Terrific thoughts, US Navy. Ezra Klein is always right on target with his comments. Last week, he was guest on Lawrence O'Donnell's show along with 3 liberals. He won the debate between them hands down because he stuck to the facts, not the ideology, and spoke the truth regarding the reality that is today's US Senate.

Democrats for the next two years must model themselves after Bernie Sanders, making the case he did so eloquently last Friday. Although FR reported his "filibuster", and it was much discussed on the internet, the MSM focused on the speech and the time he spoke but not much on the substance of it. The media failed to summarize Senator Sanders' point to its viewers just as they always do--explaining progressive views can be put into bullet points but the media doesn't bother doing that.

We still need to address the runaway spending (deficit) which has now been made worse, the shortfall in revenue and we still need a targeted Jobs Bill like the infrastructure bill proposed by President Obama.

You talk about addressing the runaway spending (deficit) and then in the same sentences call for spending on infrastructure. And then.....

Hypocrites – Fiscal responsibility my butt.

Is your fiscal responsible butt confused, or just not very good at this?

Seems like Obama said the same thing two years ago. (BTW- He is not good at this either) We were supposed to spend all that stimulus on shovel ready infrastructure, right? Turns out somebody was shoveling something because a big part of that money basically went to the unions political infrastructure. Is this what you are talking about?

BTW - Obama said almost two years ago that only government could fix this. It didn't. Turn back the burdens on the private sector and it will be fixed.

One more thing. Keep up with the class warfare rant - it doesn't work.

Jody:

The media failed to summarize Senator Sanders' point to its viewers just as they always do--explaining progressive views can be put into bullet points but the media doesn't bother doing that.

CNN went even farther. They ridiculed Sanders by suddenly fast-forwarding the video before he could finish a sentence to show how much time had elapsed while he was talking, then sped it up again, then slowed it down for another incomplete sentence, repeating this several times. Sanders' voice was reduced to a high-pitched squeak every time they sped up the video. They wasted about a minute of air time doing this, and said not one word about the content of Sanders' speech. They wouldn't have dared treated a Republican with such disrespect, even one who richly deserves it like Michelle Bachmann.

Bernie Sanders is a self-admitted socialist, a kook and a moron. He reminds me of the two Muppets, Statler and Waldorf, who were ornery, disagreeable old men whose only role on the show was to heckle the other Muppets from their balcony seats. It would be Hillaryous to see Dems "for the next two years must model themselves after Bernie Sanders".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Bob-180,

“We were supposed to spend all that stimulus on shovel ready infrastructure, right?”

Only 9% of the Stimulus ($71 billion) was allocated for infrastructure projects while $251 billion (32%) was used for tax cuts.

Knocked it out of the partk, USN. Very true, history shows that Conservatives are only interested in the deficit to the extent they can use it as an argument against policies they oppose. The things they want don't pose any obstacle whatsoever to increasing debt. In those cases Dick Cheney spoke for the entire Conservative Movement -- "Deficits don't matter."

Joe in Albany:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

You know, you really shouldn't be calling someone else a kook and a moron when you act like one yourself.

Bob 18,

You are a "one trick pony". Wasn't it just last week you accused me of being "not very good at this" over my concerns about China and the looming educational/technology gap?

So now, we're "not very good at this" regarding the economy.

May I remind you of a few things.

#1. It was the GOP who demanded tax breaks for the rich and held the unemployed hostage to get them.

#2. It was the GOP who condemned the Democrats during the last election cycle for spending money we don't have and then tacked another 900 Billion dollars to the deficit.

Bob, even Charles Krauthammer, the noted Neo-Con commentator has taken the GOP to task for their apparent 180 on fiscal responsibility.

Now, who is the one who is "not very good at this?" Hmmmm?

I think it's you podna.

Nice job, Dennis.

Now, how about telling us where the other 59% of the stimulus money went.

Inquiring minds are still seeking that information.

I am scratching my head trying to figure out how Public Option health care and Cap & Tax (oops, Trade.) are deficit cutting measures... I have a hunch, hoping USN-R will try to clear it up, but I think what he and so many of the libs fail to take into account is the real world effect of their progressive policy proposals. AS it stands, HCR has made health insurance even more un-affordable for many. Premium increases of 35%-50% have been common. If you think more people on the public dole is going to lower those costs when Medicare and Medicaid are already reimbursing at pennies on the dollar, are facing cuts that will reduce that amount even further and the rest of us have to make up the difference is going to lower costs and save money, I think you might need to lay off the wacky weed. Isn't virtually every nation with single payor healthcare facing massive budget shortfalls as a result? It sounds like a good idea but in every circumstance it is unsustainable long term. What makes you think we are going to be any different?

And cap & trade (tax) is a great one. I'm guessing the deficit reduction theory is because it will reduce dependency on foreign oil so we'll buy less of it. Only problem is it's going to increase the cost of virtually EVERYTHING and it's going to hit the lower income folks worst because prices on essential goods (home heating, food, gasoline). Fewer people able to make ends meet on their own means more government assistance. When has that EVER lowered the deficit? And when you raise the cost of doing business, more US jobs are going to disappear. Again, more people on unemployment, bigger gap in income vs expenditure for the government. So again, what looks good on paper doesn't carry through once you look at the real world impact.

I'm sure I'm going to be accused of spouting the party line here but the fact remains that the best plan to reduce the deficit is to cut spending, reduce the size of government and let workers keep more of their own money to reinvest in the market place and grow the economy.

Doctor No,

With a doctorate in economics you shouldn’t have to ask this question. Everything you want to know is at http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx and as you have pointed out to us many times that much of the money went to help State and local governments that have allowed them to keep teachers, fire fighters and police – remember you were/are against this.

Only inquiring minds that are too lazy to go looking for it. http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx

Bob;

You miss the point. This economy is not going to get better by itself. We will have to spend some money to make some money. I do that every day in my small business. The questions is where do we spend it? Do we spend it on things that give very little or no return like the 90 billion for tax cuts to the richest 2% that virtually every economist (republican and democrat) say is not a good idea, in fact CBO, CBPP and EPI also say this gives the lowest return on our investment or do we spend it on things that do give a decent return like the infrastructure bill proposed by President Obama that will create 35,000 jobs for every 1 Billion invested. this will create additional tax revenues, get people off unemployment both which would help reduce the deficit. Not to zero by itself, but it will help to a large extent to offset the initial costs. That is my point. Also, this will not happen over night. It took many years to get where we are and it is going to take many more years to get out of this mess. I do not care who does it as long as it gets done. We will need to make some very hard choices in the future and it will take both parties working together to make things happen. We can no longer have one party just saying NO to everything anymore. That agenda is a sure fire way to a bankrupt nation.

I was actually hoping that little Dennis would enthrall us with his version of why spending millions to create a handful of jobs equaled success.

Well, those funds did keep a dozen puppet theaters open. A hundred eleven million got Los Angeles ten jobs.

Yes, the states got bailed out last year- thousands of overpaid, underworked state bureaucrats are still living high off the taxpaying public.

What, pray tell, happens this year? Where are the big three, New York, California, and Illinois going to come up with the billions necessary to keep running as inefficiently as they do today?

Whatcha think, Dennis?

A banana republic is also characterised by a ruling class that curtails people's personal freedoms and is moving towards a heavyhanded military dictatorship under the excuse of fighting guerrilla (or terrorist) opposition groups or enemies. Moreover, the fact that the ruling class or the elite comes from different political parties isn't a relevant factor in classifying a country as a banana republic; what is relevant is the determination of the elite, irrespective of which party its members belong to, to shift wealth from the majority of the people (the masses) to themselves, usually through simply printing money and incurring chronic budget deficits, and frequently also through senseless warfare.

Gee Navy,

I actually agreed with one of your statements above, about the run away spending of our government, but then you come up with $90 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy. Last week it was $700 billion, then it was pointed out it was $70 billion a year, now it is $90 billion. I guess that you folks on the left spin as well as those on the right:)

When you all want to sit and discuss ways to cut the budget & taxes, and everyone pay their "fair" share it will be wonderful.

I think we actually have a government that has compromised and got something done that most Americans agree upon. And yet, the GOP hasn't even taken over the House yet. And they worked together. Maybe you will give the GOP a chance in January, but I bet not.

At least keep the figures the same, that extra $20 billion, where did it come from in a week?

nojonbo, changing the subject after getting shot down in flames:

I was actually hoping that little Dennis would enthrall us with his version of why spending millions to create a handful of jobs equaled success.

The economy has gone from losing nearly 800,000 jobs per month at the end of Bush's incompetent reign to adding tens of thousands of private sector jobs per month under Obama. That's not exactly a "handful", except to those in the advanced stages of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Thanks Ret Navy as usual, astute and grounded.

As to the replies below regarding fiscal conservatism vs. taxation in order to pursue a progressive agenda--I wish there were alternatives in the lexicon other than conservative=anti-tax and progressivism="tax and spend". We are going to need more taxes if we are going to pull ourselves out of the sinking tar pit the Republicans' agenda put us in. Hopefully, you are not right about tax cuts forever. It is up to us, the people, to rally in support of Smart spending, not amount of spending. We shall see...

I think the place the most money can and should come from the Defence budget. Seriously--it would take massive grassroots organization and pressure, but really--do we need to be spending 40% of our entire budget on military? This as opposed to "we must cut discretionary spending (left unsaid--anything for the good of the needy).

I'm not real optimistic about America's future, but we do have to keep trying.

BigBear;

It is 70 Billion for the income tax cuts and another 20 -25 Billion for the Estate Tax Cuts.

no joe, no bo, nj

I was actually hoping that little Dennis would enthrall us with his version of why spending millions to create a handful of jobs equaled success.

Yes, the states got bailed out last year- thousands of overpaid, underworked state bureaucrats are still living high off the taxpaying public.

What, pray tell, happens this year? Where are the big three, New York, California, and Illinois going to come up with the billions necessary to keep running as inefficiently as they do today?

Whatcha think, Dennis?

Dennis, No Jo is in No position to talk, the feds gave her state 270 million to do construction studies and prep work for the tunnel project. A project that would have created 5000 construction jobs for 4 years as well as thousands after the project was to be complete, But her over bearing loud wimpy governer canceled the project and now is suing to get out of paying the feds back.

So before she has the right to talk about over paid state bureaucrats, she need to look in her own back yard. Dennis thanks for making her post something like this, given the fact her Governor can't practice what she wants every OTHER Governor and the feds to preach.

Illinois may be Broke, But we would never take money, cancel what it was meant for, then try and sue to get out of paying it back,

No Jo Please, you can't go there any more till, your idol, your Governor pays the federal government back.

skip,

But..... you guys aren't very good at this.

From Dec. 10..

Are you really this obtuse?

Ron made a statement about START. I challenged that statement. You tried to defend Ron's statement by arguing your prairie dog prophesy. I said nice obfuscation, but this wasn't about your prairie dog prophesy - got an argument about START or counter to my challenge?

Same thing today. I challenged Retired Disabled Veteran.....

You talk about addressing the runaway spending (deficit) and then in the same sentences call for spending on infrastructure. And then.....

Where did you rebuke my comments challenging Navy Dudes runaway spending/spending on infrastructure contradiction? Your retort was tax breaks/unemployment.

Sorry if your feelings are still hurt from last week.

You are good at trying to redirect the argument, obfuscating the issues......

Feel better?

So Navy,

You are saying that in this country, enough people are going to die and leave large enough estates to their children or family to raise $20 billion in taxes. I really find that hard to believe. Especially since they didn't even start the taxation until after about $3.5 million dollars was dealt out to family & spouse. I really find that hard to believe, but hey, if the government says so, it has to be true. Especially since they only one to cut it 20% from where Nancy wants it.

What I find even harder to believe is that the left believes that the government should be allowed to "double tax" people. Since most people have paid income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes through out their lives, and now when they die, the government needs another 55% of their money. Or as someone said, in 1958, they got 90%. What a crock. The government just wants more money, so they can spend it themselves to get more votes. They have yet to try and save any money, but as long as there is spending, especially in those "shovel" ready projects, you all are happy to take someone's hard earned money.

Doctor No,

Now you want to turn a corner on the topic - Okay

I won't pretend to have all the answers as you always seem to but I do know that almost all of the cities and states are in a position where they are evaluating where they can cut spending, raise revenue and create jobs.

In Ohio Governor-elect John Kasich has already sent $400 million of nonmatching funds for a high speed rail project, along with the 16,000, jobs to California and has said he will be changing the Education system that may cause Ohio to return the $400 million we just were awarded in the "Race to the TOP". So along with a big deficit problem he is making it even deeper. BTW he also said he will cut taxes by half in an effort to attract businesses to our state.

Will cutting taxes on business attract new companies to Ohio, sure but how does he fund the state with a loss of billions of dollars in revenue while he sells the state and allows time for them to mover and or build here and start hiring? They aren't going to move or build here on his word (or any ones word) that taxes will be cut. He doesn't have an answer for that question. His only reply is "I didn't say the tax cuts would be immediate".

Being a Democrat and a progressive, I believe that President Obama just won a second term because of this tax deal. This is really just a second stimulus that will create many jobs on it's own, not to mention the jobs that the private sector are going to create. Business released a report saying they will hire 2% more in 2011. I think it will be more. Jobs will help ease the deficit, but once the momentum starts, things will get better quickly.

Bob, I answered your question about the spending above. We also should be looking at cutting spending within the government as well. There is a lot of waste in both the defense department and medicare that can be trimmed. I know for a fact that the defense department has many redundant policies and old technology and programs that are no longer appropriate in this day and age. They can be eliminated with no adverse effect on our troops. Way too many cooks in the kitchen. Medicare has fraud up the wazoo. Seems every day somebody is getting arrested for Medicare Fraud and the cost of providing this Health Care keeps escalating and needs to be addressed as well.

Navy,

Agreement, Military spending could be cut easily by 10%, maybe even 20%, as long as it does not put our troops in harms way.

Medicare/Medicaid problems, another 10% easily.

Reform SS--cut out those who receive it for something besides a retirement program or severe handicap. Make it a get what you pay into program. Allow unused funds to be handed down to family members.

Mandate that the gasoline tax is only used to rebuild the roads, highways, bridges, and finding alternative energy sources.

Reform the tax code--making everyone pay the same percentage, without deductions, loopholes, or deferred payments. That alone would bring in the $20 billion in estate tax losses.

I stand by my statement, you are a one trick pony, podna.

See ya at the circus.

BigBear,

The 700B was over a 10-year span.

What's being negotiated right now totals about as much as the stimulus - only it's spread over 2 years, so it's real cost is staggering.

US Navy,

This economy is not going to get better by itself

There never was a Great Depression before government intervened. Economies fixed themselves and in fact unemployment dropped from a high of 9% after the crash to around 6% before the government interventions started. Within months of the first intervention, unemployment went into double digits and stayed there for a decade.

Do we spend it on things that give very little or no return like the 90 billion for tax cuts to the richest 2%

TAX CUTS ARE NOT SPENDING. Tax rates are revenue. Again go back and look at history. In 1916 there were 206 people who reported an income of a million or more. Tax rates skyrocketed and within 5 years there only 21 people reporting an income of a million. They cut taxes and all of a sudden there were 207 reporting an income of a million in 1925. The rich don't pay Navy. In 1924 the government collected $50 million in taxes on capital gains. In 1925 with the lowered tax rate the government collected over $100 million. Same story throughout history.

virtually every economist (republican and democrat) say is not a good idea, in fact CBO, CBPP and EPI also say this gives the lowest return on our investment

TAX CUTS ARE NOT SPENDING - TAX CUTS ARE NOT INVESTMENT. Name an economist that says increasing capital gains taxes creates jobs. Obama's own CBO says net growth will be less if the taxes go up on the richest.

Stimulus didn't work. Bottom line. Obama has had two years to prove his spending will work. It didn't. Unemployment didn't budge except to go up. The G-20 disagrees with Obama's approach and it is working for them.

Our problem is not taxing to little, it is spending to much. Spending to much is what bankrupts nations.

Thanks for your comments US Navy.

USN, per #1,

True 'conservatives'-whatever party affiliation-do care about deficits and the debt. Last time we had balanced budgets was because of a conservative, Newt Gingrich. The same ideals he espoused and implemented with the '94 Contract with America, are in the current conservative Pledge to America which the Conservative Republicans will take up when they control the House in January. Be interesting to see how much help they get from Rinos, or even 'bipartisanship' from Democrats.

Republicans want extension for the present (Bush) tax rates for EVERYBODY. Not just the 'rich,' or not just 'everybody' but whom the Democrats deem to be so, but for EVERYBODY. Nothing wrong with that. We are ALL citizens. We ALL deserve equality under the law. The top 1% of earners make 1/5 of the income, but pay 2/5 of the federal income tax. That 40% they pay in is a higher share than they paid before the Bush 'cuts.' So what, we should raise their rates, and have them pay less, so that more burden will fall back on everyone else? Brilliance only class warfarists could be proud of. And what of the bottom half of earners (75 Million) who pay virtually nothing; should they not make some contribution more on par with their take? (By the way, I can honestly pose that question, being that I'm in the 10% bracket, and yet with deductions and credits pay nada, and also actually pay no SS/Med but get a refund). It's a legal and it's all ethical on my part; but c'mon, how 'fair' as the libs love to say is that?

US Navy,

Your #1.25 - I agree completely, good point.

BTW- Thanks for responding. I think your only other response to one of my responses was to call me a liar. (You were nice about it though - you called me sir)

And let me take back what I said about you not being very good at this. We disagree, but you did a good job defending your position today.

skip,

Take a lesson from US Navy.

There never was a Great Depression before government intervened.

That's just wrong. Simply untrue. A complete distortion of history.

• Laissez-Faire.

During the 1920s the Republican governments favoured a laissez-faire approach. Income tax was cut, especially the higher rate (from 73-25%)

• Anti trust laws were weakened.

This allowed the growth of monopoly power in industries like banking.

• Trade Union membership declined

The government offered little statutory support for unions. This is best exemplified by Henry Ford, whose revolutionary production methods for the production of cars, included banning trades unions. However, it is worth noting Ford paid wages much higher than elsewhere, therefore, most of his workers didn't seem to mind the absence of unions.

• Laissez-Faire.

During the 1920s the Republican governments favoured a laissez-faire approach. Income tax was cut, especially the higher rate (from 73-25%)

• Anti trust laws were weakened.

This allowed the growth of monopoly power in industries like banking.

• Trade Union membership declined

The government offered little statutory support for unions. This is best exemplified by Henry Ford, whose revolutionary production methods for the production of cars, included banning trades unions. However, it is worth noting Ford paid wages much higher than elsewhere, therefore, most of his workers didn't seem to mind the absence of unions.

http://econ.economicshelp.org/2007/05/economics-of-1920s.html

The economy also continued to fail MISERABLY throughout the Hoover Administration as he waited faithfully for the economy to self correct. Unemployment was nearly 25% before FDR took office.

http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/gdunemp.gif

Buddy, I don't know where you got that version of history, but they just flat lied to you.

John,

I was talking about government economic interventions/attempts to correct recessions. The first federal intervention regarding the crash in 1929 was Smoot-Hawley in June of 1930.

Write down 1929 then click on your reference and look at all those 10 really tall bars to the right of 1929/1930.

Thanks for providing the bar graph that proves my point. (Even if you didn't know that's what you were doing)

Navy is on the right page. Politicians, Judges and corporations exchange money for votes and power. the book God of Ruins address's this problem in a fiction (haha). It will come time for the people to rise up and balance the scales of justice. Never forget that republican scandals are our quickest way to take back control. Leave these greedy people plenty of slack in the rope for now.

But the wealthiest and the corporations that they control care little about paying the debt down when they have the opportunity to keep the majority of profits that they earn. Let's face it the profits were earned in the first place by the subsidies and tax breaks that politicians allowed, both dems and republicans voted for in favor of these.

John B,

Bob is out of his mind, believe me i heard nothing but the opposite about the depression, my grand parents married, lived and worked through the depression. the problem with hoover as seen on documentaries, is that he was so out of touch with how much people were struggling. hoover did some things to help business with tax breaks, but what doomed him was that he gave No help to average people.

my grandma always said that back then people did want a hand out, they wanted jobs, and as much as she did not like Roosevelt and his policy's (black consertives), when he came in to office, he tried to give help with government programs that in 1936 put my grandpa back to work digging ditches for 1 dollar a day. that kept her, and my mother who was born in 1935 from starving. a nother government program that helped them out alot was lean lease with great Britian. my grandpa worked at a ford plant making plane parts. He did that untill the war started and was never unemployed again till he died in 1971. government can help.

Roosevelt also helped feed people, with federal help, Hoover depended on priviate orginizations to do that and it flopped.

So Bob, say what you want but i heard all about the depression from 2 people who survived it.

OK, it's YOU lying to US about the history of the Depression. Thanks for setting us straight.

Expecting us to believe that Smoot-Hawley was the ENTIRE CAUSE of the Great Depression is somewhere way past fanciful. When did you immigrate from Beckistan?

Jeff,

Never mentioned Hoover or FDR, just talking about big government interventions and how they don't work. Thanks for providing testimony of your grandparents to support my point - that with all the big government interventions, someone was lucky if they could find a job digging ditches.

John,

Never said "Smoot-Hawley was the ENTIRE CAUSE of the Great Depression", said it was only the first of the interventions.

Have I mentioned you are not very good at this lately?

Anyway, go cry on skips shoulder, he seems upset that he can't win one either.

Bob:

thank you for the feedback. If I did call you a liar I now retrack that as well. Lets continue with our dialogue and agree to disagree at times but I am sure we will have some common ground as well. I sometimes get a little carried away as do most of us. Often times it is just because we care and we do not want this country to go to the dogs. Just my opinion.

Bob, you've proven nothing except the ability to make baseless assumptions. If you think the economy would have righted itself from the Great Depression had only we been patient enough in doing nothing feel free to prove it. I've shown that Laissez-Faire economics were the normal means of operation right through the Hoover Administration, and that the current bogeymen of anti-business environment and unions played no part.

It's your argument. If you can support it fine. Otherwise you're just continuing to blow hot air.

BigBear;

Not sure how they calculated that number but that is what is being reported after the Estate Tax cut was made known. I cannot find the calculation anywhere yet. If you find it let me know.

I agree with the gasoline tax. I think the number being used by the commission was $0.15 per gallon. That is ok with me if they use it like they said they would. To improve roads etc. I also have been on record that we do need a Income Tax reform plan that closes loopholes and makes the plan fair for everybody (everybody needs to have some skin in the game).

Thanks for the conversation.

BigBear62,

"Reform the tax code--making everyone pay the same percentage, without deductions, loopholes, or deferred payments. That alone would bring in the $20 billion in estate tax losses."

You really can not be serious about everyone paying same taxes percentage-wise...w/o doing any math or being an economist, I can say for a fact that your suggestion would destroy America. The richest people in American pay the most taxes by a large amount; and that is simply because they make the most of the wealth. you know that 47% of the population in this country pay no taxes and we both know that they are currently been squeezed for cash... and their situation has been getting worse since Reagan's days. And now you want them to pay higher taxes when they can make it.

Even the rich people you support would protest such, because we both know that to keep the economy grinding, the middle class would need to keep spending - not the 10,000 people in the top bracket. More money in the hands of the middle class benefits the nation - even those fat cats, because profits from their country is generated by middle class spending. The proportion of money the fat-cats make w.r.t to the general population is at its highest point in the last 30 years, so the taxes they actually pay w.r.t to the general population would also be at its highest point...

If everyone in American made between $10k to $100k.. then a more flatter tax system may work... but some people in this country actually make $100,000k/yr, while some only make $5k/yr... so with this disparity and to keep the economy churning, WE NEED A PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM. A linear flat tax per percentage just doesn't make sense.

Disclaimer: I'm believe I'm blessed to not be part of the 47% who do not pay taxes - translation is that I'm doing OK, and I would gladly pay a higher tax to help my fellow American out, who makes less than I do.

bob-1805084

Jeff,

Never mentioned Hoover or FDR, just talking about big government interventions and how they don't work. Thanks for providing testimony of your grandparents to support my point - that with all the big government interventions, someone was lucky if they could find a job digging ditches.

But Bob, to mention the depression its important to remember the policy's that hoover took as well as roosevelt. the two different policy's made Hoover the worse president in history and Roosevelt one of the greatest. the policy's had nothing to do with anything but helping people. Hoover did not, and Roosevelt did.

Also if my grandparents were here today and saw your half ass comment about digging ditches, the would come through the computer and kill you. there is nothing funny or comical about surviving the great depression. if they were here today they would say that people like you are weak, selfish and narrow minded.

the only major government intervention Roosevelt passes was SS and bank reform, farm aid (duct bowl). everything else was spending to get people working, but then again your like No Jo you would have had Roosevelt do nothing in the name of capitalism while people like your grandparents or great grand parents starved.

John, per #1.32,

Hoover actually made the Depression worse by his government involvement into the situation.

FDR trumped that with his massive government intrusion. And thus was born "The 'GREAT' Depression."

Hoover actually made the Depression worse by his government involvement into the situation.

You'd have trouble proving that based on the Depression deepening for 3 consecutive years until FDR started taking action, then getting better. http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/gdunemp.gif Anything to back up that assertion?

Bob, you've proven nothing except the ability to make baseless assumptions.

John, your own chart supported my "baseless" assumption. Geez.

I've shown that Laissez-Faire economics were the normal means of operation right through the Hoover Administration, and that the current bogeymen of anti-business environment and unions played no part.

Laissez-Faire was the 1920s leading up to the crash in 1929. My comments addressed from 1929 on. Another thing, Laisse-Faire economics were not the normal means of operation right through the Hoover Administration - Hoover denounced laissez-faire, was a self-described progressive and reformer who believed in and was actively pro-regulation. He passed tariffs, farm subsidies, expanded civil service of Federal positions, canceled private oil leases on govt. land, expanded the national parks, closed tax loopholes for the wealthy, doubled the number veterans hospitals, wrote a Children's Charter, expanded the prisons, the Hoover Dam, LIMITED JUDICIAL INTERVENTION IN LABOR DISPUTES, on and on John.

Sound familiar in a way - social agenda over fixing the economy. Notice nothing to support private sector job growth. Expanding the federal government, supporting unions......

I cannot make you understand, that's fine with me. I can't make my Lab understand how a toaster works, either.

Jeff,

I didn't disparage your grandparents, I disparaged big government economic interventions and the crippling effect they have on the private sector that reduces peoples' best option to digging ditches.

bob, Hoover SAID he was against Laissez-Faire, but in his own words;

The greatness of America has grown out of a political and social system and a method of [a lack of governmental] control of economic forces distinctly its own ­ our American system ­ which has carried this great experiment in human welfare farther than ever before in history.... And I again repeat that the departure from our American system... will jeopardize the very liberty and freedom of our people, and will destroy equality of opportunity not only to ourselves, but to our children....

http://www.pinzler.com/ushistory/ruggedsupp.html

As far as Hoover Dam is concerned, not only did he not want it named after him, he didn't even want it to generate electricity. He fought the project for years and even tried to subvert it before he was President;

President Theodore Roosevelt proposed in 1907 that the federal government play the key role in developing the Colorado River. The seven-state compact negotiations took place under President Warren Harding, who appointed his commerce secretary, Herbert Hoover, to supervise the negotiation. The bill to build the dam was passed in Congress under President Calvin Coolidge, who then signed the bill around Christmas of 1928. And then President Hoover—who didn't want a high dam because he didn't believe that government should be generating electricity when there were private utilities to do it—ended up launching it because he was under tremendous pressure to create a federal public works program to address unemployment in 1930.

Many of the dam's proponents did not believe Hoover's name belonged on it. Why?

One reason was that Hoover had such an equivocal role in the development of the dam. Toward the end of his life when he was writing his memoirs, he took a lot of credit for aspects of the development of the dam that he didn't really deserve. He claimed to have written the legislation, which wasn't true. He claimed to have written the seven-state compact agreement that apportioned the river's water, which wasn't true. Hoover foresaw a low dam much further down the river and one that had no role in hydroelectric generation. He thought hydroelectric generation was something that private enterprise really was responsible for and government had no place in that business.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/06/17/hoover-dams-big-government-lessons.html

Did Hoover play a part in the expansion of activities in which the state played a hand? Absolutely, but it's because the new, industrial America required such. That's one more reason why the idea of many in the Libertarian camp, that the federal government should go back to a role of responsibility only for defense of the homeland is wrong-headed. 1) It's neither desirable nor possible to do so in the modern world. 2) That America NEVER existed, and proof of that goes at least as far back as the Louisiana Purchase.

Your first paragraph - Huh? That's an argument. Anyway, Hoover was against Laissez-Faire in 90% of what he said - OK? And Hoover was aganinst Laissez-Faire in what 90%-99% of what he did - OK? What do want me to say, John? Most adults would say your Laissiez-Faire argument was wrong.

Second paragraph - Never said he wanted it named after him (What does that have to do with the price of eggs?) BTW - It was the Boulder Dam at the time. Electricity - another egg argument.

So after all this you agree, now just try to justify/rationalize it - OK, but I never argued the reason, or rationalization, just said it didn't work. And your graph proved that yesterday.

Geez.

bob, you've proven yourself incapable of argument other than by unsupported claims, dismissal of contradictory information, missing the point, false cause, begging the question, and half truth. You've offered no proof of your own claims and attempted to misuse the statistics and other information I've provided. You've made multiple assertions that Historians find laughable. Now run along, the return train to Beckistan is already waiting at the platform. Unless you have some "original thoughts" on how much you hate Woodrow Wilson or some such.

"What’s on the line is the RNC’s relevancy"

What a silly statement. I guess MSNBC is trying desperately to gin up a controversy.

After the 'shellacking' of the Democrats, perhaps the question is "Does the DNC have any revelancy?"

Does anyone have any, " revelancy"?

Brilliant as always, Navy and IR. Is there a Republican left that will put Country first?

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

You and I are on the same page today. We need to expose the corrupt of interests of both Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a conservative Republican celebrating Judge Hudson's that the health care reform law unconstitutional

Chris Matthews brought up the smelly financial connections of the Bush appointed judge Henry Hudon, who ruled against the individual mandate provision in the health care law, to an outfit involved in fighting health care reform that also worked for the Virginia Attorney General, who brought the suit Hudson rule in favor of.

Then Chris Celizza made the mandatory corporate media apology for Republican misbehavior: the "Democrats do it, too" excuse. Celizza said that Hudson's connections with the party in the law suit he ruled in favor of was no big deal because the two judges who ruled in favor of the individual mandate were Democratic appointees. But he failed to give any evidence of an improper relationship between those judges and Democratic organizations who worked in favor of health care reform. In other words, a corrupt corporate media "journalist" was making a lame excuse for a corrupt Republican poltiical hack. Dirty birds of a feather flock together.

Absolutely, USN. Conservative Republicans are so emboldened by the election that they barely even try to hide the fact that only the wealthy elites are their constituents.

A banana republic is also characterised by a ruling class that curtails people's personal freedoms and is moving towards a heavyhanded military dictatorship under the excuse of fighting guerrilla (or terrorist) opposition groups or enemies. Moreover, the fact that the ruling class or the elite comes from different political parties isn't a relevant factor in classifying a country as a banana republic; what is relevant is the determination of the elite, irrespective of which party its members belong to, to shift wealth from the majority of the people (the masses) to themselves, usually through simply printing money and incurring chronic budget deficits, and frequently also through senseless warfare.

Gee Navy,

And the 2 judges that have supported HCR--those were appointed by a democratic president.

I believe that the term you all are looking for is hypocrite.

The mandate is unconstitutional--the government cannot and should not be allowed to force anyone to purchase anything. Everything else was allowed by the judge.

I guess you all would react the same if the government mandated that everyone own a gun to protect their homes and property, and to be part of the military like they do in Israel.

bush

A banana republic is also characterised by a ruling class that curtails people's personal freedoms and is moving towards a heavyhanded military dictatorship under the excuse of fighting guerrilla (or terrorist) opposition groups or enemies. Moreover, the fact that the ruling class or the elite comes from different political parties isn't a relevant factor in classifying a country as a banana republic; what is relevant is the determination of the elite, irrespective of which party its members belong to, to shift wealth from the majority of the people (the masses) to themselves, usually through simply printing money and incurring chronic budget deficits, and frequently also through senseless warfare

Ahhh, that'd be the RepubliKKKcant's and military factions inthe Tea baggers edged on by Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.

Beck urges audience to train their children to "defend the Republic" from "the left"

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201012130026

Beck predicts "rioting in the streets" and a "new world order" after China stops buying bonds

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011050016

Wishing for Obama's assassination won't get you fired from Fox News

Take the case of Fox News contributor May 2008 segment on the Democratic presidential primaries, Trotta actually remarked that she wished somebody would "knock off" both Osama Bin Laden and then-candidate Barack Obama

http://mediamatters.org/columns/201010220039

Beck: "So-called leaders" are leading "stupid, uninformed people" to "slaughter and slavery"

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201010200016

The Progressive Hunter:Jailhouse Confession: How the right-wing media and Glenn Beck's chalkboard drove Byron Williams to plot assassination

http://mediamatters.org/research/201010110002

Quoting Jefferson, Beck warns about "rivers of blood.

Beck suggests Obama admin might kill "10 percent" of population.

Beck portrays Obama, Democrats as vampires, suggests "driv[ing] a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers

Beck talks about "put[ting] poison" in Pelosi's wine.

Beck: "The revolution of 1776 was a picnic compared to what the revolutionaries of today would like to do. ... Usually, millions of people die."

Beck suggests progressive coalition will become violent and riot "a year from now

Beck: "To the day I die, I am going to be a progressive hunter.

http:/mediamatters.org/research/201010110015">http://mediamatters.org/research/201010110015">http://mediamatters.org/research/201010110015http://mediamatters.org/research/201010110015

Beck is crazy. Progressive Hunter ROFWL Idon't know whether to shake my head or laugh at his lunacy.

How about the other 14 cases that were thrown out of court, BB? Just to be clear, the track record so far is;

14 cases dismissed, 2 in favor of the government, 1 partially successful in a court that had a clear conflict of interest.

In the end it doesn't matter, becuase at some point it's going to get to the SCOTUS, but let's be honest...HCR has done just fine in court so far.

BigBear; I

It is not so much about the judges party affiliation as it is about having a vested interest in the outcome of what ever it is that they are ruling on. All judges need to be impartial and if the have any hint of being biased either way they need to pass on making a decision. The case here with the Judge is that he has a vested interest in the outcome of the ruling. This is not good and he should not have heard the case at all. I do not know that the 2 democrat judges had/have the same problem. If they do or did then they also should not have heard the case as well. I play no favorites here on this.

Yes,

We all know that the Supreme Court will have the final decision. I will live with that decision, as I believe that is what is done in this country. But to sit here and complain about a judge and who appointed him is ridiculous. From either side of the aisle. Every judge is biased, that is why they were selected by their president. President's don't pick judges because they are fair anymore--they are picked because they have the same core principles. If you believe otherwise, then I am sorry.

Again, no one has answered, if the government comes back in a couple of years, and mandates everyone have a gun to protect your home and country, what will you do then?

USN, per #2,

Quack, quack. Please your 'educated' opinion as to where in the Constitution the government can mandate you must buy something or face fine or imprisonment?

Please your 'educated' opinion as to where in the Constitution the government can mandate you must buy something or face fine or imprisonment?

Not sure how USN will respond, but I'll kick in.

But it's being taken seriously in some quarters, so it's worth explaining where the Constitution grants Congress the authority to impose an individual mandate. There are two short answers: the power to regulate interstate commerce and the power to tax.

First, the Commerce Clause. Spending on health care consumes 16 percent --and growing -- of the gross national product. There is hardly an individual activity with greater effect on commerce than the consumption of health care.

If you arrive uninsured at an emergency room, that has ripple effects through the national economy -- driving up costs and premiums for everyone. If you choose to go without insurance, that limits the size of the pool of insured individuals and -- assuming you are young and healthy -- drives up premium costs.

The clause empowers Congress "to regulate commerce ... among the several states," which may not sound terribly sweeping. But since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has interpreted this authority to cover local activities with national implications.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/25/health_care_mandate_is_consitutional_99290.html

John,

Neither argument passes muster.

To the latter first. During debate of this monstrousity we were told it "was not a tax." That will be used against the Admin effectively by the State AGs.

To the former second. 'Healthcare' itself can certainly be-and overly is so-regulated under The Commerce Clause. But unless an 'individual' seeks such, he or she is not participating in any 'interstate trade,' and therefore cannot be regulated thusly. Now it would be fine to mandate coverage in order to access the system if one could not pay out of pocket. But in the instance at hand it is akin to telling all people of age that they must obtain a driver's license regardless of whether or not they a) own a vehicle, or b) ever drive.

I guess that's the issue before the courts now, isn't it?

It certainly is. Thank God there is a 5-4 sanity majority on the SCOTUS.

Imagine the implication if this nonsense were upheld. That crazy ass Moochelle would be telling us what foods we MUST and MUST NOT feed our children. One has to have a blind devotion to the atrocities of statism to believe such things could possibly be legal, or good.

The "loss" of the individual mandate, enforced by the tax code, is hardly the death knell for the HCR act that you appear to think that it is. You may be in for quite a surprise when it gets to SCOTUS.

Blind devotion to the atrocities of statism?

Gee, and sometimes I wonder why it's so hard to find compromise these days. Compromise is the LAST thing Conservatives want. Maybe one day you'll have your one party system. That'll be the end of America as we know it.

Of course we don't need anyone telling us what to feed our children, because we have been doing such a great job of it so far. Childhood obesity is exploding. Food companies are using more and more artificial ingredients. And the conservatives think we should let the companies do as they please. Why monitor what we're eating, I'm sure the giant corporations will have our best interest in mind. Just ask RJ Renolds, they fought that cigarettes were not bad for you for years. Even the joint chiefs said that if we continue to have fatter children then eventually it is going to be a national security concern because we will not have enough able bodied people to fight. The insanity of Glenn Beck really strikes a cord with some people. Why do people take what an ex morning zoo DJ, with no college has to say like it's scripture. It is truly sad that people can be deceived by such a dolt. Yes, I'm talking about you Joe.

Paul,

Without the indiv mandate, it becomes a house of cards. No surprise coming; SCOTUS will agree with the 70% of Americans who believe it is unconstitutional.

John,

Compromise with Statists is always bad. This one will add tons to our debt. FDR's cost decades of strife and lost lives in Eastern Europe. Chamberlain's emboldened Hitler to start WWII. Shall I go on?

D-N,

I don't get my news of Moochelle filtered thru Beck. She is an a'hole. And despite your perogative to have an opposing political view, I wouldn't even let her tell you how to raise your kids. It's your life, and they're your kids. Better they be fat, then ratting you out to some commie in DC.

PS...please let me know when you're anywhere as accomplished as that "dolt." LOL

I always enjoy the poll citing without substantiation. 70% believe blah, blah, blah. The level to which the American people are misinformed and can then be led astray is not as surprising as the belief by posters on a political blog that a sampling of 3000 people tells you anything reliable about the beliefs of 310 million citizens.

Hudson's ruling is based on demonstrably bad interpretation of existing law.

There's no point in trying to have a rational conversation with anyone who equates the current Democratic Party with the Soviet Commisars.

siasd

Paul,

The poll is with this story. Presently almost 60K votes, 73% Unconstitutional, 22% Constitutional, 5% Undecided.

Nice of you to 'interpret' for a Federal Judge. Let me guess, you were part of the same crowd that wanted to interpret Gore won Florida in 2000, even though he lost the initial count and every subsequent recount, before filing his pathetic lawsuit seeking to change Florida Election Law.

John,

There is one glaring difference between the Russians and the Democrats. The Russians could actually walk the walk, while the Democrats can only merely talk the talk. .

Bush filed suit first.

Any legal ruling which stops a recount is bad law.

Electronic voting machines which do not create paper hardcopy receipts are an affront to democracy. It is impossible to do the required recount without them.

Paul,

Think about it. Bush won the count, and all the subsequent recounts, and was certified as the winner. The actions Baker took on his behalf were to preempt Gore from trying to steal the election by subverting Florida Election Law regarding recounts. Gore was seeking to have complete hand counted recounts in only the 3 latter mentioned counties, when the law allowed him only to a petition of a state wide manual recount that Bush was good with . I live in Florida. I have voted here since 1980. There is never any problem with ballot tabulation except in the Democrat ("GOLD COAST") run counties of Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade. Same nonsense went on this year in the race for Gov. Scott ran ahead of Sink. From the time the polls closed and votes were counted he held the lead. By late in the night every single precinct in the state except for 'some in Miami' (Dade) even those in the next time zone in the Panhandle, had reported 100% count without a single complaint. While everyone waited anxiously for a final tally, the delay went on and on and on, with absolutely no reasonable explaination. Well, anybody who has seen Democrat Politics in this state could have told you excatly what was going on. The Dems in Miami were trying to 'find' votes for Sink, just like they had over and over and over again for gore. Thankfully, this time the spotlight was too bright and Sink eventually conceded. Neither of these cases envolved lack of a paper trail. Both envolved Dems trying to steal elections by manufacturing non existent votes.

Do me a favor and get a number on how many dead people still voted Dem in Chicago this year.

Bush V Gore, the election, did indeed involve vote recounts from machines that provided no paper trail.

You must have missed all of those Democrat election officials in South Florida holding up those PAPER BALLOTS with the "Hanging Chads," and partially hanging chads, and partially not hanging chads, and every other damn thing, which they kept wanting to 'interpret' as votes for Gore.

PS...your non-answer about Chitown speaks volumes about Democrat Electioneering

The hanging chads punch cards weren't the only ballots in question, dipstick.

Paul,

True to liberal form. When you lose the debate, start name calling. What next, I'm the 'enemy,' or I'm a 'hostage taker.'

-Merry Christmas!

I didn't lose anything by pointing out your mendacity. Your own stupidity earned you the name of dipstick.

IR: nice post, looks like we are on the same page again. Thanks for the info on Cuccinelli. This is no where near the big win that the republicans are claiming it to be. You advice is well given you old redneck. Right on.

Well done, IR. Who better to provide the scoop on Cuccinelli than someone who lives in VA. I find it interesting that the beltway media has made a big deal of this judge's decision but failed to note his ties to groups who spend millions fighting against health care reform. Not much attention was given to the two judges who upheld the law or the 12 other courts who dismissed the cases.

Nice post in killing the messenger IR.

However, it doesn't change the issue that the individual mandate is a bridge to far in the expansion of federal power. Ignore the politics of left and right for a moment, ignore the fact that this may be for the general good, ask yourself where do you want the power of the federal government stop? I believe that if this law is allowed to stand then there is very little restraints left on the reach of the federal government.

If this law had used a tax to fund its requirements I would not be in disagreement with its methods.

This is a classic example of why Daniel Patrick Moynihan suggested that you cannot pass landmark legislation without bipartisan support...and the Democrats' failure to craft a health care reform bill with bipartisan support (or for that matter, majority support of the public) virtually guarantees an endless parade of legal and legislative challenges to Obamacare.

We've seen in the compromise proposal to extend the Bush-era tax cuts what can be accomplished on a bipartisan basis when President Obama chooses to exert presidential leadership while ignoring the shrill partisan braying emanating from some elements of the Democratic Congressional leadership.

And...the President got most most of what he wanted, post-midterms, from a far stronger group of Congressional Republicans than the bunch he faced during the health care reform debate.

Go figure.

Had the President chosen the same approach and leadership style in passing a health care reform bill, the legislation wouldn't be facing ongoing, entrenched, implacable opposition.

He's learning though, isn't he?

Alan

Don’t totally disagree with where you’re coming from. Like all the controversial statues that have been enacted this one deserves it’s day in court and a decision to be made. At that point the Legislators can either decide to change the offending parts and bring them into line or modify the whole concept.

Only point here is that if you anticipate this case going to the Supreme Court you might want to go back and review the strategy and the Players. Even the Supreme Court cannot afford to take a case and make a ruling on it that has such obviously corrupt roots. By trying to advance things in this manner you are sowing the seeds for an unfavorable outcome before you even get started.

Great point Mixed Bag.

With regard to your last line - we'll see, but I wonder it was not more the product of his bumbling his way into a corner.

Oh Mixed old friend contrary to what is off repeated the Health care bill was a compromise. You know that and I know that. The fact that the Republican folks marched in lockstep in opposition at that time and the constant repetition of it since that point does not negate that fact.

As a matter of fact here the part that is subject to being over turned is a compromise to keep the Insurance companies in business. Without this and several other compromises we could have simply extended Medicare for all and made it a Payroll deduction put them out of business and moved on. Insurance companies said they needed the Mandate in order to be able to fulfill the requirements for Pre-existing conditions etc so that was the way things went. Sounds like a pretty good compromise to me.

Gee IR, remember when the phrase "appearance of conflict of interest" meant something? Conservatives no longer CARE if people like Hudson and Cuccinelli have a conflict of interest. The roots Watergate were found in their "ends justify the means" mentality. It's something that has grown and festered within the Republican Party ever since. Only winning on behalf of their wealthy benefactors is of importance. The Conservative Movement is so deep in their pockets now they feel invincible and don't even try to hide their conflicts.

No, IR.

The agreement to extend the Bush-era tax cuts was a compromise.

You can tell by noting that, unlike Obamacare, it has the support of both parties, and will pass both Houses of Congress with large numbers of Democrats AND Republicans voting for it.

It's a subtle difference, but squint real hard.

A real "independent" should be able to see it.

Jody:

Not much attention was given to the two judges who upheld the law or the 12 other courts who dismissed the cases.

You noticed that, too, huh? I don't remember reading anything much about these prior cases in which judges ruled in favor of the health care reform. They wer certainly not hyped as a big blow against the opponents of reform the way this last case has been hyped as a big blow in their favor. Now, why would that be?

Alan NJ:

However, it doesn't change the issue that the individual mandate is a bridge to far in the expansion of federal power. Ignore the politics of left and right for a moment, ...

Oh, come on. You're not ignoring it. You know very well that the individual mandate was first proposed by Republicans as an alternative to "Hillarycare" back in the '90s. If the individual mandate had been in a bill signed by a Republican president, you'd be singing its praises.

Yea, there was compromise on HCR. The radical left compromised with the far left. Together they compromised the will of the majority of Americans and the bipartisan support against it.

Government has control of the industry. The insurance companies are just a tool of big government and they know it. Yea, big compromise.

Sorry Mixed I know you have trouble with those subtle differences.

HCR was a compromise between Liberal and more Moderate Democrats. The fact that the Republican folks at the time would not step up and make a reasonable deal choosing to rely on Killing the process instead thus abrogating their responsibility does not preclude the fact that it was a compromise. All you are doing is ignoring the parties to the compromise because they don’t fit into your narrative.

These old Independent Bifocals work real well sometimes.

Bob you are another one that keeps trying to change the narrative to fit your view point.

During the entire Presidential campaign and thru out the Legislative process it was repeatedly shown that over 50% of the folks supported and felt the need for dealing with Health care. Both Candidates for office addressed it repeatedly.

Just because you now want to repeat the narrative that the people did not support it does not change that fact except as a bases for your eliciting a somewhat more coarse response in some areas.

Houston!

Oh, come on. You're not ignoring it. You know very well that the individual mandate was first proposed by Republicans as an alternative to "Hillarycare" back in the '90s. If the individual mandate had been in a bill signed by a Republican president, you'd be singing its praises.

No I wouldn't. This is where Hillary got into trouble in the primaries when she mused about garnishing wages. I was just listening to NPR and the legal expert opined that the administration has to find some limiting principal on the commerce clause. This is what's missing. I am not arguing for the pros or cons of the actual bill but the methods it will try to enforce. As I said if the bill had used taxation to fund its mandates then this would not be an issue.

IR I do agree that this will go to the SCOTUS and will be a partisan issue which is a pity. This is just the Bush v Gore decision coming back to bite us again. They should have left that one in the state courts.

Alan, NJ

No I wouldn't.

Few if any conservatives opposed the REPUBLICAN proposal for individual mandates until Obama was in favor of it, too. That makes me doubt your sincerity.

Holbrooke's last words: 'You've got to stop this war'

Prayers and sympathies to the friends and family of Richard Holbrooke today. He has served his country and its people well for a lot of years. He’s going to be hard to replace as part of our Diplomatic family.

I am neither a conservative nor a republican. I believe in social services but they have to be paid for by the private sector. I am pro market but not pro business in that I believe that all subsidies, ethanol, oil etc should be stopped. I am pro-choice but near President Clinton's position of legal but rare. I think the public option may have been a good thing but as there were no substantial details it was not possible to make a decision. I believe that HCR will ultimately fail because it will cause services for the majority (who have/had insurance) to deteriorate, and the new services for the minority will be sub-standard if they exist at all; research what is currently happening in Medicade before 15m more are added. Ensuring that someone has health insurance does not ensure that they will have high quality health care.

I was always against the war in Iraq and I now believe that the conflict in Afghanistan is futile, although I shudder to think what will happen to women if the Taliban regain power.

...and yes I do like what Chris Christie is doing in NJ

IR-

President Obama has finally recognized that "compromise" involves more than an agreement between elements of his own political party...and is reaping the benefits of his move towards real bipartisanship.

Perhaps someday you'll be able to grasp the same concept...kinda hard to make a living as an "independent" ideologue, isn't it?

Redneck,

You were talking about compromise for the final HCR legislation, right? (What compromise was made while Obama was running for President?)

The American wanted health care reform. They were against what ended up passing.

Did I change the narrative with my response, or did you try to change your narrative with your response.

Ah Mixed old Buddy still struggling mightily to make reality fit that little niche you try to put it in I see. You see I don't quite see it your way. Me personally I don't think that the President is recognizing any thing he didn't already know. I believe that The Bobbsey Twins are kind of coming around to the realization that Two more years of setting on the sidelines and abrogating their resposibilities along narrow Idealogic lines ain't going to look real good two years from now. At least now you can finally make the arguement that they compromised on something rather than depending on the Democrats to compromise with themselves now can't we. Oh BTW yes it's sometimes hard to uphold those "independent" idealogue standards but I've managede to keep Tater's on the table for quite a while with 'em so I don't reckon I need to change now.

Bob if we're dealing with revisonism you. If we're dealing with reality me.

Sorry, IR...

I should have been more clear.

My use of the phrase "make a living" was meant as a metaphor...not to be taken literally.

Ideologues of any stripe can never be "independent" of the confines of their ideology.

True political "independents" shouldn't be, by definition, hard-line partisans.

Or...ideologues.

Nice chatting with you, Redneck.

IR:

You are so on point!

In fact, last evening on Rachel Maddow she went to the trusty archives and lo and behold there was a copy of the proposal for mandated health care sponsored by none other than Orrin Hatch (R) and co-sponsored by bunch of other Republicans in the 90's who went on to castigate the Obamacare version of same in 2009 and are now calling for a repeal in 2010.

Apparently these people don't know about such things as archives.

Can you say HYPOCRIT?

spelled HYPOCRITE,........it is a weird one.

Sorry Mixed I guess I should of been more clear.

You see unlike some people I don’t make a distinction between my political ideology and the ideology that I live by. Makes things right simple for me that way cause I don’t have to set around and wonder what dang fool thing political position I took yesterday. I just look up first thing in the morning and poof there it is. Same today as it was yesterday and probably will be tomorrow.

Sorry I can’t quite match up with your definition of whatever you think I am but life’s a funny old dog that way ain’t it

I really want Romney to run against Obama. It will be funny to watch him try to rip his own health care plan apart, because romneycare and obmacare are basically one in the same. Should be interesting, Mitt's head just may explode.

Bev:

Great points all. What ever happened to the idea that you should have people who do not have a stake in the outcome rule on it. We have a situation, just like the "Citizens United" case where people have a vested interest in the outcome of the ruling making the ruling. How does that help America. We will never get a fair hearing or ruling as long as we allow those who may benefit from its outcome make the rules.

This sounds like a Banana Republic to me. The republican/tea party want to control everything including the rulings on the high courts now just to further push our countryinto chaos. If it is good for Wall Street, Big Business or millionaires and billionaires they will push for it. It it benefits the middle class it is too expense, bad idea, etc etc and they will vote it down every-time. Just look at the last two years for your proof.

Anybody do any background research on the two Clinton judicial appointees who ruled for HCR, or do the Alinsky rules only come in to play when the rulings go against you?

Maybe I just answered my own question.

Ah, the "they do it too" ruse. No facts, as Bev has submitted, just smears. No examination of the facts, just throw out shadowy figures like Alinsky.

Fourteen court challenges to HCR have been thrown out. Two have been won by the government. This one's a partial loss. Yeah, it's all about a couple of Clinton appointees.

It's never about facts in the Conservative world, it's about what you can sell.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Bev:

Great points all. What ever happened to the idea that you should have people who do not have a stake in the outcome rule on it. We have a situation, just like the "Citizens United" case where people have a vested interest in the outcome of the ruling making the ruling. How does that help America. We will never get a fair hearing or ruling as long as we allow those who may benefit from its outcome make the rules.

Thank you Navy,

You have expressed exactly what my intent is. Before Safari shut my computer down, I was unable to edit my points. Actually, I was surprised the post went through.

I think it time for us as citizens to agitate. If Justice Sotamayer recused herself why didn't Judge Hudson follow suit? It''s time for us to demand the impeachment of Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia so we won't delve further into a banana republic.

If Fed Judge Thomas Porteous was impeached from the bench for corruption then Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia could be sit in on meetings with the fake grassrots financer Koch meetings who, btw, pushed millions of dollars against the heathcare law; then these two should be impeached too.

But, as we're seeing that's what activts judges and Tea Bagging GOPers do; politically bifurcate on the Constitution

Who do you think should replace Hoolbroke?

nojonobo:

Anybody do any background research on the two Clinton judicial appointees who ruled for HCR, or do the Alinsky rules only come in to play when the rulings go against you?

You know very well that if the Clinton appointees had a conflict of interest as huge as this Bush appointee, Drudge, Beck, and the rest of the merry band of rightwing loonies would be screaming bloody murder. And the corporate media would quickly seize on the story as part of their "Democrats Do It, Too" narrative that always kicks in when a Republican gets caught with his hand in the cooky jar like Hudson did.

Hand in the cookie jar? Maybe you should be a little more careful with the hyperbole.

Democratic presidents appoint democratic judges, and vice versa. In states and commonwealths where A G 's are elected, they run as candidates of their respective parties, which is not to say that appointed attorneys general are apolitical- they are not. They are simply appointed by governors of their own respective parties.

I did not see any opposition research on the two Clinton appointed judges. Maybe it is because the right accepts that elections have consequences. Certainly, considering the response from the left in regard to the mid term results, one can conclude that the left does not.

A banana republic is also characterised by a ruling class that curtails people's personal freedoms and is moving towards a heavyhanded military dictatorship under the excuse of fighting guerrilla (or terrorist) opposition groups or enemies. Moreover, the fact that the ruling class or the elite comes from different political parties isn't a relevant factor in classifying a country as a banana republic; what is relevant is the determination of the elite, irrespective of which party its members belong to, to shift wealth from the majority of the people (the masses) to themselves, usually through simply printing money and incurring chronic budget deficits, and frequently also through senseless warfare.

nojonobo:

I did not see any opposition research on the two Clinton appointed judges. Maybe it is because the right accepts that elections have consequences.

Yeah, that's why they attacked Elena Kagan, a Jew, as a sympathizer with Islamic extremists and other such nonsense. Yes, elections do have consequences, and one the most important consequences of the 2008 elections was to enrage conservatives to the point that they will now do anything to regain total power, no matter how destructive it is to the nation's well being and security.

DBO:

too funny, thanks. Maybe one of those toys that you put water on and it grows grass.

How about "Crying Johnny" Pull the string and he Blubbers like somebody that really cares. Only thing is the string is pure gold and costs about a million and has to be replaced every two hours. Only buy him for your Kids if you can afford to keep him in strings otherwise he is simply worthless.

The one I like

Weeper of the House

I think I'm casting my vote for Dennis' "Weeper of the House"!

Will someone lend me some big money, so I can purchase MORE votes, too?

Dennis:

Weeper of the House gets my vote.

Shining examples of the maturity and sober reflection of the left.

Are ALL of you fifth graders?

Good one. Liberals should be as respectful of the new Speaker as the conservatives have been of Speaker Pelosi.

He cries because he knows that he is going to hell for what he has been willing to do.

US Navy Disabled Vet:

too funny, thanks. Maybe one of those toys that you put water on and it grows grass.

Boehner is already kind of a Chia pet of the wealthy. They water him frequently with campaign cash.

nojonbo:

Shining examples of the maturity and sober reflection of the left.

You've got a lot of nerve whining about someone making fun of Boehner when you've spent the last two years throwing a childish tantrum because Barack Obama got elected president.

Besides, the Speaker-to-Be's boozy blubbering may be a sympton of a rather serious problem, both for him personally and for the country. That's certainly worth discussion even if the corporate media punditocracy turns its collective head and pretends it's not a problem.

Houston;

Touche', they forget all the names they called President Obama and even people on this board don't they. If you are going to be thowing stones in a glass house expect some broken windows.

Don't forget all those jobs Reagan created with his tax cuts for the richest 2%, all those jobs overseas.

Doesn't matter, There are still plenty of companies available to buy, dismantle, and sell off in pieces for personal profit. Romney's job is still secure.

Speaking of Mitt Romney, has anybody taken the time to investigate those "I'm a Mormon" ads?

WHY is the Mormon Church spending millions, heck maybe billions, to give the Mormon church and it's followers a "I'm just like you" image? Why?

Could it be so Mitt can say "I'm just like you...and I"m a Mormon." in 2012?

Inquiring minds want to know.

C'mon folks somebody step up to the plate and take a swing at it.

This looks like a violation of the separation of Church and State to me and should cost the Mormon church it's tax exemption at the very least.

Don't we have any journalists out there anymore? C'mon Woodward let's see what you can find with your highly regarded "sources".

"What a one man wrecking crew this clown is!"

He certainly presided over the wrecking of Madame Speaker's majority in the House, didn't he?

Not too many RNC Chairmen can lay claim to the kind of demolishing of the opposition party that Congressional Democrats suffered last month...a demolishing that appears to have resulted in a sudden outbreak of bipartisanship on Capitol hill. Lol...

You're not really a "big picture" type, are you Feisty...?

We're you laughing on Election Night?

FR R Ill

You are fighting windmills

The republican/tea party won in spite of Steele not because of him.

Yes, we were laughing at Carly, and Meg, and Joe, and Christine, and Sharon, and even at Sarah "plain" Palin. Lipstick on a pig. All of them.

You're making progress, US Navy...some simply can't manage it.

At least you're able to acknowledge what happened on November 2nd.

Now, if House Democrats show similar ability to assimilate unpleasant realities...

We can all move on...as President Obama clearly has.

The RNC chair, and his or her counterpart, the DNC chair, has only two questions to answer when standing for re-appointment:

How much money have you raised?

How responsible are you for the outcome of the last election?

Those are the only questions that matter. Incidentally, people from the other party have no input into the decisions.

The republican/tea party won in spite of Steele not because of him.

US - A well respected Republican told MB the exact same thing yesterday... to no avail...

Certain people seem to have hero worship for blunder boy...

I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with USNDVR. Imagine how much worse the election results for Dems would have been with a competent RNC Chairman!!!!

Feisty, my dear...

At least I understand what happened on November 2nd.

How about this for a Republican Presidential Dream Ticket, PALIN/STEELE in2012.

I'd love it. LOL

What happened on Nov. 2 is that an uninformed electorate voted for a party that wishes to continue to bankrupt the US by extending tax cuts, especially to the wealthy, that we can't afford and that will doom the US to second rate nation status by 2050.

"The people", like rats on a sinking ship, are willing to climb over each other's backs to get to high ground in this crumbling economy that the robber barons have created. "The people" will stomach windfall tax breaks for the wealthy, to get the few crumbs that the GOP will throw at them. For now. All the corporate welfare, tax breaks, grants, and bailouts haven't created a net of one job during the entire 8 years of Bush and 2 years of Obama. Yet the GOP wants more for their rich constituents.

The demonstrations that have occurred in other countries will eventually come to the US. People are getting to the end of their tolerance for wealthy special interests running the country. The Tea Party anger we saw out there was misdirected at the Democrats this time, because they were in control. It will eventually find it's rightful home.

Our kids are dieing in foreign lands to protect oil investments in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. It's not the wealthy class kids. It's kids who sign on for military duty because the industries in their home towns were moved to China when the wealthy class saw Chinese labor was only .33/day with no benefits.

80% of people have not seen an increase in net income since 1980. And it's not getting better, it's getting worse. When 3% of the people get 37% of the cash funding these tax cuts, we've sealed the fates of the lower and middle classes. That hard reality is why Obama was elected in the first place, as people felt disenfranchised, and is why eventually the GOP is in for big trouble. You can only fool people for so long. When your true constituency (the wealthy) is less than 20%, you have no basis to govern any longer. Only by tricking the lower and middle class into believing that you have something to offer them can you fool them for a while. The GOP are masters at deceit now. But eventually we'll have their heads. History is replete with lessons for the priveleged classes that took advantage of the rest of us. This country will not tolerate a "ruling class" for very much longer.

MkeMike-

As a conservative, I sincerely hope that the left continues to insult the "uninformed electorate"...because, I don't know of any politicians who have made a successful career out of insulting the voters.

And, after all, the electorate that put President Obama in the White House in the first place sent him and Congressional Democrats an unambiguous message last month...to his credit, it appears that the President heard them and continues to listen.

Ideologues will never be able to hear.

That's the problem though, Mixed Bag. America's voters NEED to be insulted, not placated. They are dumb, uninformed and vote on emotion (remember the "angry voters" news stories?) instead of reason. It's a sad state of affairs when our citizens lack the basic self-awareness to accept a politician who tells them the truth. Instead, they react aggressively by voting in opposition because they're offended by the fact that someone had the gall to tell them (truthfully) that they're idiots. Shouldn't a rational individual's reaction instead be to become less stupid?

The GOP had a big push a few weeks ago to have an "adult conversation" about the budget. Here's one for all you mopes: taxes NEED to go up from where they're at AND spending NEEDS to come down. Fiscal year 2009's income was $2.1 trillion and the expenditures were $3.5 trillion, with a $1.4 trillion deficit. We are literally in the red by more than 60% of what we're taking in. We have to cut out almost as much as what we're spending to close that gap, there's no way to do that without eliminating most of our defense budget and social welfare programs wholesale.

Anybody who defends a tax cut in that environment is, frankly, a moron. You can argue that a short-term injection of federal spending to ameliorate the recession is necessary and that it's ok to have *SOME* deficit, but this problem started years ago when we were relatively prosperous.

Also, if you haven't lived near a low-income neighborhood in the last 10 years, your opinion on the necessity of social welfare programs is simply not valid because you don't have to deal with the consequences of leaving these people on the bottom rungs of society. A kid from the ghetto with no education can't "pull himself up by his bootstraps." He needs a helping hand. If he doesn't get it, he's going to take a walk down the street and break into someone's car looking for an ipod to sell or worse, get involved with a gang and start pushing drugs for quick money.

Ignorant and stupid are not the same thing. Oddly, if you tell an intelligent person that they are ignorant they will ask, "How so?". Tell a stupid person that they are ignorant and they will argue that they are just repeating what they heard on FAUX NEWS.

Mixed Bag - people were voting against democrats this election because the economy is in the toilet and they haven't seen real progress. It's not that the republicans had any great ideas, or any ideas period. It just that the older generation in this country are not feeling too great about Democratic party right now and they swung the election to the republicans. As the economy gets better and the people see that Obama is more of a centrist than a socialist, the 2012 elections will be very different. You will see.

"If you can prevent the deaths of people still alive, you're not doing a disservice to those already killed by trying to do so." - Richard Holbrooke

"If Richard calls you and asks you for something, just say yes. If you say no, you'll eventually get to yes, but the journey will be very painful." - Henry Kissinger

Condolences go out today to his friends and family.

Ambassador Holbrooke's passing is a huge loss for this country and the world.

May he rest in peace.

Jody;

I agree. The man was an American hero and we will miss his wisdom and leadership. I wish his family and friends the best.

My thoughts, prayers, and sympathy are with the Holbrooke family.

I hope you will indulge me for a moment- six years ago this day, my husband lost his best friend of twenty years. They were like brothers- they shared everything. We come from different backgrounds and religions, so we shared all holidays- Jewish and Christian- and our children benefited immensely!

My husband's buddy loved life, and celebrated it every day. Unfortunately, when he was diagnosed with Type II diabetes, he chose to consider it at most an inconvenience- he never took it seriously. He also was not one for a flu shot.

He got the flu, and had a cascade event- he was healthy one day, and five days later, he was gone.

So, now, the lecture: diabetes is serious. If you have it, please respect it, and control it. Also- get a flu shot! Do it for your family, your friends, and all those who love you.

And, please, keep in Your thoughts and prayers those who have lost loved ones at this time of year.

Ditto Pat . . . I think what we are witnessing is the mother of all temper tantrums.

But you know what?

Political battles are nice, but at the end of the day, somebody has got to govern.

President Obama is that someone.

Thank God.

Pat/Nash;

Good points. I have noticed also that some in our party are getting a little nasty as well and in some cases I really have to wonder if they really are democrats and support President Obama. Give me FR anytime. We disagree here a lot but for the most part many keep it civil. Some do not (on both sides) and I just ignore their posts anyway. We are all Americans and I suspect that we do have more in common than not. It all comes out int he wash sooner or later.

Nash - And just so you know, I have had your back elsewhere (under a different name). Sometimes I see you too late, but if I'm around at the beginning, I have backed you. Although that has come to an end. I've moved on to other places, as you can see.

I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.

President Obama is our President. And if my own party can't support him, then good bye. I've seen this play before. Right here in MA. They talk about the right being uninformed.

The same can be said about the left. Unfortunately.

Pat,

Thanks for that . . . much appreciated! :o)

Truth is most of them probably do get along fine except when it comes to legislation. I think of Orrin Hatch's close friendship with Ted Kennedy. Too bad today's GOP legislators do not realize it isn't about the next election, it is about solving problems and moving the country forward.

Ron, a "little" nasty? lol

One so-called Democrat told President Obama supporters that we learned our bad manners (or something like that) from President Obama. Can you believe it? Just because we're fighting back? They find as much "dirt" on him as they can find. And we're supposed to remain silent? I.don't.think.so.

First Read I agree with you Ron is very professional and we're given pretty much free rein, while over the top stuff gets hauled in. I've been thinking for a while that the only two sane people left in the media are Mark & Domenico. LoL.

A banana republic is also characterised by a ruling class that curtails people's personal freedoms and is moving towards a heavyhanded military dictatorship under the excuse of fighting guerrilla (or terrorist) opposition groups or enemies. Moreover, the fact that the ruling class or the elite comes from different political parties isn't a relevant factor in classifying a country as a banana republic; what is relevant is the determination of the elite, irrespective of which party its members belong to, to shift wealth from the majority of the people (the masses) to themselves, usually through simply printing money and incurring chronic budget deficits, and frequently also through senseless warfare.

He, the President, has done nothing right for 2 years according to FOX and it's echo chamber ala Beck, Hannity, Palin, and right wing blogs. Now we have the left saying he does nothing right for ratings.

They need to be careful lest we get President know nothing, nincoomp, Sarah Palin .

Beverly, I hate to say this, but you have to turn them off. At least for a while. You are not their audience any longer. Neither am I, sad to say. I hate the tax cut extensions for the rich as much as anybody. President Obama hates it as well. But a bi-paritsan bill was reached. The hosts of any tv shows on any station don't have to govern, as has been said. I knew after a while that I wasn't Scarborough's audience so I stopped watching, just like I knew years ago that I wasn't O'Reilly's audience, so I stopped watching.

Meanwhile, maybe we'll get DADT and The DREAM Act. I hope so. Which will require both parties. Again.

I've always said that Keith Olberman was a firebrand and unwilling to have an opposite viewpoint on his show. Schultz is a loud mouth and clearly plays to ratings. "Pull out your phones and text 1 for agree or 2 for disagree."

Rachel Maddow for the most part I respect as a journalist. I catch her show every once an a while. Interesting that some who used to profess complete faith and used to shower praise on Olberman and Shultz when they "reported the news/shone the light" on issues are leaving them now when they question Obama's resolve.

Me at night, I help my son with homework besides I would rather watch Nick at Night with him.

Pat, Boston, MA

Beverly, I hate to say this, but you have to turn them off. At least for a while. You are not their audience any longer. Neither am I, sad to say.

I did with it with Scarbough when you told me that during the 2008 campaign and I'll do it again.

I hate the tax cut extensions for the rich as much as anybody. President Obama hates it as well

You know what's so ironic? The President didn't renege on his campaign promise. Despite the Party of "NOPE"he had got the tax cuts for $250,00 or less.I would think the media would discuss it from that perspective. Besides, he's not the first president to break a promise for whatever reason. I also don't now of any other President who was poisoned by the media and extreme radicals as much as this one;including GW.

Yellow Dog, I am one of those viewers who thought the world of Keith's work. Both when he praised President Obama as well as when he didn't. I've been watching him for years. Same with Rachel. Ed I was always on the fence with, but I appreciate his loyalty to labor. But when there is nonsense talk about "primaries" I'm out. Done. Keith & Rachel are progressives - but foremost - journalists. I appreciate that. But I have found that the more I got to know the progressives, the more I didn't like them. It took a while I admit. Too long. And I am a progressive and I don't care if people on the left believe that or not. I owe them nothing. I've been at this for many many years. I live in a Democratic state. And I do my part to try and keep it that way. Where is everybody else around this country who claim to be progressives? They have for years had R Senators. Why don't they do something about that instead of blaming President Obama for everything.

No one is going to call me an Obamabot or whatever, just because I support President Obama. No one. Especially so-called Democrats.

The Patriots are doing well, so I find myself watching ESPN a lot. If the hosts on these shows on the other hand were constantly berating the Pats, I wouldn't watch. Sports vs. politics. No comparison I know.

But I'm a 100% supporter of President Obama. Journalists can't afford to be. I just don't like progressives. And most of the media any longer. They don't do real reporting. They just read blogs. At least that's what it looks like to me.

Cliff Lee to Phillies? Talk about living in a bizzaro world. My goodness. Phillies? Where did this come from?

Well, like I said - never a dull moment these days. Lol.

Palin could have sat there and done nothing and the country would be better off. Obama is actively destroying the US. She certainly wouldn't have wasted a year on Obamacare.

It isn't only Fox news that slammed Obama, it was the voters on Nov 2, or did you forget that it ever happened? The leftist press has been covering for his incompetence for two years. Once the votes were in, they realized they were behind Fox yet again so they had to start reporting honestly.

Could you sit there and say Obama was doing a great job after the biggest "Shellacking" in 70 years??? The progressive news networks would shred any credibility they had left if they pulled that stunt!

Pat,

Thanks for your response. I consider myself a progressive. I also don't see a reason for a real formidable primary challenge to Obama. However, I think that the democratic party can't write off progressives as they have in their effort to govern these last two years. Maybe if Feingold would run, I would get "Fired up and ready to go."

I live in Texas a red state, and as you probably did, I worked to help elect Obama. As a precinct chair, I walked my district, had doors slammed in my face, was hung up on during phone calls. As I am Latino, some of the time I was called racial slurs to boot.

Over the past years I've even been threatened a couple of times at stop signs because of my Obama sticker on my car. At this point, I'm thinking it is not worth it. I'm past arguing/fighting with relatives, coworkers and fellow church goers.

I consider myself a fairly reasonable and well informed voter. I like what the Democrats and Obama stands for and talk about, but I don't see the follow through. I understand about the fillibuster and the process of legislation etc. I understand the difficulty in governing. However, if you put your faith behind someone or a party and they continue to let you down by siding with the other side in an effort to compromise, you lose faith.

Because of all of this I understand that the democrats will not get the Dream Act or never get real comprehensive immigration reform. I really doubt that they will be able to repeal DADT.

On the tax cuts for the rich, a line should have been drawn in the sand. Yes maybe it would have been all bluster and posturing, but maybe the GOP would have blinked. My big problem with Obama and Democrats is they never use leverage to push back against the right.

I will follow many disenchanted people away from politics. Glad that teh college Bowl season is coming up.

Congratulations to your Pats for shellacking my Bears.

Mark D---Please do not give up the fight. there are more OBAMA supporters than you think in Texas. Focus on the younger generation of white voters and continue to solicit the hispanics and blacks. Leave the white 40 something adult voters alone along with the 60+ old white voters, this group still leaves in Nixonland and REAGANVILLE.

Thanks for the kind words polo8.

I worked this year's primaries, as you may know in Texas you don't register Dem or Rep so you can vote for whoever in the primaries. While trying to pass the time, I would try to guess what a certain voter would declare (ask for either a Dem or Rep) ballot.

I noted that many, many, many young white voters voted republican. Sorry to report I also heard a lot of voices from my "folks" asking for republican ballots.

Looking forward to 2012, country wide I honestly think Obama can win next time. Based on how things work out with the Democrats and Obama, decisions/strategy policy fights I will have to see how involved I stay. I wish him well and hope he begins to look toward a progressive agenda.

Replace republican with democrat and I'll agree with you. You take the biggest hit in 70 years and you leave Reid and Pelosi in charge? Thanks! :<) If you thought 2010 was bad 2012 will really get your attention!

AMEN--thank goodness Steele is going to stay in charge. This is poetic justice for all of the WHITE TEXAS MALE REDNECK VOTERS that are in a special league of their own when compared with regular redneck racists voters south of the mason dixon line.

All "petitioning" of the representative or his agents should be completely transparent.

Actually I can't wait to see what sort of budget the Republicans cook up next year. It'll have enormous entertainment value.