Good Morning Navy:

Excellent Post! You are spot-on. Solving the nations debt problems should not be placed on the middle class.

Good Morning Navy Disabled Veteran -

Needless to ask what are these people motivated by? you have stated it so well. But, I will ask why are they so blinded by facts?

A new site from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is tracking how long it’s been since the Republicans assumed control of the House of Representatives without proposing a single jobs-related bill. It’s all about “when” the GOP promises of jobs creation will finally come to fruition.

Why is this a big deal? Because the GOP ran on “jobs creation” and stimulus in the 2010 election, promising that putting Americans back to work would be their top priority in the new legislative session. Since then, they have tackled healthcare repeal, challenging the repeal of DADT, threatening ethics inquiries against President Obama, debating the redefinition of rape, attempting to extend portions of the controversial Orwellian Patriot Act, and almost everything but jobs creation.

As of this posting, it has been more than 35 days since Rep. Bonehead Boehner (R-OH) took the Speaker’s gavel.

Check the site out here.

http://veracitystew.com/2011/02/09/dear-speaker-boehner-when-are-the-jobs-site-tracks-time-without-gop-jobs-bill/

Wake up Tea Baggers. If this continues you'll not recognize America.

Ron:

Thank you for your comment. People have yet to realize that most of us are going to be in the same boat. If you do not agree with the TP ideology of the 50-60's, their religious beliefs and position on Civil Rights, if you are not Wall Street, Big Business or a Millionaire/Billionaire you are expendable, period. The GOP/TP power machine will grind you up just as they will try to do to the left. You will face the same rising unemployment, crappy economy, being bounced off your insurance if you get sick, fewer fire fighters and police will put you in the same harms way, no medical research, food and product safety, degrading education, etc will impact you all as well. You will be driving on the same crappy roads and crumbling bridges as the democrats.

People better wake up and look at where we are going. The GOP/TP is right in one thing when they say we are in this together, we are all going to suffer equally while the power brokers increase their wealth and power. This is the path we are on, I vote we get off it, and soon.

Navy Dude: Who are the people that will loose their jobs and benefits by these spending cuts?

I hate when people loose their jobs. Someone should tighten those jobs up.

But seriously Navy, if we as a country can't cut 6.6% off this bloated budget, we'll never be able to cut anything.

And of course what would a Navy post be without cheerleading for more taxes on the rich, and some guy in Indiana cheering for the same.

THIS is sure to drive the FR lefty liberals crazier!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From Politico

In an expansion of their political footprint, the billionaire Koch brothers plan to contribute and steer a total of $88 million to conservative causes during the 2012 election cycle, according to sources, funding a new voter micro-targeting initiative, grassroots organizing efforts and television advertising campaigns.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49303.html#ixzz1Df1zWCJQ

Good Morning Navy, Ron & Bev!

What we are witnessing is one of the final pieces to the 'puzzle'!

The sole purpose of the Teapublicans is to eliminate the middle class and divide this country into two classes, the 'haves' & 'have not's.

Loosing control of Congress between 2006 -2010 - was nothing more than a speed bump for these greedy power drunk b@stards!

Now that they've got activist judges (Citizens United) and the Koch Brothers ($88 billion) & the 4th estate in their pocket the mission is almost accomplished!

US Navy

While I admire the fact that you are FINALLY admitting that the government needs to stop spending money (where were you the last two years while your progressive buddies up there were spending us into oblivion though? Oh well it doesn't matter).....

But I have a problem with something..... Ill agree with you on Iraq and Afghanistan.... but not for the reasons you as a bleeding heart liberal want us out..... I a gree with you on the premise of George Washington's fairwell address where he stated that we need to be worried about the happenings inside our borders.... not outside (again....let Egypt blow itself up....not my problem.... we are not the world's police....nor should we be.....) butthat also means that we need to stop giving aid to every country every time something happens there (and no Im not saying individuals shouldnt donate.... Im saying the government shouldnt give tens of millions to every country every time it has an earthquake).....

Any ways.... where I disagree with you completely is the tax cuts.... SINCE WHEN IS THE MONEY I EARN THE PROPERTY OF THE GOVERNMENT? Where you liberals got us all in trouble is you started spending my (and every other working persons) money before you got it.... you expected us to all bow down to Ceaser Obama and say "Please sir take my money".....

The american people woke up and roared back at this wanna be dictator and told him where to shove his redistribution of wealth..... (and its not down his throat like he is trying to shove Obamacare)

Obama thinks that my money is actually his...and that I should be grateful that he is "letting" me keep some more of it..... he can kiss my @ss if he thinks Im grateful for anything he has done.... November 2 2008 was one of my most regretful days ever..... I should have voted for McCain

A new site from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is tracking how long it’s been since the Republicans assumed control of the House of Representatives without proposing a single jobs-related bill. It’s all about “when” the GOP promises of jobs creation will finally come to fruition.

Please explain what a jobs bill will include that will actually directly create jobs. The best thing that can happen is that the government can create a climate that is appropriate for job creation and economic growth. I don't look to the government to save us, I look to them to not mess things up to further impede any recovery that should naturally occur.

And of course what would a Navy post be without cheerleading for more taxes on the rich, and some guy in Indiana cheering for the same.

All of which is conspicuously posted at nearly the same time that the original article is posted.

Joe, does the Koch bros ability to affect elections with all that cash makes you feel good? I guess $88 million can buy a lot of sod!

Bev:

Thank you. Some are still defending the Tax Cuts for the 2% that do nothing except increase the deficit by about 150 Billion per year. They (GOP/TP) wants to cut waste from the budget why not start there??

It has been documented by most noted economists, both democrats and republicans alike, that these tax cuts do not create jobs nor do they stimulate the general economy. So if the GOP/TP is honest about cutting out waste, why would you not want to get rid of 150 Billion in fat that does nothing as noted above???

See, it is still all about them and screw everybody else. Notice that the right has not included any cuts to DOD, only social programs. We need to cut spending that is a fact, but we need to cut spending all across the board and that includes the ones the GOP/TP are trying to protect by shifting it all on the Middle class.

Here is an idea, if congress wants to work only 2/3 of the time, give us back the other 1/3 of their paycheck to lower the deficit.

Joe-

We could always discuss the efforts of CEO David Brock to raise funds for Democrats' media spending via his non-profit "media watchdog"(lol), Media Matters, instead.

Joe in Albany
THIS is sure to drive the FR lefty liberals crazy!!!!!

The billionaire Koch brothers plan to contribute and steer a total of $88 million to conservative causes during the 2012 election cycle is sure to drive you crazy too; should they succeed.
You can by that filth if you like. However, just remember when the tides rise, and villages fall into the seas, the land lay barren with rottien corps, people die from drilling for oil and coal, people die due to no regulations put into place for food and drugs, jobs keep going off shore, tax loop holes continue for big corporations, bridges and roads collapse, fire fighters, police you won't be safer. When teachers lose their jobs you won't be able to compete with the global market it won't be funny .

JoAnnaSmith1

I hate when people loose their jobs. Someone should tighten those jobs up.

But seriously Navy, if we as a country can't cut 6.6% off this bloated budget, we'll never be able to cut anything.

You post another lie yet

As of this posting, it has been more than 35 days since Rep. Bonehead Boehner (R-OH) took the Speaker’s gavel

That's zero JoAnna

check this clock out

And of course what would a Navy post be without cheerleading for more taxes on the rich, and some guy in Indiana cheering for the same.

See, it is still all about them and screw everybody else. Notice that the right has not included any cuts to DOD, only social programs. We need to cut spending that is a fact, but we need to cut spending all across the board and that includes the ones the GOP/TP are trying to protect by shifting it all on the Middle class.

So you can agree that it is a start of what needs to be done. I agree that we need to cut across the board, nothing is sacred, but I am glad to see that at least they are cutting something rather than doing nothing, or even worse, increasing the spending.

You have to start someplace and as long as they continue to cut from across the board, it will be for the good of the country.

Bev:

Another thing, if we roll back the tax cuts/estate taxes, get out of Afghan and just stop all the subsidies to Big Oil, Gas and Coal that will generate over 250 Billion in savings and instead of a 6.7% spending cut we would lower the deficit by 16.7% and we would not be sacrifices hundreds of jobs etc. And as an added bonus we will save some live and how much are they worth???

If the GOP/TP is going to continue to claim that we all have skin in the game then it is time to put up or shut up. I am tired of the rhetoric that is almost never supported by thier deeds. Repugnant.

JoAnnaSmith1

Navy Dude: Who are the people that will loose their jobs and benefits by these spending cuts?

I hate when people loose their jobs. Someone should tighten those jobs up.

But seriously Navy, if we as a country can't cut 6.6% off this bloated budget, we'll never be able to cut anything.

And of course what would a Navy post be without cheerleading for more taxes on the rich, and some guy in Indiana cheering for the same.

i can't believe that for once i agree with you Joanna, your right if we can't cut 6.6% then we are introuble, but lets remember where we should be cutting, DEFENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!! we will save alot more cutting defense with out loosing any military power, than cutting social programs costing jobs. When Eisenhower looked for extra money to build his interstatehwy system Joanna he cut DEFENSE!!!!!!

HERE HERE TAX THE RICH

DOWN WITH THE RICH

SLAY THE RICH!!!!!!

Great posts to start the day. The two-headed monster of deregulation and redistribution of wealth to the top created the monumental crash that we're still climbing out of. Now the folks who brought us the first crash want to "fix things" with more deregulation and more redistribution of wealth to the top.

Jeff: but lets remember where we should be cutting, DEFENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-06/politics/pentagon.budget.cuts_1_defense-budget-gates-plan-defense-secretary-robert-gates?_s=PM:POLITICS

Terrific post, Navy. Add the fact that the GOP held the middle class hostage by demanding tax cuts for the 2% richest of the population who did not and do not need a "break"--another $70 billion automatic decrease in the deficit each year.

It disgusts me that republicans are going after fire fighters, police officers, teachers, childrens' programs as drains on the budget. Why can't people see that sooner or later it is every average person's jobs and income, except the richest 2%, who is next on the GOPTP's chopping block--it is the rest of us who keep paying the price for the GOP's huge, unfunded and massive spending during the Bush presidency. No doubt your post will result in the usual "defenders" of their ideology and not one of them will look beyond that ideology or dig in the weeds for the truth.

JoAnnaSmith1

And of course what would a Navy post be without cheerleading for more taxes on the rich, and some guy in Indiana cheering for the same.

Check this clock out and post #1.2 lady

http://whenarethejobs.com/

As you can see the republican and the rich have done nothing, nada, zilch to help this country despite sitting on nearly 2 trillions. They need to pay more instead of exploiting the middle and poor classes.

Are you find with being exploited? Oh that's right you want this country to fail.

@Larry-2767404

"US Navy

While I admire the fact that you are FINALLY admitting that the government needs to stop spending money (where were you the last two years while your progressive buddies up there were spending us into oblivion though? Oh well it doesn't matter)....."

Larry you have to include the 8 years of the Bush Administration in the spending spree. I would agree that all the Bush taxes rates should have been allowed to expire if I could see any desire by the congress to also cut spending. Up until now I haven't seen any (and has to include cutting the DOD's budget. Until the congress and administration come up with real cuts in the budget, and follow through on them, then no to any new taxes.

Joanna,

78 billion over 5 years is not good enough, hows 78 billion over 2 years,

Navy-

The "GOP/TP" isn't keeping the U.S. in Afghanistan. That's been the policy of President Obama since he was candidate Obama.

Any "skin" in that game largely belongs to him.

Perhaps you should focus your unhappiness with the issue of Afghanistan policy on the Obama White House...although that would require you to, at least for a short time, suspend your non-stop, cult-of-personality cheerleading for the President, wouldn't it?

Grandma Navy,

My point is I realize and agree that we have to cut spending and increase revenues as well.

Yet you guys still gripe about the 400 bills that were not passed, gripe about the few cuts the Repubs try to make. Are you so senile that you don't even realize your suggestions for cuts are not cuts? Raising the taxes on the 2%, raising the estate taxes are not cuts.

Afghanistan, yea maybe - so why did Obama triple down and then doom the whole deal with the date we lose by?

Revenues? Instead of liberal unrealistic class warfare against the rich, (they won't pay taxes Grandma, they will put their money in tax free government bonds, and everywhere else (just move the boat like Kerry did) - how about creating jobs by freeing the private sector, drilling for oil, drilling for gas, lowering the cost of energy and the debt, getting rid of bullsh!t regulations.....

it is time for the GOP/TP to put up or shut up and get out of the way.

Back at ya baby. You have been saying the same crap for two years - unemployment at 9% for 21 straight months. Not working. Get out of the way and let's go back to what we know works.

You talk a good game that we are all in this together, that we have to work together etc, etc, etc.

You talk nonsense that has failed.

Work together? Be quite and get out of the way, we can fix it.

I'm glad the House is committed to cutting 100 billion in spending. They can start by cutting the amount spent on infrastructure in Alaska. It has never made sense to me that one of the least populous states is number three in amount of federal dollars it gets. I know, I know, they have a lot of roads up there, but seems to me most of them lead to the hunting camps of wealthy Repubicans.

Larry. Where were you when Bush, Cheney and the GOP spent billions without funding any of it? Where were you? There were no complaints from conservatives, tea partiers when republicans took a budget surplus and in one year firmly planted the U.S. into perpetual debt for the next 10 years; then that same GOP held the middle class hostage to extract 4% tax savings for 2% of the population. What I think of conservatives and their faux "fiscal responsibility" isn't fit to post.

If we are serious about reducing the debt, draconian spending cuts is not the answer in times of economic recovery; it must be a combination of temporary tax increases and reasonable spending cuts--start with defense and not programs that impact the poor and children. Yes, there are places and programs that need elimination or cuts but what the GOPTP is cutting is services and affect middle America not the rich.

"Joe, does the Koch bros ability to affect elections with all that cash makes you feel good? I guess $88 million can buy a lot of sod!"

_____________________________________

No more so than George Soros and the labor unions "ability to affect elections with all that cash makes you feel good".

Good Morning Feisty

Navy,

The sole purpose of the Teapublicans is to eliminate the middle class and divide this country into two classes, the 'haves' & 'have not's.

That IS their objective, Navy. Somehow I have more faith in the tea baggers waking up as witnessed by the vote on the Patriot Act. It's a start. Dennis Kuchiech has been talking with them. Perhaps, he'll be able to knock some sense in them.

Ron Paul, the original tea bagger wants to get out of Afghan that's a if help if the tea bagers will just listen to them.

All those the subsidies to Big Oil, Gas and Coal not only bloats the budget but also takes lives.

@ Feisty

That stooge Clarence Thomas should be in jail like any other person in addition to being impeached.

Wonder if his stallion Ginni Thomas, the Lady Liberty, will stump around to support him then? I doubt it. She'll probably make more drunk phone to Anita Hill blaming her.

The sole purpose of the Teapublicans is to eliminate the middle class and divide this country into two classes, the 'haves' & 'have not's.

If they keep it up Bev - the last thing they'll be worrying about is what's happening in Egypt! ;o)

How convenient for the Republican Party it can change it's name to the Tea Party, after the Bush administration drove the federal deficit from 6.4 trillion in 2003 to 10 trillion in 2008. And that doesn't even include the future healthcare and disability payments we will owe veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Boy, I'd love to change my name and start over after running up my credit card debt!

"They can start by cutting the amount spent on infrastructure in Alaska. It has never made sense to me that one of the least populous states is number three in amount of federal dollars it gets. I know, I know, they have a lot of roads up there, but seems to me most of them lead to the hunting camps of wealthy Repubicans."

_________________________________________

Maybe you should have Googled a map of Alaska before make such a moronic statement. Alaska has very few roads. The only way to get to the state capital is by plane or ferry. The vast majority of federal $$ going to AK is for the military bases located there. And it's very expensive to operate in AK due to the lack of roads.

From Alaska.org:

• Alaska has 640 sq. miles of land for every mile of paved road. Maine has 27 sq. miles of land for every mile of road. In other words, Alaska’s land-to-road ratio is 23.3 times greater.
• Only 20% of Alaska’s roads are paved versus on average 91% for the other 49 states. During the long, cold grip of winter, Alaskans build ice roads to traverse rivers and ground that is otherwise too soft to drive.

Great post Navy, as always. Well thought out and presented.

Sad posts from the nay-sayers. They don't get it and never will. I am always amazed at the people who seem intelligent and write well who continue to support the GOP and their efforts to gut the middle class and heap more burdens on the poor so the rich can get richer. It is one of the great mysteries of life to me that these folks repeatedly shoot themselves in both feet.

In addition to being the only species that hunts and kills it's own, Human beings are the only species on earth that is self-delusional. If you have any doubt about that just look at the posts from Joanna and Mixer and the others above.

They continue to preach the failed policies of the party of the past.

We absolutely need to cut spending and balance the budget. But we don't have to do it on the backs of the middle and lower classes. Why they can't see that I will just never understand. It's like bone-less chicken, it's mind-boggling.

While we're looking at Defense spending and all the others we need to take a good hard look at Farm Subsidies as well. That is a barrel full of pork if there ever was one.

We are serving no military purpose in Afghanistan and Iraq. We need to pull out of there now! Likewise we need to give Quantanamo (sp?) back to Cuba. The Marines stormed the beaches at Quantanomo back in 1898 and we refused to leave. We gave the rest of Cuba back to the Cubans, now we need to give them the rest of their country. We don't need it. How much would that save?

We don't need bases in half the countries we currently operate military bases. There would be some major savings there.

And then there's CONGRESS! Cut their salaries, cut their bennies, cut their staff and their franking and let them see how the other half lives. START THERE!

Then, when you've done all that, we'll talk about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the HCR.

after the Bush administration drove the federal deficit from 6.4 trillion in 2003 to 10 trillion in 2008.

Ahh, another Deficit Hawk emerges.

You must also be so concerned that Obama has taken that $10 trillion debt from 2008 and made it a $14 trillion debt, in 2 years.

Alan, NJ...

That was one of the best posts I've seen. I agree...there really hasn't been a true willingness to cut spending in a long, long time. Both parties have been guilty of it. And because of that, there's going to have to be some painful decisions. I realize this is oversimplifying things a bit, but GOPers want spending cuts while Dems want tax increases. Both will be painful, but to be honest, this deficit problem is shared by all of us. The solution is going to make both sides angry...and as I've said before, usually if you make both sides mad, you're doing something right. Congress has to make a solid effort to attack this deficit. Problem is that job preservation is the number one goal of almost every member of Congress and making unpopular choices tends to conflict with that goal!

Happy Friday!

For you righties:

Let me make this clear, I have always been in favor of a smaller more efficient government and supported spending cuts across the board. I believe we should be looking at the DOD and Medicare/Medicaid as part of this re-alignment. There is a lot of fraud, mismanagement, unless programs, redundancy, and even programs pushed by politicians that these agencies neither need or even want, especially in the DOD. Like two engines for the F-35, a floating tank that sinks more than it floats, etc. We can do this with no adverse effects on our troops or people on Medicare (both of these are major concerns). To say I support otherwise or just last night came to my senses is an outright lie, period. I support spending cuts I do not want all of them to be just socialprograms or just on the backs of the Middle Class like the GOP/TP is proposing. That is morally repugnant and wrong. All that does is weaken the middle class, increase unemployment and stall the economy. That is what I am speaking against.

I also believe that spending cuts alone is not the answer, we need to create revenues as well and one of the best ways to do that is create Jobs, you know the things that the GOP/TP promised was their primary concern and the #1 concern of the American people. Still no plans from the right on how they are going to create Jobs, continue the growth of the economy, etc. Instead they are defending Wall Street over Main Street, Big Business over Small Business and the 2% over the 98%. They are more concern with stripping reproductive rights from women, than helping this country move forward.

Have you noticed that with all of this talk about cutting the budget, not ONE of the ususal detractors have ever mentioned INCREASING our REVENUES?

NOT ONE. Now why is that?

If you look at the 2010 budget in Wikipedia, you will see two revenue streams identified.

The first revenue stream are individual taxes, which is reported at 1.2 Trillion dollars. The Second revenue stream you will see is Corporate Taxes, which is reported at 400 Billion dollars.

Does anyone else but me see a problem here?

The Corporate tax revenues are TOO LOW. They should be as much as or more than the individual taxes. As you can see, that is not the case. That is one area that needs to be explored.

With that being said, we need NEW revenue streams to help with the shortfall.

For us to balance the budget, we need to raise revenues in addition to cutting what is not needed. That is just the BALANCE THE BUDGET. If we want to reduce the DEFICIT, we will need to INCREASE our REVENUES by at LEAST 1.5 times what it is today and use the SURPLUS INCOME/REVENUE to pay down the eliminate the debt.

Just CUTTING the budget - like we are seeing today - will NOT do anything but create more of a deficit. It will not even balance the budget. it will cause shortages where there are none and cause prices of what we use to go up.

This CUT, CUT, CUT mantra is foolish and dangerous.

Again, there has not been ONE suggestion on generating a new REVENUE stream from any of our usual detractors. Contrary to popular believe, Taxes are NOT the only Revenue stream(s) that can be used to fix our debt and deficit problems.

So, I am challenging our usual naysayers to come up with just ONE revenue stream - other than taxes - that the Government could use to reduce the deficit that we could use long term.

Prove me wrong for once.

Hi Frank:

Happy Friday and hope all is well. I do not know what to do without a football game or two. It does appear to be a good discussion today and a lot of good points (both sides). We all seem to agree we need to cut spending, it will require some sacrifices from BOTH sides, we just need to figure out what to go after first that will give us the biggest bang for our buck and then explore the others. Hopefully it can be done without screwing up everything that is already in place and working, albeit slowly, but working.

We need to make sure its continues to move forward and not just going cutting spending willy nilly to find out later we shot ourselves in the foot. We have done that before on both sides.

You have a great weekend. I always enjoy your posts.

MBeaty

Please explain what a jobs bill will include that will actually directly create jobs.

President Obama Signs Small Business Jobs Act - Learn What's In It

Extension of Successful SBA Recovery Loan Provisions —Immediately Supporting Loans to Over 1,400 Small Businesses:



A More Than Doubling of the Maximum Loan Size for The Largest SBA Programs:



A New $30 Billion Small Business Lending Fund:



An Initiative to Strengthen Innovative State Small Business Programs – Supporting Over $15 Billion in Lending



Eight New Small Business Tax Cuts – Effective Today, Providing Immediate Incentives to Invest:



Zero Taxes on Capital Gains from Key Small Business Investments



Extension and Expansion of Small Businesses’ Ability to Immediately Expense Capital Investments: businesses and individuals will be able to make new business investments today and know that they will earn a larger break on their taxes for this year.





Extension of 50% Bonus Depreciation:The bill extends – as the President proposed in his budget – a Recovery Act provision for 50 percent “bonus depreciation” through 2010, providing 2 million businesses, large and small, with the ability to make new investmentstoday and know they can receive a tax cut for this year by accelerating the rate at which they deduct capital expenditures.



A New Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for Self-Employed:The bill allows 2 million self-employed to know that on their taxes for this year, they can get a deduction for the cost of health insurance for themselves and their family members


Tax Relief and Simplification for Cell Phone Deductions



An Increase in the Deduction for Entrepreneurs’ Start-Up Expenses:The bill temporarily increases the amount of start-up expenditures entrepreneurs can deductfrom their taxesfor this year



A Five-Year Carryback Of General Business Credits:





Limitations on Penalties for Errors in Tax Reporting That Disproportionately Affect Small Business:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/27/president-obama-signs-small-business-jobs-act-learn-whats-it

Joe in Albany,

I hate to call anyone a liar, but perhaps you are just un-informed.

When Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, population 6,700, she secured almost $27 million in federal earmarks, none of it for the use of a military base.

And there is this, from an interview with Republican state lawmaker Carl Gatto, regarding the fact Alaska received the most money, per capita, from the federal stimulus:

Roll it back, he says, roll back this entire socialistic experiment in federal hegemony. Give us control of our land, let us drill and mine, and please don’t let a few belugas get in the way of a perfectly good bridge.

“I’ve introduced legislation to roll back the federal government,” he says. “They don’t have solutions; they just have taxes.”

And what of the federal stimulus, from which Alaska receives the most money per capita in the nation? Would he reject it?

Mr. Gatto, 72 and wiry, smiles and shakes his head: “I’ll give the federal government credit: they sure give us a ton of money. For every $1 we give them in taxes for highways, they give us back $5.76.”

He points to a new federally financed highway, stretching toward distant spruce trees. “Man, beautiful, right?”

Pietro-

For the forseeable future, raising taxes isn't an option, and won't be until the economy experiences sufficient sustained growth to allow for the burden of increased taxation.

President Obama all but acknowledged that when he elected to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts.

Presumably, growth sufficient to significantly impact the present intolerably high unemployment rate will increase the revenue flowing into government coffers.

The President's debt commission has (correctly, in my view) said that, along with across-the-board spending cuts, at some point taxes must be raised...but, not now, not in this economy. Raising taxes now would be irresponsible, and President Obama knows it.

In the meantime, that leaves the debt commission's recommendations for spending cuts. Sorry, Pietro...but that's reality.

Before I forget...I believe you have an inflated view of the difficulties involved in effectively rebutting you.

Proving you wrong has never been as high a mountain to climb as you seem to believe.

JoAnna, "But seriously Navy, if we as a country can't cut 6.6% off this bloated budget, we'll never be able to cut anything."

How are you getting that 6.6%? I'm getting 2.9%, 100B/3,456B

The first revenue stream are individual taxes, which is reported at 1.2 Trillion dollars. The Second revenue stream you will see is Corporate Taxes, which is reported at 400 Billion dollars.

Does anyone else but me see a problem here?

No, I think you're it.

Haven't ever seen a case where a country has taxed its way to prosperity. Cause ya'see, we don't have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem.

The Corporate tax revenues are TOO LOW. They should be as much as or more than the individual taxes. As you can see, that is not the case. That is one area that needs to be explored.

_________________________________________________

The absurdity of this concept has always fascinated me. Pete, where do you think the evil corporations get the profits on which they pay taxes??

Gee, could it be from the sale of products/services?? Ultimately, those "corporate" taxes come out of the pockets of individual consumers because the profits and the taxes paid on them are built into the price you pay for products/services. The corporations are only the tax collectors that take the money from individual consumers and send it in to the feds.

Joe in Albany: THIS is sure to drive the FR lefty liberals crazier!!!!!

That's all you care about? Not the country? Not the economy? Not your fellow Americans?

And then you go on to cheerlead for increased campaign spending by the Koch brothers. Spending that could be used to help the deficit. If they really cared. Yes, I know the liberals are spending on campaigns too, but $88 milli0n is a LOT of money.

Bev: That reinforces my point exactly. That bill does not create jobs, it creates a climate that is good for businesses to create jobs. Arguing from either side that they have not created jobs is foolish.

Pietro,

One revenue stream. STOP OBAMA'S WAR ON THE ENERGY INDUSTRY.

85% of resources are off limits. The other 15% is being killed. All of the lost jobs for nothing when these jobs could be exploding. All the federal revenue from operating leases being lost. The enforced reliance on foreign energy and the trade deficit costs. The impact on business through higher energy costs. The impact on food costs, the impact of this hidden tax of higher energy cost on the middle class. Income taxes from all the jobs created. State revenues lost? You kidding?

Obama's policies are asinine and destructive.

That is about as simple as it can be.

Prove you wrong for once.....

Please don't tell me you don't understand the simplicity of the above.

far we have heard from Mixed Bag, Joe in Albany, and Joanna Smith.

NOT ONE has offered ANY solutions on what revenues we can raise to help with the debt or the deficit.

NOT ONE.

Mixed bag is stating that proving me wrong is 'not that high of a hurdle to overcome'. Yeah, OK. Yet, you DON'T have any CLUE as to what we can do to raise REVENUES other than taxes. Looks to me like you are stumbling out of the blocks, Mixed bag, and you are STILL wrong. Again.

And Joanna - well, I see NO ideas from you either other than your usual steaming pile of hyperbole. I see you don't get out much. I'll be stepping over that and moving on.

Joe in Albany - You want to quibble with me over the Corporate Tax revenues. We can argue that another time, my boorish friend. That is just plain evident from anyone looking at the revenues. Why is this revenue stream so LOW would be the question asked.

So, we have NO ideas. NO thoughts. Just typical partisan rhetoric.

Epic FAIL.

So, my challenge still stands. Can ANYONE think about REVENUES the Government can use to reduce the deficit which are NOT Tax related?

Anyone?

Here's your golden chance to prove Pietro wrong.

To Navy, Ron, Fielden and the rest here. We had a nice conversation yeaterday kicked off by Fiesty. It was her initial position that Boehner was a "creep" who hates women and the poor and various other group who are dependnet on the government. The basis of her comment was the "tax cuts" for the 2%.

Now she ultimately conceded the point that those cuts had far less to do with Boehner than Obama who signed off off on those cuts. And of course given her nature and disposition here her admission was one of omission, i.e. silence to a series of direct inquiries that she could not refute.

So I'd like to get you all's response. Do you blame Obama for the ills you have each set out above? After all the current tax rates are Obama's. If things are as horrible as you say, and if the money that would have come from the increased tax rates was so important, why did Obama sign them into law?

Amy B. Portland, ME

Joe in Albany,

I hate to call anyone a liar, but perhaps you are just un-informe

Amy, perhaps we could just say they are blinded by facts.


up date:
Reports: Mubarak has left Cairo

Where he left Cairo, President Mubarak, in the presidential plane with his family on his way to the city of Sharm el-Sheikh to spend his last days

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/8161287-reports-mubarak-has-left-cairo

I hate the way that dictator tried to play President Obama. He wanted as I see it to portray our President as interfering in Egyptian Affairs.
I really admire the people of Egypt for sticking to non violence. Had something like that happened it would not be with non violence and rocks and sticks. Righties love their guns.

Just think the right supported the President as weak because he wouldn't buy into their talking points of comparing him to Carter. It was Reagan who should be blamed. He negotiated a deal to hold the 52 hostages by selling them arms so Carter could look weak and Reagan himself could become president a shame. Reagan put lives ahead in his lust for power. Carter saved us from a war!

@Pietro

"Have you noticed that with all of this talk about cutting the budget, not ONE of the ususal detractors have ever mentioned INCREASING our REVENUES?

NOT ONE. Now why is that?"

Because, as I stated before, I do not believe that government (of any party), is serious about cutting the budget, and until they prove otherwise I am not for giving them any more money.

Case in point. In the SOTU speech the President outlined the savings he proposed in the budget. In the next sentence he spent the money. Another example. If we remove the cap on the SS tax and the program goes into surplus again do you honestly think that any Administration is not going to spend the surplus revenue?

No new taxes until we get a government that is actually serious about cutting the deficit and paying down the debt.

Mubarak just resigned, handing the country over to the military.

Obama now has the choice of TWO precedents to follow:

He can follow GHW Bush's model from 1989, when he sent teams of advisors to eastern European countries to help them set up then infrastructure for democratic self governance, or

He can follow the Carter 1979 model, which is, do nothing, and watch the chaos and repression that ensues.

Given the team Obama has In place, I wonder if any course he takes will be successful for the Egyptian people.

Charles: How are you getting that 6.6%? I'm getting 2.9%, 100B/3,456B

Sorry, you're correct. I was looking at just deficit reduction, not the overall budget. With that in mind, I used $100B/$1,500B.

One revenue stream. STOP OBAMA'S WAR ON THE ENERGY INDUSTRY.

85% of resources are off limits. The other 15% is being killed. All of the lost jobs for nothing when these jobs could be exploding. All the federal revenue from operating leases being lost. The enforced reliance and foreign energy and the trade deficit. The impact on business through higher energy costs. The impact on food costs, the impact of this hidden tax of higher energy cost on the middle class.

Obama's policies are asinine and destructive.

OK, Bob, you are up.

Where in the Budget would this 'Energy Revenue Stream' be categorized? How come we do not see an 'Energy Revenue Stream' described in the budget? Also, does the Government DIRECTLY benefit from the useage of or the production of Energy?

I think you are conflating POLICY with ECONOMICS. Does the Obama Administration's POLICY restrict the explotation of natural resources? Possibly. Does the Government get DIRECT reimbursement for these natural resources?

If it does not, then how can this be considered a 'Revenue Stream'?

If it does, Bob, then why hasn't the Government been getting its due from all of the Energy companies that have enriched themselves over the years? If this is the case, the companies reaping the benefit owes the Government a LOT of money.

Seems to me, Bob, if that was a Revenue Stream, then the Goverment should be recording it as such.

Doesn't seem like that is the case, does it, Bob?

My challenge still stands. Can anyone identify a REVENUE stream - that is sustainable - that we can use to reduce our national deficit?

Alan, Pietro is going to come back with" I did not say raise taxes, think of another way".

What he is on about is nationalizing business- you know, so the government can make a profit.

He looks to such glorious success stories as the USSR and Germany in 1939 as proof of what a great idea that would be.

Oh- and he does not want to say it- he wants YOU to suggest it. That will give him all the proof he needs that this is a grass roots idea.

Your best option is to ignore him.

Pietro - you really find that the government doesn't receive enough "income?" It needs more "income?"

Ok pray tell why does it need more "income?" Cause the only way the government gets what you call "income" is through a tax. Or are you now advocating that it start competing in the open market? Perhaps it could produce oil, refine oil, then sell it as gasoline. Just how do you think that would go, given how good the government is at doing anything? You really think it could compete?

Of course it cannot. So its back to taxes, the only way the government can get (and it's really take) money. Now tell you what Pietro I too could use more money. In fact I think we all could. But we don't get to confiscate other people's property like the government so you know what I do? I live within my means. If I make x dollars per year I make damn sure I spend x minus y, which I then save.

So tell me Pietro, why can't the government do the same?

Pietro: NOT ONE has offered ANY solutions on what revenues we can raise to help with the debt or the deficit

Well, I guess we could take a billion dollars and build a super-cool train set. That would generate millions of jobs.

But I concur with Alan NJ. No new taxes until the government makes itself look the least bit serious about cutting their spending.

You seem to have a lot of anger Petie. You may want to have someone look at that for you. It's not healthy.

njnbnj: Your best option is to ignore him [Petie]

What, and miss out on all the fun?

Because, as I stated before, I do not believe that government (of any party), is serious about cutting the budget, and until they prove otherwise I am not for giving them any more money.

Case in point. In the SOTU speech the President outlined the savings he proposed in the budget. In the next sentence he spent the money. Another example. If we remove the cap on the SS tax and the program goes into surplus again do you honestly think that any Administration is not going to spend the surplus revenue?

Alan, NJ - you're up.

I do not disagree with your assertion, Alan, but the question is what REVENUE SOURCES - OTHER THAN TAXES - can be used to help pay down our deficit?

I have no delusions that any revenue surpluses will be used in the wrong way. I have no delusions that Congress cannot be trusted with ANY surplus funds. The whole point of my post is that we have to identify the problem (which I believe we have) and then craft a solution to that problem. From my perspective, not only do we have to cut spending, but we also have to raise revenues. Taxes are one revenue source.

Can anyone identify OTHER revenue sources (that are not POLICY, like Bob pointed out) that can be used to reduce the deficit?

Once those Revenue sources are identified, then we can craft policy and legislation to make sure that the deficit is eliminated.

THAT is my point.

Can we at least identify what other revenue sources we can use to pay down our deficit?

The challenge is still on.

Can any of the usual cast of characters provide a link that details the democrats plan for cutting the budget?

Pietro - you really find that the government doesn't receive enough "income?" It needs more "income?"

Ok pray tell why does it need more "income?" Cause the only way the government gets what you call "income" is through a tax. Or are you now advocating that it start competing in the open market? Perhaps it could produce oil, refine oil, then sell it as gasoline. Just how do you think that would go, given how good the government is at doing anything? You really think it could compete?

OK, Spanky, You're up.

Does the government need any more 'income'? Well, Spanky, if you are running a DEFICIT, what do you think?

So what you are saying is that the only 'income' or REVENUE that the Government makes is by a TAX. That is the ONLY revenue stream the government can use - so am I correct in saying that is what you are saying? I do not want to misquote you here.

Given your train of thought, the ONLY way we can reduce the deficit would be by raising 'income'. Would I be correct in saying that?

And, along your train of thought, the only 'income' that the Goverment makes is by taxes. Would I be correct in saying that?

If all of the above is correct, then the ONLY answer is that we need to raise the INCOME - meaning taxes - to reduce or eliminate the deficit.

So can we agree that would be the likely outcome of your train of thought?

I am OK with your train of thought and your likely conclusion. However, as we can see, raising taxes is not a viable option. So if I may take the liberty of following your train of thought, we need more 'INCOME' - taxes - to reduce the deficit, but we have NO PLAN B in the case that we CANNOT raise taxes?

Would I be wrong in my assumption or assertion?

My challenge is this - OK, if we cannot raise taxes to reduce the deficit, and the Goverment needs the extra 'INCOME' to reduce the deficit, what ALTERNATIVES do we have available to us to solve this problem?

You are kinda short on the alternatives, Spanky.

And you still have not identified any other Revenue streams that we can sustain or use to reduce the deficit because you do not believe there are any others.

With that kind of thinking, there is no wonder we are in this mess today.

Trump: This is one republican I would consider voting for just because I respect his business record and his negoitating skills. I think a lot of what he says about China is true and I believe in what he says needs to be done. However, when he starts making pro-life comments I'm gone. Why can't republicans stay out of the social issues? Why can't they just focus on the economy? When you start with the tired social issues you lose me period. Why? because I don't care.

I see a few comments from Republicans that they want Obama to stay out of their wallet. Well, quite frankly you shouldn't have elected a President that conducted two un-funded wars for 8 years. Where was the fake outrage then? Now its time to pay the piper, so quit whining like a baby and grow up. I don't want to listen to your complaining.

As far as other spending cuts go can't we do this on the backs of everyone? Can't we agree that we should end subsidies to oil companies? Can't we agree that the estate tax should be rolled back? Can't we agree that people should not have endless unemployement benefits? Can't we agree that gun control laws do not work? Can't we agree that drug laws do not work? Maybe if we didn't spend so much money over policing everything and over crowding our prisons we could save some money there too. Just my two cents...both sides make good points on spending reductions.

I warned you guys.

Pietro is back on his nationalize business hobby horse.

Look, Pietro- you have been on this for WEEKS. You have had no takers. In fact, the only person who followed where you led was-me.

And I sure did not support you.

We will not be taking the course of the USSR. Breadlines, one room apartments for families of five, uncompleted building projects, and fifty year old equipment will not go over well in this country.

You missed your shot. Looks like your idea of a perfect economic model fell before you were old enough to emigrate to a country that employed it.

Pietro,

The government's primary revenues stem from individual taxes and corporate taxes. My example addressed both.

According to the MMS, the annual revenues from federal onshore and offshore mineral lease are one of the federal government's largest sources of non-tax income. They typically get a 12+% share of the onshore production and 18+% share of the offshore. They also collect for bonus bids, permitting fees, inspections, rental fees, rights fees, etc.

I expect Bev to not understand how the free market system works. You tried to re-frame a flawed argument and still lost your point. Are you still another Bev, Grandma Navy.....

.... or do you get it now?

My challenge is for us to STOP the 'usual' partisan wrangling and THINK.

It seems like some, including my idiotic friend from New Jersey posting above, have decided that THINKING about things is too hard and that partisan wrangling is the ONLY alternative.

We are ALL Americans here. We all have to take a bite of this STINKY sandwich, but it is up to us to figure out how big of a bite we are going to take.

OR -

Maybe we don't have to bite the STINKY sandwich at all - if there was an alternative.

I am looking to post with people who want to THINK because that sort of exchange will open up new areas of conversation that MAY hold and answer (or two) on how we can get out of the mess we are in.

If you just want to post partisan hyperbole, go ahead. We STILL have a problem and we STILL have to fix it.

Somehow.

Pietro:

Given your train of thought, . . . .

And, along your train of thought, . . . .

So can we agree that would be the likely outcome of your train of thought?

I am OK with your train of thought . . . . .

So if I may take the liberty of following your train of thought, . . . . .

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

Soooo, what exactly is this fascination of yours with trains?

Pietro, any and all corporate taxes will be passed on to you and me in the form of higher prices. That goes for anything domestic or imported. You want another income stream? The government loses billions of dollars in royalties during it's moratorium on off-shore drilling. Also, how about stopping the subsidies for agriculture. The government pays farmers to not grow crops. We will be facing food shortages in 40 years (even without mother nature's frequent devastation).

Navy, the government doesn't spend money to give subsidies to oil and gas companies. They give low interest construction loans or cheap leases on government land. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/09/keith-olbermann/olbermann-says-oil-and-gas-subsidies-account-88-pe/ I do agree with you though. These companies should not be getting anything in the form of tax breaks or subsidies. Did you know that wind power is so subsidized that companies can spend a billion dollars constructing a wind farm and it is paid for in 4 years? Then, to thank the taxpayers for all the help, the energy companies will not even fire up their turbines unless electricity is trading at a good enough price for them to make a small fortune.

The government's primary revenues stem from individual taxes and corporate taxes. My example addressed both.

According to the MMS, the annual revenues from federal onshore and offshore mineral lease are one of the federal government's largest sources of non-tax income. They typically get a 12+% share of the onshore production and 18+% share of the offshore. They also collect for bonus bids, permitting fees, inspections, rental fees, rights fees, etc.

Ah, Bob, you stumbled onto what I was talking about.

You are saying that the Government's PRIMARY REVENUES stem from individual and Corporate tax revenues.

Note the word: PRIMARY.

How about a SECONDARY Revenue source?

If what you are saying is true, Bob, then the Government should have been reaping the benefit(s) from those land/mineral leases. Are you saying that MAYBE if we look at those leases as a SECONDARY REVENUE source that POSSIBLY we could use those Revenues to reduce or eliminate the debt?

I can live with that.

I would be interested in seeing that revenue stream represented in the Annual Budget and the percentage of that income as compared to taxable income. I am surprised that we are not seeing that.

Nice Job, Bob. I guess that more research needs to be done on this. Also, we need to know why this was omitted from the budgets as a revenue source.

Joanna, maybe Pietro thinks that a nationalized rail system will provide a new "revenue stream".

He ignores, of course, that the government already HAS a train set. It is called Amtrack.

Costs taxpayers BILLIONS.

Then there is the European rail system. Costs them billions, too.

He simply cannot get it through his little mind that government run anything is inefficient and a money pit. Like all good little socialists or communists, he thinks the government can run everything, and he does not let a little thing like history or fact interfere with his dreams of utopia.

I expect this will cause him to spew another fifteen paragraphs about the glories of a nationalized rail system- high speed
choo choos will solve all our problems! Will not cost a cent, (despite the billions Amtrack costs), eat all you want and still lose weight!

Facts seem to have no effect on the fantasies of the nutcase liberals.

Pietro, any and all corporate taxes will be passed on to you and me in the form of higher prices. That goes for anything domestic or imported. You want another income stream? The government loses billions of dollars in royalties during it's moratorium on off-shore drilling. Also, how about stopping the subsidies for agriculture. The government pays farmers to not grow crops. We will be facing food shortages in 40 years (even without mother nature's frequent devastation).

Big B - thanks for your contribution. Your observation is like Bob's, and I must admit it is not something that I thought about. Thank you BOTH for bringing it up.

If Iam reading your post correctly, Big B, we should be asking our representatives WHY the Government is losing money on the leases. You blame that on the moratorium, but there is a deeper issue that we need to explore. However, in this case, that DEFINITELY should be looked at as a REVENUE stream.

Gentlemen, Bob and Big B, thank you for bringing up these items as possible revenue sources.

THIS is what I was trying to get at with my post.

Maybe with information like this, we can craft our questions to our Government as to why these items were not considered as REVENUE sources to pay down the deficit.

I am SURE there is a political issue with the drilling - which is not relevent to our discussion YET - but at least we are getting somewhere as to easing the burden on the taxpayer when there ARE alternatives to what we are doing.

I say we continue to get and document these areas of possible Revenue.

I stumbled on to to something? Yea, I stumbled on to the meaning of a royalty, federal leases, etc., when I was about 15. Where have you been?

Amazing bit of blogal origami, Pietro, but you asked about ways to increase federal revenue. Five different ways with one of example of get Obama out of the way.

All are in the buget for decades and decades and decades and.....

All other Presidents were just not stupid enough to not use them.

Amy B. Portland, ME

Joe in Albany,

I hate to call anyone a liar, but perhaps you are just un-informed.

____________________________________________

Speaking of being uninformed. I said "most" of the money goes for military bases. The word "most" means some of the money does not go for military bases. So, what was your point about Wasilla getting federal money that was not for a military base??

AK per capita comparisons are distorted. AK is twice the size of Texas with about the same population as Vermont. If VT had the same level of military activity as AK, it's per capita federal funds would be out of whack also. (Although, with VT being a blue state, i suspect you would have no problem with that. LMAO!!!!)

I stumbled on to to something? Yea, I stumbled on to the meaning of a royalty, federal leases, etc., when I was about 15. Where have you been?

Amazing bit of blogal origami, Pietro, but you asked about ways to increase federal revenue. Five different ways with one of example of get Obama out of the way.

Yeah, OK, Bob. Whatever.

What you did contribute is that there are possible SECONDARY revenue sources that we need to be looking at to reduce or eliminate the deficit. I can disregard the usual partisan hyperbole to pick out a good idea that needs to be explored.

Thank you, Bob, for your contribution.

Pietro, the government has been collecting those royalties for YEARS.

This is not new, and it is already in the budget as revenue.

Sheesh.

And, Obama cut that revenue with his drilling ban, for which the Interior department was just found in contempt of court, by the way.

As to not realizing that corporations pass taxes on to consumers- well, it says quite a bit about your powers of deductive reasoning

I have suspected for a while that you were a kid. If I am right, you need to study more than what is in your textbooks.

Read "The Prize" if you are interested in the role that oil has played in the development of society for the last hundred years or so.

It will be a real eye-opener for you.

Pietro,

Sorry if I offended a genuine effort by you. It is hard to tell on these things.

But sincerely, the liberals focus on how to divide the pie. Conservatives focus on making a bigger pie.

A bigger pie is the only way out. Re-cuting little slices gets us nowhere, especially when we are throwing pieces away.

Have a good weekend Pietro.

no joe,

You ready to head over and clean up the Obama saved the world/Egypt stuff yet?

I'll be away for awhile, but look forward to your comments and your dose of reality/perspective.

Talk to you later.

Bob, I didn't take offense to what was posted. We snipe on here all the time. I guess it comes with the territory.

I really do appreciate your contribution. It was a good topic that you and Big B brought up that needs to be explored. We need an explanation why this is not included in the 'Official' budget as a revenue item and why this is not considered as a deficit reduction item.

I hope you have a good weekend as well.

"Does the government need more 'income'? Well, Spanky, if you are running a DEFICIT, what do you think?"

Pietro, sometimes you make it extremely difficult to take you seriously.

I don't know about Spanky, but I believe, as anyone who has managed a budget at even the family level knows, that you don't spend what you don't have. As a general rule, families don't run large deficits, Pietro...at least, not for long, anyway. In the end, families are forced to bring spending into line with income, or they face a version of the same consequences the federal government is facing.

Creating a false argument about alternative revenue streams is roughly equivalent to attempting to apply a band-aid to a sucking chest wound...the solution is totally inadequate to the enormity of the problem. The potential revenue from your "alternate" revenue streams is dwarfed by the dimensions of the current ongoing deficits.

Which leads me back around to the issue of the challenges involved in taking you seriously, Pietro.

Are you really going to suggest that the distinguished panel assembled by President Obama for his blue-ribbon debt commission weren't fixated on and obsessed with identifying every possible revenue source, along with every practical method of taxation?

From the Preamble Of The National Commission On Fiscal Responsibility And Reform:

"We cannot play games or put off hard choices any longer."

Stop playing games, Pietro.

And again, Mixed Bag, you show that you are not as clever as you think you are.

Just because you BELIEVE that Taxes are the ONLY revenue source, we have seen here that TAXES are NOT the ONLY revenue source that can be used to eliminate the deficit.

We need to be asking the obvious questions - why AREN'T the revenues from oil/gas/ leases being used to shrink our deficit? Who is making these decisions? Why is this not being considered?

Just because YOU don't know any better does not mean that the questions should not be asked.

You are just wrong, Mixed Bag.

Again.

Ron Indiana

Great points about CPAC'S bottom lines.

I look at your points and think of bottom line in another vein. The real bottom line is Michelle Bachmann. How low can they go?

This ding bat yesterday had to ask the participants to stand up and cheer yesterday as she spoke.

And, she had the audacity to tell Swan Hannity last night she is considering running for president because she has been all over American. Hey, she should have been in her state doing for them.

If they prop this idiotic woman up like they did in MN, for sure America is headed for more divisiveness, embarrassment, and dis-information to low information voters.

Terrific thoughts for Friday, Ron. Perfect description of CPAC, it is like a tent revival--each one trying to be the most religious, have the best family values, and wave the flag highest while assuring the flock that anyone who does not think as they do, is putting the country on the road to damnation. 8 years of Bush dragging the country to the garbage dump, mounting the debt and they expect us to believe they're fiscally responsible. They do two things extremely well: 1) spend money we don't have and; 2) convince voters the democrats did it, not them.

Ron:

I agree. I seen some of it last night. Trump is an idiot and a legend in his own mind. The TP is gaining control on the GOP and this must be driving Boehner crazy. We told him to watch out for what he wished for. I saw Bachmann try and get the people to stand up and chant after she said she wanted President Obama to be a one term President. The never panned the camera so I wonder if any stood.

Should be interesting to see who is going to come out and announce their running. They are sure taken their time.

Just now, the Egyptian President has in fact stepped down as announced by their VP. The Military will be in temporary control and they said they would honor what the protesters want. Wait and see.

Ron- describing Tea partiers is kind of like describing hippies in 1971. The actual "hippie" movement died and was buried very shortly after it's birth. That which remained afterwards were those who were fascinated by media reporting, and had to go check it out, and the name became permanent even though there was truly no inward similiarity, only in dress and appearance. Bad comparison perhaps, but the tea party movement was dead the moment the media got ahold of it, and although the name is still out there, those who love to bash and criticize now have the ammo to fire at shadows in the news. If your cat has kittens on the stove, you don't call them pancakes.

Matt:

Thanks for the comments. Although I don't have a cat, if I did and it had kittens on the stove, I think I would call them "hot cats".

Pietro - are you even trying?

Where did I say anything about raising revenue is the only way to reduce the debt? I'm a simple man, with simple solutions. Have the government act like we do. Spend less than you make.

What's the matter Pietro, too simple? I know it won't fit into your narrative. So tell us, do you live within your means? If you do, why do you? And more importanly why can't the government?

Why does the government need so much more money now than in 2006?

Egypt. Deficits. Unemployment. Massive entitlement expansion. Debt ceiling.

It's at times like these I'm glad we have a Community Organizer and a college professor in the White House.

JoAnnaSmith1,

Finally, after eight long years, we have someone with brains in the White House. Thank God.

What really is going on is it looks like Saudi Arabia has told Obama to dummy-up about Egypt. Sure Obama will huff and puff over the actions going on in Egypt, but no one important is paying any attention to what Obama has to say. Obama's bumbling intelligence team further makes him look even more incompetent.

Bill, Fairfax VA

That's from Karl Rove's piece in the WSJ yesterday about how HCR can be repealed using the reconciliation process and thereby avoid the need for 60 votes in the Senate. Tip of the cap to Joe in Albany for sharing that yesterday.

I'm sure the guy with hemophilia that the NY Times reported on last week will be just thrilled to hear that. He's only 21 years old and would reach the life-time cap on insurance payments before he turns 22 if it weren't for "Obamacare". He'll be happy to know that the terrible awful Affordable Care Act will soon be repealed and replaced with the Republicans' "If You Get Sick Die Quickly Act".

JoAnnaSmith1

Egypt. Deficits. Unemployment. Massive entitlement expansion. Debt ceiling.

It's at times like these I'm glad we have a Community Organizer and a college professor in the White House.

This is better than having a cruket oil man from Texas. atleast with the community organizer you know he will not take your money and loose it drilling for oil!!!!!

So using reconciliation, the option that Conservative Republicans once decried as a tyrannical move that would provoke a constitutional crisis, is now the smart way to proceed;

Sen. Scott Brown yesterday warned the Obama administration against using the "nuclear option" of ramming through Congress a revised $1 trillion health-care bill outlined yesterday by the White House. [...]

"If the Democrats try to ram their health-care bill through Congress using reconciliation, they are sending a dangerous signal to the American people that they will stop at nothing to raise our taxes, increase premiums and slash Medicare," said Brown spokesman Colin Reed in a statement. "Using the nuclear option damages the concept of representative leadership and represents more of the politics-as-usual that voters have repeatedly rejected."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_02/022561.php

Hypocrisy, thy name is Conservatism.

But the inconvenient fact of the matter is this issue is far from settled. There's still the deal about the Supreme Court weighing in. But even if the Court were to uphold the law, Rove now shows us a path for passing repeal in the Senate. Add a Republican president in 2012 to the mix, and HCR is RIP.

That's why it's important that folks not be distracted by the PR smokescreen coming from the left that seeks to obscure the truth. There's a lot of time left in this game, and it's way too early to kick back and watch the clock run out. In particular, folks who have mixed feelings about the law or who may still be sitting on the fence shouldn't be swayed by Democratic attempts to convince you the issue is settled. It's not. As Rove correctly points out, the roots of HCR are in shallow soil. And whether this plant lives or dies is still a very open question.

Bill, for one who does not like President Obama, you have certainly co-opted the 'Hope and Change' of his message.

You HOPE that the Republicans will take the Presidency in 2012. It is still early, no doubt, but until that point in time, there is NO WAY that President Obama will sign a repeal of HCR. The Republicans do not have enough votes to override a Presidential veto. The SCOTUS is not even going to take up the HCR issues until next year (2012). So - the bottom line is that the HCR Law will CONTINUE to be the LAW of the land, no matter if you like it or not.

You want CHANGE by repealing the law? Good luck with that. No matter what Karl Rove says, the American people are LIKING that they CANNOT be dropped from their insurance for pre-existing conditions. The American people are LIKING the fact that they can have coverage for their children up to age 26.

As we are seeing, many Americans want us to FIX what is wrong with the law, not repeal it. Why is it so hard for Republicans to offer Amendments - which the President signaled that he may even sign - to fix what is wrong with the HCR Law?

Since we are talking about the HCR Law as a plant - one with 'shallow roots', no less - what makes you think that by ripping the plant out - with NOTHING to replace it - is a GOOD idea? If that plant is your only food, and you rip it out before it matures, how will you survive?

This whole repeal matra is utter NONSENSE. Instead of Republicans being statesmen and patriots, they are bitter little men who want to settle a score with the President who utterly humiliated them publicly during the HCR debate using the American people's lives as the leverage. This is, in my opinion, the reason why there are no Amendments even PROPOSED by the GOP.

Bitter LITTLE men. I had to repeat that phrase because that is what we are seeing from the GOP in Congress.

So, Bill, you can listen to and worship Karl Rove all you like. The truth of the matter is that even though HCR is a plant with shallow roots, it is growing quicker than you think.

Tell us John, were you born with the moron gene or did you take meds to develop one?

Reconciliation: turnabout is fair play.

Hey, does health care reform include dental?

Sorry, John B...

I'm afraid that hypocrisy has more than one name.

For example, we have the hypocrisy of the Democratic Senate majority...and their decision to leave the Senate's filibuster and cloture rules unchanged after two years of non-stop, piteous, hand-wringing and whining about the horrible abuse of those rules by the minority party.

Your hypocrisy detector is a bit selective, isn't it?

There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, John...and it routinely crosses party lines.

So you're OK with hypocrisy. Thanks for making it clear.

Now, if you'd like to point out where "turnabout" comes into this feel free to do so. The Affordable Care Act passed the Senate by a 60-39 vote on 12/24/2009. If Republicans can't manage the same feat too bad for them, but it doesn't justify something that Conservatives referred to as "unconstitutional" when Democrats DIDN'T use it but there was conjecture they might.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Conservatism.

Way to go Pietro, I love it when you rub Bills nose in his own BS.

Ha, conservatives now support reconciliation. Who would have thunk it. To quote a fellow liberal, hyprocrisy, thy name is conservative.

LOL, a conservative claims Saudi Arabia is calling the shots for the United States and President Obama. Bull puckey, that's right-wing media talking points. All the dictators in the middle east are only concerned about their own backsides; sure they want a stable Egypt but they want one with a dictator not a democracy.

How soon we forget. Egypt, an Obama failure? A tad bit early for that I think. The President based his remarks on the intelligence community and their information. It was premature. Or was it? Mubarek has fled Cairo and another important announcement is expected from Egypt shortly.

But let's back up a second. Wasn't GB2 who blamed the Iraqi war WMD justification on "bad intelligence"? And havn't you same bunch of GB2 "cheerleaders" used that as an excuse for the mistake we made in Iraq? Hmmmm. What's good for the goose is good for the gander isn't it? The President based his remarks on "bad intelligence". Using the GB2 standards of Joanna and Mixer, he gets a pass. At least nobody DIED this time did they?

You know, this gets my blood boiling. All the double-talk and justification. Turn about is fair play????

NO! If it's WRONG, it's WRONG! It's not "ok" if the other side did it. If it was WRONG then (according to the GOP) it's WRONG NOW! Geeez.

I guess it's just a matter of whose ox is getting gored huh?

What a wonderful world it would be if we could just agree on certain basic principles and not continually change the rules of the game based on who has the upper hand.

You know, out here on the prairie, we shoot rattlesnakes on sight. They are dangerous. Oh yes, they are very useful at varmint control, but that's about their only positive quality. The problem with the rattlesnake is they don't confine their efforts to varmints. They'll strike at anyone, man, woman, child, the weaker and the slower the better. (Now, they will refrain from biting a lawyer it's said, but that's just professional courtesy) They don't do it to feed themselves. They can't "eat" us, we're too big, they just strike out at us out of ill-tempered cussedness which actually arises from FEAR.

It seems to me the GOP is like a rattlesnake. Good at varmint control but worthless for anything else. The problem is, we can't just shoot'em 'cause that would be wrong and they know it. Now that's a conundrum.

Question is, John...

Are you OK with hypocrisy on the left, or even able to recognize it?

Good for you, John! By the vitriol contained in Bill's answer, I'd say you scored big!

You're deflecting, MB. Republicans are proposing to use a mechanism they CLAIMED would have been unconstitutional IF it had been used, which it wasn't.

NOW they feel entitled to do something that they claimed to be unconstitutional.

Are they against protecting the Constitution, or just hypocritical? Those are the choices.

Pietro -- good grief, you're not only high on leftist kool aid but you're juicing it with bad dope. Whether YOU like it or not, the HCR battle is far from over.

Am I, John?

I've acknowledged that hypocrisy crosses party lines. Actually, only the most partisan ideologues would argue otherwise.

Your turn, John.

Or...will YOU deflect?

ahhh Deacon John B, you found a new phase eh? Who did you steal that phase from?

"Hypocrisy, thy name is Conservatism."

I guess "Language has consequences" kind of bit you when you sit eh? Trying to blame a politcal party/movement to what happened in Az. just to find out you Liberals were 100% wrong-oops......

Pietro-So what you're saying is that the Government CAN force me to buy a service? A very simple question. I'll save you time if you answer with car insurance, not all 50 states require car insurance.

Huh? Now ain't that interestin'. I got a green star but nobody responded to my pearls of wisdom. Huh?

I don't know what to make of that.

Either they were astounded by my profundity or baffled by my BS.

Oh well, an unchallenged green star is a badge I will wear proudly.

Yeeeehaw! Now where's them rattlesnakes. Here Joanna...Joanna...here, Joanna....

The way that I understand the Byrd rule, (or reconciliation), it can only be employed it has an impact on spending.

So, it was unconstitutional to use it to CREATE HCR- but would be perfectly correct to use to dismantle it.

After all, all those bureaucrats are not going to be volunteers- they will expect compensation. And benefits. Also, office equipment, which runs on electricity.

They will need offices, too, and support staff- we're talking tens of millions of dollars here, folks.

So, I think they CAN use reconciliation to kill it.

Tough luck, Obama.

Pietro-So what you're saying is that the Government CAN force me to buy a service? A very simple question. I'll save you time if you answer with car insurance, not all 50 states require car insurance.

Acutally, Paul, I do NOT like the mandate. AT ALL. That would be the FIRST thing that I would make an amendment to get rid of. That mandate is 'supposedly' the lynchpin that holds the HCR Law together.

I do not think that is the case.

What holds the HCR law together is the COOPERATION of the Insurance Companies with the Government. As we see right now, the Insurance companies are fighting this Law and will probably suffer because of it. Raising premiums in double-digits is NOT cooperation. It will usher in the advent of single-payer - like a Medicare for all - which will undoubtedly have a mandated premium.

By screaming like petulant children, the insurance industry - which DEFINITELY has a role to play in our society - will be changed forever IF they don't play nice in the sandbox.

We will have to see how this turns out. I do see MANY amendments being made to a lot of the 'rules' of the game with the current Healthcare Law in the near future - probably after 2012.

Not before.

Paul: Trying to blame a politcal party/movement to what happened in Az. just to find out you Liberals were 100% wrong-oops......

Have you read Wayne LaPierre's (NRA) comments from yesterday?! He's ready to blame everyone else...

Repealing the Affordable Care Act will increase both spending and the deficit, therefore by the standards raised above it would be unconstitutional to use it in this context.

Are they against protecting the Constitution, or just hypocritical? Those are the choices.

Language still has consequences...in this case misusing terms like "Nuclear Option" and "Unconstitutional has Conservatives in a box of their own making.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Conservative.

Turn about is fair play????

NO! If it's WRONG, it's WRONG! It's not "ok" if the other side did it. If it was WRONG then (according to the GOP) it's WRONG NOW! Geeez.

I guess it's just a matter of whose ox is getting gored huh?

I have no problem debating leftist loons with half my brain tied behind my back, it's so darn easy. But I don't necessarily expect Republicans to fight political battles with one arm tied behind their back.

Democrats used reconciliation to ram through HCR despite widespread evidence in both opinion polls and electoral results that the country didn't want it. With that precedent, Republicans are on solid ground using the same mechanism as a tool to potentially repeal the law.

If you really belive the drivel you're saying, then surely you will lobby Democrats for a do-over on HCR since they used an inappropriate mechanism to pass it. If you're not willing to do that, then stop by John B and show him what a real hypocrite looks like.

Democrats used reconciliation to ram through HCR despite widespread evidence in both opinion polls and electoral results that the country didn't want it. With that precedent, Republicans are on solid ground using the same mechanism as a tool to potentially repeal the law.

If you really belive the drivel you're saying, then surely you will lobby Democrats for a do-over on HCR since they used an inappropriate mechanism to pass it. If you're not willing to do that, then stop by John B and show him what a real hypocrite looks like.

C'mon, Bill. You know better and can argue better than this.

Since when did HCR pass by reconciliation?

If it did, when does it sunset?

Well???

Any legislation passed through reconciliation has a time limit on it. If what you say is correct, then why try and repeal the HCR law? Why not just WAIT IT OUT since it has to be re-voted on anyway?

Oh - that's right - HCR is LAW that was passed by CONGRESS WITHOUT reconciliation.

Yeah...

Nice try, Bill.

Bill, Bill Bill, what am I going to do with you? If you want to be clever, be original, don't steal from the person you are attempting to castigate. tsk tsk tsk, well I guess plaigerism (sp?) is the sincerest form of compliment.

Thanks pard.

But here's the deal. You're trying to play turn about. Won't work. No do over on HCR, it's done, we can't grow the economy if we spend the next two years undoing that which was done two years before.

Of course the GOP has no interest in growing the economy, just their pocketbooks. They want to keep the economy in the dumper so they can blame it on the President in 2012. Screw the American people, they don't matter, they are sheep who listen to Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck and form their opinions based on the headlines on Fox News.

So give it a rest. If it wrong of the Democrats, shame on them, even though their motives, to guarantee health care to EVERYONE is laudable, if it was wrong it was wrong. But YOU don't get a mulligan. Nor do two wrongs make a right. If it was wrong back then, (please note the "if") then it's wrong NOW. But that won't bother the GOP. They take hypocrisy to new heights.

Hey, you don't need to look at me to see what a hypocrite looks like, look no further than your own mirror! Or you could check out Boehner's or McConnel's mugs on-line.

Close but no cigar, podna, try again

Democrats used reconciliation to ram through HCR

No they didn't. If you think so provide evidence to the contrary.

You might want to untie that other brain cell.

Everybody says no to America without fear of adverse consequence. The Iranians have been doing it since the day Obama took office and the Russians as well. Now it's Mubarak. We want him to go, he just says no. And who is this Clapper guy anyway? Has he even heard of the Muslim Brotherhood? If so, you could hardly tell from his congressional testimony yesterday.

There's a gang-that-couldn't-shoot-straight flavor that seems to describe the White House approach to handling this situation. It's like there's no overall plan, on overarching concept that is guiding our response. Instead, it looks more like a day to day reaction to events that have already unfolded on the ground. Is that what a great power does, the only superpower left in the world?

The fact is this great power has the ability to exert considerable influence in this situation by virtue of the big chunk of money we ship to the Egyptian military every year. By most accounts, the military is the key to stabilizing the situation. They generally have the respect of the man in the street, and they certainly have the expertise to impose their will. So if they want to continue to feed at our foreign aid trough, they should do what WE want them to do and inspire Mubarak to retire to some comfy villa outside of Egypt. Maybe even make him an offer he can't refuse.

Now, I'm sure there's lots of behind the scenes stuff going on that we don't know about. That while the president is taking a break to shoot some hoops, Hillary is burning up the phone lines and sending secret cables trying to make something good happen. That's fine. But here's the deal: where are the results? Trying hard is all well and good, but the Steelers tried hard too and few remember those that lose the big game.

But if we lose Egypt, if we play our cards in a way that doesn't prevent chaos from overtaking that country. Or, heaven forbid, in a way that opens the door for the Muslim Brotherhood to step in to fill a leadership vacuum. Well, folks will remember that for a long time to come. Just think Jimmy Carter and Iran.

Great post, IR. Fact of the matter is, the administration has not had a lot of options in dealing with the situation in Egypt and the entire Middle East. I can't fathom why Mubarak clings to power so desperately. Seems to me he gives concessions a little bit at a time, thinking each one will satisfy the people, failing to realize that the people want a new government--one that they voted for. There is no middle ground with them; nor should there be. What I was struck by last night watching the coverage was how peaceful this process has been----no suicide bombers or other Al Queda moves in sight. They must be ticked off at this situation.

I wonder Steeler Fan if Mubarek is simply trying to delay the inevitable with the hope that the protesters get tired and go home?

FR: Combined with the flubs by CIA Director Panetta (who appeared to confirm reports of Mubarak stepping down, but then had to retract) and DNI Director James Clapper (calling the Muslim Brotherhood "secular")

Is there anyone NOT yet convinced the Obama administration is clueless about what is going on in Egypt? Panetta, in so many ways a dead ringer for Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau, in fact based his opinion on what is going on in Egypt on what he read in the papers, and not what his people in the CIA were telling him. Clapper on the other hand appears be insane.

Great team you've put together there Obama. Everyone is an All-Star.

Bill, I thought that when Obama appeared before the Chamber of Commerce, and exhorted them to hire people despite their not needing new employees, that I had seen everything. Does Obama really need to display his ignorance of how business works for the entire world to see? Here is a clue for him: not like government. Businesses do not hire people for do nothing jobs. They hire people for productivity, which leads to profits. That is the point.

Yesterday, though, we got a twofer on the total incompetence of this administration: Clapper blithely stating that a group whose motto is Islam is the Answer- the Muslim Brotherhood- was actually a secular group. That is a lot like saying that the Klan is racially diverse. Then we had Obama speaking at a college campus, blithely telling the audience that the Egyptian people had embraced "change", and we congratulate them. Too bad Mubarak spoke afterward, declared he was staying put, and, in a nod to the respect he has for Obama, later told him, in so many words, to "back off".

Throw in his totally idiotic, pie in the sky energy policy, and you have Jimmy Carter. All Obama is missing is the sweater and the pet rock.

Oh I’m sure that we’re going to hear a lot in coming days about how Clueless President Obama and his agencies are. We’re going to hear all about how we need to beware of the Islamic Brotherhood and all their connections to Radical Terrorism. Mubarak has been a good supporter and friend to us for 30 years and is just full of honor and only wants to do what is best for the Egyptian people and on and on ad infinitum.

That didn’t take long did it

I wonder sometime if some of you’ll don’t think farther than yesterday.

Why don’t you’ll consider that the longer Mubarak is enabled to defy what has been so far a relatively peaceful uprising by a large coalition of various groups within his populace the more reason that movement will have to move to the radical outcome that seems to scare you so much.

I think you are right, New Day, that Mubarak has misread the protestors--thinking he could throw them crumbs and then they would go away. I think he is wrong because their passion is real and deep and he doesn't understand the impact of social media in unifying the protesters and spreading their message. I'm guessing he doesn't Tweet or go on FaceBook!

I agree with you, IR---easy for the conservatives to take shots at the administration--that is all they do anyway. It would be too positive to suggest that the administration has been like the guy on the old Ed Sullivan show---the one with all the plates spinning. And I'm tired of people carping on intelligence failures-----it isn't like a spy movie where they know everything, especially in a fluid situation like this.

So, to those folks who are critical of President Obama's efforts to tightrope-walk this difficult, volatile situation in a sovereign nation halfway around the world, I offer a symple quetion;

What's the obvious, simple solution that makes this all go away and ensures American interests are protected?

John, you consider giving a speech that congratulates the Egyptian people for ousting their dictator hours before that same dictator announces he is going nowhere, then calling said dictator and telling him to go, and being told to "back off" walking a tightrope?

It's a good thing you aren't one of the Flying Wallendas.

Why don’t you’ll consider that the longer Mubarak is enabled to defy what has been so far a relatively peaceful uprising by a large coalition of various groups within his populace the more reason that movement will have to move to the radical outcome that seems to scare you so much

From the sound of them - that's what they're secretly praying for!

Nothing gets their 'juices flowing' like some good old fashion bloodshed!

This isn't about Egypt - this is ALL about seeing President Obama fail!

No matter what the cost...

More criticism and exaggeration, but no answer to the real question for critics;

What's the obvious, simple solution that makes this all go away and ensures American interests are protected?

Naw Red

I think you’re seeing the same old deal we’ve seen from those folks for the last 10 years.

“ If you can’t dazzle the folks with brilliance baffle them with bullsh!t”

John B-

George W. Bush has been routinely castigated for accepting and relying on faulty information from U.S. (and foreign) intelligence sources. Many held (and still hold) President Bush completely responsible for decisions made based on inaccurate, incomplete, or just plain wrong intelligence reports.

Why is it inappropriate to raise questions about the intelligence-gathering capabilites of officials in the Obama Administration regarding the crisis in Egypt?

Do you find the comments of CIA Director Panetta and Director Of Intelligence James Clapper reassuring?

Do you believe President Obama does?

While I believe that Obama and the administration have been perhaps a bit too hesitant to support the demonstrators, what would you have the administration do? This is not Eastern Europe in 1989 where the populace as a whole tended to support western values. This is the middle east, where a large segment of the populace is actually hostile to America. Too much of an overt signal from the US might have easily allowed Mubarak to say that it is the West that is seeking to disrupt Egyptian politics. Now it is too late, and Obama had better get on the train while it is leaving the station, at least if he wants the US to have any influence on a post-Mubarak Egypt.

BTW, there is probably a lot being done behind that scenes that we aren't seen. It is clear that whatever diplomatic efforts there were being made at the top haven't worked. Now it is time for the military to military diplomacy to take place, between those in the mid-level of both militaries who may have trained together. It is clear that it will be the Egyptian Army that decides what happens, but less clear whether the fate will be decided by the top level generals who are beholden to Mubarak or the mid-level soldiers, many of whom have trained with US troops, and who will ultimately be called upon to put down any protest. There is no doubt as to the fact that the US is seeking to utilize all potential contacts to ensure that the crisis in Egypt is resolved via peaceful means.

Finally, let me also note that the US has one major resource at its disposal, one that it does not want to utilize until absolutely necessary--foreign aid. Regardless of what emerges, there is going to be a lot of pressure within Congress to cut or eliminate all foreign aid. This can become a very valuable bargaining chip with whatever entity controls the government when all is said and done.

BTW, for those that are criticizing Obama, I have to ask, what would you have him do that he is not already doing? Furthermore, how do you think GW Bush would have handled the situation? Would he have done anything better at this stage?

Very Good Micheal L Thank you for adding some very cognisant thoughts this morning.

Excellent, IR. All the naysayers are busy criticizing and nitpicking President Obama but not one of them is responsible. It's easy to be an armchair quarterback, a lot harder to lead the team.

What's the obvious, simple solution that makes this all go away and ensures American interests are protected?

If you don't know it's hard to justify a position that the President is wrong.

Michael, well said.

As for the usual anti-Obama naysayers, President Obama did not declare victory yesterday, he said we are witnessing history, we are watching the continued transfer of power. Mubarak, as muddled as the speech was, has conceded all power to his VP. Now we watch to see the next step.

10 Minutes ago it was announced that the Egyptian President has stepped down. Hundreds of thousands of Egyptians are now dancing in the street chanting how the people have brought down the regime.

I thnk President Obama did a good job and played it correct. History has been made and the Egyptian people have spoken and won.

Anyone want to repeat their claim that supporting the Egyptian people was wrong?

Hi New Day---hope you are warm where you are. There doesn't seem to be a lot of energy in the Republican party from where I sit---someone to galvanize them. People seem to confuse the Donald Trump they see on TV with his endless self-promotion with the actual businessman who has had mixed results to say the least.

NDD:

Nice way to end a weird week. The Koch brothers have pledge 88 Billion to defeat President Obama, The US Chamber of Commerce says they are pledging 2X what they spent last election cycle, same with the K. Rove group as well.This is what happens when you have a politically motivated SCOTUS that sold this country out to the highest bidders (Foreign or Domestic).

Politicians will continue to be bought and sold by those that have the resources and we will all pay the price. Money trumps votes since they get to buy the votes anyway.

Why am I not surprised to find The Donald at a place like CPAC? The first time I was aware of him one of the TV news magazine shows was doing a profile on him. Two storylines stood out to me.

1) He was making a pitch that the best thing for New York City to do would be to condemn the waterfront properties of a bunch of warehouse owners, pay to tear them down, relocate some traffic, and give the property to him for $1 to redevelop.

2) He was negotiating with Merv Griffin to acquire some properties in Atlantic City and cackled about how he'd taken Griffin for a ride. He explained that's his whole strategy of business. He hasn't gotten a satisfactory deal unless you realize after the fact that you've been had.

Then he filed bankruptcy and walked away from the majority of his debt. Twice.

Straight to the point, newdayDawning and I agree.

If you aren't watching the news, Mubarak has stepped down.

Ursula:

Good to see you posting today. I like your quotes.

Good one, Ursula.

Good Morning Jody:

Conservatives have long supported dictators. Cheney acted like he was one.

Great post, Jody. Hard to figure the people of the right standing up for Mubarak like this---and the money he stole at least in part came from the US in the form of aid. If any foreign leader made any attempt to tell us what to do, we'd go nuts. The right just doesn't seem to be able to get the concept of sovereignty.

And just because our friends at FR announce that the administration "owns" the Egypt crisis doesn't make it so. The Egyptian people own the crisis and they are doing a pretty good job of getting it resolved their way.

Jody, NOBODY is supporting a dictator.

What is being decried is the hopeless incompetence of, as you put it, TeamObama.

They had no idea this was coming- despite CIA warnings late last year. Obama was too busy fruitlessly campaigning.

James Clapper seems to think that the Muslim Brotherhood is some kind of community organizing group- like the Rotary. He could possibly buy a clue by reading their motto- Islam is the Answer. They seem to believe that Islam is a state that begins in Spain, and extends to Indonesia. Oh, and Jihad is necessary to restore those lands. And Sharia is the way to ensure justice and prosperity.

Obama congratulated the Egyptian people for e,bracing "change", and pushing Mubarak aside- hours before Mubarak announced that he was staying put. He later attempted to tell Mubarak to go- and was told in no uncertain terms to back off.

There is competence for you.

It is far too similar to the Carter administration embracing Khomeini as a great, "Gandhi like" figure.

Throw in his incompetence on the economy, and his fairy tale energy policy, and you have got Carter 2.0.

Jody:

Good points. I saw today where President Obama is throwing his support behind the Egyptian People and not the Egyptian President. It appears that the Egyptian President has left the building. President Obama played this correct in spite of the pressure from the right.

"President Obama played this correct"... you got that right Navy...and in spite of the fact that the "I hate America" right wing is hoping for failure. One wonders what kind of patriotism that is?

Navy Disabled: It appears that the Egyptian President has left the building. President Obama played this correct in spite of the pressure from the right.

I guess "playing it correct" for Obama is him looking like a total idiot to the entire world about what is going on. And that includes his so-called "intelligence" community.

You Lefties ever going to stop grading Obama on a curve? Even with that, Obama is getting a D-.

If the Administration is handling this badly, what's the simple, obvious solution to an unstable situation in a foreign land? The correct answer will protect US interests no matter how this turns out, ensure that this doesn't destabilize the entire region, and leave the US in a stronger position with Middle Eastern people of all stripes than we were before.

You may now pick up your pencils and begin.

Joanna, they will never stop grading him on a curve. They are hopelessly delusional.

$840billion in stimulus, that stimulated nothing but the deficit.

600,000 new, stimulus created jobs that were to appear in the summer of 2009- that did not.

Last summer was the summer of recovery- that did not.

You never hear a peep- we are supposed to forget- they have.

Yesterday's performance by both Obama and Clapper showed the thinking world that his entire team is infected with the same gross incompetence that hobble Obama.

They did not notice.

HCR is unconstitutional? Let's bring down the African American justice- he is off the plantation, so we cannot have that!

Businesses should hire people because unemployment is high! I actually thought that was one of the most singularly stupid remarks any politician ever made- until yesterday, when he seemed to be telling us that the Egyptian people were motivated by his old campaign slogan.

I wonder what next year's will be- hope for less stupidity? How much worse can it get? Or, do you think he will stick with WTF?

If the Administration is handling this badly, what's the simple, obvious solution to an unstable situation in a foreign land?

Well, John, there is always keeping your mouth shut until you know what is happening, rather than speaking as if what you want to happen has already occurred.

There is also recognizing REALITY- not your ivory tower interpretation of a group.

Throw in a little preparedness, like reading the CIA reports that warned against this late last year, and you might actually be able to come up with a coherent policy.

So, what would you do? You still haven't iterated a policy.

Good Morning Jody,

Always enjoy your posts - civil and reasonable.

No matter what President Obama does, conservatives will always "slam," as the media loves to say, him. It has become something of a hobby. Even journalists right there in Egypt said there were conflicting reports. This thing is massive and while the U.S. can offer help, ideas, opinions, etc., it is for the Egyptians to work out. 30 years of power is a hard thing to give up, whether he's right or wrong. But it is for Egypt to solve, not us. It is easy to criticize from the sidelines, but the President is walking a fine line and has to navigate it as best he can. And for those who criticize the intelligence community under this administration, remember WMD's.

Good luck to the Egyptian people-may your dreams come true.

Mr. President, good luck to you as well. Regardless of what some say, you still have a whole lot of support.

Liberals, thanks for adding to the thoughts; and JOI G, I appreciate that you enjoy my comments, thank you.

As for the naysayer twosome--misery loves company, guess they missed Santorum and Cheney's remarks that we should be supporting Mubarak because he's been our ally.

"Well, John, there is always keeping your mouth shut until you know what is happening"

Finally, something I can agree with NoJoe about! You do include yourself in that advice, don't you, No?

I somehow knew things in Egypt would change even before I finished typing that last comment:

"CAIRO — Hosni Mubarak has resigned as president of Egypt, the country's vice president said in a brief statement Friday.

Omar Suleiman, speaking on state television, said Mubarak had decided to depart "the office of the president of the republic" and said the Supreme Council of the armed forces would "run the state."

Leading Egyptian democracy advocate Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, said Friday was "the greatest day of my life."

"The country has been liberated after decades of repression," he told The Associated Press. He said he expected a "beautiful" transition of power.

And yes, they'll change another hundred times over the next few weeks. Maybe we should all just sort of take a deep breath and wait and see on this?

Huh? I didn't know that Egypt was an American colony. Do we own the pyramids, too?

I was thinking the same thing Houston! ;o)

I was going to say something about what the British used to call the "White Man's Burden" to control the governments in that area of the world. But I guess with Obama as president, the FR writers must think it's the Black Man's Burden now.

One things for sure Houston! - Thankfully, it's NOT the "Orange Man's Burden"

Could you imagine a weepy, hormonally imbalanced booze hound handling this situation?

*shudders*

RVZ555

Jeez, you political newcomers need to study up.

It's always fun to see an ignoramus tell other people they need to study something. Maybe YOU should study up on how European and US meddling in the affairs of the Middle East are largely responsible for messing things up there, as when they engineered the coup in the 1950s that overthrew a democratic government in Iran and imposed the brutal Shah, who was in turn overthrown by the crazy ayatollahs who rule there now.

Houston:

They never let the facts get in the way of their mindless rhetoric. They like to point out that President Obama got caught flat footed, well so did everybody else, including the Egyptian people who are on the front lines and that includes their Military that put out the story that the Egyptian President was stepping down and then pulled a McCain.

Thanks, Houston! for pointing that out... Comments like 'now owns' say much more about the author than the reality of any given situation. Another favorite is 'caught blindsided'... I guess when you're trying to stay relevant 24/7, you need lots of fill words and catch phrases...

Yes, thank you Houston.

Egypt is a sovereign nation halfway around the world, in an area with hundreds of years of meddling by outside powers who've made them broadly distrustful. With good reason.

If we support Mubarek too strongly we become a hated force should he fall, as seems likely. If we throw our support fully behind the uprising we'll be the enemy of yet another Middle Eastern strongman should he survive. Really, there is no option beyond stating our support for the nation of Egypt regardless how this turns out, and reaching a hand out to the winner once it's been resolved.

In other words, the path that's being pursued.

John B----I would add that the rest of the Middle East's leaders are also giving mixed signals---they recognize the role Egypt plays but fear the recent spread of unrest spreading to their countries next. That is something they definitely don't want either. So they don't want us speaking out against Mubarak and some of them sell us a lot of oil and own a lot of our debt.

Bob. The only reason race will be an issue for Barbour or anyone else is if they are racist.

Racism is only okay for the left.

See the smear of Clarence Thomas for proof.

He is decried as stupid, thoughtless, and a puppet of his (gasp) white wife.

The conflict of interest issue they attempt to use was NEVER mentioned with regard to (white) governor Ed Rendell who is married to a (white) Appeals court justice on his circuit.

Nor is it brought up with regard to a (white) ninth circuit court justice who is married to the (white) head of the southern California branch of the ACLU.

I have long suspected the left of racism. They seem to go out of their way to prove it, over and over.

Joe. The reason people are opposed to Thomas has nothing to do with his color. Feeble effort on your part.

Are you suggesting that it's OK for Justice Thomas to lie for YEARS on his disclosure forms about income brought into the household by his wife's lobbying activities?

Are you suggesting that it's OK for Justice Thomas to rule on matters of which his household has a clear financial interest?

Are you suggesting that it's inappropriate to ask why Justice Thomas voted to overturn over 100 years of settled law to tak a position advocated for profit by his wife?

Your red herring argument re: racism is of no merit. The real questions are above and you've yet to address ANY of them.

Bob

Wow, could it be that the same thing is being done to the Governor, as far as using the race card, like what has been done to the President, as far as painting him as a Muslin, Nazis, Socialist, not born in the U.S, and un-American, you name it.

No Joe----it is beyond me how you can accuse people who support the first African-American President of racism when we criticize Justice Thomas. It is a matter of ethics in how Justice Thomas has conducted himself. If you brought me evidence that a liberal justice's spouse had done what Mrs. Thomas has done on behalf of a liberal group and cause, I would feel exactly the same way---that it is an appearance of impropriety and should stop.

And by evidence I don't mean the fact that Gov. Rendell's wife was a federal lower court judge while he was the governor---I mean actual evidence.

no joe, no bo, nj

Racism is only okay for the left.

See the smear of Clarence Thomas for proof.

No Jo if you want to call me a racist when it comes to Clarence(sexual harassment laws) Thomas!! fine, i will be happy to be that!!!!

i found it inserting that your did not respond to my post about this dirty old man!!!! i mentioned what the problems many black and white liberal have with this goof!!!! its stranage that Chief Justice John G. Roberts does not have these questions, neither did sandra O'connor, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

its strange that non of these spouses are doing the underhanded crap that jenny is doing, but this is not the main problem i have with dirty old man!!!

Yesterday i mentioned how he threw his mother andsister under the bus to impress the senate committee, be detailing family problems that should have stayed in the family.

He took advantage of the affirmative action programs in the 60s to get where his is at, and not he thinks they have out lived there purpose,(now he has his screw everybody else)

he lyed his grumpy old ass off during the conformation hearing, reguarding Anita Hill with jenny sitting there wwaiting for the time when she could call out sister for almost ruining everything, it took 20 years!!!!! but she did it. up till that point i felt sorry for her being married to a dog, but after that No Jo they are one in the same!!! trash!!!!!

In 2000 when the high court handed the presidency to Bush, while the other justices offered there reasons for there rulings, Old man goof sat there and did not say 1 word!!!! not one!!!! most times judges like to here then selves talk but not this guy!!! he was there for the ride and did what he was told!!! GOOD BOY!!!!

Next!!!! and most important, No Jo and i mean this, my grandmother thought justice marshall deserved to be on the highcourt because as a lawyer he made a real difference in america for years to come, so i will say this once again and i hope you respond!!

Justice marshall argure and won Brown--board of ED!!!! making sure that all american not just black get a equal education oppertunity. remember seperate but equal.

what did Clarence Thomas do to deserve to be on the high court????? what?????

Jeff, I did not see your question.

I watched the Thomas confirmation hearings- well into the nights, as you may recall. I listened, and discussed with friends and family. It seemed to be a clear case of "he said, she said", and we debated at length what the resolution should be if we were on the judiciary committee.

Then came the testimony, that Hill also gave, that made up my mind for me: she was visiting an old college professor, ( who also testified to this), at his invitation, because Thomas was also visiting. All well and good- after all, she had a career to manage, and turning down the invitation would not be best.

Then Hill, the professor, and Thomas ALL testified that she drove Thomas to the airport.

That did it for me.

See, Jeff, as a woman, I can tell yup that I would have had ten handy excuses not to do so. I had an appointment on the other side of town. I had another invitation to dinner, and would be late if I did so. You get the idea.

Thomas had to cancel the car he had coming for him, and Hill drove him to the airport. If that man had harassed me, there is no way on this green earth I would have been alone in a car with him.

At that point, with that testimony, I knew Hill was lying.

I do not know what motivated her. I can tell you that EVERY single one of my women friends, left and right, heard that testimony, and came to the same conclusion. And, as women, were infuriated.

So, watching that spectacle, and seeing the reaction of the left to this man, who is not "in the mold" of what the left believes he SHOULD be, I call racism.

That is my opinion.

If you want to call it racism, that your opinion i call it not being good enough for the job at hand!!!!!

has it been proven she was lying!!! NO!!!! so i ask you woman or not, your lawyer and lying to the senate commitee you know as a lawyer you could and would be disbared. what would she take that chance, No Jo, why.

so please respond to my question, what in gods name did justice dirty do to deserve to be on the high court?

Here, Jeff

http://www.biography.com/articles/Clarence-Thomas-9505658

Ifmyou do not believe rising from such poor circumstances, graduating from Yale law school,serving in various government legal positions earns him the rightmto the bench, well, I am sorry.

He is as deserving as any other justice.

I do not like Justice Ginsberg's judicial philosophy, nor Justice Breyer's- but I do not undermine their credibility by questioning their right to serve on the bench.

I have heard Thomas called a "traitor to his race"- Jeff, that is racism, pure and simple. Those who saymit are actually saying that skin color determines thinking- and anyone who thinks differently is to be demeaned.

Justice Thomas is as deserving as any other justice.

No Jo thank you for the link, this ruling is what I'm talking about,

Thomas's conservative ideology also was apparent in his opinions on the issue of school desegregation; in Missouri v. Jenkins (1995), for example, he wrote a 27-page concurring opinion that condemned the extension of federal power into the states and tried to establish a legal justification for reversing the desegregation that had begun in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Because “desegregation has not produced the predicted leaps forward in black educational achievement,” Thomas argued, “there is no reason to think that black students cannot learn as well when surrounded by members of their own race as when they are in an integrated environment.”

this goof interperated the Brown v. Board of Education wrong. I'm not a lawyer but if i'm not mistaken the major part of this case was that seperate but equal was unconstitutional. if we are seperate and really equal in terms of school facilities, books and the distance black children has to walk to school verses white kids, it was not equal, the fact white kids road busses and black had to walk was not equal. (my dad in MS has to walk 2 miles to a old wood frame school, but walked past 2 white schools in the 40s) !! there for the seperate but equal was not right, because things were not equal, right.

this goof says that Brown v. Board of Education was about, there is no reason to think that black students cannot learn as well when surrounded by members of their own race as when they are in an integrated environment.”

The ruling was not about intergration it was about making schools equal, and if intergration had to be done to insure a equal oppuntunity education then that was to be done, In chicago my mother said that after the ruling, it did not intergrate chicago public schools but what it did do was to provide the same tools as white school to black schools that has been cut off from getitng the new books, updated facilities.

No Jo i may be wrong, but as a average guy, i see Clarence Thomas as a Iddiot that could not even realise that Brown-Board of Ed was the main tool that helped get him where he is, he grew up in Georgia right when schools were segerated, from the time he want to first grade till he finished HS, he recieved a equyal education under the law, a law aruged by the man he replaced, but he is too stupid to understand who important that law was to where he is today.

thanks for the link, you verified what i have said, Clarence is a Dumb A*S.

No one said he has no right to be on the bench. He has no right to advance his conflicts of interest using his lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. That's an entirely different matter.

As opposed to Democrats electing a KKK leader as Majority Leader in the US Senate?

How soon we forget. The KKK and the Democratic Party were interchangable , quite chummy, from 1865 to about 1970 or so.

Keep waving the race card and stirring up hate, it has worked well for Democrats since the Civil War...

Joseph. The pundits have no answers, just questions. And yesterday they had all the wrong answers, they spent most of the day telling us Mubarak was going to resign.

Everyone was surprised by Mubarak's speech, including many of his own inner circle, but the "liberal media" keeps insisting on easy answers, where there are none.

Auntie. WE can only hope the republican teabaggers ( political definition ) do run Trump. It would be almost as dumb as running Palin.

Bill. Keep your day job.

Lyn. Good one, wonder if the pundits regret saying that, shows how little clue that had about what was coming down.

They're your pronouncements, feel free to unveil your alleged marxist, tell us who is "preaching democracy to the Egyptions" and why it's wrong, or show us where your unidentified marxist has been found in contempt of court.

Better yet, how about all three?