REPOST COURTESY OF THE ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALISTS (GOP/TP)

http://www.alan.com/2011/05/03/peter-king-continues-to-insist-waterboarding-led-to-bin-laden-in-spite-of-evidence-it-didnt/

Donald Rumsfeld has stated that waterboarding was not a factor, and so did White House Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan.

“So we’ve been talking about the different details and methods that lead up to this moment, and obviously there is word out today that waterboarding played a very big role or role in actually getting the information,” MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski told Brennan. “Is that the case?”

“Not to my knowledge,” Brennan explained.

“The information that was acquired over the course of nine years or so came from many different sources, human sources, technical sources, as well as information that detainees provided, and it was something that as a result of the painstaking work that the analysts did, they pieced it all together that led us to the Abbottabad compound and led us to the successful operation on Sunday,” he added.

This morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Obama’s counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan confirmed that the information acquired over nine years did not come from waterboarding but was pieced together from multiple sources.

Update Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer informed King this morning of Rumsfeld's insistence that waterboarding was not used. King dismissed Rumsfeld, stating "it's no reflection of Donald Rumsfeld who I have a great respect for, but I'm telling you that people who are on the ground, people who are in a position to know, they told me that.

>> So king has NO proof, just hearsay from his cronies. This is the same man that headed the McCarthy Style Hearings claiming that all Muslims are terrorists and supports torture and people use his rhetoric as an offer of proof that waterboarding worked??

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/john-mccain-neither-waterboarding-nor-any-other-form-of-torture-led-to-bin-laden/

>> In both a Washington Post Op-Ed and a speech today on the Senate floor, McCain completely dismantled the argument that torture led to Osama bin Laden:

“With so much misinformation being fed into such an essential public debate as this one, I asked the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta, for the facts. And I received the following information:

“The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. We did not first learn from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the real name of bin Laden’s courier, or his alias, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the man who ultimately enabled us to find bin Laden. The first mention of the name Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, as well as a description of him as an important member of Al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country. The United States did not conduct this detainee’s interrogation, nor did we render him to that country for the purpose of interrogation. We did not learn Abu Ahmed’s real name or alias as a result of waterboarding or any ‘enhanced interrogation technique’ used on a detainee in U.S. custody. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts, or an accurate description of his role in Al-Qaeda.

“In fact, not only did the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed; it actually produced false and misleading information. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married, and ceased his role as an Al-Qaeda facilitator — which was not true, as we now know. All we learned about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti through the use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ against Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the confirmation of the already known fact that the courier existed and used an alias.

“I have sought further information from the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and they confirm for me that, in fact, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in Al-Qaeda and his true relationship to Osama bin Laden — was obtained through standard, non-coercive means, not through any ‘enhanced interrogation technique.’

“In short, it was not torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees that got us the major leads that ultimately enabled our intelligence community to find Osama bin Laden. I hope former Attorney General Mukasey will correct his misstatement. It’s important that he do so because we are again engaged in this important debate, with much at stake for America’s security and reputation. Each side should make its own case, but do so without making up its own facts.

http://www.alan.com/2011/05/02/rumsfeld-no-waterboarding-leading-to-courier-timeline-doesnt-match-up/

…while the CIA may have learned the courier’s nickname earlier, they didn’t learn his true name until “four years ago”–so late 2006 at the earliest. And they didn’t learn where the courier operated until around 2009.

From these dates we can conclude that either KSM shielded the courier’s identity entirely until close to 2007, or he told his interrogators that there was a courier who might be protecting bin Laden early in his detention but they were never able to force him to give the courier’s true name or his location, at least not until three or four years after the waterboarding of KSM ended

With al-Libi, the connection between whatever torture he experienced and this intelligence is less clear (since he was first detained in 2005), but even with al-Libi, it appears clear he either never revealed the courier’s real name or only did so after he had been in custody for a year, and almost certainly until after he arrived in Gitmo.

And Donald Rumsfeld says that information that led to the courier source was obtained using “normal interrogation approaches” and that it’s a “myth” that waterboarding took place at Gitmo.

Asked if harsh interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay played a role in obtaining intelligence on bin Laden’s whereabouts, Rumsfeld declares: “First of all, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay. That’s a myth that’s been perpetrated around the country by critics.

“The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.”

They all benefit by Huck's departure because that gives them more room to lie.

The ethically challenged individuals on the Right keeping talking about “Obama borrowed 4 trillion dollars in 2 years”…

Well, yeah. Somebody had to pay for those 2 wars and the Medicare Part D Program because George W kept them off the books. That is some Enron-like accounting isht and the MSM never calls them out when they make those claims.

To further underscore the point, Pat Buchanan even suggested this morning on Morning Joe that if the Debt Ceiling issue isn’t resolved satisfactorily it will be Obama’s fault because it happened on his watch.

Huh? There are reams and reams of footage of Republicans saying they will not vote to raise the Debt Ceiling. Period. Economy be damned.

And somehow that is Obama’s fault.

Really?

You want to kick 95 percent of all Republicans and Tea Partiers out of the running for 2012?

Just say: "He voted to end Medicare, close our schools, while voting to lower taxes on the wealthy."

xxx

Not again! lol

It's still your turn to bring the *popcorn*

As the debate on budgeting continues the primary focus of Conservatives is to paint themselves as the reasonable ones in the conversation and anyone who disagrees with their position as radical Liberals who will destroy the country. Is that the case? Let's see what another Republican has to say about it…Michael Stafford, former Republican Party officer from Delaware and contributor to the blog of Conservative David Frum;

Four members of the Congressional House Republican Caucus voted against Congressman Paul Ryan's budgetary "Path to Prosperity." Had I been there and had the opportunity to do so, I would have proudly been among their number. There's a simple reason for this: Paul Ryan is an "[Ayn] Rand nut."[1] His proposal isn't a path to prosperity or fiscal sanity, it's a projection of an Objectivist vision for our society, our nation, and its future. And that's a dark path we'd do well to avoid.

http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/ryan-rand

Ah, here we go again, the long-dead Welfare Queen http://boingboing.net/2011/01/28/ayn-rand-took-govern.html with the sudden, outsized influence on the politics of today. Devotees of her fictional view of the world are more common and more influential than ever;

"Ryan sees the coming fiscal crisis not as the gap between revenue and outlay but as the prophecy of Atlas Shrugged come to life — an overbearing government punishing the productive to aid the unproductive and precipitating a total collapse:

When Ryan warns of the specter of collapse, he is not merely referring to the alarming gap between government outlays and receipts, as his admirers in the media assume. (Every policy change of the last decade that increased the deficit—the Bush tax cuts, the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—Ryan voted for.) He is also invoking Rand's almost theological certainty that when a government punishes the strong to reward the weak, it must invariably collapse. That is the crisis his Path to Prosperity seeks to avert."[3]

http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/ryan-rand

Perhaps the best way to highlight just how radical this approach is compared to the way Americans have traditionally dealt with problems is to contrast it with the words of President Obama from only a month ago;

"From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America's wealth and prosperity. More than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government.

"But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. And so we've built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens. We've laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. We've supported the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries. Each of us has benefitted from these investments, and we are a more prosperous country as a result.

"Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us. 'There but for the grace of God go I,' we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I'll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/13/6465318-president-obamas-deficit-speech

Republican Stafford has it figured out pretty well;

This is troubling. Ayn Rand is essentially the L. Ron Hubbard of American conservatism. And Objectivism is its closest approximation of a political/ideological cult.[6]

Time and space do not permit an in-depth analysis of Rand's school of libertarian thought, Objectivism, and its various wrinkles and permutations. Thankfully, its essence has already been distilled for us by Charlie Sheen: "Winning!" It really all comes down to that. And from an Objectivist perspective, Winners have a special virtue, a superiority that differentiates them from everyone else. This gives Winners the right, no, more than that, the responsibility, to be selfish. The flip side of this is a tendency to see the poor as somehow lacking in virtue- they are poor because they are lazy, because they have defective or deficient characters, because they are just not quite smart enough to make the cut.

The only thing holding back the Winners from achieving even more is the rest of us, and especially the poor and the government that supports and protects them through social welfare programs. To an Objectivist, Winners are producers; the poor are a drain, an anchor holding society back… useless mouths. The greatest sin is to take from Winners and redistribute to the poor.

Debt zealots, the Charlie Sheens of American politics.

John B:

Great post for a Monday. It is all about "ideology" and NOT about what is right for the country. The GOP/TP see the current economical and political environment in this country as their opportunity to respin the very fabric of this country into their ideal of a totalitarian society based on Class Warfare".

This is indeed a plan we should we be earned to steer away from.

One thought on the budget:

It is not feasible to balance the budget using spending reductions, without tax increases. A balance budget with cuts only to spending would require the reduction of Medicare and the pentagon budgets to zero spend.

Salt Grass:

You understand it perfectly. Spending Cuts alone will not get us out of this mess. We need both Spending Cuts and an increase in Revenues. One will not work without the other.

Ayn Rand - My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

“Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”

You can see why the Tea party and libertarians would love her because of the “me” first philosophy. One can also see why those with a differing political idealogy wouldn’t like her. Perhaps a better understanding of her philosophy is her value for “I” vs. “We”. Although, realistically no man/woman is an island; her philosophy garnered mostly from her fiction is not feasible.

However, it is best to not look at things in a vacuum. Perhaps Ms. Rand’s extreme unyielding philosophy can be excused. We must remember that she grew up under the oppression of the Soviet communist system. She saw the Bolsheivek revolution and suffered under their rule as a child and in her professional academic life prior to coming to US. In my eyes I can see where she was coming from. I can't say the same for the Tea Party, small government types.

John B - By the way, she not only took government help as your link states but she overstayed her VISA, breaking immigration laws.

I have never read Atlas Shrugged, but understand that it deals with government punishing business entrepreneurs. However, I did read “Anthem” before and I must say that I liked it. What can I say I like future apocalyptic science fiction movies, people in the future ignorant and fearful of their past, sort of like “Planet of the Apes.”

I think her philosophy can make for a great fiction novel, but you can't directly translate it into real life in pure totality unless you are a "soverign citizen" or "unibomber" anti-government zealot.

Absolutely, it's a completely unrealistic view of the world. Thanks for mentioning the "sovereign citizens." 60 Minutes had a great piece on the sovereign citizens movement last night, I'd assume it's available online and it's well worth a look (sorry to plug the competition, FR, but it was good work and fits the conversation). These are the sorts of groups the Department of Homeland Security had in mind when they got Conservative panties in a wad everywhere with their report warning of right-wing extremist groups.

Which is why I mean it when I say that history will not look well upon this time when the Republican Party mainstreamed crazy.

I saw 60 Minutes with Robert Gates and that piece on the "sovereign citizens". Talk about purist ideology without realism--that's them. They're scared of everything, believe in nothing except self. What I wondered was if they hate this country so much, why don't they just move somewhere else but the answer is because only in this great country would they have the freedom to be so foolish and naive; they would never choose a country with a dictator who would likely throw them in prison for anti-so and so views; nor would they choose Europe which they would consider the same as the US.

We must cut spending and raise taxes. If people could just put away their selfishness and political aspirations this problem could be solved in a matter of weeks. BUT NO, democrats won't give an inch and neither will republicans.

Taxes should be raised on the wealthiest back to the pre-obama tax cuts. Subsidies for Oil must be ended. BUT in agreeing to that the republicans must force the democrats to raise the age for social security and cut welfare. I am 53 years old, and i'll admit I can't remember when it happened but the age at which I can draw social security has been increased. (I believe it was in the 80s but not sure). I can't draw full benefits until I am 67 and 1/2. But when it was raised I didn't have a screaming fit, I said well thats just the way it is. I did without certain nice things so that I could save more of my money for my retirement. I don't get a new car every year, I don't have the fanciest telephone out there, I don't live in a house that I can't afford. I don't expect other people to take care of me. Social Security was NEVER supposed to be the sole income for elderly.

Welfare must be cut. It could be cut a great deal by just eliminating all the fraud that goes on. People should have to show an I.D anytime they attemp to buy anything with food stamps. That would stop the selling of them. Any one on welfare must submit to drug testing every week. If the fail the test just once, they should not be entitled to their check that week. Maybe that'll force some responsibility on these people.

Janet - We must cut spending and raise taxes.... Taxes should be raised on the wealthiest back to the pre-obama tax cuts. Subsidies for Oil must be ended. BUT in agreeing to that the republicans must force the democrats to raise the age for social security and cut welfare.

Not a lot that I can disagree with in your post, perhaps only that I would not go as far on the weekly drug testing. Entitlement reform and spending cuts are a part of the solution just as raising taxes is. Thanks for being responsible and seeing the whole picture/solution. Let us just hope that the politicians can cut a deal that we can all stomach.

Stepping away from the argument about government spending to focus on personal spending, it seems to me that the nature of individual's saving and spending has changed. It's went away from living within your means ala "The Millionaire next door" shifting to the "$30,000 Millionaire". For that I blame the Baby Boomers starting in the 80's "me first decade". I agree with you on taking personal responsibility when possible, but that is not to say that the government budget can be compared to a household budget.

I remember back in the 60s when the new movement called "Hippies" were against everyone being the same. The crowd was against Ayn Rand for her take on being responsible for one's self. After a short while all the Hippies looked, talked, dressed, got high together and became the "one" they were all against.

Today the remnants of this Hippie movement is a US $40 billion dollar bill to drug cartels in Mexico.

Seems to me we lost our way some time back in 1969 and have been picking our way through the maze of "self" ever since trying to find the gate to come out so we can go home.

The protesters from the sixty's are tea partying today. They are still anti-government.

Del, the world will be a better place once people stop thinking today's society is nothing but a continuation of the "hippies vs squares" conflicts of 45 years ago. You neglect to mention that the Ayn Rand advocates of the time were red baiters and John Birch Society crazies too far to the fringe for responsible Conservatives like Barry Goldwater and William F Buckley.

Now the sons of John Birch Society cofounder Fred Koch are spending vast sums to turn the unrealistic, fictional, selfish world of Ayn Rand into some crazy experiment on American society.

Republican Michael Stafford isn't limited by that baggage, being a 2003 law school graduate. Without the emotional handicap of that earlier time he sees how radically the Rand cultists would change America;

Most Americans understand that entitlement reform is necessary. Many of us recognize that core social programs are on unsustainable trajectories. And we know that simply raising taxes, or eliminating tax exemptions, standing alone, isn't an answer. But I don't think Ryan's proposal is a reform- it's more like an Objectivist evisceration, both of the social contract, and of the power of the federal government itself.

As Pope Benedict XVI has taught in the encyclical Caritas in Veritate: "Many people today would claim that they owe nothing to anyone, except to themselves. They are concerned only with their rights, and they often have great difficulty in taking responsibility for their own and other people's integral development. Hence it is important to call for a renewed reflection on how rights presuppose duties, if they are not to become mere license." Sadly, the budgetary proposals of Congressional Republicans are a repudiation of the Pope's urgent call.[13]

In the midst of economic and fiscal crisis, it is important that we not lose sight of our shared responsibilities for each other, and for our society as a whole. Now, more then ever, we need to attend to the commons, and to the common good. We need to ensure that our economy, and our government, equitably distributes the benefits and burdens generated by both booms and busts.

In the end, if you are in the middle or working classes, then Ryan's proposal isn't a "Path to Prosperity"- it is a roadmap to oligarchy and systemic inequality. It repudiates our obligation to the common good, and ignores our responsibilities towards the most vulnerable members of our society. And that’s a path I’d rather not tread.

http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/ryan-rand

A quick side note about Ayn Rand.

Famed individualist Ayn Rand secretly received Social Security and Medicare benefits under the name Ann O'Connor, a social worker and consultant to her law firm revealed in a 1998 interview. In Oral History of Ayn Rand, a book by Scott McConnell of the Ayn Rand Institute, Evva Pryror reveals, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out." She said Rand took the benefits even though she "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently ... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

Oh the irony!

Very ironic, isn't it? Even the high priestess of the cult of ultimate selfishness found that she wasn't an island and actually needed society. It's a basic fact of life in civilization, one that's been known not for generations but for centuries that we band together BECAUSE we depend on each other, not in spite of it.

"No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." John Donne, 1624

If you guys think all republicans buy into the philosophy of Ayn Rand, you are seriously mistaken! It appears you are reading a lot of alarmist literature and running with it. I have been a republican for years, though I am a good bit more moderate than I used to be; and I know many, many republicans, most of whom are a good bit more conservative than I am. I don't know a single one who buys into Ayn Rand's philosophy. It certainly appears to be true that Ryan admires Ms. Rand and recommends the book Atlas Shrugged to all his staff, but that does not mean that everyone in the Republican Party agrees with the book or even that they have read it.

Many republicans are very concerned about debt and would like to see cuts in spending to decrease our huge national deficit, which I think we all agree can be laid at the door of several presidential administrations. (Does it really matter who was the "worst" when figures can be manipulated to show almost anything we want them to show and we are where we are regardless of who got us here? Isn't it more important at this point to solve the problem than to keep yelling and pointing fingers at each other?) Anyway, I personally am concerned about some of the areas that are being cut, though I agree that cuts have to be made somewhere. I am not sure where our taxes are compared to years past because my family has been out of work for a year-despite 2 master's degrees including an MBA, multiple qualifications, having headed the most productive team in the company prior to layoff, and being willing to take lower-level, cross-industry, or even cross-country positions-and has only recently gotten part time contract work. We are very grateful to be working! Since we are at a negative income right now, it's hard to think of paying more taxes! We are at the very end of the Baby Boomers, so I have resigned myself that there likely will not be much if anything left of Social Security by the time we get there, even though we have been paying into it all along like everyone else.

It does appear that some politicians care only about the rich or the elite-sometimes the republicans look more that way-however, I have seen major abuses by both parties. Often I despair of finding leaders who will really care about what is best for this country. So often both sides seem to vote almost exclusively along party lines regardless of the issue. I don't know a single republican or democrat who cares only about self. I just don't understand why we can't seem to work together to resolve these issues when we have these problems in common. It's true that the ideas on different sides are quite different, but why can't there be compromise like there used to be in years past? It's as if everyone has their heels dug in the ground like a bunch of mules and no one is willing to budge an inch!

I've said this a million times, but we are like a bunch of loonies yelling and throwing deck chairs at each other on the deck of the Titanic, making fun of each other and mocking the captain and the shipping company, instead of looking for lifeboats or things that might float as the frigid water comes up and the band plays.

Nash:

The new GOP/TP Party is lost. They currently have nothing to offer this country other than false and empty promises that they continue to break. The people are starting to catch on. Last election they campaigned on JOBS and Economy and then do everything but JOBS and Economy.

Their only plan is a flawed DRACONIAN piece of paper that will repeal Medicare, Medicaid, over 50 Social Programs, add about 5.5 Trillion to the debt all the time while giving the 2% 4.2 Trillion in tax cuts. The Ryan Bill is nothing more than a road map for the destruction of the Middle Class and "Class Warfare". It will fail, period.

Even members of the GOP/TP and trying to walk away from this DRACONIAN Bill.

This is all the got, no new ideas, the ones they have do not work, they have no strong Presidential Candidate etc. etc.

President Obama in 2012 for sure.

Great post, Nash----I really think Newt is saying----well, maybe my personal behavior hasn't been the best (for various reasons---patriotism, sin, lapses, who knows) but I'm really smart so you should vote for me. I would just like a little more from my President.

Howard Fineman made the point on Chris Matthews yesterday that Newt looks even worse when contrasted to the Obama family----first marriage for each, two adorable daughters, mother-in-law helping out---kind of All-American.

President Obama is the only real choice we have. Any of these Republicans running would be a failure.

To save the United States, we must re-elect President Obama and we will.

It's a little late to back away from the Ryan budget now, USN. They VOTED for it. It's THEIR budget. It's their PLAN.

John B: 100% agreed. ANy bets that by 2012 they will deny this as well??.

Great posts today, thank you

Boehner is already trying to claim the 235 Yea votes on the Ryan budget was just one of many ideas the GOP is considering. How lame--if it was one of many, where are the votes on the others or why didn't they debate them, too.

w bush

Related: Almost a third of Blue Dog Democrats (DINO) who
retired or were defeated in 2010 are now lobbyists. Good government
advocates like Common Cause view this “revolving door” with skepticism as “it often appears that members of Congress are using their public service as a steppingstone to a far more lucrative job.”

Theseare the same DINO’s that fought against financial reform while in Congress.

It's time to speak up for Elizabeth Warren for head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. There's a Facebook page if you're on that media, I'm sure there are online petitions that aren't linked to FB as well. WRITE to your representatives...this opportunity will not last if we don't stand up and demand a strong advocate for average Americans.

@USNavy - They will be backing away and rewriting the history of their vote for the Ryan Budget, however, they will be allowed to do so by the media that is supposed to be questioning them on the facts and making them give honest answers. A thing that seems to be sorely lacking. I wish they would get rid of David Gregory, for one. He is absolutely useless. And the problem with Republicans is their rudeness, their lack of anything but talking points which they spout over and over regardless of the question. The sad part is they are allowed to get away with it.

Thats Obama's new campaign slogan.

I guess it beats WTF.

Hey, no joe ~ What do you think about the news that Osama bin Laden badly wanted to kill President Obama?

Doesn't that sort of blow all those theories about Obama as a Muslim sympathizer right out of the water?

I don't hear anything bin Ladin wanting to kill George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. I wonder why.

And come to think of it, I don't hear any conservatives talking about it.

I wonder why. Not.

"BREAKING NEWS: Osama bin Laden...STILL DEAD!"

Sure, but how about Generalissimo Francisco Franco??? SNL has been strangely quiet about that for the last several years......

no joe:

Still thinking about the President you "hate" I see! :o)

aM- no, I did not hear that, but I am unsurprised. I'm willing to bet he did want to kill Bush- as well as a lot of other Americans.

As to his being a "Muslim empathizer"- I would not know about that, either. I have my own belief about his religious tendencies,

I am pretty sure that the only being he worships is the man he sees in the mirror.

I have never seen anything that disputes that. . .

As to this election, none of this baloney matters at all.

It's the economy, which stinks.

It is patently obvious that Obama does not have a clue how to fix it. His one solution, spending, has been proven to exacerbate the problems. His other solution, pursuing a weak dollar strategy, has also exacerbated the problem, by feeding inflation.

Here is one example of why that is such a lousy idea: milk prices.

Demand for milk products has risen dramatically in China, which would have had the effect of both increasing profits to dairy farmers AND spurring production. However, thanks to the weak dollar, farmers are actually seeing decreased profits, which, in turn, dampens production. Thus- shortages, driven by both an increase in demand and a reduction in the rate of supply.

Thus, six dollar a gallon milk by the end of the summer.

People vote their pocketbooks. So far, the media is doing its part by feeding the egos of unlikely GOP candidates. I do not think it will work next year, however.

See, when both grocery and gas prices settle at their new, higher rate, unemployment stays unacceptably high, and wages are stagnant, people are going to be looking for a change. The one they got with Obama was not, exactly, what they hoped for- too many of them agree that WTF is the way they feel about Obama's presidency.

Maybe he can send a sub after bin Laden's corpse, and have him shot again.

I know something else that stinks,...and something else that is patently obvious,...

I'll leave it to the imagination,...

Each and every no joe post features: :

- Take an actual fact, and then use that as a basis to ramble on about som abstract economic concept that always ends with "It's Obama's fault".

- Wonders why "Obama" ain't as smart as she is

-Just make something up and then dress it up in fancy speak

-I hate Obama because he is all I can think about.

-Ignore any fact presented that contradicts her unsubstantiated"comments"

- A noun, a verb, Obama

I do admire here persistence though. :o)

@Anna -- What it tells me is that no matter what the USA does, who runs the country, etc., the radical islamists want us dead and the those who aren't radical are in the same boat when it comes to we infidels. As Christians and a Christian nation, we need to pay heed to James --

You unfaithful people! Don't you know that love for this [evil] world is hatred toward God? Whoever wants to be a friend of this world is an enemy of God.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

Ben, you know not what you speak. I usually just ignore comments such as yours but please explain how it is we are a Christian Nation? The Constitution does NOT make such a claim. We are a Nation of many religions, including the Christian faith; and we are a Nation that gives every person the choice. The United States, thankfully, does not have a recognized State religion. What annoys me most by comments such as Ben's is not that he is Christian but rather that he implies that only republicans are. Republicans do not have a lock on faith nor are all republicans "faithful".

@Ben - the reason people came to this country to settle was for religious freedom - where you get your notions I don't know. How all of a sudden did this become a Christian nation. Maybe you forgot the Jews, the Protestants, the Catholics, the Buddhists, the Atheists, the Muslims, the Agnostics. Not any of those believe the same thing. Your "Christian Nation " philosophy is why millions have been killed in the name of religion and of God, and I betcha God doesn't like that much, nor Jesus, if you're of the Christian (which one????) faith.

Ben:

What it tells me is that no matter what the USA does, who runs the country, etc., the radical islamists want us dead and the those who aren't radical are in the same boat when it comes to we infidels. As Christians and a Christian nation, we need to pay heed to James --

So, then, Obama isn't radical. Thank you for that admission. Would you please speak to no joe and let her know?

Meanwhile, according to the founding fathers, the United States is NOT a "Christian nation."

It's called Treaty of Tripoli. Look it up.

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

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The colonies were founded as a business venture. Some people came to America to establish colonies as a way to escape religious persecution. The reason the united states was formed is stated in the declaration of independence.

@anna/cathy/jody -- There are arguments and examples each way so lets drop the Christian nation phrase and let the Bible stand for those who are Christians.

It is true that that Christianity was the majority religion of the first european colonists, it was the majority religion at the time of the country's founding and has remained by far the dominant religion throughout the history of our country. There is no doubt that the country was settled by Christians and has been populated by a Christian majority.

America was founded on three documents: The Declaration of Independence; The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783, and the Constitution. These documents give conclusive proof that America is a Christian nation. One does not need a law degree or a degree in history to grasp this truth. It is obvious to anyone who does not have an agenda. Let us review the documents and show this proof.
Declaration of Independence:
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/decind.html

The Declaration has many references to God throughout the document. The most famous one is that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”
Here are more references to God found in the document:
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God”
Appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World”
With a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence”
The Declaration of Independence does not identify the God whom they are addressing. This could be left open to interpretation and opinion.
The Constitution
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/constitution/

The body of the Constitution makes no reference to God. The Constitution honors the Christian Sabbath. The President was given 10 days to sign a bill into law. The counting of the 10 days does not include the Sabbath. This is found in Article 1, Section 7, and Clause 2 which in part follows:
“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law,”

When the Constitution was completed on September 17, 1787, it was signed by the delegates then to be ratified by the states. The delegates signed the Constitution in the “Year of our Lord.” This is a direct reference to Christianity. This is found in Article 7 which in part follows:

“Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, GO WASHINGTON--Presidt. and deputy from Virginia”

The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783:
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/paris.html

The Paris Peace Treaty was the document which formally ended the Revolution and granted the United States independence from Great Britain. In a real sense, the United States formally became a nation on September 3, 1783.

When the United States became a nation, it was done in the “name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.” The preamble to this Treat states it is based upon the “Holy and undivided Trinity.” The concept of the holy Trinity is unique to Christianity. This statement means the United States was founded on the Christian faith. The complete Preamble follows:

“In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity”

The Treaty then ends just like the Constitution with a statement it is being signed in the “Year of our Lord.” The witnesses representing the United States were John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and D. Hartley. The section in part follows:

“In witness whereof we the undersigned, their ministers plenipotentiary, have in their name and in virtue of our full powers, signed with our hands the present definitive treaty and caused the seals of our arms to be affixed thereto.Done at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three”
D. HARTLEY
JOHN ADAMS
B. FRANKLIN
JOHN JAY

When this concept is applied to the Declaration of Independence, it is clear the reference to “All men are created equal,” was about the holy Trinity. The people of the United States are endowed by their Creator, the holy Trinity, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The God of the Bible is whom the United States is based upon. The unalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness come from the Judeo/Christian God and no one else. He is the Rock of our Republic.

You know, Ben, you make some good points. Our culture and the documents that our country is founded upon definitely have important foundations in the Christian faith. However, those same founding fathers who were Christians took painstaking measures to ensure that everyone has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Obviously, that should include freedom of religion.

@ Ben: I just read the Paris treaty, which is the treaty that ended the Revolutionary War. The part you refer to was obviously written by the British.

In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore ...

In particular, I highly doubt that THESE words:

serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God,

... were written by Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, George Washington, or Benjamin Franklin, for example. Franklin, although raised as an episcopalian, became a Deist as an adult. Washington was raised in the Church of England, but his actual religious beliefs are somewhat obscure, and his writings are singularly devoid of references to Christ or the Christian religion.

The Paris treaty preceded by 13 years the Treaty of Tripoli, which was signed in 1796, AFTER the US had a Constitution. The Constitution probably more accurately reflects the views of the founders. There is no reference of which I am aware in the Constitution to "Christ" or to any "Trinity," holy or otherwise. In addition, the Constitution specifically rejects any religious tests being applied to public office holders. A rather odd thing for a fledgling "Christian nation" to do, don't you agree?

But most importantly, you ignore the fact that most of the founding fathers themselves were NOT primarily Christians. Many of them, like Franklin, were Deists, and references to "God" and especially to the "Creator" ought to be taken in that context.

The Treaty of Tripoli was written during the Washington administration and signed by John Adams. So, I guess that tells you what THEY thought about things at the time of the treaty. In particular, you'll notice that except for the language you cite from the 1783 treaty, that appears to have been penned by an Englishman, there are no other references in the documents you cite to Christianity.

The people of the United States are endowed by their Creator, the holy Trinity, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

If I'm not mistaken, you've inserted a few words here that weren't in the original. If you're going the intellectual route, then at least travel it honestly.

Thomas Jefferson, who wrote those words (and specifically didn't include the part about the Trinity) was most definitely NOT a conventional Christian in his thinking, and is widely credited with the notion of separating Church and State. These actual words from the Declaration of Independence reflect a decidedly Deist, rather than Christian, ethic:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Government derives from the consent of the governed, NOT from God, and certainly not just from the Christian God.

Bethie:

You know, Ben, you make some good points. Our culture and the documents that our country is founded upon definitely have important foundations in the Christian faith. However, those same founding fathers who were Christians ....

Bethie, Please don't encourage people like Ben by unquestioningly accepting their facts. In this case, Ben fudges the language of the Declaration of Independence by adding words that aren't really there and tortures the Paris Treaty to make his point.

The founding fathers, as pointed out in MY post, were most definitely NOT conventional Christians, and the Treaty of Tripoli much more accurately reflects the actual position of the founding fathers as to Christianity and its place in our government.

Anna Good rebuttal. The words "Their creator" is open to interpretation and was intentionally written that way. The declaration was mostly about King George and his antics.

It's also worth noting that even Christians don't even agree on all things. The folks who want most for this to be a "Christian nation" don't even actually limit themselves there...they want THEIR vision of Christianity to be the dominant power in society. Even Christians should value freedom of religion for that reason. This Christian does.

Jo No! Your absolute stupidity continues to amaze us. Keep going and look in the mirror yourself the next time! We all enjoy our laugh at you, not with you!

Guys, I'm a Christian; and I think this is a useless argument. The only document that is actually applicable as far as the law of the land is concerned is the Constitution. The Declaration is also quite important. There are many other letters and historical documents that reflect the views of the founding fathers, but they do not set policy for the country currently. If we wanted to have a war of founding father viewpoints, I'm sure it would be quite entertaining; and I think we all know what religious viewpoints would predominate. I do not see what would be gained by such a "war," however, since the Constitution is quite clear about freedom of religion and the Establishment Clause. Perhaps some would call it semantics; but I would say that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution would definitely keep the US from being a Christian nation, as that would be completely unconstitutional.

Furthermore, discussions like this are naturally disconcerting to people who practice religions other than Christianity and who have the exact same right to freedom of religion as Christians. I can fully understand anyone who might fear that Christians who use terminology like "taking the country back" and "Christian nation" would attempt to set up some type of theocracy. I seriously doubt many Christains actually have that idea, if any (though I can't speak for all Christians in the country); but I do understand why someone might have that fear.

To address one more thing: Freedom OF Religion is not the same as Freedom FROM Religion as some have been trying to say. Freedom OF Religion means that people are free to practice their religions openly without unreasonable constraint. Freedom FROM Religion implies constraint on religious pratices so that they are not practiced openly. If we begin to constrain religious practice from happening openly, then we will no longer have religious freedom but will be like countries such as Saudi Arabia:

"Despite the fact that there are 600,000 ex-patriate Christians living there, Saudi Arabia still has the unsavory title of the world's worst persecutor of Christians. The kingdom does not permit any practice of the Christian faith."

from religioustolerance.org

Ironically, if we were to establish a theocracy of any religion, whether Christianity or other, we would likely ALSO be like Saudi Arabia in part if not in full!

Don't under estimate the ability of the republican/chamber of commerce to convince the voting electorate to cut their own throats, they are much better at the art of deception and mis-direction than the dem's, and they will get people to the poll's.

So true, w bush. Never forget that the legal travesty of Citizens United is still out there. While Democrats have been forced to play as well it was custom-tailored for Republican-dominated groups like the US Chamber of Commerce to legalize bribery and buy the entire government on behalf of the wealthy elites.

Houston:

That is true. They also said that the current price per barrel is about 20-30 dollars higher than it should be because of Wall Street Speculators. This adds about $0.80 per gallon.

We do not have a supply problem currently and a big part of the high cost today is Wall Street. The Ryan Bill has a provision that will gut the very department that was set up to monitor the Speculators by 50%. What does this tell us???

Fortune magazine recently released their annual "Fortune 500", the 500 biggest and most powerful companies on the planet. The Top 5 companies are currently reporting profits up 81% from just a year ago. Here are your Top 5:

1. Wal-Mart

2. Exxon Mobil

3. Chevron

4. ConocoPhillips

5. Fannie Mae

Quick Quiz: What do 3 of the Top 5 companies have in common?

The Ryan Bill has a provision that will gut the very department that was set up to monitor the Speculators by 50%. What does this tell us???

It tells us that Paul Ryan the Randite thinks speculators are "producers" who shouldn't be restrained from taking money at the gas pumps from "losers". By Ryan's definition of "producer," bed bugs are producers, too.

Quick Quiz: What do 3 of the Top 5 companies have in common?

They have two words and the second word starts with "M". (Mart, Mobil, Mae)

Was this what you were going for? ;-)

Grimey:

Great response! Please always stay Republican . . . it is nice to know at least one Republican who has a sense of humor and is able to accept reality occasionally . . . sometimes your posts are my only reminder that people matter more than politics . . . because most of the Republicans I see on the TV usually sound alot more like corporate people than human people.

You give me hope.

They have two words and the second word starts with "M". (Mart, Mobil, Mae)

Was this what you were going for? ;-)

<stands and applauds>

Well played, sir.

@Da Noid -- So, what is wrong with being profitable and in the same company as WalMart and Fannie Mae? I am sure the tens of millions of middle class and seniors in this country who have IRAs, pensions and/or other retirement investments are glad to see profits.

Ben:

Give it a rest. No way the most profitable companies need billion in government subsidies.

Step away from the crazy.

Grimey, I second Nashville!

Ben. No one said there was anything wrong with being profitable. Perhaps a conservative can explain why companies that profitable deserve the federal government's tax breaks created when oil was $18 a barrel to help them develop and grow should continue to get those breaks when the big 5 oil producers made $35 billion the 1st quarter of 2011. Perhaps a conservative can explain how republicans can claim to want "no government interference" in private business yet has no qualms defending and granting those private businesses $4 billion a year in special interest tax breaks for being highly successful and highly profitable private business.

Quick Quiz: What do 3 of the Top 5 companies have in common?

They all make a ton of money from the first one, whose trucks I see on the Interstate highways all the time.

@nashville -- Take the subsidies away. I don't care. That has nothing to do with being profitable or not to the oil companies. It is a gnat on an elephant's behind. Also, wasn't Fannie Mae bailed out LOL!!!!!

@Jody -- Perhaps the democrats can explain this one. You might look at both sides of the aisle.

Every day for two years, President Obama promised voters that he would enact a windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry if he were elected. In a statement released in June of 2008 he said, "I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills." http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWAT00963020080609

Click here to watch President Obama's campaign commercial regarding a windfall profits tax: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJPo5IGTd0A

Within 48 hours of being elected any mention of the windfall profits tax suddenly disappeared from the Obama/Biden Change.gov website. President Obama did not personally offer any explanation for the disappearance of one of his key campaign promises and to this day he has never mentioned it again. (Pre-change, http://www.asbl.com/documents/Economy_Change.pdf ; Post-change, http://change.gov/agenda/economy_agenda/) .

If anyone has a sound and rational explanation as to why President Obama is still allowing the oil and gas industry to devastate our national economy -- as you might put it -- at will to reap windfall profits, I would love to hear it.

Ben-636050

If anyone has a sound and rational explanation as to why President Obama is still allowing the oil and gas industry to devastate our national economy -- as you might put it -- at will to reap windfall profits, I would love to hear it.

The rational answer is that the oil companies and their lobbyists screamed about it loudly, so that was one campaign promise that Obama backed out of. Not his finest moment, but he's kept far more promises than he's broken. Like for instance, the one to get Bin Laden the first good chance he was presented with.

The problem with the Republicans in the House throwing the Ryan plan under the bus is that they all voted for it. Could they really have misread the American people that badly?

Steeler Fan-380417

The problem with the Republicans in the House throwing the Ryan plan under the bus is that they all voted for it. Could they really have misread the American people that badly?

.......................................................

I think they felt that they had a mandate after the fall elections and just took it one step too far. People may bitch and moan about the payroll taxes they pay to this safety net in place but in the end they realize that this is one great safety net for when I retire, perhaps on a fixed income, and I don't want you messing with it. There is a reason it's called the third rail of politics.

...and for the life of me I can't figure out how Newt got 3 woman to have sex with him.

IL: think they felt that they had a mandate after the fall elections and just took it one step too far. People may bitch and moan about the payroll taxes they pay to this safety net in place but in the end they realize that this is one great safety net for when I retire, perhaps on a fixed income, and I don't want you messing with it. There is a reason it's called the third rail of politics.

The problem is that this "safety net" very soon will no longer exist if the program isn't significantly altered. How do you think people that are dependent on the program will feel when their medical payments are no longer made for them? Think they'll want someone to "mess with it" then?

If you think it won't happen, just look at our debt ceiling, which we reach today. The Treasury department is now borrowing money from federal workers pensions to pay its debts because it can no longer borrow the money. That will last for about 3 months, after which either the government raises the debt ceiling, or it has to find another revenue stream, like, cutting the entitlements.

JoAnnaSmith1....

The problem is that this "safety net" very soon will no longer exist if the program isn't significantly altered.

.........................................................
We talked about this extensively last week and there's no need to rehash it. I say we need to fix the system by eliminating waste and fraud and that developing an electronic database will eliminate duplication and make fraud detection esaier. I said fix the prescription plan left unfunded by Bush and see we we are. The OMB agrees with me and says that these fixes alone will save multi billions over time. That at least is a start. Also seems that MOST American would be willing to pay an incremental percentage more to help fund the plan. Not 25 or 35% but 2 or 3% would seems to do it. Do all these things and I'm betting we are dollar neutral on Medicare. BTW...even Gingrich is no longer in favor of vouchers and the GOP now wants to modify not eliminate it

The plan is now funded by payroll deductions so the debt ceiling has zero to do with Medicare. Overhaul it so it's efficient, fix Plan D. See where we are, tweek it and move on.

I guess it is ego, Ira---I saw the 2010 elections as a mandate for everyone to do more about jobs and the economy. I think the Republicans saw the elections as a mandate for how great they are. To date they haven't done anything about jobs and have spent their time on reproductive rights, defunding Planned Parenthood and slashing Medicare. And taking frequent vacations. I just don't think this is what the American people were voting for---kind of like bait and switch advertising. If I were a Democrat running against a House Republican in 2012 (or a Republican primary challenger), my first ad would be to point out that Rep. X voted against Medicare.

SF: If I were a Democrat running against a House Republican in 2012 (or a Republican primary challenger), my first ad would be to point out that Rep. X voted against Medicare.

First ad for a Republican against a Democratic opponent would be "So, what's your plan? And being against my plan isn't a plan"

Steeler Fan-380417..

Add to that list a mandate to repeal "Obamacare" and I totally agree. I don't think they expected this backlash and are now refining their position to something more palatable the American public will consider.

IR: Also seems that MOST American would be willing to pay an incremental percentage more to help fund the plan. Not 25 or 35% but 2 or 3% would seems to do it.

Looks like "most American's" will have to pony up 2-3% here, 2-3% there to continue these programs. SS is now at 13% of ones paycheck (individial+company payments) so that would go up to 15-16%. Medicare taxes would go to about 5%. Still have that 28% to 35% federal income tax, so without even getting to state and local taxes, the feds will be asking that most taxpayers pay about 46%-55% of their paycheck to the federal government.

What Democrat is proposing such a tax increase?

Ira,

SO True! Many know I had back surgery this year. There were no less than three DIFFERENT claims filed with Blue Cross Blue Shield regarding same. Many procedures were denied, although I had been pre-authorized. So I requested the DETAIL of charges from the hospital. It was 23 pages long. Surgery on Friday, dismissed on Saturday. I wade through the five minute increments of operating room charges, iv drips, blah blah blah to discover that there were code charges for things that weren't performed OR that were surgeon charges, not hospital charges. To the tune of $3,000 "not allowed" charges. (one charge was for a hand graft, WTF?) at any rate, the hospital put me in the electronic voicemail of hell where no one calls you back nor has any record of you ever questioning the bill. This took at least an hour a day for two solid weeks before I finally threatened to send the whole thing to Blue Cross as FRAUD and lo and behold, within 30 minutes they were recoding the claim and resubmitting to Blue Cross. How many people have the time, energy and fortitude to keep this up? I bet you most people would not do it. I guarantee you most seniors won't do it.

This is a massive problem. Charges for services that never occurred AND denials of charges that should be covered. There is NO reason this should be this complicated; but if you'd seen the 23 page itemization, it would become CRYSTAL clear as to why it has become so lucrative to consolidate medical practices, hospital charges and insurance efforts.

Why simplify when you can make REAL money being complicated and convoluted? REFORM and REGULATE are the only means to change the greed/fraud cycle. Just my two cents.

JoAnnaSmith1..

SS is now at 13%..

......................................

Social Security is at 4.2% for individuals NOT 13%. Stop trying to scare people.

Ira. Please. Social Security is at 4.2% for individuals, and just until the end of the year. Obama and the Democrats put that 2% reduction in last December, and for just one year. Now that will revert back to 6.2%, plus matching by the employer, or paid in full by the individual if they have their own business, for a total of 12.4%.

Now, you're saying that "most Americans are willing" to pay 2-3% more for these programs. That would put SS to 14-16%, and Medicare to about 5% of people's paycheck. I'm sorry if those numbers scare you Ira, but those are the numbers.

And if is the plan to save these entitlements, what Democrat is proposing it?

Now, you're saying that "most Americans are willing" to pay 2-3% more for these programs. That would put SS to 14-16%, and Medicare to about 5% of people's paycheck. I'm sorry if those numbers scare you Ira, but those are the numbers.

And you realize, don't you, JoAnna, that if benefits are cut, even if just for future beneficiaries, then those people who see their benefits cut will effectively see a RETROACTIVE tax increase by that amount, in any event? In short, one way or another, they're going to be taxed.

I'd rather pay the tax now to save the benefit down the line than give up the benefit now having already paid the tax.

Your math skills seem to be slipping, JoAnna.

JoAnnaSmith1..

You said the SS rate was 13%...it's 4.2% this year moving back to 6.2% next year. Simple...add 2 to 4.2 and you get the rate....that's not 14 to 16%. You may be citing the self employed efeective tax rate of 10.4%. We're talking about the vast majority of individuals and not the exceptions so don't add the self employed and employer portion to inflate your numbers. What will individuals pay?

JS1 isn't really one to be constrained by facts.

John B,

...nor logic, nor critical thinking, nor filtering dumbass comments, either.

Pretty much here for the oppositional comedy relief, I assumed.

I just call 'em like I see 'em.

wow people, the way I read Joanna's statement the 13% or whatever is taking what the individual pays PLUS what the employer pays ADD them together and what do you come up with?

6.2% individual PLUS 6.2% employer match EQUALS 12.4% what is so hard to comprehend there?

I'm gonna have to vote for Gingrich as the ugly guy who gets his arm hacked off by Ben Kenobi!

I derived a lot of personal benefit this morning watching Joe and Uncle Pat going apoplectic over the situation this morning,...

Of course Pat was keen to point out that Klondike Barbie might just be the 'go to' candidate to rally the base.

bwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Clara and Anna Molly----I used to have a modicum of respect for Huckabee because he seemed intelligent and seemed to follow a moral code even if I didn't agree with it but I lost that after his recent out-and-out lies about President Obama. So I'm not sorry to see him leave the race and if conservatives want to empty their wallets to buy his books or watch his show so he can be rich---that is up to them.

Sorry I missed the apopletics (if that is a word) but I just can't watch Morning Joe any more. Could have predicted the groundswell for Sarah Palin, though.

Steeler ~ I accidentally switched to Morning Joe this morning and watched in horror as they laughed tastelessly over that IMF guy and the alleged rape. Joe tried to deflect Mika's criticism by claiming they were laughing about something else, but the overall effect was BAD. Mika herself has lost any substantive credibility that she ever had and is now totally about image and posturing, almost to the point where it has become grotesque as she works herself around to get the right camera angles while Joe snidely snickers.

I agree that it's very hard to watch, even in small doses.

As for posturing, I can only imagine what we'll get if Palin sees this as her entree into the fray, and especially if she is the only woman. She can then hide behind her own skirts and take offense at any criticism as being sexist. That, too, will become very hard to watch.

SF,

You said it sister. Mika is def a poser. No doubt. She lost me with her fawning over the expensive shoe gift that Donny Deutsch gave her as an apology. ICKKKKKKKKKKKKK!

oh, and here's my word:

ap·o·plec·tic/ˌapəˈplektik/Adjective

1. Overcome with anger; extremely indignant.
2. Relating to or denoting apoplexy (stroke): "an apoplectic attack".

Bighorn..
Its way to early to call any person leaving a void.
...............................................................

Huckabee leans towards being a social conservative, sometimes radical, but nowhere close to the Santorums of the world. Santorum did say that abortion was responsible for the Medicare crisis cause we were killing off potential workers who would contribute. Of the remaing gaggle, eliminate the crazies, they're mostly fiscal conservatives. So with no real contender to replace Huckabee as the social conservative and the fiscal guys in full retreat, this is hard to call.

An even better quote along those lines came from a friend of mine who happens to be a lawyer:

"When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, attack your opponent."

Da Noid, seems to be the theme song of this blog.

Ya hear that no joe?

lol

Nash Hate to break it to you but as a casual observer I would say this can and does apply to both sides.

ksw62118

yes, but this tied in so nicely to Nash's 'theme' of the day,...

tee hee.

ksw62118:

So true . . . but Republican's get to suggest stuff, and then run away from it when poll's say folks don't like it. . . and Republican's get on TV, and no matter how ridiculous what they are saying is, it is reported as "news".

So sorry, but "both sides do it" is not an excuse. One side does it ALWAYS. With impunity, with folks like yourself giving them a pass, because "both sides do it". Don't make it right.

ksw62118

Nash Hate to break it to you but as a casual observer I would say this can and does apply to both sides.

FALSE EQUIVALENCY ALERT!!!!!!

Sorry Nash, wrong again I don't give anyone a pass. I don't make generalizations about entire groups or parties. I think that is the ultimate definition of being narrow minded.

Houston See post 15.1. I think you made Da Noid's point.

ksw62118:

I call 'em like I see 'em.

And what I see is a party that is still promoting an economic policy that has been an epic fail each and every time that it has been tried. So that is not a generality.

It's a fact.

Romney should say Healthcare reform was right for MA, and it is right for America.

It would have been far more easier to defend a fact, than a lie. BUT then again I rather have to defend the biggest of lies than that turd of an idea that Paul Ryan has put out there.

2012 Obama wins!

2013 Public Option!

I agree Kraig, I find it unappealing that both sides choose to talk out both sides of their mouths, makes it very very hard to figure out who to vote for, I finally figured out that instead of listening to any of them I figure out who's actually running and research what they've done instead of what they SAY they're going to do.

Kraig - All Romney needed to do was take a page from John Kyl and tell everyone later that it was not intended to be a factual statement. Boom, problem solved. You gotta love republicans..

Republicans are not evil, just ignorant.

They are a faith based party, that have a hard time with adapting to the reality of the 21st century.

What is evil is our Supreme Court who says speech and money are the same thing. Until money is no longer a part of our political systems there will always be temptation, I.O.U.S, and evil.

Republicans aren't saying they won't do it, they're saying they won't unless spending cuts are included, neither side is absolved of guilt. Unfortunately neither side is willing to give one inch, it's very sad, and the ones who will have to pay for it is us, you and me, neither side is willing to listen to any of us, I mean what the heck do we count for? All we're good for is paying their salaries and entitlements right?

That doesn't seem to be an accuraite portrayal of the situation. Democrats are actually ready to compromise and cut spending on Medicare, Social Security and even raise the retirement age but that we have to be careful while we do it. Republicans are demanding an all out, uncompromising approach that would most certainly stall what little recovery we are experiencing.

always,

Are you grasping at straws?

Yes you are. lol

I think the recalls in Wisconsin are good sign that 2010 was nothing more than a referendum on the economy, and NOT an endorsement for the lunatic fringe of the GOP and their Tea Party freak show.

More like trying to pick up those straws with his butt cheeks...

alwaysfaithfull

Welcome to Feisty & Retired Navy Guy's DEM & LIBBER daily liberal indoctrination and meeting board however..............none of it will erase what happened to the DEMS on 11/2/10!

And look at the results??? What about Wisconsin, the rebuttal of America against the Ryan Bill. The exposure that the GOP/TP are a bunch of liars, they campaigned on JOBS and Economy and to date have done neither.

President Obama is going to win a second term, let see what the GOP/TP has to say then. Lets see what they have to say when the Ryan Bill goes now where. Lets see what the 6 GOP/TP State Senators say come July followed by Walker getting sent home in January.

THE GOP/TP party is lost and they have nothing to offer our Country except more lies and filed agenda.

The TRUTH of the actions taken by the GOP/TP since their much ballyhooed 'win' in the Fall of 2010 belie their Slogan of JOBS! JOBS! JOBS! Consequently, the resulting eye-opening TRUTH (no jobs, just social deconstruction) will inform the electorate of their true intent.

Thus the erasure will be that of the electorial gains earned that were based on belief in the lie that the primary concern of the GOP/TP actually WAS jobs, jobs, jobs. The problem: the job was singular; we are enduring A SNOW JOB and they are trying their damnedest to bury the TRUTH.

JoAnne---I wish someone could explain to me how Santorum has any traction at all when he lost his last election by approx. 18 points to Bob Casey (who is a nice guy but I wouldn't call him charismatic). And what qualifies Bachmann to be President? I just can't figure this out.

Beats me, SF - that's why I thought that spectrometer thing might come in handy. Why anyone would think Santorum has a shot is one of those great mysteries of the universe to me - and Bachmann certainly qualifies as "bizarre antimatter"!

JoAnne,

that's why I thought that spectrometer thing might come in handy. Why anyone would think Santorum has a shot is one of those great mysteries of the universe to me - and Bachmann certainly qualifies as "bizarre antimatter"!

I almost spit my coffee out, lmao, that was a great statement, thanks for the laugh!

I'm agreeing with most people today which is kind of scary, but I agree that the likes of Santorum, Bachman, Trump, Palin (shudder), Newt, ugh wth are these people thinking??

I know I'll get trounced for it but there's only one candidate worthy of my vote and that's Dr. Ron Paul.