Blind Obedience vs. Country First:

You sure GOT that RIGHT Ron!

It's beyond comprehension how the right wing lemmings can't recognize this isn't about what's best for the country...

The only thing this is about it continuing the divisive partisan politics and the continuation of 2% CONTROLLING the rest of the 98%!

Proving yet again... they REALLY do eat their own!

No question, Ron. It would be easier to work with Republicans if they were free (even as individuals) to depart even a little from the far Right intellectual prison of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. They are shackled to the ultra-conservative base they have built for themselves.

Good morning Ron

As a progressive Hoosier and political junkie, I attempt to keep track of Indiana's Senators. Quite frankly, I didn't trust Evan Bayh. I never could tell if that Blue Dog was going to vote with Republicans or with the Democrats. I tended to think he was a DINO, and would send him emails requesting his support of the Democratic agenda. But the emails were a waste of my time.

If you think Evan Bayh was a trip ; just look at Mark Kirk here in Illinois. He's flipped already. Senator Kyle's head is too D^@mn big.

You are so right the TeaParty/ Republican Party will never put country first because it has morphed into a monster.

I can't believe these GOP clowns. They'll cut off their nose to spite their face. Their negative response to anything proposed by the Democrats that would benefit our Country, will come back to haunt them in 2012.

Run Sara Run.

Great post, Ron. As a liberal, I am also a Lugar fan for the same reasons you list; he votes his conscience and votes for Country First. I may disagree with him on some issues but his reasons are honest ones. As for Bayh, never cared for him nor did I trust him; I was pleased he was NOT selected as VP. I also think Bayh resented Pres Obama for not choosing him. I feel the same way about Grassley, sent many e-mails requesting support and months later, I'd get an e-mail telling me he valued my opinion but No sale.

START is not a political football, passing the treaty is a win for both republicans and democrats and definitely for the country. As with so many things the past two years, the republicans simply cannot do what is right out of fear--fear that Club for Growth or the Tea Party will challenge them. I say, so what if they do. I watched McCain become a panderer out of fear, a flip flopper of epic proportions and as far as I am concerned, he sold his soul for one more term instead of risking a loss based on his integrity and his willingness to do what is right regardless of politics. Senator Kyl has been stalling a vote on START for months using one excuse after another. If it does not pass, the new Congress must start over, all new hearings and testimony which will take months more and Kyl will likely stretch it out through 2011--then just as this year, he will claim voting must be postponed because of upcoming elections. Disgusting.

Good Morning Jody: I am a fan of your senator, Tom Harkin.

Just askin? With the smaller margin in the Senate, How much will the Senate lower the cloture rule so something, anything has a chance to pass in the Senate?

Oops - Left the "h" out of darling Sarah's name. So Sad.

START is SALT II redux.

In the preamble, missile defense is equated with nuclear proliferation. Obama says the preamble is non binding; the Russians beg to differ.so, in the wake of both North Korea and Iran building nuclear weapons, Obama cuts our defense against an attack. Why am I not surprised?

There were plenty of people on the left, and a few on the right, who believed we had no choice but to accept SALT II. They were wrong. Lugar is wrong on START. As for Obama, he is wrong on just about every issue anyway, so this is no different.

I am somewhat amused, however, by the focus on this treaty. Why don't one of you Obama supporters comment on the fact that practically the entire middle east is begging for action against Iran, but Obama sits on his hands? The Yemini government is so desperate to get action that they offered to take the blame for the bombs, if it came to that. So, tell me, what, exactly, is his excuse?

I would tell you my theory, but you would discount it. So, tell me yours.

Ron,

Blind Obedience vs. Country First? 0r Who's Blind?

START reduces warheads from the 2,200 - 1,700 range to 1,550 for each country. No biggie. But it reduces the delivery vehicles to 700. Russia doesn't have 700 delivery vehicles so it in effect only mandates cuts to the US.

The old treaty limited the number of warheads per vehicle. The new one doesn't. Another good deal for the Russians and nothing for us.

Big thing however, is the preamble which the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov insists is "legally binding", states "the interrelationship" of offensive and defensive systems. This for all practical purposes treats our bullet proof vest as one of their guns. The Russians have leveraged the treaty into a defacto limit on how we can defend ourselves when the world is getting ready to go nuclear nuts.

The Presidents first job is protect America. Why is missile defense even on the table?

Obama reponse is tappity, tappity, tappity tap, tap. Why the rush when to sign when the dance is still going on? No one is allowed to ask questions and seek clarification?

And about verification stopping, if it was so critical, Obama could have asked for an extension at any time. Obama didn't bother. Besides, the treaty is a lot weaker on verification than the previous treaty.

So Ron, how is this treaty such a good deal? What party has blind obedience and what party has their eyes open and is asking questions? What party is trying to rush through something in a lame duck session and please explain how that is putting the country first.

Why don't one of you Obama supporters comment on the fact that practically the entire middle east is begging for action against Iran, but Obama sits on his hands?

Better yet...

Why don't you tell us how many more wars we should fight and how many MORE dead Americans would fill your thirst for blood?

Ron-

I always viewed Lugar and Bayh as closer to the middle than most and gave good balance and reputation to our state. My only disappointment in BOTH of them is they haven't stand up MORE to fight for common sense and bring more people together. Their have been times I've wanted BOTH of them to stand up to the more radical parts of their parties.

Gov. Daniels is a GREAT example of putting political interest ahead of state/country. Rather than make a tough decision on whether to raise taxes to support education he pushes thru a referendum process to give the people more voice. The problem is it give a voice to people that shouldn't be heard from, because they don't know what they are talking about. But it makes him look good because he avoids making the decision to raise taxes.

Now, Gov. Daniels was elected to an office that would eventually require him to make tough, unpopular decisions, and stand by them. If he doesn't have the strength and courage to do that, but rather make the Tea Party happy.....well, he has no business being governor, let alone President.

NO JOE,

We don't need another deficit increasing, unfunded war in the Middle East. If anyone wants anything done against Iran, have Israel do it. They are probably better equipped to handle it anyways. We haven't found a leader of a terrorist group in over 9 years. What makes you think we can handle Iran? Until we get OBL, we need to stay out of other areas, unless of course our allies are attacked by a hostile enemy. Oops that has already happened in Korea, and what are we doing there?

Mark_n_Indy:

You are spot-on. Good to see a fellow Hoosier writing on FT today. Your points are well made. With regard to Daniels, I think he will make some tough, unpopular decisions and with make the Tea Party happy. My problem with Daniels is that he has no compassion whatsoever, zero: and to be a political leader, you have to care about someone other than yourself.

If I were the Republicans, I would give in on the START treaty---because I think that it is not on most people's "hot button" list. They could concede on that one and use it to offset the "party of no" label that is off-putting to people who actually want something done in DC.

Big Bear, we stopped Israel, remember? Obama warned them that we would not back them, there would be heavy duty fall out, and they would be on their own.

Typical.

We could have provided surreptitious help to the protestors last year, and the regime would have fallen, as Thatcher, Reagan, and the Pope did with Poland. He did nothing.

Typical.

It seems he has only one plan for every situation - bowl them over with his charm. When that does not work, he gives it up as not worth the hassle.

What a disaster for the country, and for the world.

Sure Steeler Fan. So, how about you show some community outreach and trust? Next time you go out, park your car and leave the keys in the ignition. To, you know, show faith in your community. Leaves your doors unlocked, too. That way, you will be proving that you are a trusting individual, who should be treated with the deference you deserve for your uncompromising faith in humanity.

I am sure that your insurance agency will congratulate you as they pay for your losses.

NoJo, political sense has nothing to do with common sense. Apples to apples please.

Tom, if you can not see the equivalence between personal security and the country's security, I can not help you.

We have two rogue nations developing nuclear weapons for their own use, and, yes, to sell to others. You want the republicans to ratify a treaty that would limit our ability to continue to develop defensive strategies?

You are invited to join Steeler Fan in her quest to prove her unwavering belief in the goodness of mankind. I will continue to understand reality.

To believe we have the full scope and knowledge of our security revealed to us via politician then sifted through the media is naive. The public has no idea how many weapons we have. Guess what, the public will have no idea how many weapons we have after this treaty. You are speaking about the issues as if you have some intimate knowledge of what it takes to protect this country. The truth of the matter is only a handful of people know what we really have and what is just being made up.

As far as two rogue nations, I believe the President has shown he is willing to do the dirt keeping this country safe as long as it doesn't make us look bad. As far as I am concerned that is the correct way to go about it.

I have served in combat during this conflict I have seen far more "reality" than I cared to. But please keep believing only those who have a mirophone, tv camera or keyboard understand the "reality" of protection, conflict and war.

Today alone you have posted about fiscal responsibility, while talking about more expensive armed conflict; the shortcomings of our President publicly and the importance of national defense these contradictions tell me all I need to know about your "reality."

Don't understand the attack, No Joe---I was speaking purely from a political strategy point of view, not addressing the merits of the treaty. The point I apparently failed to make was that since I don't believe the Republicans are motivated by anything other than blind hatred for President Obama and a desire to defeat him in 2012, they could compromise on this treaty and draw lines in the sand elsewhere and be able to say they weren't entirely obstructionist. You know that word--compromise---you have to give something up to do it.

A comment about the truth. We are on a need to know bases. The government does not tell the public about national security issues or any other issues unless they want us to know. Also, if you are listening to the talking heads and do not realize they blend reality with fantasy to promote their view point and to promote their career, then you need to wake up out of that koolaid acid trip.

Mitch Daniels is going to pull a Chrisitie - he's going to bust the teacher's unions. That's why he has the state superintendent traveling around the state saying we need teacher performance standards top down from the state. He's already forcing the school boards to dump their teachers into the state insurance plan where the GOP controls benefits, costs and co-pays. (Sounds like single payer to me).

Ron, I'm guessing Harkin will try for the gradual decrease of votes required to overcome the filibuster on each piece of legislation and it will require actual debate, not simply a vote against cloture. I'm thinking something like 60, 56, 53 then 51. Regardless of party, the current filibuster is not a filibuster and the party blocking majority rule pays no consequences for their actions. If 46% of voters do not know the GOP won the House in Nov, then likely they have no idea the GOP has filibustered nearly every piece of legislation for two years. Harkin's article this summer spoke about forcing an actual filibuster debate--put up or shut up. I'm hoping the new Senate really does something about this otherwise gridlock forever is the result.

A comment about the truth. We are on a need to know bases. The government does not tell the public about national security issues or any other issues unless they want us to know.

I thought this was "the most transparent administration", to quote a libbie koolaid drinker.

http://www.tngovwatch.org/2010/11/heritage-gives-you-10-reasons-that-the-new-start-treaty-is-not-good-for-america/

You think the heritage Foundation has an inside track? Government secrecy is not limited by political ideology. The heritage foundation takes old people money and uses it to fight against the social programs that seniors depend.

John B: Excellent reminder of history. In spite of Republican opposition, the economy will get better and at some point the American people will realize that conservatives have no plan...and personal attacks will not work either.

It was George Santayana who said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

Why can't some learn? Such a sad statement on the conservatives and their ilk.

Terrific post, John B. The 2008 collapse is a near mirror image of the Great Depression including the same income disparity gap. That gap today is the largest since the gap just prior to the Great Depression. The only thing that prevented a second depression was many of the policies FDR put in place, the "safety nets"--FDIC insurance on people's money in the banks, unemployment benefits, social security plus quick action with Bush's TARP and Obama's stimulus and auto company loans. The fact that the US did not fall into a second depression but merely a deep recession made it more difficult for democrats to get the message across to the people. It is hard to sell the idea that "it could have been much worse". Republicans then and now sell fear of "isms" but I think most nonconservatives have stopped listening to that talk.

Communists and even a few Fascists traveled the land, trying to recruit the desperate into their philosophies.

Good post, John. But the political situation was much more desperate than even that. Gore Vidal has written about how his father, a conservative Republican senator during the Depression, had his limousine stoned by an angry mob as he made his way to the Capitol Building. Armed troops under Gen. McArthur used force to disperse the "Bonus Marchers" who were WWI vets who had gathered Washington D.C. to demand the bonuses they had been promised by the government for their service in the Great War. There were Nazi sympathizers in high places in American society, including aviation hero Charles Lindburgh, the anti-semitic Henry Ford, and G. W. Bush's grandfather who got into some trouble for trading with the enemy during WWII.

And perhaps worst of all, a conspiracy of wealthy businessmen plotted a fascist coup against President Roosevelt. The coup failed becaused the Marine Corps general they chose to lead the coup was a loyal American who blew the whistle on the plotters. Roosevelt covered up the coup attempt because he feared there would be a backlash against business leaders that might result in a Communist-inspired uprising. America may have been very lucky to not emerge from the Great Depression as either a fascist or Stalinist dictatorship. If a lesser man than Franklin Delano Roosevelt had been president then, that could well have been our fate.

This is precisely what the American People need to do. And I do mean the majority of the American People, not the radical right that the Republicans like to speak to. We elected a progressive agenda. We had no idea how much deeper and more corrupt the entire system was. Whatever we may dislike about Pres. Obama's handling of the situation, we have to assume some of the mantle of responsibility to tap into a grassroots movement that will ensure a liberal/progressive government design to take us forward into the 21 century, not one that echoes the 17th (including the Salem Witch trials and banishment of freethinkers from New England!)

Thanks for the good post on FDR.

Conservatives believed, economies correct themselves

The Great Depression and big government intervention. Interesting that there wasn't a "Great" depression before big government intervention.

People talk about 25% unemployment and how government simply cannot not intervene. How many realize unemployment never hit 25% until AFTER the federal government intervened. Unemployment never hit double digits in any of the 12 months following the crash. Unemployment peaked at 9% in December 1929. It dropped to 6.3% by June 1930. Government intervention started the same month with the passage of Smoot-Hawley tariffs by a Democratic Congress and signed by Republican President Hoover. (Bipartisan)

Within 6 months of this intervention, unemployment hit double digits and stayed in double digits for a decade as intervention after intervention was tried. You almost wonder if it would have ever ended if WWII had not come along and FDR decided to fight the Nazis instead of pursue his big government progressive war on business and free markets.

We did the progressive experiment, it didn't work. Obama has been trying it again for almost 2 years and it hasn't worked.

Do you guys ever learn?

LL,

We elected a progressive agenda.

I am pretty sure that most of that agenda was defeated in the last election. There is a point at which either side goes too far, and this past agenda went way too far to the left without moderation. The most successful president's have always been in the middle, including Clinton, and Obama conducted himself as being in the middle during the election cycle, and has not lived up to that.

Reform does not mean you have to step on people's toes, especially where a majority of the people think things need to done differently. That is what happened in the last election. The majority has spoken again. Will that change in 2 years, maybe, maybe not. But the progressive agenda has hit a road block.

Bear,

Agreed. All during the campaign, Candidate Obama made talk about open debate about topics. I didn't realize his idea of open debate meant closed door meetings and a do as I say mentality.

Bear/Chef,

I disagree. I don't think Obama's agenda has been a far left agenda, i think it has been a moderate/left agenda that seems far left to conservatives. Health care was not single payer and it did not have a public option, which upset a lot liberals. He increased our presence in Afghanistan, also upsetting a lot of liberals. I think that for some this election was about denouncing the president's agenda but I think more people were upset because of the economy and unemployment than anything else. I'll also add, I think the president did pretty much what he campaigned on.

As far as closed door meetings, many of those meetings were with republicans. I think he compromised with the "Blue Dog" democrats more than he ever did with any republicans, but I also think he put forth more effort to meet the republicans than they did to him. It might be true that it is his job as President to do that where they as the minority party had no such obligations, but that doesn't change the facts.

no joe, no bo, nj

On WikiLeaks- I wonder if anyone has considered the correlation between the leaked, ENCODED documents, (which were obviously decoded by someone with the encryption key) and last week's "pirating" of emails by the Chinese. Maybe it is pure coincidence- maybe it is far too coincidental. It is certainly past time for this administration to do something to secure the network. I realize thAt the last document dump only embarrassed the Bush administration, but this latest dump obama to be petty and weak, so, perhaps, he will be sufficiently indignant to actually take action.

There's no need to wonder. That twit Sarah Palin is taking care of that. Didn't you see Sarah Palin's incoherently dangerous wikisqueak criticism on twitter?

no joe, no bo, nj

Hey How is your state going to refund the GOVERNMENT the 270 million you guys owe from the work already done for that tunnel project your governer canceled.

Chris Christie's $271 million IOU: "New Jersey owes the federal government more than $271 million after canceling a rail tunnel connecting the state with New York City, according to a debt notice obtained yesterday by the Associated Press. The letter from the Federal Transit Administration's chief financial officer to NJ Transit's executive director demands payment of $271,101,291 by Dec. 24.

As much as you talk about waste in government, if the don't pay that back on time Girl you know i will be all over this, like a bad suit.

No Jo as a tax paying citizen i want my money back and not a post dated check!!!!
Talk about a boost for the government, WOW WOW
But from what i here you state is broke!!!!

And another poll shows 51% of Americans support allowing the Bush tax cuts for incomes greater than $250,000 to expire.

Jeff,

First you have to get a job and pay taxes to demand "your money" back. And even then it amounts to $2.

Chef Darrell

Jeff,

First you have to get a job and pay taxes to demand "your money" back. And even then it amounts to $2.

Sorry to tell you this, but man i work, very hard, i work and put 3 kids through college, as well as my son who is in his second year, i pay more in tips than you do in taxes.

Neato mosquito. And through it all yo're still whining about a measley $2.

Chef Darrell

Neato mosquito. And through it all yo're still whining about a measley $2.

No Son I'm bitching at No Jo because her governer canceled a project worth billion and though they could keep the money they spent, maybe he should have through twice about that. 270 million. these republican governers talk about fiscal responsibility, Now this goof owes the federal government(Obama) 270 million and he wants it back. Just the same for the republican Wisconsin Governer that wants to divert High speed rail money to his state coffers to help balance his state budget and Ray LaHood said Hell No.

thank God Illinois did not make the same mistake electing Bill Brady a republican that is about as smart as these two goofs.

With all do respect, to question the dedication of the USMC is foolish and short sighted. Try for just one moment to see it from the point of view of someone who is forced to have a roommate for the next four years of there life.

I don't know if I agree with it or not but I am trying to view the issue objectively. The biggest issue I see with it is boot camp. In boot camp drill instructors have to be present for some of the most private actions that occur in every day life up to and including overseeing lockeroom like showers. This is why male drill instructors are not permitted to be in charge of or alone with female recruits. With that being a rule, can an openly gay marine be a drill instructor for recruits of the same sex? I would have to say no. But, all marines would have to be afforded an equal opportunity at serving as a drill instructor or people would cry foul.

I was annoyed enough about my platoon being instructed how to shower by a grown man but to think he may be getting some kind of pleasure out of it would have pushed me over the edge. If you can think of a fair and logical solution please share.

The military has always been a more conservative population. Now, what with the Jesus Camp, soldiers for Jesus right wingers joining in droves to bring Xtianity to the Middle East or to just knock the crap out of "ragheads" (no offense, just paraphrasing) I imagine the Marines are the most conservative crowd.

But it's not all about them. It's about human rights. The African-Americans were integrated after having served in WWII, women were allowed into combat areas. People adapt or they don't sign up... This is a civil rights issue as much as skin color or gender. It may not come as quickly as we would like, but it will happen.

Because....Time! Marches on!

"There is no army that can stop an idea whose time has come."

Victor Hugo

I am not trying to be insensitive here but, being black and being gay is not the same thing. Being black does has no effect on how I see and interact with the two genders regardless of how close the quarters are. However being gay does. Not saying the plight is not a serious one just pointing out it is not the same.

Tom Reston -- how do you know you've never had a gay drill instructor? And why do marines need to learn how to shower -- why not just do a clothed demonstration to men and women alike? Sometimes when one questions the conventional wisdom, it turns out that the wisdom isn't very wise. The USMC can change or adapt any current "standard" in a platoon. One can change roommates. One can change the standards of privacy or dignity without altering "combat readiness."

That is not the case. It is not like a college dorm where you can just change roommates. You can't choose who you are in a fire team with so you can't change who your roommate is.

I knew the "why are they monitoring the shower questions would come up". Well the mothers of america saw a number of recruits would attempt suicide in the bathrooms and showers and demanded something be done. Now for the first week or so recruits are monitored at all times.

I believe a person has a right to not be placed in a close quarters situations with someone who maybe physically attracted to them. Some women choose not to have male gyno's, that does not make them bad people.

My god you're utterly ridiculous!

There was nothing in his Op Ed that I disagreed with, if fact I support his position on what congress should be doing right now. It seems to me like he has his priorities straight while the left seems to be distracted by other social issues. It seems to me that DADT and immigration are issues that pale in comparison to reducing the deficit and the debt while still allowing those citizens keeping this country going to keep some of their hard earned money so that they can continue to provide for their families.

Thanks for pointing out that the Congress was one of the most productive in recent history DESPITE Conservative efforts to make sure NOTHING got done. In their usual willful ignorance of the facts someone will be along shortly to whine "what has the President done?" PLENTY.

Sure they got a lot done. They imposed plenty of legislation against the will of the electorate, and got booted out of office for their troubles, just as the Founders envisioned.

There was no lack of understanding by the electorate- they knew exactly what democrats had done. THAT is why they voted them out of office.

Nashville_fan

Is Obama a poor negotiator?

Returning to yesterday’s pay freeze, some voices on the left were disappointed that Obama put it on the table without asking for anything in return from Republicans.

- First Read

It is ironic that although President Obama has more legislative accomplishments than any modern President, his "negotiating" skills are constantly questioned.

Well done Mr. President.

Well said

Nash,

It's just typical

of the media to bash the President. The Republicans do all the talking and the President gets things done.

In an age where government seems to be done by listening to polls and pundits, I find it refreshing that President Obama keeps his focus on what he believes is the right thing to do. It does not trouble me that he doesn't act in the way people in the media, interest groups on either side or more traditional politicians expect him to---that isn't why I voted for him and continue to support him. Too bad FR couldn't have seen this as governing rather than negotiating.

Well said, Nashville. President Obama has negotiated successfully to achieve a great deal of legislation. As for partisanship, to negotiate with republicans requires the republicans be willing to bend and compromise on their side, too. The GOP's idea of compromise is everything their way. If President Obama had done what was politically popular, he would not have supported TARP, or the auto company loans; he would not have pushed through Health Care Reform. I, too, applaud President Obama for continuing to work for the people, not the party.

As for the right, they ignore the voter exit polls which said their vote was not a referendum on President Obama's policies. They indicated they want the gridlock to stop, the want legislators to compromise and fix things. It was not a GOP mandate but rather an opportunity to prove they can govern.

Steeler Fan, you and a handful of others. The majority want him stopped before he does anymore damage, and want the damage he has done repaired.

How do you account for the most losses for a political part since 1938 in the House, and the most losses at the state house level since 1966? Still think the voters are overwhelmed by Obamamania? Sure does not look like it from here. In addition, there are more than a few democrats who are adding 'former' to that title. Read here http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/29/ap/national/main7100495.shtml

Obama is leading to the demise of the democratic party, and you are cheering him on. Tell me the truth: are you really a republican?

no joe:

You daily attempts to demonize our President by blaming him for things that he is not responsible for, combined with your mindless glee about things that are largely irrelevent, reminds me daily why I have chosen to ignore you as much as possible.

The midterm election proved one thing: that if you have enough money and control the airwaves, you can pretty much get the American people to believe anything.

And I am just fine with that. Folks will either wake up or America will go the way of other bloated empires that have been run into the round by short sighted "leaders" enriching themselves on the backs of "the people".

Of course, in your world, if you get enough folks to believe things that aren't true, you "won".

Enjoy your victory.

Well said, Jody. Conservative leaders are deliberately ignoring the level of mandate they've received. They did it in '94 as well and paid the price 2 years later. We'll see if a party that STILL sees Newt Gingrich as some sort of statesman is capable of learning.

All of this congratulatory talk in here. Who are you patting on the back besides each other. If you can only get someone of like ilk to agree with you, then you have not accomplished anything.

When you lefties convince some of us to agree with you then "high fives" are appropriate; until then you're just preaching to the choir.

Some of you in here are pathetic. You worship Obama like as if he is the true messiah. If Obama took a shyt you would swear it didn't stink, and to prove your point; you would stir it with your finger. I would not doubt if some of you wouldn't taste it just to see if it was really shyt.

IntheMiddle:

I am sorry that you are unable to add much to the conversation and that your back is not being patted enough.

We are all suffering as a result . . . you are a grown man posting about playing with sh!t with sticks.

Sobering.

Thanks for backing me up, Nash. No Joe---I don't read a lot into the midterm elections beyond the fact that it saddens me that more people don't vote in them and that thanks to the Supreme Court, the floodgates of anonymous and foreign money is skewing our elections. The way I see elections is that the majority of the country voted for President Obama to lead for 4 years--not until 2010--so I expect him to keep on doing what we elected him to do. And I think he does a great job---he is hard-working, smart, caring and helping us to survive 8 of the worst years in our history. I don't expect you to agree with me, No Joe, and in fact I was a Republican until I couldn't stand the negativity and lack of compassion any longer.

Steeler fan:

No problem . . . as a Titan's fan . . . I am still trying to make amends for that "disrespecting the Terrible Towel" incident from a few years back! :o)

Steeler:

I don't believe you were EVER a Republican. The stuff you spew in here lead me to think you have ALWAYS been a liberal. People do not change affiliation overnight. That statement you just made about 8 of the worst years in history is a talking point. I see you still can afford the internet so it must not have been too bad.

As far as the majority of the country voting for Obama. I would say the majority of those that actually voted which was about 47% of all eligible voters. Obama won like that because McCain was a piss poor candidate and Republicans did not show up to vote for him. You watch how many Republicans show up in 2012.

Nash--since it seems like your Titans aren't going to the Super Bowl this year, you are welcome to join the Steeler nation on a temporary visa. I will even send you your very own Terrible Towel---they also come in pink now!!

In the middle---I don't know how old you are so perhaps you don't remember that there used to be a very vibrant progressive wing of the Republican party. Our own Senator from Pennsylvania, John Heinz, was a leader of that wing. It doesn't matter to me whether you believe me or not but I was a Republican until 2008. And if you can point to 8 worse years in our history than the Bush presidency--please do so.

I hope the Republicans do turn out in 2012. I hope they run a strong candidate and we have a real debate about policy and a great turnout. I still think President Obama would win because he represents positive values and a hope for the future.

Steeler Fan:

As tempting as that Pink Terrible Towel sounds . . . I think I'm gonna have to pass . . . besides . . . this episode of As The Titans Turn is particularly exciting! lol

Maybe Repu licans are taking credit for the idea because it was their idea in the first place. Federal, non military workers were s hedged to get a 1.4% increase- the original republican proposal was a 10% pay CUT, followed by a freeze.

Wonder why?

Well, Obama has both vastly increased the number of non military federal workers, (141,000, at last count), and their compensation.

For just one example, in 2005, the Defense Department boasted just nine workers whose compensation was $170,000. By the time Obama took office in 2009, that number has grown to 214, (thanks a lot, W).

This past June, the number had grown to 994. That is not a typo- nine hundred ninety four.

In fact, all non military federal workers who earn $150,000+, represent 3.9% of the federal workforce. As recently as five year ago, that number was just 0.4%.

Read here http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-11-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

So, tell me, who are all these people, and why are they so highly compensated? Can anyone really justify Obama adding 780 highly compensated individuals to just one department?

Put this in the context of the number of federal employees who owe a combined one billion dollars in back taxes, (40 of whom are Obama aides), and we have a real problem on our hands.

Salary freeze? Heck, yes. But we also need salary CUTS, and a twenty per cent reduction in the workforce. Now would be a good time.

Ahhh....

And our resident KNOW IT ALL chimes in this morning!

Only problem is... she's been busted for spreading BS so many times around here I have real difficulty believing ANYTHING she says...

The sort of thing happens when you've been outed as a LIAR!

Check the link. The story came out on November tenth.

no joe:

First of all, I want to say THANK YOU for providing a LINKS to information!

What a refreshing change! :o)

I would like to return the favor, by posting this article from the same source, USA Today, from December 2009:

For feds, more get 6-figure salaries

The growth in six-figure salaries has pushed the average federal worker's pay to $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector.

Key reasons for the boom in six-figure salaries:

• Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended — and Congress approved — across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes — called steps — that average 1.5% per year.

•New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Pay Scale for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.

• Paycaps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency's leader. But if Congress lifts the boss' salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief's salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees' had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-10-federal-pay-salaries_N.htm

So, in summary, these are policies that were set in motion by the Bush Administration combined with things that are set up to happen automatically (and also conveniently reward Bush Administration allies in the Defense and Transportation areas).

So to come back now and blame it all on President Obama is . . . well for you, typical.

P.S. How does cutting the federal workforce help unemplyoment in this country? I'm all for making cuts in areas that are overstaffed, but just to cut across the board arbitrarily when there are already folks needing jobs who can't find it seems counterproductive.

If you read my post, you would have seen that I did blame Bush for the increases under his watch.

Now, care to venture a guess as to why Obama had to increase the number of highly compensated workers by 780 in JUST ONE DEPARTMENT?

Let me guess !!! – Well No Joe many of the pay increases from below $150k to above $150k were VA Doctors. These increases were needed to attract and keep good doctors and specialists to care for our great veterans.

Of course No Joe surly wants the best care for our veterans, doesn’t she?

P.S. How does cutting the federal workforce help unemplyoment in this country? I'm all for making cuts in areas that are overstaffed, but just to cut across the board arbitrarily when there are already folks needing jobs who can't find it seems counterproductive.

Because if they are cut the UE benefits are cheaper than their government paid salaries.

no joe:

Reading is fundamental:

"New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Pay Scale for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012."

and

• Paycaps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency's leader. But if Congress lifts the boss' salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief's salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees' had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too.

"Obama" did not increase the number of highly compensate federal workers, the system created BEFORE HE TOOK OFFICE did.

Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

Do you really think the President is sitting in the Oval Office personally giving out payraises to federal workers? Seriously?

It is this knee jerk desire to attach everything negative to the President that is a big reason why the United States of America is falling behind on the global stage - folks would rather tear down the President than lift up the country.

Sad.

The logic of the right is purely ideological dreaming and shows far too much time spent buying what the right sells. A large number of government workers make $50,000 a year or less. They do not all work in Washington DC. Cutting their salary would reduce federal and state government tax revenues and reduce these workers' economic purchasing power. That will do exactly what to reduce the debt and spur economic growth? At most, the result would be a washout.

Chef Darrell:

Until the benefits run out then what? Yet another example of how political talking points rarely translate into sensible policies.

A job is not "bad" just because it is a government job. Let's make realistic cuts where needed and cut out all the political double speak designed to demonize our government and further strengthen the hands of our corporate overlords.

When you go to war warriors get wounded. When wounded warriors come home they need doctors. I am all for being responsible but these cost should have been calculated before the first service member landed in the middle east.

no joe, no bo, nj

So, tell me, who are all these people, and why are they so highly compensated? Can anyone really justify Obama adding 780 highly compensated individuals to just one department?

Who ARE all these people? Homeland Security and TSA....the folks we want to protect us. This is not news - the increase of staff in these depts. has been well published.

Patrick, I will be FURIOUS if Democrats just roll over and let the Republicans repeal the 20th Century. Under no circumstances should they let this happen. They still control the White House and the Senate, in spite of Republican efforts to claim the House and 5 of 9 on the SCOTUS as the only legitimate arms of government.

John. What we need is our own version of the "tea party" We need to hold the remaining democrats feet to the fire.

Remember, they were FOR it before they were AGAINST it!

And they ignore the fact that many republicans voted for TARP. Remember Boehner's tearful plea--that TARP was necessary or the country would collapse.

Great Post Pat:

I especially enjoyed, "Read my stitched up lips. Now that is funny.

EXCELLENT Post Pat,

No tax cut extensions for the wealthy. Zero. Thank the Republicans for coming. Give them each a nice homemade White House pie and then tell them - "THERE WILL BE NO VOTE ON THE EXTENSIONS FOR THE RICH. READ MY STITCHED UP LIPS: NO VOTE."

Then wish them the happiest of holidays.

Would you belive an ACORN cookie is more suitable? The White House served them before. Besides, the Republican/Tea Baggers like ACORNs.

Yea, that Read my stitched up lips is too funny. I like that.

Thanks Ron & Beverly.

I brought a little gift into work for a co-worker who had a baby. As I was on the very crowded TRAIN, the gift started singing all the way to Boston - ABCDEFG, tell me what you think of me, etc. The entire ride.

I was mortified. I didn't realize I hadn't turned it off before wrapping it. But it was funny and everyone had a good laugh on the train. (Except for the guy who was trying to read). Lol.

I'm a bit contrarian on this, Pat--I would like to see them negotiate an extension of the Bush tax cuts just to take that issue off the table and take that argument away from them. Maybe tie them to job creation/recovery.

Love your story about the train ride----now I have that song stuck in my head!!

Enjoyed your post, Pat, stitched up lips and especially the train ride singing gift. I don't think the problem is Pres Obama, Pelosi, Reid but once again the Blue Dog dems, they're the ones who have been touting extending the cuts for 2% of the people for at least a couple years. They're the ones we need to be e-mailing.

Pat:

Eric Cantor was on the Today Show this morning with Matt Lauer and could not answer a simple yes or no question about anything posed by Lauer.

How did this man get elected to anything? Sounds like a "special needs" individual because his responses were non sequiturs!

How does one start each response with "Well you know Matt, the American people have spoken and they want us to cut taxes and cut spending, blah, blah, blah.

I am an American and the people I work with are Americans and I have not heard one of them say they want the government to cut taxes, eliminate the Department of Education, The Department of the Interior, The Department of Energy, etc.

BTW, 98 % of the personnel in my company of approximately 500 individuals make less than $100K.

Loved the "read my stitched up lip" line. Lol.

Come on now drive-by . . . we both know that many of the current "Democrats" have had their vote purchased by various and sundry "corporate persons" . . . it is the "corporate people" who are in the majority in our government . . . never doubt it.

You forget, Pres Obama has to battle the Blue Dog dems who continue to vote with the republicans. If Pres Obama had an all liberal majority the past two years, he could have battled the GOPers more forcefully but when he had to compromise with his own party members that made it tougher.

Why should they vote with Democrats. Most of them have lost their seats anyway. The defeated Democrats just might have a surprise in store for all of those old-timers that won in uncontested races. They just might blow up Pelosi's agenda; they have nothing to lose.

Drive_by_Observer:

You have got to be kidding!

'The President is not too bright'. 'The President doesn’t know what he is doing.'

I am sick of righties and lefties demeaning the President and his efforts.

Not too bright is the likes of Sarah Palin attempting to compare her gaffe last week on North Korea to some sh!t she found on YouTube that was photo-shopped and she actually thought it was the President mouthing inane nonsense!

Someone actually had to let her know that it was not really the President but some made up sh!t.

Now that is not too bright for ya!

Does the President make me fret with his resistance to kick-a$$ and take names? You betcha. But my frustration with him will never catch me ascribing negatives like “he is not too bright” and “doesn’t know what he is doing”.

Policy makers/ movers and shakers who have actually been in the President’s presence have come away with the same impression. That he is “very bright” and committed to making a positive difference for Americans.

Yes, we joke about Socialist, Communist, Kenyan, etc. but the country is still mired in a recession and I believe the President is doing whatever he can to lessen the impact and turn this economy around.

We are mired in unemployment and under-employment. The recession has been officially over for quite some time. We need a new measuring stick for judging our economic progress. Or lack there of.

I think you've nailed it, Houston----it is not negotiating when 1 side does not give anything. The Republicans have demonstrated their lack of good faith before--why would anyone think they had changed now?

That is exactly what they were put in office to do. Democrats may not understand this and all of a sudden everything is about compromise now that they have lost the house. It was all about "We Won" the last few years; well that BS is coming back to haunt you.

Funny thing is, when Republicans were in the minority it was their job to block everything. Now that Democrats will be in the minority in ONE house of Congress it's their job to just go along. As always compromise is whatever Conservatives want.

InTheMiddle:

It was all about "We Won" the last few years; well that BS is coming back to haunt you.

Your spouting revisionist BS. We've just been discussing how Obama was giving the Republicans stuff they wanted before they even asked for it (like the middle-class tax cuts in the stimulus bill), and how that got him exactly ZERO support from the GOP. No compromise is possible with the Republicans because they are fanatics who will do anything to destroy Obama no matter how badly it hurts the country.

Houston:

You can holler revisionist all you want. It still will not wash away those words "We Won".

They were not put in there to compromise, they were put in there to push conservative ideas. Compromise means taking your BS ideas along with mine and we end up with a half Bull and another half shyt idea.

Then you won't be offended if Democrats refuse to pass Republican bills that come from the House and the President refuses to sign them should they squeak through there. After all, they weren't put there to compromise.

First of all they won't SQUEAK through. The majority is more than a squeaker. They can find common ground without compromising republican principals. The Democrats can do whatever the hell they want just like the Republicans can. Who will stop them?, you?, me? A politician is a politician no matter what party and they will do whatever blows their dress up. They will vote and you will still be on here complaining, the earth will continue to turn, and the world will continue to "go on about their biz".

Ethel: What's up?

Lucy: THE JIG.

True line in the show. I never forgot it.

True American-2366567

Hey Bev and all of you crazy progressives....

I keep telling you, but you just don't seem to get it (go figure)

THE JIG IS UP, THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES, AND THE FAT LADY HAS SUNG ON YOUR PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT.

The country is awake and they are NOT going back to sleep. So, you can keep writing your little cut & paste articles and have feisty, nbjb, jonn b, and the rest of your minons pat you on the back, but the facts are that you guys are a very small MINORITY.

Maybe mediamatters and thinkprogress can help you with that term limits question, because you aren't doing a very good job on your own.

BTW...I feel terrible for all of the unsuspecting Hoosier fans out there, I'm sure Bev is one fan you guys could do without!

Listen UnAmerican you are so

transparent

So, Bev...you would support the removal of term limits for the office of President of the United States?

Post #11 - Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:40 PM CST

Da Noid

Currently, the President of the United States has term limits and I don't see anyone calling for removal of those term limits.

#11.1 - Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:08 PM CST

Maybe this True American better quit reading that Tea Bagger Constitutional dictionary and come out of that Fox Echo chamber

If you don't know, or won't admit, that 9/11 was an inside job, pulled off by Jeb Bush, Marvin Bush, Wirt Walker III, and Dick Cheney, you are still very much asleep, Truly Ignorant American.

Wow...you guys really are in a vacuum aren't you.

BEV...still won't answer the question, huh...funny, no response yet from your emails to your progressive think tanks?

Probably because they don't have one...

You can't have it both ways - term limits for the office of president, but no limits at all for congress or the senate. So, you're saying 50 years in Washington is a good idea? ...(maybe you can have it both ways, after all you are a progressive)

UnAmerican-2366567

Listen UnAmerican you are so transparent I mean utterly dense. you said...

So, Bev...you would support the removal of term limits for the office of President of the United States?

Post #11 - Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:40 PM CST

Da Noid answered

Currently, the President of the United States has term limits and I don't see anyone calling for removal of those term limits.

#11.1 - Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:08 PM CST

Like I said yesterday Dense American, you should quit reading that Tea Bagger Constitutional dictionary and come out of that Fox Echo chamber.

Btw; tea bagger Americans are not asleep they are comatose!!!

BTW Paul I meant Congress or the House...just wanted to correct that before you made a huge deal out of it!

Bev...I don't want Danoid to answer, I want you to.

Can't come up with an answer of your own?

That doesn't answer the question anyway.

So full of hatred and vile, sounds like common sense makes you very angry.

BEV...

So, you're saying 50 years in Washington is a good idea? ...(maybe you can have it both ways, after all you are a progressive)

Progressivebagger!!!

Congress covers both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Three terms in the Senate should be enough, ten terms in the House is plenty. No one over the age of 75 should be allowed to hold elective office unless the are willing to take, and pass, a publicly broadcast mental competency test.

Well Paul. at least you had a reply.

Some of your "friends" just cut and run when the questions get too tough.

So, you would support a constitutional amendment for term limits.

True American-2366567

Bev...I don't want Danoid to answer, I want you to.

My granddaughter wants $35. That doesn't mean my cutie pie will get what see wants.

Would you believe I did answer vicariously through Da Noid?

Are you hitting the crack pipe or just that stupid? Did you know Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence on hemp Constitution; Man/woman or whatever?

BEV...

So, you're saying 50 years in Washington is a good idea? ...(maybe you can have it both ways, after all you are a progressive)

Progressivebagger!!!

That doesn't answer the question anyway.

Yes. I would support any number of Constitutional Amendments. Term limits wouldn't be necessary if we simply redefined our right "to petition" the government for redress of grievances.

The misinterpretation of that right "to petition", has led to opaque lobbying practices which amount to bribery and corruption. A PETITION is transparently open to review.

Fix lobbying by making it transparent, and you will eliminate the need to limit terms, except for age and mental competency. A Senator needs to be able to stand and Filibuster.

We have term limits with our votes, too bad we don't use it more often. One of the problems is that incumbents who have been in Congress for years have huge campaign war chests because they rarely get a serious challenge. It seems to me that candidates should be allowed to retain say $75,000 but must donate the remaining unspent money to charity. It would level the playing field for challengers who most of the time simply cannot raise the amount of money needed to compete with the incumbent.

I've noticed that Beverly doesn't have an opinion...could it be that she can't figure out how to answer the question?

You actually have to have a brain to have a thought process.

Paul, fixing lobbying is a good place to start. Adding to that Senators and Reps. shouldn't be allowed to work for any lobbying group within the first 4 years after leaving office. That should cut down on their insider connections

That's very bad news for the Republicans. They're probably praying for the debt crisis in Europe to plunge the world into another recession before 2012. They can blame Obama for bad governance in Ireland, Spain, and Portugal.

Not likely but I'll give Pres Obama credit for not giving up. I think the reason voters keep throwing out the majority is gridlock, they keep hoping a new batch will play better with each other. A large majority of voters (exception is the TP crowd) want legislators to compromise so Obama's message is getting through and he is listening. I just wish the blue dog dems would stop throwing a wrench into the mix. It never hurts to keep trying and in the end, when the GOPers keep saying NO, it is they who will pay the price come 2012.

Gridlock is largely a function of the FAKE FILIBUSTER in the Senate. 59 Senators can't pass anything over the objections of 41 naysayers, unless they employ reconciliation, which has its limits.

Just when I thought I had heard it all.

Me too Pat!

These tea baggers aren't going to be happy until there is another civil war...

*shakes head*

This doesn't surprise me, Pat. The entire Tea Party/Glenn Beck agenda is lifted directly from the John Birch Society of 45 years ago. They traced the beginning of the "slippery slope" to that moment when people who don't own property were allowed to vote. These people were dismissed as crazy even by competent Conservatives in those days. Now the political pendulum has swung so far to the Right they're thought of as responsible thinkers. Of course Fred Koch was a cofounder of the JBS. He'd be proud of his sons Ed and Charles for spending such vast amounts of money to salvage his legacy.

Historians will not look kindly on this time when the Republican Party mainstreamed crazy.

Historians will not look kindly on this time when the Democratic Party mainstreamed progressive crazy!

Amazing that TPers actually believe this kind of thing makes sense. I won't be around when historians start writing about the modern conservative movement but just as with former Pres Bush, historical judgement will not be kind.

Jody:

Just how do you know what HISTORY will say? There have been plenty of events that happened in America that was seen as terrible at the time but turned out to be a good thing. Who cares what the books will say 50+ years from now, probably most of us will be long gone.

Nothing much I can add once the Conservatives start parroting back what I say. "Yeah?? I'm rubber, you're glue..."

And they expect to be treated like the adults in the room.

Well, ITM, historians have never reversed their opinion of Herbert Hoover's failures which were as obvious then as they are now. History has not been kind to the era of slave ownership, the slaughter and deprivation of the American Indian, the KKK, Jim Crow eras or the robber barons of pre-Great Depression era. It is pretty easy to figure it out.

Pat, Boston, MA

Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips hosted the program and discussed changes that he felt should be made to voting rights in the United States. He explained that the founders of the country originally put “certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote.” He continued, “One of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners”-

__________

Just when I thought I had heard it all.

Pat, Boston, MA

Talk about undeveloped; these people must have Hobbit brains.

They have said this all along. " go back to the original constitution" What did you not understand.

Ed, well said. It makes no sense not to do this. Raising the cap is a simple solution that would likely solve the short falls predicted 30 years from now. This was one of the things Pres Obama talked about during the campaign.

Great post Ed.

There is a desire to eliminate Social Security that is being camoflauged as "fiscal responsibility".

That is the answer.

I was under the impression, though, that they only get back what they put into it. So someone making 1 mil a year will get back in social security the same as what someone who makes 106k does at the time of retirement, since they both paid in the same amount.

That being said, I'm all for raising the cap. I've stated in other threads I think Social Security should be thought of as an insurance and not a retirement plan. People shouldn't plan on getting it unless circumstances dictate that they need it.