look the other way' when it benefits them and their bottom line, then how CAN this problem be solved?

Pat, Boston, MA

For once do the right thing as a country. As one. Why not a good story for once? Instead of constant divisiveness? They did not create this problem.

We did. By constantly using them and then stabbing them in the back when politics calls for it.

A man from San Diego last night on Lawrence's program talked about watching these immigrants work, day in, day out, in the hot sun for long hours. He said that they are hard workers.

They deserve our attention. Finally. Will Congress do anything?

It really was very disheartening to hear of their plights; especially the teenage girl who chocked up telling story.

They deserve respect the same as everyone else who contributes here. The politicans should not use Hispanics as pawns. In the future they regret it.

ironically, this is the land of immigrants. Not.

I think it's fair to ask why it's so easy for undocumented workers to find work? It wouldn't be difficult to make penalties on employers sufficient that hiring illegals would be an unacceptable risk, but we don't. Instead we rail on people who need work and are willing to take extreme riskes to find it. Are they entitled to be here? No, but the employers who make it possible seem to get plenty of cover from lawmakers. What do the employers get in return? Simple, they get to avoid paying a decent wage to someone who's here legally.

Excellent post, Pat.

I watched Keith's special comment; he nailed it. Fair and balanced gave us Iraq, fair and balanced gave us WMDs and then an assortment of Bush justifications for that war and Bush continues to spin his version with his book giving safe interviews. An interview with Rachel, Keith or Lawrence will never happen because Bush knows he would fail miserably and the truth would be revealed. As Keith pointed out, not once did Ted Koppel use his 30 minute program to explore the facts and report the truth on Iraq, WMDs, Valerie Plame or the massive budget deficit and national debt the GOP was creating. I have commented on FR before that I have no problem with FOX or right-wing media being a voice for conservatives but I do have a problem with both because they distort that voice into fear, anger and hatred with outright lies and half truths--they do a disservice to conservatives because they are not an honest voice but an ugly, hateful one.

I also watched Lawrence O'Donnell's Town Hall on immigration. Excellent program and I applaud both Lawrence and MSNBC for taking that first step by providing a reasoned discussion and debate. There are several things Pres Bush did that I supported, one was he tried and nearly succeeded in passing immigration reform--his own party refused.

Nothing quite like an America that punishes children for the sins of their parents. Pass the Dream Act and let the children redeem themselves.

You know the Republicans are so used to double speak that they no longer have a problem with their mixed message.

They want every child to be born and not suffer abortion at the 'hands' of an unloving mother. But when the children are born and not cared for - it isn't their problem. Society shouldn't be burdened with raising other people's children.

When Elian was found still alive against ALL odds, the Republican outcry was that we should SAVE him (although he had a loving parent in his home country).

Do the Republicans even know what they stand for? I have a funny feeling G-d is not able to tell what they stand for. I am quite certain I don't comprehend what it is they actually STAND for. Other than Corporatist enslavement and the minute possibility that they will get theirs (someday) so SCREW you!

What a pile of absolute crap, let me count the ways.

The Fed isn't giving banks another trillion dollars.

No one has been screwed out of their Social Security checks.

No one has been screwed out of the Medicare they have coming.

Nothing in your rant supports the misguided notion that the wealthy are being made wealthier at the expense of the entire nation.

The truth shall set you free? It can, but first you have to know what the truth is. In your case that could be an uphill climb.

So Bill are you saying the Fed has not commited another $800 billion plus to the banks? Because if that is what you are saying you either don't know the facts or are a liar, which is it?

Actually, the Fed has announced another round of "quantitative easing" to the tune of $600 billion. Quantitative easing is a Fed action to buy long dated Treasury bonds for the purpose of keeping longer term interest rates down. The theory is that lower long term rates will encourage borrowing and investment and therby stimulate economic growth.

So what the Fed is actually doing is buying U.S. debt, not giving a trillion dollars to the banks as you incorrectly stated. Or did you just flat out lie?

Quantitative easing, catchy phrase, meaningless, but catchy. What the Fed is doing is printing money we don't have to buy bad paper from entities that don't want to get stuck with it, who gets stuck holding the bag Bill? Give me a break.

Catchy phrase? Maybe, but obviously a phrase you don't undertsand. The Fed is not buying bad paper, they are buying U.S. debt:

"the Committee intends to purchase a further $600 billion of longer-term Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011, a pace of about $75 billion per month."

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20101103a.htm

As rarely as it happens I'll side with Bill on this one. I'll go further and state that the end result could be highly desirable, as a slight easing in the value of the dollar would strengthen our manufacturing position.

"Bill declares : The Fed is not buying bad paper, they are buying U.S. debt:"

=======================================================================

Billy, Billy. Why don't you buy up all the U.S. debt so the government won't force me to buy it since it's not bad paper and all? It's a ponzi scheme Bill, the FED is buying it's own debt, you ever hear the saying "robbing Peter to pay Paul" Bill, this country is so screwed.

"Bill declares : The Fed is not buying bad paper, they are buying U.S. debt:"

Actually, I didn't "declare" anything I stated a fact and supported it with a link to the most recent Fed statement on this issue. You on the other hand continue with uninformed drivel. You really need to keep up.

As my financial advisor said last week, the Fed action is like giving a drug addict a shot of heroin. He was not condemning it but merely questioning whether the cure might not be worse than the illness, only time will tell.

"Bill in his self declared infinite wisdom declares: You on the other hand continue with uninformed drivel."

=====================================================================

What did I say that you would consider uninformed drivel Bill? Do tell. Not that it matters Bill, the people of this country took and are taking the worst finacial screwing in history, and yet no one seems too concerned, this nation is headed to the bottom of the barrel at warp speed, people either don't realize it yet or refuse to, either way it's a shame, ride the wave while it lasts Bill.

See my post 10.1 above where I list your uninformed drivel. Have a nice day.

Another "intended consequence" of quantitative easing is to stimulate some, but not a lot, of inflation. This should cause home values to increase. The trickle down of that is nothing but good for so many.

Let's hope it works as intended.

The Fed's scheme is one of those last ditch efforts that is carried out in desperation near the end, the Fed is buying T bills that the Chinese have refused to rollover again, and they are buying them with money that doesn't exist, we can hope it all works out well, but I fail to see any evidence it will.

VermontGirl, you have a point on that as well. At this point a deflationary trap is a FAR bigger risk than the hyperinflation that Glenn Beck continues to yammer about, and more difficult to solve. Ask the Japanese, or Google their lost decade.

David Walker

JOHN! Wake up. We have a CIVILIAN Command and Control model. We tell them. The military follows the orders of civilians, not vice-versa.

Again, I ask, what the hell is the matter with President Obama? He won the election, not John McCain. Let McCain filibuster away, and then shove repeal through.

If I understand it correctly, it has to be an order of Congress; least the Supreme Court will repeal it. I'm confused now with this lame duck session.

For two years, nothing on DADT. Then, republicans brought a challenge, which caused it to be overturned in federal court. Obama is challenging said ruling.

Somehow, it is the republicans fault?

See the man for who he is: someone who cynically exploits people for his own political gain. His first act as president on DOMA was to have his justice department file a brief in favor of the law. He could have done nothing- it would have spoken louder than any words. His first act on DADT? Fighting it's reversal in federal court.

He had two years in which to act, and did nothing to have it reversed or overturned. Tells me volumes. Obviously, you choose not to see the facts when they are staring you in the face. Then you wonder why people call you Obama Worshippers.

David Walker: What the hell is the matter with President Obama?

Takes a while for the Libs to catch on. But after a while, they too start asking questions.

David Walker: To this day, I still think President Carter was one of our smartest presidents.

Oops, obviously we still have a way to go with this one. We'll classify this one as a work in progress.

LOL, you nailed it JoAnna. Jimmy who?

David - a repeal of this law is the best action we can expect.

An executive order will only last until the end of the term of the President who issues the order.

A stay in Court can be challenged and overturned - multiple times.

A repeal will completely wipe the current law off the books. A repeal can only be done by Congress with the signature from the President.

You are correct in your assessment that Congress has been 'weak-kneed' on this subject. This law does not play well in many Conservative districts.

This President's best chance to get the law repealed is in the lame duck Congress attached to the Defence appropriations bill. Since the lame duck Congress is being ushered out anyway, I bet that they could care less about leaving the next Congress with a 'clean' agenda.

Beverly and Pietro:

The Supreme Court does not repeal law. It may rule a law unconstitutional and no more - at least in theory. This court has actually gone fishing for challenges.

In any case, what Obama could have done - and in my opinion, should have done - was to put the enforcement of DADT on hold via administrative action. Then, he could have - and in my opinion, should have - pushed the Congress to pass a law repealing DADT.

A lame duck session has no less power following an election than it had prior. It can still pass laws. It can do nothing, which in the case of the tax cuts might not be a bad idea inasmuch as the current tax cuts expire on their watch. (There is a slight exception in that an appointed legislator has been replaced by an elected one, but that does not significantly alter the balance.)

Joanna:

By definition, those of a liberal mind catch on long before conservatives. Conservatives are trying to hold on to the past, liberals are looking ahead. You could actually look that up rather than counting on dimwits like Limbaugh to provide you with your talking points and definitions for the day, but you won't. It's too much like work and even worse, you'd have to think.

The liberal mind is always a work in progress. However, on the issue of Carter's intellect, I'll stand by my statement. I am hardly going to look to a two-bit ideologue like yourself for information of consequence. I'm quite familiar with current right-wing ideology. We've been treated to its clear failure for some time now, and in two years, we will see it once again.

David Walker: By definition, those of a liberal mind catch on long before conservatives. Conservatives are trying to hold on to the past, liberals are looking ahead.

Which totally explains Obama's constant complaining about and blaming of Bush.

David Walker: However, on the issue of Carter's intellect, I'll stand by my statement.

You and Pietro do a lot of "Standing by your statements". Pietro of course stands by that 250 mile railroad he wants built in Ohio, the one he says will produce MILLIONS of jobs for just over a billion dollars. You two, along with the President you voted for, are all disconnected from reality.

Pietro: An executive order will only last until the end of the term of the President who issues the order.

Not an expert on such things, but I don't think that's true.

The money quotes: "A signed [executive] order is published in the Federal Register and generally remains in effect until superseded by another order, although some orders are written to expire at a prescribed time."

And "It is no surprise that the Obama transition team is reviewing nearly every order by the Bush administration and there will certainly be more to review from President Bush’s final days in office."

So it appears EOs persist through presidencies.

http://www.thelegality.com/2008/12/11/executive-orders-the-power-of-the-presidents-pen/

Joanna, you want to go back and debate how I was RIGHT about the high-speed rail, we can do that. You actually conceded that you wanted to 'agree to disagree'. Now you bring it back up again?

By the way, for the record, the rail would be a lot more than 250 miles long.

You STILL haven't disproven ANYTHING I posted about those 'MILLIONS of jobs' even when I spelled it out for you. Having trouble comprehending things that are NOT on your 'talking points of the day'?

Finally, when I say I 'stand by my post' that usually means that I can defend what I have posted, even when it has been challenged. I have NEVER seen you 'stand by' anything you have posted.

Wound a little tight today are we Pietro? Or is that more in general?

Cleveland to Cincinnatti is 244 miles Pietro.

You're really into being "right", aren't you Pietro? At least in your own mind.

How's your research on EO's persistence through multiple presidencies coming along Peitro?

DADT. John McCain moved his own goal posts again. Here's a thought--if President Obama had tried to get repeal of DADT through Congress earlier, all the anti-Obama naysayers who daily rant, "see, see, we warned you about Obama" would have been yelling at the top of their lungs "where's the jobs, see, see, he's not focused on the economy". In their narrow minds, there is nothing Pres Obama can or will do to make them feel better about themselves.

If we want to blame anyone for DADT, blame former President Clinton and the GOP for this excuse of a compromise that placed this military decision in the hands of Congress. Clinton thought he was doing the right thing considering the public had not reached acceptance yet. It is too bad Clinton did not simply write an Executive Order establishing that the military would not ask and no one would tell. This would have allowed Clinton or any future President to have simply ordered the military to change. President Obama inherited this disastrous policy. He is criticized for not signing an E.O. ordering the military to stop the discharges but IF he had done this, Congress would have simply sat on their hands rather than bother with this divisive issue at this time.

Joanna - woman, please.

How many rail lines do you know that are EXACTLY straight? It is not 250 miles, it will be more than that. I cannot believe how simplistic you are in your thinking.

As far as the Executive Orders are concerned, they are NOT permanent. A new incoming President can sign Executive Orders that will supercede the ones the previous President made. The point about the Executive orders is that they are NOT Permanent. If President Obama used his Executive Order to make DADT illegal, President Joanna Smith would use her Executive Order to make it legal again (and you would too).

The point of that whole exercise is that REPEAL is the only way to PERMANENTLY rescind the law.

Of course that point was lost on your inability to grasp a subject that is not written down in your daily talking points.

And Carl D, you can ask me directly if I think the high-speed rail will be as efficient as the Post Office.

I am right here.

Carl D: Joanna, ask him if the high speed rail is going to run efficiently like the Post Office and Amtrack..

I think you just did.

And I stand by my previous posts.

Pietro - you are a hoot! You certainly like to frame your arguments to suit what every story you're trying to tell. You start with:

Pietro: An executive order will only last until the end of the term of the President who issues the order.

And when you're caught on a mistake, lie, and/or ignorance (your pick), you quickly change the subject and declare victory:

Pietro: As far as the Executive Orders are concerned, they are NOT permanent. A new incoming President can sign Executive Orders that will supercede the ones the previous President made.

Nice dance. But you just re-framed the issue to try and cover up your mistake, lie, and/or ignorance(your pick). But that wasn't the point.

Keep it up Pietro, you are certainly amusing to watch.

Joanna, I am not a constitutional law professor. My point was that Executive Orders were not permanent. If I misspoke or misposted, then you have proven me wrong and I'll correct myself.

Great. Done. Fantastic.

You can pat yourself on the back.

Woo-hoo!

If your only goal is to sit there and nit-pick my posts, then you have a sorry life ideed. You definitely have not added anything new or cogent to the discussion(s) we have been having about ANYTHING.

But you go on with you bad self.

Pietro:

Lady JoAnna must have wings and travels as the crow flies!!!!!!! She also doesn't understand the purpose of a train; trains are unlike airplanes as they have stops along the way from the starting point to the final destination. She also believes that Ohio only has room for one rail line; I have no idea how she thinks she would get to Toledo.

Lady JoAnna gets her talking points from Rush Limbaugh, who said before President Obama was inagurated, "I hope he (Obama) fails" and Glenn Beck. Her mind has no further room for any other thoughts.

She rather reminds me of a quote that I heard back in the 70s; "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts!"

Julie,Dayton OH - Lady JoAnna must have wings and travels as the crow flies!!!!!!! She also doesn't understand the purpose of a train; trains are unlike airplanes as they have stops along the way from the starting point to the final destination. She also believes that Ohio only has room for one rail line; I have no idea how she thinks she would get to Toledo.

The milage was generated from Mapquest. If you didn't know, Mapquest gives the distance over the available roads. Here, let me help get you there: http://new.mapquest.com/

Of course that's where Peitro initally said his billion dollar, millions of jobs (Thats $1200 per job for a one million jobs, not quite clear who would work for that. Maybe illegals?) producing railroad would go, but now he's changing his story (notice a pattern?) to " It is not 250 miles, it will be more than that." Sure. Whatever. I guess the message with Pietro is don't take him literally, or seriously for that matter.

Julie, Dayton,OH - Lady JoAnna gets her talking points from Rush Limbaugh, who said before President Obama was inagurated, "I hope he (Obama) fails" and Glenn Beck. Her mind has no further room for any other thoughts

Haven't listened to Rush in about 15 years. Beck, never. Don't watch Fox either. Sure sounds like you listen/watch all them all though.

Doesn't it just drive you Libs nuts when you can't classify people to your liking?

But Julie, nice try though. It seems Libs like you and Pietro have all the answers, without ever understanding the questions. But ignorance is obviously bliss in your little world. Oh, is that another quote from the '70s?

Julie - you are correct in your assessment. Not everything is 'simple'. There is NO train line that I know that is 'straight' from one point to another; this one, if it was to be built, would not be either. I am thinking that we would probably have light rail feeder lines from major stations in Cincy, Columbus , Toledo, Akron and Cleveland.

Its too bad that Gov-elect Kasich is killing the projects.

Joanna really doesn't bother me when she posts her steaming piles of hyperbole because it is all she knows how to do. We have a golden opportunity here to exchange ideas and learn something and her only intent is to toe a party line and throw out REALLY lame remarks (I guess it is her method of being erudite) that have nothing to do with any argument(s) that anyone is making.

I actually enjoy the challenge of some of the arguments made here and making/defending a point is a lot DIFFERENT than sitting on the sidelines throwing rocks.

Any fool can throw rocks.

Pietro:

Joanna, I am not a constitutional law professor. My point was that Executive Orders were not permanent. If I misspoke or misposted, then you have proven me wrong and I'll correct myself.

Great. Done. Fantastic.

Pietro - The point is that you are fast and loose with your facts. I too am not a constitutional lawyer, but I know enough that if I don't have the background to make such a statement as you did, that I should either go get the information from somewhere, or just not make the statement at all. You apparently just make things up on the fly so it fits your story line. You don't have to go too far into your many posts to not just find what you call mistakes, but to find complete fabrications.

So your credibility is not the best. And when you credibility is challenged, you have this knee-jerk reaction to attack the one doing the challenging. None of these issues I've listed here are good qualities to have Pietro, but yet you own them all.

You have a good evening Peitro.

Joanna,

So it appears EOs persist through presidencies.

Not true. They can be overturned by congress with a 2/3rd vote.

The fact that Pietro said he made an error gave you the license to say he attacks when challenged. I have noticed that when you get challenged, you stay quiet and comment on something else, never admitting that you were wrong. At least he admits he was wrong, while you took the chance to gloat over a minor error.

All I have seen you do is run, hide or try the put downs when you are proven wrong. At least Pietro manned up, you should try doing the same instead of attacking.

Thank you for your post, Fletch2.

You know, I was going to respond to Joanna, but after reading what Fletch2 wrote, I'll just leave Joanna with this parting thought:

You really should stop throwing rocks.

no joe, no bo, nj

There is an issue out there that the media are ignoring that is impacting negatively a significant portion of the population. The TSA, in a lame attempt at keeping underwear bombers off domestic flights, are now forcing travelers to choose between being photographed naked as jaybirds, or being molested.

I am serious, folks.

The new backscatter scanners, in addition to exposing people to radiation, project images of travelers buck naked. If you refuse to go through the scanner, you can opt for an enhanced pat down- which involved having your genitals groped.

Oh, and, by the way, those who demonstrate religious objections, I.e., by the way they are clothed, are exempt from either.

Now, I am a frequent traveler- I fly monthly for business. So, I can choose to get a dose of radiation, as well as expose myself to some unseen stranger, I can get groped in public, or I suppose, I can cloth myself as a nun.

Once again, Janet Napolitano proves that she does not have two brain cells to rub together to make a spark. Once again, we have a silent media on a controversial issue, owing to the fact that the administration happens to be democratic. Once again, the left is totally oblivious to the violation of civil rights, because if Obama told them they could fly, they'd all break their necks jumping off their roofs.

no jo

Now, I am a frequent traveler- I fly monthly for business. So, I can choose to get a dose of radiation, as well as expose myself to some unseen stranger, I can get groped in public, or I suppose, I can cloth myself as a nun.

Once again, Janet Napolitano proves that she does not have two brain cells to rub together to make a spark. Once again, we have a silent media on a controversial issue, owing to the fact that the administration happens to be democratic. Once again, the left is totally oblivious to the violation of civil rights, because if Obama told them they could fly, they'd all break their necks jumping off their roofs.

Or as usual you can enjoy your b!itching fest.

Oh, I'd also not talk about brain power. The news media is talking about it. Unless, you don't know how to turn on the TV you'd never see it.

It looks like this is one of the few areas where there's overwhelming bipartisan agreement: these scanners are an outrageous government intrusion on privacy rights, and they won't even work. If the terrorists know that they can't repeat the underpants bomber's tactics, they've got ways around the scanners.

There's already been a nearly successful attempt on the life of a Saudi official by a terrorist who hid his bomb where the sun don't shine. He did manage to kill several other people, though. The TSA always has a knee-jerk reaction to whatever is the latest terrorist tactic, so if an attack similar to the Saudi attack occurs on a plane, does that mean that all passengers must submit to proctological examinations before boarding an aircraft? I think that would cut down on commercial air traffic quite a bit.

BTW: Nojobno should be interested to know that former Bush administration security officials are in favor of using these scanners. Intrusions on personal privacy in the name of national security is one area where Obama and Bush seem to be in near total agreement.

The screen examiners do not know who they are screening, they cannot see the person being scanned. The choice is simple either we want to prevent underwear and shoe bombers from taking down aircraft or we do not; we cannot have it both ways. The right demands Americans be kept safe yet decries technology that might help do that.

I rarely fly now because I felt that that TSA was too intrusive in their 'scanning' of me and my bags.

I have been watching the issue with the 'new' procedure(s). I canot say that I would be amenable to letting the TSA touch me.

Ever.

I also do not like the idea of those scanners because we don't know if they actually DO destroy those images once we are done.

La mia fidunzata is always afraid for me when I fly in the United States as I ALWAYS get selected for 'further screening' (I had no problems in Ireland, the UK or other parts of Europe).

Now I have to submit to 'fondling' before I get on an airplane?

If that is the case, I will ONLY let a female TSA agent check me and we will continue with the 'screening' until I have a need for a cigarette.

The terrorist have finally won. We stay home, are scared to death and resist every safety protection that the government provides. All that is left now, if for all of us to curl up in a fetal position and wait for the bogey man.

The people who are so afraid of scanners, radiation or fondling should stay home. I also bet these are the people who do not want speed trains. Greyhound business should be booming now.

OR

We are waiting for something else to happen, so we can blame the government for not keeping us safe.

BTW..Scanners have been around for a while. Its usually used in customs and the people who are put through these scanners don't usually protest sine it's either be scanned or be held for as long as necessary.

Fletch,

I probably agree, somewhat; but man Pietro has a VALID point.

Clara,

His point is valid. I just hate to see what terrorist has done to us. We are so scared we don't trust our shadow. I think there's going to be so much push back tsa will have to change some of these policies.

I worked in the airline industry for years and can sympathize with both sides. This is a little overboard. They are even going after Pilots which is ridiculous. They are not suicidal maniacs and if so why place so many lives in their hands.

We should all travel naked or with just a sack.....then it will be something else.

Hi Houston!

Last Howard Fineman said the President feels if he doesn't compromise the 2/3 majority will override his veto. because he wants taxes for I don't think compromise should even be on the table at all.

My contention is the President should expose the selfish republican/tea baggers. Maybe when tea baggers experience more suffering they'll see they were used.

No comprising!!!

Bev;

In my opinion what President Obama should do is let the tax cuts expire for all. Yes, I and everybody else will pay more for now. The House then needs to initiate a bill for Tax Cuts for the middle class and make them vote on it. Let us see what the republican/tea party will do. Will they tell 95% of the American people to go pound salt? How will that fly in 2012?

This would take guts and I really do not know if the politicians have it. I would gladly pay a little more now and put this country on the path to financial stability. What I will not do is give the richest 2% another tax cut where they get more than 50% of the benefits like they did before. These cuts to the top 2% do not create jobs, hello we have been there on this one and in fact still are on that gravy train until end of December and still no jobs. These 2% will just put the money into savings (Wall Street) - See Bloomberg Report for details. The economic divided will reach new records and the Middle Class will be worse off than we were before.

Beverly:

Last Howard Fineman said the President feels if he doesn't compromise the 2/3 majority will override his veto. because he wants taxes for I don't think compromise should even be on the table at all.

I heard Fineman say that and I found that explanation a bit strange. I gueess Fineman meant that if Congress did pass an extension for all the tax cuts, including the wealthy, they would override the veto so they wouldn't be in the position of not keeping any of the tax cuts, including the ones for the middle class. But that's exactly why the Democrats should at least try to get a middle-class-only extension before any vote on keeping all the tax cuts. Extending all the cuts might be reasonable to do AFTER the middle-class only vote is tried and fails, but only after.

LouisJ

Contact tyler and ask him to restore your post. Google @tyler newsvine. He doesn't restore deletions,

By the way, my post was collapsed too because it's attached to yours. I think they do it out of spite. On the hand they say all kinds of vile things, lie, and just use FOX NOISE talkings because they don't know better.

You know something Bev, I would do that but my little bit of pride gets in my way. What's the purpose of running to someone everytime a narrow minded individual goes into collapse mode to restore a comment?

They need to remove the collapse option and the moderator (whoever that may be) collapses the comment themselves. That would solve that problem.

It's mere absence of thought to go around peeved because someone actually contributes to any forum with rationality.

Well Well... looks like I'm in good company with you Bev & Louis!

My post was collapsed as well and in NO way violated the COH!

I say F**K IT!

Let em collapse them until they wear themselves out... All you got to do is copy and repost again & again & again...

If nothing else it will smoke out the abusive trolls for the moderators... ;0)

Keep in mind they can't dispute the facts so in their small little minds they'll attempt to silence them! lmao!

All it tells me is WE MUST BE DOING Something right!

I'd rather have a bulls eye on my back than a boot on my throat anyday!

PS: Agreed about the restore thingy Louis... I don't give a sh!t if they restore it or not to tell you the truth!

Louis J;

I hear you. It is the same people that claim to support the constitution that pull this coward, bully crap. They cannot stand any opinion that does not come from their Gods to be. They have no new ideas and the ones they have suck because we already tried them under the previous administration. This has been going on for awhile.

If it violates the CoH that is one thing, if it is just an opinion that is another. It is called censorship and that is one of the tenant's of the rebublican/tea Party to begin with. I keep telling people these guys are out to re-write the constitution, here is bit one more example.

America Wake UP - please!!!

We all have a right to express our opinions here, censoring them just shows people how weak you are.

Personally, when I find a post that has been collapsed, I uncollapse the post to read it myself. I guess I tend to be rather curious and want to see what was written. Using myself as an example, I would think that have a post collapsed defeats their purpose unless their purpose is just for power. If that is the case, it proves how childish they are.

Provide the link from where you got this information and we can draw our own conclusions.

They were NOT given $535 million. It was a government guaranteed loan. Also there was NO pork involved with this.

“Solyndra has decided to postpone plans to expand Fab 2, which was built with a $535 million federal loan guarantee.” Key word is postpone !!!

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/252637/so-long-solyndra-stephen-spruiell

gave up

First, it would be nice if the Congress started somewhere to make cuts, no matter how small.

Their job? Is to legislate, not hand out money.

What do you think Appropriations Committee do?

The Appropriations, Ways and Means, Energy & Commerce and Transportation Committees are responsible for most of the federal budget and how taxes are levied and spent.

Legislation creates laws president signs themor vetos think.

Whatever you do don't take bachmann test

gave up

First, it would be nice if the Congress started somewhere to make cuts, no matter how small.

Their job? Is to legislate, not hand out money.

What do you think Appropriations Committee do?

For example, the Appropriations, Ways and Means, Energy & Commerce and Transportation Committees are responsible for most of the federal budget and how taxes are levied and spent.

Legislation creates laws president signs them or vetos thinm.

Whatever you do don't take Michell Bachman's Constitution class or test!

Your right every penny counts right now.