Lousi J;

Outstanding. No matter what our President does he will not get any credit. His leadership avoided a financial meltdown of this country, the stock market up 50% since he took office, 71 % of the business on the big board have exceeded both profit and sales numbers, the economy is moving forward, etc. Her get credit for none of it and the blame for what the previous administration did to boot.

You know, I will leave the judgements about how hard Obama is working to those who make them.

The fact of the matter is that this is not grammar school- how hard you TRY is not enough- you have to SUCCEED.

Getting his pet projects rammed down the throats of an unwilling electorate seems to be his only measure of success.

The deficit is $1.5 trillion dollars. The weekly claims for unemployment spiked today- and the LAUS numbers ( local area unemployment statistics) announced just a few days ago do NOT support the BLS data that shows unemployment down a measly few tenths of a point- unemployment ROSE or stayed the same in 35 states, and declined only marginally in 15.

Meanwhile, the Middle East is on the verge of collapse, and his much vaunted charm has failed to have an impact on the situation. In fact, judging by his statements during the SOTU, he fails to recognize the danger inherent in the situation.

Ah, but he made a good speech in Tucson, so all hail the chief!

On the economy, as on foreign affairs, Obama has been not just an abject failure, but an unmitigated disaster. I have my doubts that this country can survive another two years of this. Perhaps, now that reality is setting in, he will take his bat and ball and go home. It is the best we can hope for, although Biden is no great improvement.

The deficit was bound to be high regardless of what the president did. He did the right thing. The calamity that we faced was dire and he had to act. If he raised taxes he was going to be crucified, if he touched the entitlements, he was crucified...

...and yet, Republicans continue to do nothing... no agenda, no plan...

...oh yeah, and no jobs!!

Do-Do Bird much?

*** Obama’s actual YouTube moment: Two days after his State of the Union address, President Obama will surely try to advance his winning-the-future message when he participates in a YouTube interview at 2:30 pm ET. And with the Dow flirting with 12,000, it should give him something to use to sell the idea that we're in a more stable position for Phase 2 of the recovery

Here's a couple of things Obama can "sell" to the American people:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-27/initial-jobless-claims-in-u-s-rose-51-000-last-week-to-454-000.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110126/ap_on_go_co/us_budget_deficit

FR: we're in a more stable position for Phase 2 of the recovery

Recovery Phase 2? That implies there was a Recovery Phase 1. And just when did Phase 1 occur?

Maybe it's a bit unfair to Conservative Republicans to say they're doing nothing. After all, they've made their symbolic vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act and here's a link from their web site linking to their replacement plan. Take a look, and you be the judge as to its adequacy. http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Summary_of_Republican_Alternative_Health_Care_plan_Updated_11-04-09.pdf

LouisJ: The deficit was bound to be high regardless of what the president did.

So, which is it? The economy is better and Obama can take credit? Or the economy is still bad, and Obama has nothing to do with it? And you and Navy Disabled should get together and get your stories straight. ND is running around touting Obama's success of "reducing" the year-over-year deficit by 9%, but yet he is suddenly quiet on the huge rise in the deficit for 2011, but you seem to be back to blaming the Republicans.

So just to be clear on your so called rules. Anything good in the economy, and Obama is the reason. Anything bad in the economy, and it's the Republicans fault. Is that how you see it?

And...

Whatever happened to "Recovery Summer"?

Nevada Loon, Delaware Witch, Alaskan Witch Doctor......

Then you talk about doing something positive and condemn the negative....

United We Stand .......

Thanks for providing another example of liberal hypocrisy and detachment from reality.

I will agree with you on this No Jo: President Obama never should have compromised with the Republicans and allowed the tax cuts for the rich to continue. His own deficit reduction committee told him we couldn't afford to lower taxes for the wealthiest. Those tax cuts added 400 billion to the deficit this year. But, I think President Obama's reasoning was, give Republicans what they asked for, then we will see the results, and NEXT year those tax cuts will go bye bye. If there is one thing I've learned, its President Obama is a patient man with a long term plan.

MB: Whatever happened to "Recovery Summer"?

Ahh, you see the Libs running for the high grass on that one. For the Libs it has gone from "Look how wonderful Obama is, he'll create all these jobs, isn't he just so dreamy!" to, "Okay, unemployment and the deficit are through the roof with no end in sight, but it's supposed to be that way, how could anyone expect more?".

Comical.

Lousi;

The deficit is high at 1.5 Trillion, but a lot of that is the Tax Cut Deal that has a very limited life span of 13 months to 2 years.

150 Billion of that is wast to the 2% tax cuts that do not impact the economy or create jobs in any meaningful way. 81 Billion for the cuts and another 69 Billion for the Estate tax cuts. Their is 150 Billion right there that should not be there, except President Obama had to eat that the get everything else that will create jobs and move the country forward.

This 1.5 Trillion is a good argument for getting rid of the Tax Cuts for the 2%, a good reason to look at the DOD budget (549 Billion for base budget plus 159 Billion for OCO), 700+ Billion that can and should be cut by 10% or more giving us 70 Billion+ in savings. Same with the fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid. Together they also account for over 700 Billion and could do just fine with the fraud and waste removed. Maybe another 10% for another 70 Billion saved and etc.

I look at the new 1.5 trillion as a wake up call. The savings just above would be more than the cuts that the GOP is going after now like Health Care for Veterans, Education, National Security, Research, etc. I agree we need spending cuts I just want them to be fair across the board and not just on the backs of the Middle Class like the GOP wants to do.

An AP article in the paper today on the budget deficit waited to the very last sentence to acknowledge that the deficit would have been over one trillion dollars strictly due to Bush policies. The article didn't bother to go into any details, but it has been pointed out repeatedly that the trillion dollars is due to the shortfall in revenue caused by the Bush recession, Bush's two unfunded and futile wars, Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and the Medicare drug prescription plan, the cost of which Bush lied to Congress about.

no joe, no bo, nj

Hate to get off topic, but yesterday i heard that your governor has asked the feds for 53 million, i guess he has run out of snow removal money and needs a helping hand.
Yea, right No Jo call christy and tell him the feds will give him the 53 million (interest Free) but only after he pays back the 270 million he owes the feds or hows this sound, he can take the 53 million off the 270 jersey owed, making the debt to the feds for the cancled tunnel project only at 220 million.

Now i know the east has been hit too many time with record snows, and i'm sure the jersey Enonomy is suffering, but No Jo, as much as you like the guy, but you must admitt this is out there.

Let me know what he said!!!!!!

Louis, interesting post. I disagree sometimes with you and Navy that the media, and in particular MSNBC, somehow diminishing the President. Bachmann's behavior during the president's speech, and then her truly bizarre rant afterward, were worth reporting because she has gained a position of some prominence in the Tea Party movement. Ignoring her would be irresponsible. And the exposure she's gotten lately is more damaging to her than any criticism could be - she shot herself not in the foot, but in the head.

No Jo, you wrote:

On the economy, as on foreign affairs, Obama has been not just an abject failure, but an unmitigated disaster. I have my doubts that this country can survive another two years of this.

I can't understand how you could make either claim. Yes, I read your post and frankly it is simply wrong. The President took office after a Bush Administration that spent eight years running up massive defecits, failing to regulate out-of-control banks and financiers, encourageing the nation to go into very deep personal and business debt, and alienating veritually every friend and ally of the United States. The Bush period was marked by abject incompetncy in virtually every respect. Unemployment was near 8% and climbing rapidly as President Obama assumed office. Businesses were failing and banks collapsing all over the world.

To quote you, the condition of the nation that President Bush delivered to his successor was "not just an abject failure, but an unmitigated disaster."

Prsident Obama took swift action to slow, and then begin to reverse, the job losses, the displacement of families suddenly without incomes, the business losses, the bank failures. He also reached out internationally and began to restore some shine to a badly-tarnished American reputation. He showed the country some hope that the ill-conceived and bungled wars of the Bush Regime might end without disaster. He eventually brought home more than two-thirds of the troops once deployed in Iraq, and gave the conduct of the Afghan campaign the attention it demanded - and that a bored George W. bush couldn't be bothered to provide at a time when that conflict might have been swiftly and effectively brought to a conclusion.

President Obama has averted disaster, and his policies are bringing America back to her feet at home. Internationally, he has already exerted great influence for good. The crisis in Egypt is indeed worrisome, especially combined with turmoil in Tunisia and Yemen. Those events were not of the President's making and to some extent are not directly a responsibility of the United States to resolve.

No Jo, I realize that you are looking at this matter from an entirely different perspective than many of us. The extreme right has, since literally the days of President McKinley, decried the change of American domestic and international policy to more of a proactive and participating government role than in the laissez nous faire low-profile individualism of Jacksonian democracy. The United States is, and shall remain, a federal system with a strong and active central government - there is no turning back that clock. This is a debate waged endlessly for more than 100 year, and the revanchist right not only has lost, but will never, never win.

Amy B. Portland, ME

I will agree with you on this No Jo: President Obama never should have compromised with the Republicans and allowed the tax cuts for the rich to continue

I disagree with Dr No Amy B

Getting his pet projects rammed down the throats of an unwilling electorate seems to be his only measure of success.

Republicans are coming to the federal government like bums standing on the corner with a hand basket. For one...

As Perry Bashed Recovery Act, Texas Relied Most Heavily On Recovery Act Funds To Fill Budget Hole

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/24/perry-arra-97/

Perry is hardly alone amongst GOP governors in bashing the stimulus and then turning around and taking advantage of the important funding it provided. Govs. Mitch Daniels(R-IN) and Chris Christie (R-NJ) have done much the same thing. But Perry was theonly one threatening secession as a response to government spending, even as his state took advantage of that spending more than any other.

I think it was very clever of the President to throw a bone to the pack and let them react

Dr no is not capable of re-inventing herself no matter how may meds she takes; I think.

One day the right drug or combination of drugs may come since the government is willing to help the scam jobs the Drug companies have done.

NJ & JS1 want to repeat the failed lessons of the 1930's and cannot see what is happening in the UK now that they have invoked their austerity budget and programs.

Surprisingly they don't reflect and do what Saint Reagan did to respond to the recession … spend, spend, spend. Remember Star Wars ??

no joe,

Middle East? Is there a problem, something going on over there?

I remember all of Obama's efforts the first two years on that, the Israeli slap arounds to appease the Muslims, etc., but it was funny how Barry "Boitano" Obama skated around that part of the program.

He is going to El Salvador? What - Hammas wants that now, too? And what did we do for Tunsia and the Sudan, I saw him reference suppport like we did something - did we?

Barry Boitano Obama did a pretty good toe pick triple reverse jump over the Iran stuff too! BTW - Is foreign policy normally a part of the State of Confusion speech?

To EVERYONE here:

Recently I was lent an astounding book studying the evolution of American disploacy as it related to private enterprise and domestic policy since the 1880's. It has been out for 50 years - and proved to be quite prophetic. An anniversary edition published in 2009 is the one to read. I strongly recommend it as a useful contribution to everyone's views of politics, economics, wars, and diplomacy.

The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, William Appleman Williams, W.W. Norton & Co., Ltd, New York 2009 - ISBN 978-0-393-33474-6

I can't vote this post "UP" enough, so I am going to re-post it under my name, because Houston is absolutely RIGHT!

An AP article in the paper today on the budget deficit waited to the very last sentence to acknowledge that the deficit would have been over one trillion dollars strictly due to Bush policies. The article didn't bother to go into any details, but it has been pointed out repeatedly that the trillion dollars is due to the shortfall in revenue caused by the Bush recession, Bush's two unfunded and futile wars, Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and the Medicare drug prescription plan, the cost of which Bush lied to Congress about.

Beverly in Chicago

Great link reguarding Perry and Christie, what a couple of blow holes. I'm so glad there not democrats.
the question now is, what is texas going to do, with no more stimulas funds coming from washington. i guess there rainy day fund is history.

Looks like No Joe, Bob and SJ1 didn't get their tea party talking points this morning, their having to go back to talking points from a year ago.

Their really eat up with their hate today. But keep it up nuts we enjoy a good laugh.

Jeff-1541632

Thanks Jeff

I find it fascinating Gov Pillsbury Dough Boy( Cristie) want to bring Soprana land business here to the Land of Lincoln.

New Jersey taxes are higher than Illinois. The Soprano needs to sing about takinh care of his state.

Watch this video it about a minute long

http://progressillinois.com/quick-hits/content/2011/01/25/quinn-blast-christie-tax-rhetoric-heats-1

Fox Noise and the media will do any and every thing to demonize Chicago and Illinois. There is no reason whatsoever, in my opinion ,to nationalize the mayoral race and Rahm Emmanuel.

But, hey it's Chicago ra- a -ta -ta

You got it Bev!

Hairspray Perry is full of tricks!....The new super Republican majority in the Texas Legislature will run roughshod over the few Democrats with their policies!

Beverly in Chicago

You know Bev, Given christies stance on the cancled tunnel project and owing the feds 270 million and refusing to pay it back, Now i here yesterday he is asking the feds for 53 million because he ran out of snow removal money, and as No jo has said, that the tax rates in Jersey are so high she and her husband are considering moving,
why would business even want to go there, to me this tunnel project and the fact he cancled it and cost New jersey and New York thousand of construction jobs, now we see he took stimulas funds to balance his budget instead of what it was ment for, Jersey to me is a job killing place.

If a Governor won't invest in a major infastructure project costing Jobs, what message does that send to business.
In Illinois as bad as things are for Us, we used the stimulas money on rebuilding I 80 from Iowa boarder to out side chicago. we used those funds to complete the bridge work at the Mississippi river both are a major road in and out of Illinois as well from Iowa to Indiana. I80 is the nations major access across the country.

we did not do a christie and Perry and that is say we don't want it, then take it only to make sure their bottom line was taken care of.
No wonder No Jo said the stimulis was a falure, in illinois we saw signs and work being done with those funds, No Jo did not see any thing because Blow Hole took the money and put it in to the state coffers and then cut socal services. again what a blow hole.

Well,

I will take a point from the President's speech, We need to simplify the tax code. I actually got tears when he said that. It means he is on here listen to me:)

Bring in more money by fixing a broken, progressive tax code.

Well said Mr President.

I'd kill for a flat tax rate across the board on all types of income.

Regarding Tunisia and Egypt - should we care? Should we intervene? I don't believe so. Part of the problem between us and the Middle East is that we meddle to suit our own interests with a callous disregard for local populations.

I'd rather see the money spent aiding corrupt governments (regardless of their affiliations) turned inwards. There are roads to repave, schools to update, infrastructure to maintain and Americans to aid.

I can hear it now, It is Egypt's fault, they distracted me and that is why the economy sucks. We must invest More More More.

Quit the spending, Make the cuts now before it is too late. Fix/repeal that money pit of a health care bill before it really kills us. Drug test for welfare and UE benefits. Vote out the people who continue to make this nation the laughing stock of the world. Kick a$$ in Iraq/ Afgan, surge, surge and more surge, if that is what it takes, so our military can come home. For goodness sake help the border states to stop the invasion, do not sue them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Independent and working toward the repeal of obamanomics and obama!!

Feisty:

It is just pure lack of respect for our President and pretty much tells you were they are coming from. I can not watch any of them, they are Rush wnatabees.

"Respect" doesn't emanate from a title unless you are in the military and you are required to respect superior officers. In the real world respect must be earned. Barry hasn't earned respect because his only credible attributes are giving a good speech and spending the country into bankruptcy.

Odd, Joe, for 8 years Conservatives insisted people who didn't properly respect and even support the President were being treasonous...no you insist the opposite.

It's the age old adage John, from the right...

You WILL DO AS I SAY - NOT as I do...

Who can EVER forget: 'You're either with us or against us'??

I call bullsh!t!

Agree Feisty. Since President Obama took the Oath of Office the media has almost totally refused to always address him as President, consistently!

What's with the Mr. Obama?......MSNBC seems to be moving toward the right......Watching is becoming increasingly difficult.

Only time will tell!

Actually calling the POTUS, MR./MRS. last name, Mr. President, President is proper. Calling the man by his first name is improper per protocol.

Stop whining about MSNBC. Those shows do not produce ratings. If the ratings are low, the money is low, thus calls for cancellation of Mr. Ed, Mr./Mrs. Madcow, Spit-mouth Matthews, Old Sleeping Pill O'Donnell.

Feisty

It's kind of ironic how a half term Governor from Alaska who quit her job is still referred to as Governor Palin!

Yes, oh, but she got a new responsibility on FOX Noise. to gauge how many brain dead tea baggers are left after she and bat moon Michelle Bachmann made so many gaffes

This why we need to engage in EDUCATION...

.

Palin Calls Obama's Sputnik Analogy A "WTF Moment"

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101260055

She sure can’t blame the “lamestream media.” Because this time the question came from Fox Noise’s very own from Greta Van Susteren asked, “Governor, there was a lot of discussion last night about the ‘Sputnik moment’ that the President talked about by . Van Susteren. Do you agree with him? Is this our moment?”

Sarah’s reply …“That was another one of those WTF moments that when (Obama) has so often repeated the 'Sputnik Moment' that he would aspire Americans to celebrate. He needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory in that race to space. Yeah, they won, but they also incurred so much debt at the time that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union.”

SARAH DISCIPLE TAKE NOTE...

Throughout the late 1980s, the Soviet government attempted to find a new structure which would reflect the increasing power of the republics. These efforts proved unsuccessful, and in 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed as the republic governments seceded. The republics then all became independent states, with the post-Soviet governments in most cases consisting largely of the government personnel of the former Soviet republics.

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

In the Middle: I had wondered the same thing about whether or not the Mr. Obama was accepted protocol, but admittedly I don't know. Looks like it is.

Joe...I disagree with you here. As for whether or not you personally respect a person, that is certainly up to you. However, the office of the Presidency is one that is entitled to some respect, even if you disagree with the occupant. He is after all the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces.

I did not like the names being used in reference to President Bush when he was President. Likewise, I don't much care for people using disrespectful terms in reference to the current President. I can understand missing it every now and again...I'm not immune and I'm sure there are times when I've called him simply Obama. But I try to make sure to use the proper title for elected officials. Not to mention I think when people use these cutesy names, it takes away from the argument. Seriously, which criticism can be taken more seriously (I'm not saying that I agree with these, just making a statement on wording and tone):

President Obama's spending has caused the budget deficit to skyrocket.

ObaMao's spending like a drunken sailor and causing the deficit to skyrocket.

President Bush ignored critical intelligence information in the lead up to the Iraq War.

The Idiot in Chief is a liar.

I certainly disagree with many of President Obama's policies and policies of the Democratic Party in general (I am a conservative after all). But I try to be respectful when I do it. And hopefully I will be treated with respect in return.

Happy Thursday...one day to go!! :-)

"Odd, Joe, for 8 years Conservatives insisted people who didn't properly respect and even support the President were being treasonous...no you insist the opposite."

____________________________________________

What goes around, comes around. Just like the current Republican so-called "abuse" of the filibuster has its roots in the "abuse" by the minority Senate Dems in the 2000's to stall/stop the Bush/Republinan agenda.

Payback is a bitch!!!

"Joe...I disagree with you here. As for whether or not you personally respect a person, that is certainly up to you. However, the office of the Presidency is one that is entitled to some respect, even if you disagree with the occupant. He is after all the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces."

___________________________________________

We can disagee. If I were in the military, I would salute the CIC no matter what I personally thought of him/her. Since I'm not in the military, he/she must earn my respect. Barry hasn't. Just like GWB never earned/got any respect from just about 100% of the lefty liberals.

Hey, it's a free country, so far.

So, Joe in Albany ~ What do YOU to earn respect, other than disrespecting everyone else?

"Payback is a b*tch" is such an uplifting, forward-looking statement. By the way, it appears you've forgotten that the only period that the dems had control of the Senate in the 2000s was the period from 2007-2008, during which time, they were all too busy campaigning and no one had ANY legislative agenda. Seeing that the end was upon him, Bush proposed nothing and was content to let it all go.

What goes around, comes around. Just like the current Republican so-called "abuse" of the filibuster has its roots in the "abuse" by the minority Senate Dems in the 2000's to stall/stop the Bush/Republinan agenda.

As usual the "party of responsibility" takes no responsibility themselves.

"Protocol aside, let's face it - the Bush White House would have threatened law suits if the media disrespected President Bush the way they do President Obama."

Almost fell off my chair lauging on that one. When you make ridiculous statements like the one I quoted above, it makes you seem very foolish, I seem to remember your beloved Mr. Olberman referring to President Bush as the worst person in the world, a simpleton, idiot, moron, all manner of unseemly titles. I hope all those on the left were just as quick to condem demeaning comments that were directed at the President back in 2004 as they are now.

This is only my opinion, but from where I am sitting the left was far more cruel and disrespectful to President Bush than the right has been to President Obama thus far. We can sit here and debate which side was/is more nasty to the other party's guy, but the fact of the matter is that regardless of what you think about the man, you should respect the office.

I checked out a website for the Protocol School of Washington's "Honor and Respect: The Official Guide to Names, Titles, and Forms of Address". The author answered questions and actually received this very question:

How Should the Media Refer to The Current President?
How should President Obama be referred to by the media? I hear them refer to him as Mr. Obama and this just doesn't sound very respectful of him or the office (in my opinion). Mahalo for your time.
-- Ms. Brazile in Honolulu

Dear MBIH:
Great question!
In the media the journalists are referring to The President in the third person in a story ... so they will refer to him in various ways so who they are talking about is clear to the listener. You'll hear:
The President
President Obama
Obama
Mr. Obama
These are not forms of address ... for which there are rules. In direct address a president is addressed as
Mr. President
His given name or surname is not used in his presence.
Listen to a White House news conference, and all the reporters address him as Mr. President.
White House staff refer to him as The President ... which makes sense since he is the only President to them! But on the evening news they may refer to several presidents ... the president of the United States ... the president of British Petroleum ... the president of a national association.
Sometimes you hear someone directly address the President of the United States as President Obama ... but that person is incorrect .... doesn't know the tradition ... and has probably just been listening to the evening news and thinks that is correct.
Whenever I hear that I write a note to the reporter. Not sure it does any good, but I feel better.
-- Robert Hickey

So, it seems that there really isn't official protocol in the media when referring to the President in the third person but there is most certainly protocol to be followed in addressing him directly. Interesting.

Feisty - The New York Times Manual of Style (and the AP Manual) both direct journalists to refer to the President as "Mr." when they re not using the term "President." It is the SOLE exception to not using honorifics in front of a person's last name in news stories. yes, you will see at times a story referring to "Rp. Boehner," or "speaker Boehner," but you will also see stories where that honorific is omitted. But it is considered disrespectful to the office of the President not to use "Mr." if the job title does not precede his last name.

The commentators are actually showing respect and observing formal standards of journalistic practice.

If one wishes to be taken seriously, one should use polite terms of address. Whether you are speaking of or to the President of the country, reporters in the media, or your mother.

In my opinion all of this name calling and using cute nicknames is not only rude; It reflects on the user's inability to express themselves and diminishes the validity of their arguments.

Are you people freakin kidding? Grow a backbone. You're offended by names that people call the President? Why is that your concern? I didn't care for Bush so if I want I'll call him idiot in chief and its none of your business. If Joe doesn't like Obama he can call him whatever he wants to. It is a free country so maybe you should look into finding a hobby and stop worrying about stupid bull$hit.

Thanks Grimey & John for the clarification!

You really do learn something new around here every day!

Still don't agree with it though! ;o)

By the way, it appears you've forgotten that the only period that the dems had control of the Senate in the 2000s was the period from 2007-2008, during which time, they were all too busy campaigning and no one had ANY legislative agenda.

______________________________________________________

Anna Molly, what part of the Senate minority only needing 40 votes to control things do you not understand??

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed Herrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrings~

Feisty, that's been bugging me since late Jan 2009. I even commented about it then. To me It shows a lack of protocol, etiquette and respect. It is something new because I do not recall references to Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton and when they discuss them even today, they call them former President..... If they can still call Cheney, VP Cheney, they can call him President Clinton, the current leader of the country. Anything less is disrespectful of the office and the person occupying it.

Quit the spending, Repeal to 2007 level. Make the cuts now before it is too late. Minimum tax rate no loophole to get below it, 10 - 15% perhaps. No Pay No Way. When Taxing it is only directed to that program, no more hiding switching, smoke and mirrors. Fix/repeal that money pit of a health care bill before it really kills us. Vote out the people who continue to make this nation the laughing stock of the world. Kick a$$ in Iraq/ Afgan, surge, surge and more surge, if that is what it takes, so our military can come home. For goodness sake help the border states to stop the invasion, do not sue them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Independent and working toward the repeal of obamanomics and obama!!

Actually, no, use of "Mr. Obama" is not a sign of disrespect whatsoever. it's actually standard usage that's been in affect as long as there has been an AP style book to set that standard. It's the way every president has been addressed (and yes, the exact same argument was made by Mr. Bush's supporters--that to refer to him at any time other than President was disrespectful.) And fyi, the very first President to insist on being called "Mr." was Washington (he thought it helped differentiate the presidency from a monarchy, by good old American informality.)

You know, people, sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar. (not a conspiracy)

(posted in the wrong spot before)

Yes I noticed the absence of the half-Governor of Alaska the past few days. Didn't it take her about four days to come up with a comment about the Tucson shooting? Oh, I forgot that rant was just about poor Sarah being picked on, no symphony for the victims. Yes I noticed her absence but I have not missed her.

Yes I noticed the absence of the half-Governor of Alaska the past few days

Isn't is invigorating when the 'Harpie' is silent?

You gotta admit that Barry's speechwriters and Barry himself didn't pick up on the Hillaryous acronym of his WTF theme. Shemp Mathews even made fun of it on last night's Wiffleball doing a Sideshow bit with a count of the numer of times Barry said WTF during the speech: 10.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Feisty: She is back today. Claims Sputnik was the fall of Russia.

Bravo, Ron: you are and will forever be one of the best and brightest!

Excellent Ron!

I was hoping you would respond!

Thanks for setting that straight!

Kudos Ron and I agree 100%. I see it everyday, those who are well educated are comfortable with that and see no need to flaunt it. Many of those that have money, that I know, have the same mentality. I have a very wealthy friend and he tells me the only nice thing about having a lot of money is he does not have to worry about money. He does not say it makes him a better person or smarter, or even more happy.

I think those that feel the need are just secure in their own skins or skills, or just not telling the truth thinking that this is how they are judged by having this and that. It is not how I judge people. I judge them by what they do, not what they have that is all.

Dr. Ron ~ Congratulations on your degree. We pseudo-doctors have great respect and admiration for those who have actually done the gauntlet of GREs, dissertations, and oral exams. In my line of work, we loaf for three years and write the dissertations later.

So, Dr. Ron, what's your prescription for controlling the ever-increasing health care costs that will soon (5-15 years) bankrupt the country??

And here I thought it was just having read Alinsky's Rules For Radicals!

Well, it probably is- although if you are a psychologist, you probably deem yourself an expert in their use.

You speak of credibility- on, ( as you readily admit), an anonymous board, you make an unsubstantiated allegation, and repeat it continuously.

To what purpose? Obviously, to undermine my credibility with readers of the board- which means, you view me as a substantial threat to your narrative.

I have been remiss in these last months, so I will make up for it now:

Thank you so much for the compliment.

I don't know about Ron's, Joe, but it occurs to me that putting some controls on health insurance company profits, on pharmaceutical company profits, on the profits of all health care manufacturers, and even on doctor's salaries, might be a better course than depriving poor people or the elderly of health care.

Heaven forbid we tell a doctor how much he or she can make, even when we're paying the bills. Just cut a few police officers, FBI agents, firefighters, nurses, and teachers, instead. Let the infrastructure go. Don't inspect food. Don't enforce regulations on off-shore oil drilling. After all, that's just the price society pays so doctors can be rich.

Anna Molly:

In my mind your education was much more difficult than mine. I have the greatest respect for your knowledge, wisdom, and insight. I am not smart enough to do what you do and that's a fact. So I bow low to you and Steeler fan.

Oh, no, no joe ~ "we" don't view you as a "substantial threat" to the "narrative." In fact, I find you a most amusing, and extremely worthy opponent.

Relax.

It's all in good fun, no joe. All in good fun.

Obviously, to undermine my credibility with readers of the board-

Geeze NJNB - you seem a tich more 'bristly' than usual this morning!

Relax will ya?

No one has to undermine your credibility, as you do a FABULOUS job of that all by your self!

The regular readers on this board along with the moderators recognize you for exactly what you are!

We got your number hon... lol

Seriously, Ron. No "bowing" allowed. They don't teach you much in law school except how to think about things and where to look it up. It turns out that this is very valuable later, but at the time, you're too bewildered to make any sense out of anything.

But thanks. I didn't even know Steeler Fan was a lawyer. I'd better check the internet gaming regulations before I propose a bet with him/her on the Super Bowl.

You're more than smart enough to do what I do, and what is better, your intelligence is graced by ... grace, actually ... and better still, by compassion. Don't ever sell that short.

I'm not a doctor. I don't even play one on TV. But who cares, one way or the other? Who cares whether other posters are accountants or lawyers or garbage men?

Posts should be judged on their content. Period. And what I notice Ron, is that you never offer compelling rebuttal to any of the points no joe makes. All you do is trash the messenger and move on.

You may be able to run from the inconvenient truths she points out. But you surely can't hide from them.

Anna Molly:

Ok, no bowing, but I will listen to every word. BTW, Steeler Fan is also a lady.

Fesity;

Remember what I said about those that make those stupid comments. It is true.

Bill;

I agree posts should be judged by their content and how well we present our arguments. You are correct that I seldom offer a rebuttal as she is not a worthy opponent. NAWO.

compelling rebuttal to any of the points no joe makes

It's rather difficult to make a 'compelling' rebuttal, when 9 times out of ten the comment is at best half true!

I don't know about you Bill, but I don't make it a habit of debating habitual liars!

As I said previously, I used to at least have some reverence for NJNB (even with her tall tales).

The final straw was when she came on here for the better part of a week peddling the Presidents Mumbai Trip even AFTER it was thoroughly debunked and refused to back down!

Her refusal to admit the mistake was very telling to what her true character really is!

The casual reader might find her a 'worthy' opponent, while the rest of us find her pathetic and implausible

No one is PERFECT Bill and that includes NJNB!

Even though I disagree with you 99.9% of the time - I respect you because you are HONEST!

Great job, Ron.

Thanks for the kind words---of course, this week I am mostly a STEELER FAN!!! Town is in a frenzy!

If someone offers a general opinion on politics, the weather, sports, etc., it doesn't matter what their background is. But if someone writes with some specificity about a topic such as economic policy and indicates that they have experience and/or education in the field, then the truth of that statement is in issue because they are holding themself out as knowledgeable in that field. If I can put words in Ron's mouth, I think that is his issue with No Joe.

Good Morning Steeler Fan:

You can speak for me anytime...and the issue is closed.

I'm in a quandary as two of my favorite people, you and Anna Molly, are on opposite sides of the ball. Wisconsin and Indiana are in the mid-west, but the Steelers beat the Jets, who beat the Patriots. I think I'll stay on the sidelines and just watch good football. Good luck to both teams

"I don't know about Ron's, Joe, but it occurs to me that putting some controls on health insurance company profits, on pharmaceutical company profits, on the profits of all health care manufacturers, and even on doctor's salaries, might be a better course than depriving poor people or the elderly of health care."

___________________________________________________

So, Anna Molly, you are recommending a govt run "Health Care Central Planning Committee" that would produce Five-Year plans dictating the economics of 1/6 of the nation's economy. I could be wrong, but, I think the Russians tried that concept and it ended up as a miserable failure.

Dr. Ron, what do you think is the solution??

Ron---I was hoping you would be loyal to the AFC and besides, the cheesehead is a tough look to pull off! I do think it will be a good game. I'm a little worried about our center, who has an ankle injury. Imagine making the Pro Bowl as a rookie center!

Oh look, the Conservative teleprompter just scrolled "Alinsky's Rules for Radicals."

Joe: You ask a legitimate question and against my better judgement I will attempt to answer it. But I can't right now as I have a meeting in a few minutes. I will not likely be on FR for the rest of the day.

Congrats Ron.

Joe ~ nonsense. That's just a red herring and not what I said. But my way of thinking seems to work in England, France, Canada, and other free countries that have tried it. What's so wrong about deciding as a nation that we will not become slaves to the health care industry and allow them to dictate where all our money goes in a way that strangles everything else?

And what's so good about personal greed that we need to protect it?

For the most part, I read NJs post, kind of grunt a 'huh' under my breath and move on.

I will say this, I truly believe that NJ has some kind of economics degree, maybe even a Ph.D.. She has written some things that are fairly obscure enough that only a casual or passing interest in economics would not provide knowledge of them.

However, that being said, I do question the quality of her education and/or doubt she graduated anywhere near the summa cum laude level. From her assertions and analysis of economic problems and policies to address them, it is evident that either she knows economic terms and methods but lacks critical thinking skills to correctly analyze cause and effect, or her education was extremely slanted in one direction.

It is obvious that she hates this President as she never has anything nice to say about him . . . ever. Every day she comes on here with a burst of negativity and debunked talking points that makes her sound bitter and sad. Despite being proven wrong on more than one occasion (the Indonesia trip comes to mind) she has continued to argue for a debunked idea or statement. I am no psychiatrist but it seems to me that someone who continues to argue for something that simply is not true and they have been shown that it is not true, has some sort of mental condition and should seek help.

Either that or she is a paid troll just playing a role. I doubt she is a troll but her doggedness in the face of facts that contradict her views and opinions would make her a good one.

"....I don't know about you Bill, but I don't make it a habit of debating habitual liars!..."

Uh-Oh, Feisty- looks like you may have just picked up a bad habit.

Naughty-naughty on yoooou.

Like I said yesterday, and on several days before, the issue of education seemed to something you went to, and only in a negative way. I could really care less about a person's education. Just because you have PHd. or Anna Molly has a JD doesn't make any difference, generally as it relates to politics. Phds and lawyers have no better or worse insight on most things around here. And they certainly don't help the entertainment value of the given comment. Also, even if NoJo does not have a degree in anything, I generally agree with her comments as they relate to basic economics.

Now having said that I do think a person's background does effect credability. As a former accountant, and small business owner I am more attuned to the effects of healthcare costs in general, and the effects Obama care will have on business. As a lawyer I have an some understanding as to some of the legal issues raised around here. I also have a fairly strong background in tax as part of my practice which gives me insight into the tax code and its use as a plitical football. Also, the so called Bush Tax "cuts" would have directly impacted me.

And the bottom line for me - I of course recognize who's site this is, and that my point of view is in the minority. That's what makes it fun. Right Drive By?

I invented healthcare and the snuggie so I am much more credible than all of you.

"And the bottom line for me - I of course recognize who's site this is, and that my point of view is in the minority. That's what makes it fun. Right Drive By?"

Yep.

"Joe: You ask a legitimate question and against my better judgement I will attempt to answer it. But I can't right now as I have a meeting in a few minutes. I will not likely be on FR for the rest of the day."

______________________________________________________

Nice dodge, Dr. Ron. Sounds like you've got nuthin'. Not surprising as lefty liberals tend to whine a lot, but, usually their only solution is to throw other people's money at the problem and you know that won't work here.

I seriously want to know where the hell one has to apply to get paid to troll people OL. If I could actually make money being a dick on the Internet, that'd be a dream come true.

Nice dodge, Dr. Ron. Sounds like you've got nuthin'.

That's typical. He doesn't rebutt opposing arguments nor does he provide documentation to support his own.

I seriously want to know where the hell one has to apply to get paid to troll people

You should ask LouisJ about that. He gives new meaning to the notion of Obama shill.

I disagree with you 99.9% of the time

Good grief, we have more common ground than I ever would have thought.

NAWO

The tried and true leftist tactic of using dismissive condescension as an acceptable response to inconvenient arguments.

Joe ~ nonsense. That's just a red herring and not what I said. But my way of thinking seems to work in England, France, Canada, and other free countries that have tried it. What's so wrong about deciding as a nation that we will not become slaves to the health care industry and allow them to dictate where all our money goes in a way that strangles everything else?

____________________________________________________________

Anna Molly, socialized medicine "works" in those countries because that's all they have ever known. The American people would squeal like stuck pigs if they ever had to put up with the restrictions that make it "work". Long waits (Months to years) for any service that's in any way elective. Waiting for the weekly mobile MRI to show up in your town. Low paid health care professionals acting like the civil servants they are. I speak from the personal experience of relatives that live in Canada and several European countries.

Really Spanky? You cared a GREAT deal about Ron's education yesterday. Didn't go well for you did it?

LouisJ

The Republican leadership are truly entertaining. I really get a laugh at some of the things you guys say. Don't take that as an insult. I laugh at a lot of things. SMH.

Well if you really want more LOL moments, Fox Noise have been on a LOL hate-aide- thon.

Or you can watch Pat Buchanan on MSNBC's Morning Joke.

Apparently, they didn't see the polls...

91% of Americans Approve of Obama's State Of The Union Speech

Posted on January 26, 2011 by Jason Easley

http://www.politicususa.com/en/sotu-obama-poll

"91% of Americans Approve of Obama's State Of The Union Speech"

And that, Beverly, explains much about so many of the negative posts on here these days.

Get used to it. For about, oh, six years.

Yup, anytime President Obama says or does anything that reflects favorably it becomes critical to tear it down.

The less interest Daniels shows in national politics the better off this country will be.

I hope it was a good game, as he missed one of the best comedy hours on television.

"we will win the future"- from whom? What does the loser get? And don't forget- all it takes is a trillion dollars and a dream!

The theme seemed to be "Back to the Future", actually.

Choo choos! Sputnik! Windmills!

I was surprised he did not break into his rendition of around the World in Eighty Days. Ballon travel seemed to be the only pipe dream left out.

Maybe next time. . .

Amy;

That is how they were raised and taught. Nothing will change, those people will be with us forever. Just ignore them and they go away.

No Joe---when George Bush was President, even though I felt he was not validly elected, I ALWAYS referred to him as President Bush and I always watched the State of the Union address. I may not have agreed with him but I gave him the respect due to the office he held. I have not seen many Republicans reciprocate.

Navy:

What do you mean "those people" as if you are superior to others.

This is the mentallity of a racist/bigot. That statement just really and truly show who you are inside. I always knew you were like that along with some others in here. There are many in here that do not like the fact that a blackman can be a conservative. All black people are not dependent upon the government and a lot of us do have a purpose in life. Most blacks have truly conservative views but they have been programmed so as to think the government is "my brother's keeper", when in essence the government is the oppressor. I have watched generation after generation of my people rely so heavily upon the government as to where they have no drive to excell on their own. This is how the Democrat party has dominated in the black community's psych. They continually preach entitlement and of course do nothing to improve the community. The mentality is I will throw these n......s half of a loaf of bread and promise the other half after they vote for me...and it's all FREE.

You are no better than anyone else and your opinions hold no more water than anyone else in here. That habit you and your peanut gallery have of looking down on people simply because they do not bow to the liberal mentality is what keeps this country divided.

I have a degree but I still "keep it real" meaning that I know where I come from and I can still relate. Though I am educated and have provided a good life for my family, I will always be true to my roots; whether I deal with society on a highly intellectual and articulate basis or deal with it in very simple gutter terms. Most people only understand GUTTER terminology.

To get respect you have to earn it. I will respect anyone if they come correct, but I will also blast anyone that comes incorrect.

ITM you seem very angry this morning. Was the government 'the oppressor' when you were active duty?

WOW.....if so, then I guess you deserted!...but wait, I bet you are enjoying those benefits as a retired military, from the 'Oppressive Government'!

IntheMiddle, TX

Navy:

What do you mean "those people" as if you are superior to others

To get respect you have to earn it. I will respect anyone if they come correct, but I will also blast anyone that comes incorrect.

You just used the "N" word.

So you think Republican leaders like Newt, Sarah, Bachmann and other Republicans in visbile places earn respect by calling President Obama-- Hilter, Nazi, Anti-Christ, Messiah, Socialist, Marxist, hates America, etc is okay???

It's one thing for posters on a blog to comment, but when "Leaders" evoke this name caling it does leave much room for respect!!!

All black people are not dependent upon the government.

I have watched generation after generation of my people rely so heavily upon the government as to where they have no drive to excell on their own. This is how the Democrat party has dominated in the black community's psych. They continually preach entitlement and of course do nothing to improve the community. The mentality is I will throw these n......s half of a loaf of bread and promise the other half after they vote for me...and it's all FREE.

What exactly has the Republican Part done for ANYBODY; let along blacks?

FYI:Welfare has more whites than blacks especially in Applachia.

http://books.google.com/books?id=kjgDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA8&dq=Welfare+has+more+whites+than+blacks&hl=en&ei=l59BTfSSAsys8Aa72t35AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Welfare%20has%20more%20whites%20than%20blacks&f=false

I will always be true to my roots

Then would you agree the Republican Party is no longer the party of Lincoln and that is why most blacks left it for the Democratic Party?

Chilled:

First of all I served my time and did it well. In essence I EARNED every benefit I have. I pay taxes just like everyone else and yes I and my family will continue to enjoy the benefits that I EARNED.....

Now get off of your fat azz and do something.

ITM, it's time you were called out on your constant BS.

Twice you have called me a racist and now you are calling USN a racist simply because we do not agree with your political philosophy. As I've challenged you to do before, prove that I'm a racist, show just one single post where I said anything that was a racist remark. You've called me racist twice but have yet to back up that statement (here's a hint: you can't).

In addition to 'racist' you have a habit of calling anyone who disagrees with you 'lazy', 'dumb azz', 'jack azz' and any other kind of 'azz' you can think of. Then you often go into some kind of 'street talk' nonsense, claim your superiority over anyone who disagrees with you and then tell them to 'STFU'. With actions like that, you don't really have a whole lot of room to criticize others.

Do you know how this makes you look? Just like the 'azzhole' that you accuse everyone else of being. Why don't you actually show that you really do have an education by acting and talking like you have one. Quit spitting at and on people and you might actually get the respect you want but can't seem to find.

....but , ITM what about the 'oppressive government' you mentioned?....So you go along with the Perry secession stuff?

Gotta get away!

I didn't watch it, either, but Purdue-Ohio didn't hold interest. Went out with some friends, got hammered, played mind-wrecking vidya gaemz, watched bad kung-fu and samurai flicks on Netflix, etc.

Time well spent. The whole country could fall the @!$%# apart tomorrow and there isn't @!$%# the little people like the lot of us could do about it.

Also, ITM clearly hasn't had his daily quota of fried chicken and grape soda today. That's why he's so damn cranky~

What is it with Republicans? When a Republican is President we are expected to believe they are the Party of Law and Order, Tradition, Respect, and Decorum.

When a Democrat is President, Republicans act like frat boys and high school mean girls, ill mannered politicians, un-serious and juvenile. Such hypocrites.

Above is the post and my comment was;
Amy;

That is how they were raised and taught. Nothing will change, those people will be with us forever. Just ignore them and they go away.

I fail to see how this is racist. But in any event, sir why is it that you routinely pull the racist and bigot card on people that diagree with you. You have done it Mathew as he has noted, to me, to Feisty and Bev and many others. Your remarks to most of the liberals and progressive on this board are derogatory and degrading but you then try and hold yourself out as a person above that. While I respect you service to this country and your right to say what you want I take exception to your comment.
Who do you think you are to pass such judgement on people whom you do not even know unless you clean up your act first.
I have long noted in life that when I run across a person like you calling others names of hate, they typically are the very same people promoting that which they claim to be against. Is that you? It is you sir that have exposed yourself as the one of racism and hate, not I.

All,

I stand by all of my remarks.....

Matthew,

You are whatever I've called you in the past and I could careless of what YOU think of me. BTW you are still a jackazz and you need to talk to your trashy azz friend Fiesty.

I do not have a problem with anyone that disagrees with me politically, I have a problem when you attempt to degrade anything not Liberal. I will continue stepping to whoever comes incorrect.

I do not throw the bigot card out there until I feel it is merited. Some of you might not even realize you are that way. You may publically on this board display a kum-ba-yah spirit but privately you spew another tune. Liberals just can't stand it when they are exposed and you typically attempt to degrade someone's intelligence.

Aren't you assuming a bit much there?

No one needs to attempt to degrade your intelligence, ITM. You pretty much manage that one all on your own~

ITM:
You are just proving our point, we are not the ones bringing up race, you are. And I also do not care about what you think either, if you call your rants thinking. If I used a term that you found offensive, I am sorry for that and only that. I just did not see it in my post and still do not know what pissed you off, but your response tells me you are not worthy of my time either anymore than you think we may be worhty of yours. Have a great day.

ITM,

Like I said, you can't prove it because it isn't true so you just call me a jackazz and prove my point.

You, sir are NAWO.

Well, I dont know about the other stuff, but I wholehearted agree with ITM regarding the African Americans and the Democrats role in keeping alot of them poverty-stricken to keep their voting base.. Bill Cosby even believed this much and made it known..

Not true. Cosby made comments indicating that African American families should work harder to instill an ethic of education and advancement in their children, but he hasn't blamed the Democrats for that. The comments were based entirely on people working to better themselves, not on any supposed contribution by a political party to keeping them dependent. His political contributions since 1999 have been over 80% to Democrats, btw. http://www.campaignmoney.com/biography/bill_cosby.asp

I agree, Anna Molly---I liked the forward-thinking of the SOTU address---we do need to focus on the future. And while Sarah Palin may think it amusing to have her comment be "WTF", I find it sad that someone who apparently aspires to be a leader of her party and possibly even the leader of our country responds to an address about our future with the abbreviation of an obscenity. There's leadership for you.

Yesterday Glenn Beck was trying to make a case that Iran is actively trying to bring about Armageddon (and be on the wrong side of it, of course). Big shock that we're talking about the Middle East today.

What Liberal media?

John B.

Did you see Glenn last night with the bunny and chain saw. This clown needs some serious help and a straight jacket before he hurts himself.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

John B.

Did you see Glenn last night with the bunny and chain saw. This clown needs some serious help and a straight jacket before he hurts himself

So Beck has gone from guns to chain saws.

I saw it. It was disgusting Navy.

I don't understand why Murdoch and Ailes continue to allow this high priced water boy and merchant of bigotry, religious intolerance, and purveyor of violence to evoke bigoted violence as well as violent imagery.

There are many people out there a lot sicker than Beck. What is Fox gonna say when more violence erupts it was not a gun or politically motivated?

Mixed Bag

Funny, during the economic "boom" times, I always felt uneasy, perhaps because the country seemed to spend our wealth on McMansions with granite top counters, huge gas guzzling SUV's and plastic surgery on pets. Now, times are tighter, but we seem to be focusing on what really matters.

I have lived on tight budgets for years, but I have had a great life. Here is how I do it: I live in a walkable city so I don't have to own a car, I spend money on "extravagances" like art classes, but I don't pay for cable, fancy cell phones or brand new clothes. I think the President is of the same philosophy: invest in renewable energy now and reap the savings for decades and decades, invest in education and grow a generation of skilled workers and entrepreneurs. He isn't advocating spending more, just spending smarter.

You "invest" when you have something to invest, Amy.

For this fiscal year alone, we're $1.5 trillion in the hole.

There is nothing to "invest" with.

President Obama is freezing government spending. The "investing" is correcting our spending priorities.

Amy, I'm afraid you're missing the point.

When you are already spending $1.5 trillion more than you are bringing in, you are already broke.

Actually...worse than broke.

You can't "invest" in anything because you have no money to invest.

All you have is debt...

And more debt.

President Obama is freezing government spending. The "investing" is correcting our spending priorities.

Really? When did that happen? And please explain how government spending is frozen and the deficit from 2010 to 2011 went from $1.3 trillion to a CBO projected (And when has the CBO ever been wrong?) $1.5 trillion. That kind of looks like a 15% year-over-year spending increase.

Actually if the tax cuts for the top 2% were not extended there would near zero percent increase.
Also the freeze on spending was not in the CBO's projection because it was not an active bill as of the SOTU.

MB: When you are already spending $1.5 trillion more than you are bringing in, you are already broke.

Here, try this. Go down to your local bank and ask to talk to the loan officer. Explain to him/her that you want to invest in some endeavors like, oh, something that makes some kind of a widget. It doesn't matter what the company does, it could be GE, Home Depot, or Walmart, anything. Tell the loan officer you are there to borrow the money with an unsecured loan from their bank to make those investments. After that, time how long it takes that loan officer to start hysterically laughing. I'm guessing 2 seconds.

But that is exactly what the US government is doing. Borrowing money, with unsecured loans, to finance it's "investments". Unlike with individuals though, the only reason people loan the US government that money is because they know the US government has the power to confiscated it from the taxpayers whenever they feel like it. And that day is coming.

Open your mind a little. That is what the President was saying.

Investing does not mean money alone. It means investing your talent, your skill, your mind, your innovation. That's what all of the examples he gave in his speech illustrated.

Surely, money is a factor, but money alone will not make success.

Mixed bag - according to you, America is broke, and again you are WRONG.

No, we are not BROKE.

If we were BROKE, how can the government run day after day? Year after year? Decade after decade?

We actually have a DEFICIT, which is being conflated with DEBT. These are two COMPLETELY different things.

I will stipulate the we are spending more than we take in, as you have suggested, but we DO take in SOMETHING, do we not? That is what a DEFICIT is.

A DEBT is payment (usually money) owed for goods or services. Does the vendor really care where that money comes from? All he/she cares is that you have the money to cover your DEBT to them.

Now on to your post.

To say we have 'no money to invest' is not entirely true. We DO have the money to invest, and we should invest it wisely before the next debt payment is due. Once that payment is due, and we do not have enough money to pay for that debt, we add to our DEFICIT by using the country's credit card.

Note I mentioned we add to our DEFICIT, not DEBT.

America DOES pay it's bills, so it is not in DEBT. America also borrows that money to pay the DEBT it owes (also known as the credit card) and that borrowing is adding to the DEFICIT, which is spending (and borrowing) more than we have revenues to cover.

Since America is good for the money and it has never DEFAULTED on any DEBT, is there any wonder why we have a DEFICIT??

With all of that being said, Mixed Bag, you correctly point out in your post that we have added to our DEFICIT - $1.5 TRILLION for this fiscal year alone. That does NOT mean that America is a deadbeat and did NOT pay its DEBT. That just means we whacked America's credit card once more.

So what does that have to do with investment?

Just because we have a DEFICIT does NOT mean we do not have money to invest (the stimulus package is one example, the tax package just passed is another example); it just means that the money we are spending now will go to other areas.

To get rid of the DEFICIT, we would have to bring in 1.5X our revenues for a period of time. What everyone is NOT getting is that we need to look at raising REVENUES in this country and not just concentrate on spending cuts. Sometimes you can spend (invest) in something that gives a good return that will in return reduce the DEFICIT.

This is where the President is going.

Too bad you couldn't see that.

In 1946 at the end of WWII we were deep in debt at 125% of GDP. Today we are just approaching 100% of GDP so we clearly have room to maneuver without defaulting on any debt.

But that is exactly what the US government is doing. Borrowing money, with unsecured loans, to finance it's "investments". Unlike with individuals though, the only reason people loan the US government that money is because they know the US government has the power to confiscated it from the taxpayers whenever they feel like it. And that day is coming.

Gee, Joanna, I see you are looking through your ONE EYE to see what you want to see.

In your little scenario with the loan officer, if you went with COLLATERAL, like your house, you COULD get that loan for investment(s). It is not wise, but you could get it. Why? Because you are GOOD FOR THE MONEY, even if you had a lien on the house you put up as collateral.

What makes you think that the American government is any different?

The collateral that the American governmment puts up is YOU and ME - the working American who has produced more goods and services known to the modern world. YOU and I will work off that 'loan' through us working - producing goods (generating a profit for companies), paying taxes on those produced goods.

With collateral like that, is there any wonder why America has the best credit rating in the WORLD?

This is why high unemployment is NOT GOOD for America. It is not only because people are not working, it makes us less 'GOOD FOR IT' when we go to borrow money to operate the government. Make no mistake - we borrow a lot and have been for at least 30 years now (thatwe have become a debtor nation).

The question is ask is this - why are so many EAGER to STILL lend to the United States, even with the high DEFICIT that we have?

Bottom line - we are good for the money.

And YOU and I are the ones that guarantee that 'faith' in the loan.

Pietro-

I'm well aware of the difference between deficits and debt.

Thank you for stipulating that we will be spending $1.5 trillion more than we take in this year. When we start the next fiscal year, that $1.5 trillion will become debt unless we miraculously close the gap between incoming and outgoing revenue between now and the start of the next fiscal year...and then we will begin to produce the next $1 trillion+ annual deficit.

But, I'm sorry to have to tell you that neither you or I will ultimately decide whether or not we are "good for the money".

Worldwide investors in U.S. securities will make that determination and we'd both better hope they continue to decide in the affirmative, eh?

When we start the next fiscal year, that $1.5 trillion will become debt unless we miraculously close the gap between incoming and outgoing revenue between now and the start of the next fiscal year...and then we will begin to produce the next $1 trillion+ annual deficit.

Mixed Bag, you said you understood the difference between DEBT and DEFICIT. How does the DEFICIT from this year become DEBT? We have already established that the debts are being paid and we haven't missed any - yet.

It's like this scenario - you have a $100,000 limit on your credit card, backed by the value of your house. You pay all of your bills (on the credit card), so you have no DEBT. you make good money (i'm throwing you a bone here), but what you make does not cover what you charged on your credit card.

Is that DEBT? Remember - your card is covered by the value of your house.

Looks to me like that is a DEFICIT.

Yes, you will need to pay the balance on your card. Yes, it is not good to have a balance on your credit card if you can help it. You will need to make 2X more than what you make now to cover the DEFICIT that you have on your credit card. Since you don't make that much, you make sure you control the balance on that credit card, even if it means adding to your DEFICIT.

So in this scenario, what is the difference between you and the United States?

This is my point - our DEBT is covered. Our DEFICIT is not. We will need to increase our revenues at LEAST 1.5X of what it is now to cover the DEFICIT. If you can help America figure out how to increase its REVENUES, I am sure all of us would be grateful.

Pietro-

The deficit is the annual difference between revenues coming in and going out when the revenues going out exceed those coming in.

I love your quaint notion that each new fiscal year that difference simply disappears from the ledger and doesn't become debt.

The debt exists. It is held by the nation's debtholders in the form of treasury securities, isn't it?

Otherwise, why not run trillion dollar annual deficits indefinitely?

Better yet, let's go on an even bigger spree, and run 5 or 10 trillion dollar annual deficits!

Let's party, Pietro!

AM: so what would YOU cut

What to cut? A good starting point would be the Presidents own National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Do you remember that Commission? It gave it's report read out after the election, it was in all the papers, don't see how anyone could have missed it. That Commission, the Presidents Commission, gave a detailed report on both spending cuts and tax increases that would put us on the path to eliminating the deficit and to start paying down the debt.

Obama even talked about in his SOTU. Now, Obama hasn't signed on to it yet, but at least he mentioned the Commission. Funny that you missed it. I guess seeing Obama has not signed on, he's going to leave the implementation details to others, others with a strong will, others with leadership abilities, others that ran and won elections on fiscal responsibility, you know, the Republicans and the Tea Party.

Actually, I've never been a big fan of having a Commission tell the President and Congress what to cut. That's what we elect THEM for, and appointing the Commission was just a neat way of abrogating responsibility while making it look like they were doing something. Before we start talking about what to cut, we need to have the discussion that President Obama proposed the other night about what we want to BE. When you know what you want to be, what you no longer need suddenly becomes very clear.

Cutting spending by itself is not a worthy goal. A worthy goal is determining what is worth spending on in the context of who we are and where we want to go. That's what a "Sputnik moment" is -- and the last one we had, sad to say, was, in fact, Sputnik.

On a personal level, I want to be a nation that takes care of its people in need, that cares about handing future generations a clean and decent place to live, and looks forward as a people with a shared purpose and common set of goals. I don't care so much about being a place where people climb over each other ruthlessly to get rich and everyone says don't you dare touch "mine" or I'll shoot you.

How about you?

AM: Actually, I've never been a big fan of having a Commission tell the President and Congress what to cut. That's what we elect THEM for, and appointing the Commission was just a neat way of abrogating responsibility while making it look like they were doing something.

Well AM, on that we agree, but it was Obama's call to create that Commission, and that was how it was done, so that's what we've got. Now Obama does nothing but pay a little lip service to them, and uses that old dodge "We have to work together as Democrats and Republicans to come up with a solution". Quite the leader, that Obama.

AM: On a personal level, I want to be a nation that takes care of its people in need,

Well that's real nice, but what is this utopian nanny state of yours going to do when it runs out of money? You know, like it is now.

AM: where people climb over each other ruthlessly to get rich

How you characterize people that create products and services that others want at an affordable price is your business, but someone has to create the wealth, else you Liberals will run out of people to tax.

Find something else to cut. Or raise taxes. It's not that hard to those with courage of conviction, JoAnna.

Here's an idea: Give us taxpayers an a la carte menu. I'll pay for health care and education, roads, bridges, food inspectors, the Food and Drug Administration, climate change regulation, and high-speed rail. You can pay for the military, tax cuts for the wealthy, and subsidies for oil companies. If we did it like that, I suspect priorities might change in a big-time hurry around here.

I do agree with you, though, that only lip service is being paid to the Commission's report, which reinforces my original opinion about why the Commission was appointed in the first place. Sort of like the 9/11 Commission, if I recall it. But President Obama is right that the solution has to come from a shared vision. Can you even remember the last time this nation shared a vision about something that wasn't based on fear or greed?

And nowadays, JoAnna, the people who make goods and services do it overseas, keeping the profits to home where they can enjoy the air and water while it's still clean. For those people, I have no respect whatsoever. They're just financiers and paper-pushers. For the mom-and-pops, and small businesses trying to innovate, I have great respect. But the ultimate goal of a society ought not to be every person for him or herself. That has been the past 30 or 40 years, and we're finding out that you can't sustain anything when people think like that.

Anna Molly-

It would appear to me that, given the fact that the federal budget deficit has more than tripled (from $454 billion to $1.5 trillion) between fiscal years 2008 and 2011, the recommendations of President Obama's own deficit commission would be a good place to start...they're suggesting reductions in spending in everything from entitlement programs to defense, as well as tax increases.

The problem is that significant tax increases cannot be responsibly implemented in the current economic environment. I suspect that is the primary reason President Obama agreed to extend all of the Bush tax cuts, political considerations aside. So, until the economy experiences a level of economic growth that is sustainable under the burden of increased taxation, the President's only real appropriate response is to at least begin to implement his debt commission's recommendations for spending cuts.

I must say that, given the challenges facing the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, it's a bit surprising that the President chose to create yet another massive entitlement program with the HCR bill.

Anyway, these deficit numbers are catastrophic, and if not addressed, they will handcuff not just President Obama, but every U.S. President for the forseeable future. They virtually guarantee that United States will gradually (and maybe it won't be so gradual) decline as a world power.

The President's deficit commission says the status quo is unsustainable and will have disastrous consequences...I believe they're right.

If we wait long enough, events may force this issue. Should major U.S. debtors decide to stop buying, and even begin to dump the massive amounts of U.S. government debt they're already holding, the President will face an economic crisis far worse than what he's facing now...and he'll have far fewer options in dealing with it.

AM: Find something else to cut. Or raise taxes. It's not that hard to those with courage of conviction, JoAnna.

Which brings us to Obama, who cuts taxes and increases spending. No courage and/or conviction there, correct AM?

Paul Ryan started digging into your courage and conviction part of the deal. For his efforts, he got described by some as being "gloomy". Well isn't that special?It's going to take real leadership to both cut services and increase taxes, two things that must happen and happen soon, if the country is going to maintain any kind of solvency. Ryan started touching on those themes in his speech after the SOTU, while Obama gave a "Don't worry, be happy!" speech prior to Ryan.

Of the two, guess whose popularity rating will be higher. After that, take a guess on who the real leader is. Different answers, correct?

How is making a pledge to move the country towards driving electric cars instead of gas guzzlers a "Nanny State" proposal? How is a call to invest in wind and solar technology, instead of leading china and Europe become the world leaders in those industrys, a "Nanny State" agenda? And the real question: WHY didn't the Republicans repair our infrastructure when they had their hands on the budget surplus of 2000? WHY did they allow our schools to deteriorate during the past decade? WHY oh WHY did they push for deregulating Wall Street during the 90's, and privitizing military surppliers which lead to such fraud and waste during Bush's second term?

Just an added note, Anna Molly-

I'm surprised that you see so little value in national defense spending as opposed to spending on social programs.

I grew up watching old newsreels of terrified civilians fleeing bombs in Nanking, Warsaw, Rotterdam, and London. I was left with little doubt about what those poor souls felt was the paramount responsibility of a government to those it governs.

Closer to home, you might want to review footage of the collapse of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers in New York on 9/11, and the images of Americans no different from you or I frantically running for their lives as those buildings came down. I sincerely doubt that many of them were focused on issues like health care and education, roads, bridges, climate change regulation, or high speed rail.

Like it or not, the number one responsibilty of our government to its citizens is national defense.

Amy B:

The problem with all of these proposals are just that...they are proposals. These ideas may make for good political speeches but the bottom line is they will take decades to even put a dent in the problems. Most of us on this board will have probably died of old age by the time even 35% of America is driving electric cars. Americans do not want wind technology because no one wants those turbines in their frontyards. That technology is used in Hawaii but those turbines sit in the moutains and people even complain about that.

That surplus you all like to talk about was a PROJECTED BUDGET SURPLUS, meaning that IF things continued to flow the way they were, we PREDICT, this amount of money will be left over. It was not like as if there was a lockbox full of extra money because if there truly were; Congress both Dem/Rep would have found a way to spend it.

Deregulation in the 90's?...Clinton could have veto'ed all of that and the military needed private suppliers after Clinton cut us in half.

School deterioration is on the states and a lot of those local school districts.

Bag Boy ~ All the previous years of national defense spending didn't keep those towers from coming down, and all the spending on wars since then -- not to mention the fallen warriors -- hasn't brought the perpetrators of those crimes to justice.

Perhaps, just perhaps, we've been spending all that money on the wrong things.

I'm not totally against defense spending, but you have to admit it's bloated, and it could be MUCH better directed. Drop the big shiny missile and walk away from the tank, and admit it. Heck, even Robert Gates admits that. And that's the first step to fixing that problem. When you admit that, I'll be happy to discuss cutting other things. But first, we need a real priorities list. Hunt and peck budget cutting will not fix the systemic problems of this country, especially if defense costs are off the table from the start.

Now, it's my turn. Do you agree with my analysis that proposing cuts to social security in effect constitutes a proposal for a hidden tax increase by converting the benefit we all thought we paid for in advance into general government revenues? How does that affect your thoughts on Social Security and other "entitlements" that we've already paid for? And how would you propose that the most elderly find private insurance if their Medicare disappears? Let the market rule? Please. Talk about death panels.

@ JoAnna ~ Actually, I think doom and gloom has it's place. But I still don't like Ryan, and he's no Obama, no matter how you try to characterize him. The part you aren't mentioning is the part he didn't mention, either -- what he really wants to cut and how he wants to do it. For example, taking aware Medicare and Social benefits for those who are currently under 55, benefits for which they've already paid in for 30 years or more. And he calls this security for seniors. Pish. It's just a way for the federal government to cover up for its fiscal irresponsibility and turn over a lot of money to Wall Street for them to squander. They must love this guy.

By the way, if Medicare is an unfunded liability, then so is Defense. It just depends on what choices Americans want to make.

It all sounds good on the surface, JoAnna, but the Devil is always in the details.

Anna Molly-

Having served in the military, I can assure you that there is waste there. Always has been, always will be. It's the nature of the beast, but that doesn't mean you don't take your best shot at eliminating waste and inefficiency.

Further, I see little point in spending on defense programs that the military leadership has decided it neither wants nor needs...but that some congressman has decided would be good for his district. That said, national defense is the number one responsibility of a government to its governed...everything else is at best in second place.

With regard to Social Security, there's no money in the Social Security Trust Fund, because Social Security funds have been going into the general fund for decades now (a time-honored method of hiding the size and scope of actual deficit spending)...as far as the notion of cutting Social Security, well, when you're running $1 trillion-plus annual budget deficits for the forseeable future and you have to do something about it, you have to go where the money is. And, the entitlements are where the money is. Sorry...but there it is. Whether or not cutting Social Security benefits amounts to a hidden tax increase is a moot point.

And, how can anyone with genuinely justifiable (and, they're certainly justifiable) concerns about the solvency of existing entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security possibly agree with implementing a brand-new massive entitlement program at a time when the country is already being buried under a mountain of unsustainable spending and debt?

Maybe the question we SHOULD be asking is this - what is the credit limit on the American credit card?

$100 TRILLION?

$50 BILLION?

We can argue from now until time stands still, but maybe - and I am guilty of this as well - we should find out what the parameters of this argument are. Once we know what the limit on the credit card is, THEN we can make the correct decisions on what the appropriate course of action to reduce the DEFICIT may be.

AM: @ JoAnna ~ Actually, I think doom and gloom has it's place. But I still don't like Ryan, and he's no Obama, no matter how you try to characterize him. The part you aren't mentioning is the part he didn't mention, either -- what he really wants to cut and how he wants to do it.

Ryan is a man, a politican, who is openly admitting that there is a national fiscal problem and is attempting to resolve it. He was a member of the Presidents Debt Commission, voted nay on the recommendations because he believed they did not go far enough, and is now the Chairman of the Budget Committee in the House of Representatives. The Debt Commission report was not mentioned in detail by Ryan because anyone that wants to read what is in it can do so at their leisure. There are plenty of details in that report.

Obama on the other hands seems to be running and hiding from his own Commissions report. Obama acknowledges that a report was made, and that he agrees with some of the findings and disagrees with others, without specifying what those differences are. That's not leadership.

AM: It all sounds good on the surface, JoAnna, but the Devil is always in the details

They certainly are. Cuts are coming, and the welfare nanny state will take a huge hit when that happens. Also, the 47% of the people that pay no federal income tax will be surprised when they too will need to participate and contribute to the cause. Gas taxes, regressive gas taxes, will be raised.

AM and Mixed Bag,

Make everyone a little bit happy, and a little bit disappointed. Cut spending in the military, and cut an equal amount from whatever social program you prefer. If you'd rather not cut a social program, then reform it, such as raising the retirement age on Social Security, means testing of Social Security, eliminate the new health care law, with it's redundant administration, and make everyone that is currently uninsured a Medicare participant. There are a slew of opportunities to save money in the Federal Government, but to do so requires that everyone share in the pain. By all means cut defense, let the generals run the defense department, and if there's a weapon system they don't want, let them cut it regardless of where it's produced. President Obama made one very good suggestion in the SOTU speach, consolidate and eliminate various departments of the government. I'd even go so far as to increase taxes, which is anathema to a Republican such as myself, but concurrently, reduce funding on the total government expenditures by an equal amount. Until we have representatives and senators that are willing to look at the entire government body, and both cuts in expenditures, and revenue increases, this debate will never end, and we as a country will continue to spend more than we can afford.

Pietro-

No one can answer the question of what the limit is on the U.S. national credit card. But holders of large amounts of U.S. debt around the world, in particular the Chinese government, are increasingly raising questions about deficit spending and debt levels in this country. Even close ally Germany has made clear that it believes that economic stimulus financed primarily by deficit spending is unwise.

I think the question is this:

Do you want to address the issues of ongoing budget deficits of $1 trillion (or more) annually now, or do you want worldwide investors in U.S. debt to force you to do so at some unspecfied future date, when you'll be coerced into dealing with it whether you're prepared to or not?

The consequences of guessing what the U.S. credit limit might be and speculating on when we'll be cut off are just too dire...no responsible leadership would continue such a reckless policy.

It's time for President Obama to listen to the members of his own debt commission.

Otherwise...why bother?

No one can answer the question of what the limit is on the U.S. national credit card. But holders of large amounts of U.S. debt around the world, in particular the Chinese government, are increasingly raising questions about deficit spending and debt levels in this country. Even close ally Germany has made clear that it believes that economic stimulus financed primarily by deficit spending is unwise.

Mixed Bag, I think that you may have mixed up some issues here.

I do not disagree with you that there is concern amongst the other around the world because they are concerned that, with our DEFICITS, can we still continue to service our DEBT. Again, we haven't missed a debt payment - yet.

You are correct in your assertion that at some point we will have to deal with our DEFICIT. We are still 'good for it' as long as we do not default on any DEBTS. Once we do, then we will have a problem.

Lowering out DEFICIT will make us able to handle our DEBTS better, and that is the message that Germany and others are conveying.

The consequences of guessing what the U.S. credit limit might be and speculating on when we'll be cut off are just too dire...no responsible leadership would continue such a reckless policy.

Yes, we can agree that the policy is reckless, but if you have been following this policy for 30+ years, do you REALLY think that we can STOP it on a dime?

That's like being a smoker for 30 years and then when someone expects you to stop cold turkey, expecting that by stopping cold turkey you will reverse all of the damage done to your lungs by smoking for 30 years will happen right away.

That is not realistic, and neither is your lamenting about responsible leadership stopping a reckless policy that has been in place for 30 years.

Besides, now that the GOPers and the Tea Partyers have the purse strings of the nation, do you think that they at least have the GUTS to at LEAST address the DEFICIT issue?

I think I hear the sound of the can being kicked down the road once again...

Pietro-

The policy may have been in place for years, and it's definitely reckless, but the parameters of the problem is hardly static.

The last full fiscal year of the Bush Administration, 2008, the federal budget deficit was $454 billion;

In 2009, it was $1.4 trillion;

In 2010, $1.29 trillion;

And, for 2011, projected at a whopping $1.5 trillion.

That's the difference, Pietro...the tripling of the deficit levels in only three years' time.

FY2009 budget was signed by President Bush and covered 10/1/2008 thru 9/30/2009.
So that $1.4 billion deficit was not a President Obama budget.

Oops, meant $1.4 trillion not billion.

Dennis-

I didn't say it was.

In fact, I pointed out in an earlier post that the deficit for that year spanned BOTH the Bush and Obama Administrations.

TRR

I agree Mr Ryan's response was as weak and vague as the President's speech and not nearly as uplifting. He spoke more to the stark realities that so many want to avoid, hoping they will go away, while the President spoke of the possible bright future.

As to the jobs.....after two years of unemployment above 9% did you really think that the Republican House (remember all the rest of the government is still the Democrats) would have a big semi truck back up to the Capitol building and drop of boxes of jobs.

It's a process and hopefully it has begun.

Robert,

“It's a process and hopefully it has begun.”

Actually the recovery began in 2008 when President Bush got Congress to approve the Rebate Check program. What is a shame is that his administration did not recognize how serious the problem was as we later learned the recession began in 2007. More could have been done sooner to lessen the impact.

Robert-

Yes Ryan's response was weak no it was totally off the wall but I was going for the SS for the people near or retired or the social net for the poor and the vouchers for insurance to find your own. That sorta made me think what about the older generation when they go to look for insurance with their voucher that wouldn't even cover the cost.

Wouldn't you say that Ryan's map for the future will be socialism. I mean all I keep hearing in his speech goverment this and goverment that. For the past two years everyone has been screaming SOCIALISM when the Democrats were talking about it or when HCR was put into law.

Ryan's proposal would add 62 trillion and not balance the budget until 2063.

So I'm just wondering where are the people now?

I was reading somewhere that the big meltdown could've been avoidable.

Dennis

I am well aware the recoery began back then, I was speaking to the issue of jobs returning when I mentioned that hopefully it had begun.

TRR

No idea where your $63 Trillion came from, it is way out there and really not possible.

There is little support from mainstream Republicans for Mr Ryan's roadmap, so I am betting we will have more centrist type reform of SS and Medicare

This looks like a good place to Complement our hosts for their dedication to their job. I don't know whether the rest of you'll realize it or not but the East Coast from D.C. to parts North is pretty much shut down. Hope you'lls Evening and Morning hasn't been as exciting as mine and a whole bunch of other folks. You'll stay warm dry and safe down there in F.R. Central now you hear.

Amen, IR---we always thank our FR hosts but especially today when the weather has made things so challenging. Hope you are safe from the weather, IR--be careful. Fortunately we only got an inch of snow here.

IR / Steeler Fan -

15 inches here, give or take, and this here rapidly aging libbie with the gimpy arm still managed to get all dug out and navigated the mogul course the plows left on some of the roads and have been hard at work for two hours already, so those young pups had darn well better have made it in too! :) Would've been nice if there'd been some of those yummy country ham biscuits in the breakroom when I got here, but I guess I'll have to make do with instant coffee and a Luna bar. I still love snow, though - when's the next round coming?

Sorry JoAnne didn't get power back till 6 AM so it kind of threw a crook in the Ham Biscuit works this morning. I can cook 'em on the wood stove but then I didn't have enough batteries to keep the warmer going in the break room.

IR--you get a pass on the break room for the morning but PLEASE don't tell me tomorrow's Happy Hour is cancelled! And how are plans coming along for the Super Bowl party when my Steelers win their 7th Lombardi trophy?! We're calling it "Stairway to 7" here!

That's okay, IR, I understand completely. The wood stove sounds nice on a day like this. Stay safe and warm......

Yep I know even a young kid these days knows what WTF means. But bottom line they have had no budget now for over a year and a half. Just passing a emergency bill. That in it self is a serious problem.

I am so glad you brought this up.

I suppose WTF was used because (a) that was Obama's reaction to the results of the midterms, and (b) somebody with a functioning brain realized that using Together W Thrive would be so cynically exploitative, he would get run out of D.C. On a rail.

As to someone getting fired, I am opting for the man who used it. He has turned out to be an even WORSE mistake than I had feared.

Grand Moff

Ms Bachman is not one of my favorites, but if we get rid of the crazies and uninformed in Congress there will be a lot of empty seats on both sides of the aisle.

I am a conservative independent and I am glad that the left spends so much time worrying about Bachman, Palin, Rush, Rand Paul and a few other fringe members of the Republican party as the election comes nearer and nearer.

I just a liberal talking head on Chris Jansing's show complain about the Republicans ramming bills through the house and I remembered back to the Pelosi years )oh that was only a month ago) when the the ramming came from the left and no one at MSNBC thought it a problem.

Both sides are nuts.

Robert, which is it a conservative or an independent? That's called talking out of both sides of your mouth claiming your both.

Judging by your post you sound like a tea partier.

Pat;

Welcome back, we missed you, hope you are getting well. Great post.

Pat,Great Post but to simplify it: Americans have gotten soft but there are still some of us who know how to survive but we are aging. When we leave this planet their will be no one left to teach the basics of survival but at least my children and grandchildren know how to deal without.

Good to see you, Pat. I know I would have made a terrible pioneer--to me, camping out means the hotel doesn't have a built-in hair dryer! But I'd like to think that in times of adversity I would draw on inner strength. Stay warm & safe.

Thanks Anna & US Navy - I'm going to do less & less commenting until the 2012 election gets into gear. I'm giving it a rest. Until then, I'll be on occasion here, Keith's baseball blog but mostly Lawrence O'Donnell's Last Word site. That where I've been hanging out a little. I really like him and feel his show is very polished, intelligent, interesting. It must be tough taking over Keith's time slot. Very tough.

Still miss Keith. We all do. But I'm hoping Lawrence's show succeeds too. The Oregon Trail story really touched a nerve in me. I've been reading a lot lately about the pioneers. And the Salem Witch Trials and how life was back in the 1690's here in the Boston area.

Best of luck Steelers & Packers. I don't care which team wins, I like them both.

Goooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Steelers!

"Too many people want and seriously want everything handed to them"

That was my point.

Jake J

I watched a news report on the home mortgage crisis the other night, and while, I'm angry the government's program to help these buyers hasn't helped more people, the woman in the report appeared to live alone, in the most gorgeous home you can imagine. And I couldn't help but think: how did she think she was going to ever afford that place? I'm talking turrets, multiple bathrooms, beautiful furnishings. No husband or partner in sight. I mean, c'mon. Americans had strange priorities in the last decade, buying huge cars and gigantic homes.

My brother lives off the land, AND "off the grid," as he generate his own electricity. He drives cars that cost $500, and doesn't have a mortgage because he built his own house on land he paid cash for. I think President Obama is cut from the same cloth, which is why he is focusing on the right priorites.

"Too many people want and seriously want everything handed to them"

No one would argue with that statement, but this recession is different, what about the people that don't want everything handed to them but have had their opportunity to find gainful employment stolen away from them? There is a much more sinister and repulsive twist to this recession, the plutocracy has decided to take the money that should be used to rebuild the economy of the U.S. and invest it elseware, not that they could not make a profit investing here but because they can make un-justly enormous profits investing elsewhere, in the past what was best for this country was always a consideration in business decisions, not today, patriotism isn't spoken in today's business world. That being said our country will see no return on the tax breaks for the wealthy, the trickle down theory is not valid in today's economy, which is why catering to the wealthy like Obama has decided to do will benefit only the wealthy, a stick needs to be taken to America's wealthy, a monetary stick, that's the only thing that the greed driven understand or respect, and I see no one in a place of power inclined to confront the plutocracy, which is why I wish my children would have been born elsewhere.

I very much doubt the meaning of the term 'general welfare' had the same connotation in 1789 that it does today.

Exo

I very much doubt the meaning of the term 'general welfare' had the same connotation in 1789 that it does today.

Your doubts have no basis in fact. The word meant pretty much the same thing then as it does today, as illustrated by this bit of history you probably don't want to know about:

http://open.salon.com/blog/paul_j_orourke/2010/03/24/news_pres_signs_h-care_insurance_mandate-212_years_ago

In July, 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen,” authorizing the creation of a marine hospital service, and mandating privately employed sailors to purchase healthcare insurance. 

Ryan didn't mention the word welfare because they know what the word means.

Nice post, Skip, I agree with you, and on a positive note, since posting so often about Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman I've finally learned how to spell "demagogue." Seriously!

Here my issue. Politics is big business worth billions of dollars. Does not matter what party you are its a matter of apperance. Take hollywood up to Washington no diffrent just a diffrent series. At some point politics has became nothing but a show, with the sheep clapping. Goverment also is dealing with billions of dollars like its nothing. Their main job by the way is to have a budget. Did they? No. Did alot of people pay much attention to that? No. They throw out a speech of rehearsed dribble that someone else wrote for them. All making side deals that they feel they can make the most bang for buck for personal-party use. Pretty soon though the serfs will not have any money to give the goverment? Then what?

Wonderfully put, Skip. Yours is such a voice of reason.

Peace.....

Thanks folks, I appreciate the shout out.

Jake, when the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" gets too wide, you have Tunisia and Egypt.

Or France just before the revolution.

Or Russia just before the revolution.

It's a dangerous game we are playing folks. It's time we realized that, tone it down, start TALKING to one another, no YELLING AT one another and find acceptible compromises.

The alternative is unthinkable.