Today’s WSJ had an interesting op-ed piece about Barry’s “no tax increases if you make under $250,000” pledge from the 2008 campaign. It refers to an article written by William Galston an “expert” from the lefty liberal Brookings Institution. Galston is described on the Brookings website as “A former policy advisor to President Clinton and presidential candidates, Bill Galston is an expert on domestic policy, political campaigns, and elections. His current research focuses on designing a new social contract and the implications of political polarization.“

Galston’s article basically makes the point that it is pretty much inevitable that Barry will have to break that promise. A few excerpts:

Of course, there’s not much that can be squeezed out of the bottom four income quintiles (households making less than $100,000 per year). On the other hand, relying solely on the rich for added revenues would imply tax rates in excess of 75 percent. But what about the well-off but not rich—those in the fifth quintile who earn between $100,000 and $250,000 a year? Can they really be held harmless?

But as a recent note from Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center makes clear, it’s the well-off but not rich (i.e. the top quintile excluding the very rich) that benefits massively and disproportionately from itemized deductions and exclusions from taxable income. In other words, while it may make political sense to shield households that fall between the 80th and the 98th income percentiles (i.e. those making between $100,000 and $250,000 per year) from tax increases, we won’t raise much revenue if we do.

This prospect won’t trouble the conservatives, who don’t want to raise taxes on anyone and are prepared to gut the federal government in the process. But it should alarm moderates and liberals who believe in public investments and the social safety net. Unless Obama is prepared to tolerate huge deficits indefinitely, or to emulate arch-conservatives and curb the budget deficit with spending cuts only, he will have to break his unsustainable tax pledge at some point. The only question is when.

OUCH!!!!

h/t: BWD

A Surprising Jobs Recovery: American Manufacturing is Back

In the first quarter of 2011, U.S. manufacturing output grew by 9%, or five times as fast as the overall economy, which grew by 1.8% in the first three months of the year. Profits are up as well. Earnings at construction equipment maker Caterpillar leapt 426% in the first quarter to $1.2 billion. Manufacturing conglomerate Untied Technologies, which makes Sikorsky helicopters, Otis elevators and Carrier air-conditioning gear, among other things, also reported strong earnings in the first three months of the year. And that is producing jobs elsewhere. Sales at Eaton Corp. and Honeywell, two companies that make parts for cars and other machinery, are up this year as well.

That knock-on job effect of manufacturing is one reason policy makers and economists have long lamented the U.S.'s manufacturing decline. What's more, manufacturing jobs have on average tended to pay more than restaurant work or other service jobs. So the manufacturing rebound of the past few months has been a welcome turn for the economy. Still, some are predicting that the U.S. manufacturing revival could be short-lived. High commodities prices have driven demand for mining and agricultural equipment. If prices fall, as they did in early May, that demand could drop off. For this year, the concern is that problems in Japan may shake up the supply chain making it hard for manufactures worldwide to get parts. What's more, even with the recent increase, the manufacturing sector makes up a small percentage of the workforce, accounting for just 9% of U.S. jobs, down from 16% at the beginning of the 1990s.

But that may soon be changing. A recent study from the Boston Consulting Group predicted that the U.S. was on the verge of a "manufacturing renaissance." The report predicted that U.S. and Chinese wages would soon converge, and that some states in the U.S. may end up being some cheapest locations to manufacture goods in the developed world. The report predicted that products that are made in modest volume with relatively little labor, like household appliances and construction equipment, would likely shift to U.S. production.

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/16/a-surprising-jobs-recovery-american-manufacturing-is-back/

I watched the clip of Jon Stewart and Bill O’Reilly and I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw. I thought it was going to be one of those “entertainment only” debates, where you learn nothing. Just one voice talking over another.

But Jon Stewart was fantastic. He was firm, honest and a little ticked off. He stuck to his guns and presented what I thought was a thoughtful conversation to Fox and Mr. O’Reilly. There are some things in life that aren’t a joke.

So so happy to see Jon Stewart didn’t handle it as a joke. Comedy is fine, even essential, but sometimes comedy just isn’t the answer. I hope more and more comedians speak up. Their words carry a great deal of weight.

Bill Maher, Jerry Seinfeld, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Richard Lewis and on and on.

____________________________________________________

"You’re ready to make your mark on the world. President Obama to high school graduates at Booker T. Washington High School, May 16, 2011

You've always been underdogs," the president told the cheering Booker T. Washington High School graduates, arrayed in bright green and yellow mortar boards and gowns. "Nobody's handed you a thing. But that also means that whatever you accomplish in your life, you'll have earned it." The school won a national competition to secure a graduation address from the president by illustrating how it overcame a history of disciplinary problems and high dropout rates and graduated 82 percent of its students, turning into a sanctuary for troubled kids. Innovative changes included separate freshmen academies for boys and girls and a greater choice not only of advanced placement classes, but vocational studies as well.

A video submitted with the school's entry in the competition included footage of a boy running in despair toward the camera as a bulldozer tore down apartment buildings in his neighborhood – a symbol of the hopelessness that afflicted it. On Monday, that same teenager, graduating senior Christopher Dean, had the distinction of introducing President Obama.

"I'm lucky they kept pushing," he said. "I'm lucky my teachers kept pushing. Because education made all the difference in my life. And it's going to make an even greater difference in your lives."

The message appeared to take hold.

"I like the fact that he told us that he's the same as us, that he came from where we came from, and that we can still succeed," said 18-year-old Christopher Redmond, who says he plans to study pharmacy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/16/obama-memphis-commencement_n_862474.html

Feisty:

I hear ya. Has anybody wondered why we have not hear a single word from any of the GOP/TP wannabees about what they are going to do the create jobs or improve the economy??

Judge Joe (quoting):

Unless Obama is prepared to tolerate huge deficits indefinitely, or to emulate arch-conservatives and curb the budget deficit with spending cuts only, he will have to break his unsustainable tax pledge at some point. The only question is when.

Judge Joe (not quoting):

OUCH!!!!

LoL You do realize, of course, that where we are today is the direct result of all those years of failed republican-esque policies encouraging unbridled greed and discouraging shared sacrifice. To get us out of this mess, we'll have to begin by reversing the process. And yes, it will be painful, but it's time that everyone finally realized that "no new taxes" was never really an agenda, or if it was an agenda, it was a failed agenda.

To everything there is a season. And those that dance eventually have to pay the piper.

AM: To everything there is a season. And those that dance eventually have to pay the piper.

First up to pay the piper - the federal employees, whose pension funds are being raided to pay for Obama's massive deficit spending. As Joe Biden says: "It's patriotic to pay your taxes.".

Thanks federal workers! You can be assured your retirement money is being spent wisely! And of course it's a law that those funds will be reimbursed to you, just as soon as Treasury Secretary Geithner figures out who to steal, ehh, borrow from next.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/treasury-to-tap-pensions-to-help-fund-government/2011/05/15/AF2fqK4G_story.html

“Some lawmakers, pundits, and others continue to say that President George W. Bush’s policies did not drive the projected federal deficits of the coming decade — that, instead, it was the policies of President Obama and Congress in 2009 and 2010. But, the fact remains: the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years”.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3490&emailView=1

The bottom line that the GOP/TP forgets to mention. We are in this mess because of the previous administration and the deficit is as high as it is because we are still paying off the Bills that President Bush forced down the throats of America.

Read the above article and see for yourself. THe GOP/TP keeps whining about a problem they in fact caused. The sad part is they want to do it again.

Lying Hypocrites all of them. They cause the problem then blame somebody else. They want to make it worse and claim somehow it will help us. These guys are so lost they cannot find their way out of their own BS anymore.

Do you all seriously think people are going to fall for your bullsh!t AGAIN?

You can fool some of the people all of the time, Feisty. The corporate media won't tell people this, and the CBO won't be on the campaign trail.

Democrats seriously need to begin tooting their own horns.

Joanna:

Thanks federal workers! You can be assured your retirement money is being spent wisely! And of course it's a law that those funds will be reimbursed to you, just as soon as Treasury Secretary Geithner figures out who to steal, ehh, borrow from next.

You always say these things as if you seriously believe I would be in favor of them. I'm not. And you're right that it needs to stop. It didn't start with Obama, but it continues with him, and it's wrong.

But since when did YOU become champion of the middle class? I didn't hear anything from conservatives about these raids when George W. Bush was doing it. And now look where we are.

LoL You do realize, of course, that where we are today is the direct result of all those years of failed republican-esque policies encouraging unbridled greed and discouraging shared sacrifice. To get us out of this mess, we'll have to begin by reversing the process. And yes, it will be painful, but it's time that everyone finally realized that "no new taxes" was never really an agenda, or if it was an agenda, it was a failed agenda.

To everything there is a season. And those that dance eventually have to pay the piper.

And who authorized the extension of the Bush rates to assist in his re-election and allow him to keep his election promise. The line from the President that "the rich like myself need to pay a little more" is bull@!$%# and we all know it. If you look at the comments on this board the people earning between $100,000 - $250,000 are going to get slammed. Remove the cap on SS who does that affect? (6%) right there. They will also be ones that will lose out on the means testing at the other end when the reduce SS benefits. Remove deductions and flatten the tax rate. They are the ones that have mortgages and state tax rates that make individual deduction more than the standard deduction. These are also the people who receive very little back from the government because their before tax incomes are too high.

If they remove the ability to deduct state taxes and other deductions from people living in places like NY/NJ believe me the Democrats will lose these states and these voters.

To everything there is a season. And those that dance eventually have to pay the piper.

______________________________________________

That OUCH!!!! was the political pain that Barry is going to feel when he has to dance to the tune of "Going back to the Clinton tax rates INCLUDING those that make less than $250,000".

the only person pushing "20th Century ideology copied from Europe" is Obama, as you well know, Navy.

He picked a peculiarly bad time to push it, as well. Europe is busily disentangling from the spending and programs that have resulted in poor growth and huge deficits.

"the bounce" is fading, as most predicted it would. In the Gallup daily tracking poll, Obama is right back where he was before announcing binLaden's demise. Too bad that euphoric feeling did not impact the unemployment rate.

Anybody notice that, yesterday the financial world did not come crashing down? I did. The media, however, which had pushed and pushed the Obama talking points seems to have been busy paying attention to Trump and Gingrich, and failed to note that the financial world did not end when we hit the debt limit.

Kind of goes to show you that there really IS plenty of money- it's all in how you spend it.

I guess this will go into the same media basket as the 600,000 stimulus provided jobs from the summer of 2009, Obama's statement that it would be easier to be president of China, (no nasty critics questioning him), that he "doubled" exports, (they are up only 30%- he really DOES have a math issue- or maybe, it is a truth issue), and, my personal favorite, that his last campaign was primarily funded by the "little people"-( once again, that math, or exaggeration- issue. 75% of his donations were from big donors).

In other words, if Obama says it, it must be true. If it is proved false, just ignore it.

We have paid propagandists, rather than professional journalists.

Feisty and navy, great to see the facts laid out so that even a spinmeister like Joe from Albany can see the truth.

And to Joe's point - in fact, there is already a perfectly sound proposal about the budget that cuts spending and raises revenues. Here's the beginning of an article I posted late yesterday on the topic. If you go to my page to read the rest of the yarn, you'll also get an in-depth look at what actually makes up government debt, and different ways to deal with different types of debt.

IRRESPONSIBLE GOP POSITION ON DEBT CEILING COUNTS ON PUBLIC IGNORANCE OF WHAT IS AT STAKE

While House and Senate Republicans continue to pursue their bait-and-switch strategy of pretending the debt and deficit are the priorities instead of their regressive ideological political goals, their intransigence puts the nation, and perhaps the global, economy at great risk.

And they pretend that there is not a perfectly effective and well-considered alternative budget plan already on the table. If the GOP was genuinely serious, they would pass the debt ceiling increase and then get down to real negotiations involving that budget proposal.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus offered an extremely well-thought-out budget plan some while back. It combines cuts with revenue increases, along the lines of many of your points, to achieve excellent results in the coming few years. And that plan does NOT rely on gutting the government and many important programs - which both the Ryan proposal and now the latest new GOP budget plan both do.

Further, the CPC budget proposal actually DOES reduce deficits and attack the debt - while the GOP proposals both first ADD to the deficit, and don't achieve budget balances or surpluses for another 60 years!

GOP “Slashonomics” Won’t Do the Job

Nobel economics laureate Joseph Stiglitz recently has had a great deal to say about how to address government finances, preserve social equity, and address consequences of changes that could aid or damage economic recovery. These are also issues that are part of the budget and debt debate.

So far, the GOP approach has been one of an automaton repeating over and over, "Slashonomics," hiding behind the deficit and debt discussion to conceal their true intent of turning this country back more than 160 years. As long as the Republicans allow the tiny minority Tea Party interest to hijack the debate and repeat that mantra, there will be no genuine effort at solving the overall issues of policy and fiscal improvement.

We have paid propagandists, rather than professional journalists.

Could someone give the jukebox a nudge - the needle's stuck AGAIN!

Great posts to start the day this morning, thanks for sharing.

Pat, the return of at least some manufacturing to the US has been anticipated for at least the past several years. I first heard of it from my then-employer who, though a confirmed Conservative Republican maintains connections on both sides of the political world. The dynamics of this are increasing oil prices and wages. Already it costs 3 times as much as it once did to ship a container from China to the US as it once did, a significant factor in trade. WalMart has been pressuring their Chinese suppliers for lower prices and met with significant resistance.

No wonder the Conservative wealthy elites are working so hard to escalate their war on the middle class RIGHT NOW. They're running out of places where people will work for slave-level wages.

Navy,

Newt has flipped and flopped more than McCain,

but not as often as the current leader of this administration has.

And for the GOP candidate Navy, perhaps he hasn't declared his or her intention as yet.

Alan, NJ: And who authorized the extension of the Bush rates to assist in his re-election and allow him to keep his election promise.

The Left continues to complain about Bush. The Left had 4 years of the most liberal President of modern times plus massive majorities in the House and Senate, and they did nothing to "correct" Bush's policies. Now the Left continues to whine about Bush. How sanctimonious of them.

Next years election will be a referendum on Obama and his record. His pitiful, pathetic, and awful record. And he won't be able to hide behind the "Bush excuse" this time around.

JoAnnaSmith1:

First up to pay the piper - the federal employees, whose pension funds are being raided to pay for Obama's massive deficit spending.

Correction: the federal employees are being "raided" because the Republicans have begun playing chicken with the debt ceiling, and the money has to come from somewhere to pay for the interest owed on the debt run up by the Bush tax cuts, the Bush wars, and the budget shortfall caused by the Bush Recession.

Ironically, the GOP's irresponsibility may end up costing us even more, because if investors decide the the US cannot be relied upon to pay its bills because of GOP's game of chicken, they will demand higher interest rates, resulting in yet higher debt. At least Bush won't be to blame of that additional debt.

Judge Joe:

That OUCH!!!! was the political pain that Barry is going to feel when he has to dance to the tune of "Going back to the Clinton tax rates INCLUDING those that make less than $250,000".

Mea culpa, your honor. I just assumed that this group might include you, and you were expressing your own pain, as well as mine and those of a lot of other people. Unfortunately, I still think it's necessary pain, and the sooner we start accepting that, the better off we will be.

JoAnna:

The Left continues to complain about Bush. The Left had 4 years of the most liberal President of modern times plus massive majorities in the House and Senate, and they did nothing to "correct" Bush's policies. Now the Left continues to whine about Bush. How sanctimonious of them.

Four years? I think you need to revisit your calendar. And the "massive majority" in the Senate during the TWO years that Democrats did control both houses was barely enough to sustain cloture votes, sometimes. With no help at all from the intransigent right wing, is it any wonder that Democrats were unable to reverse all the damage done by the Bush administration in eight years?

The trend to massive debt did not begin with President Obama, or with George Bush, or.....well, just keep going back. This has been going on for many, many years. It is utterly ridiculous to pretend/assert that trends change on inauguration day. Please note that all the talk about one party or the other being at fault is pure BS. BOTH of them are in on this insanity.

What is important to understand is that this constant debt increase - both private and government - has been going on for more than three-quarters of a century. Golly gosh, that means that virtually every Tea Partier was in on this orgy of spending. (I raise this point only to demonstrate the sheer hypocrisy of this group of shirking screechers.)

The only solution to reducing the trend includes three variables. The first is patience. These morons who think we can turn this around overnight are so far off the mark it's scary.

The second variable is revenue increases. The Republican talking point, "It's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem," is not just ridiculous, it's downright stupid. In fact, it is arithmetically impossible to solve the deficit problem without revenue increases, UNLESS defaulting on our debt is the goal. The magic taxation mark of $250,000 is not some sort of sacred demarcation point. Seriously? Are people really going to starve if they're making $250,000 annually and their taxes increase two or three per-cent? Taxes have to be raised all along the income continuum, and we are going to have to levy surcharges on upper incomes.

The third variable is of course, spending cuts. Within that arena, there really are enormous savings we can achieve by cutting the unholy trio - waste, fraud, and abuse. But we really, really, really are going to have to cut programs we like. Education reform would save billions AND we could actually improve the results. Defense must be hit and hit hard. We need to take a serious look at housing assistance. We must overhaul civil service. Oh, there's so much more.

EVERYTHING IS ON THE TABLE. NOTHING IS SACRED. This nonsense about non-starters is THE non-starter.

Joe in Albany

Today’s WSJ had an interesting op-ed piece about Barry’s “no tax increases if you make under $250,000” pledge from the 2008 campaign.

Galston’s article basically makes the point that it is pretty much inevitable that Barry will have to break that promise.

I don't suppose you've seen all the broken promise T-baggers and republican have made; particularly jobs?

COVERAGE OF BOEHNER’S SPEECH: “THIS COMING ELECTION IS ABOUT ONE ISSUE: JOBS”

Boehner: Government ‘disrespecting’ people: “[Boehner] said: the Democrats he says have failed the nation when it comes to jobs. ‘Your government is disrespecting you, your family, your job, your children,’

Your government is out of control,’ Boehner shouted to the audience

Boehner’s Closing Argument on Jobs: “Do You Have to Take it? Hell No You Don’t!”: “‘Unemployment is high. Millions are out of work.

http://www.johnboehner.com/?p=1549

Um, Joe have you noticed the GOP/T-baggers have NOT kept their promises? They disrespect democrats, the President, this country, and themselves.

The GOP T-bagger cry baby Boehner’ gave a dishonest hatchet job to the country.

How long it’s been since the Republicans assumed control of the House of Representatives without proposing a single jobs-related bill?

http://whenarethejobs.com/

Joe it has been 132 days and 9 hours as I write this post which means he GOP T-bagger cry baby Boehner’ has produced ZERO JOBS or jobs bill.

Pat, the blog you cited is wrong. It is interesting, though, that yup happened to post it on the same day that the manufacturing output report was released.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-17/u-s-april-industrial-production-and-capacity-report-text-.html

At first, it does not look too bad- April is essentially unchanged from !arch, which say a slight gain. Then read a little further- January and February, which were, at first, reported as gains, were revised to show contractions. One can conclude that the same will happen for March.

And April.

Housing is also still contracting- bad news for the manufacturing report, as declines in housing output always means declines in durables- appliances, furniture, carpeting- which are tied to new housing.

All in all, bad news, no matter how anybody tries to spin it.

As to the conjecture about the dislocation of manufacturing in Japan- if those companies have parts manufactured elsewhere, it will be a temporary fix, not a permanent relocation. At the moment, it seems as if those companies are content to deal with parts shortages, rather than ramping up production at other facilities.

Obama and his supporters will have to content themselves with the handful of jobs he created, (for about a trillion taxpayer dollars), at the rainbow factories.

Ol' Mitty can raise all the dough he wants to.

He's a Mormon ... and that all by itself will keep the Bible Thumpers from voting for him. He won't be "Christian" enough for them.

fIRST THOUGHT MODERATORS: MARK, DOMENICO, ALI:

Today's comments is an example of some of your best work in terms of analysis, accuracy, clearity. Keep up the good work.

no joe:

Obama, Obama, Obama . . . did you feel the rush?

I know you did! :o)

I can just hear you now . . .

"Obama is the evilest, tall and creamy President ever! He is so telegenic . . . I mean telepromter . . . and delicious . . . I mean dumb. He is the worst . . . now I must go read ALL about how bad, bad, bad he is . . . really bad. *sigh* "

President Obama "compromised" with republican "hostage takers" in order to avoid harming the recovery in 2010. The GOP demanded a tax cut extension for the richest 2% or else... now who is it that was willing to increase taxes on 98% of the people for the sake of multi-millionaires and billionaires? If I had my way, I would have told the GOPers to take a hike, go ahead and fight for the millionaires and billionaires and let them all expire. But I'm smart enough to know our President was right--that such a stand would have slowed the economic recovery just when it was starting to move forward at a steady pace.

If the GOP is serious about reducing the deficit and the debt, it cannot continue to tout spending cuts and more tax cuts for the rich as the answer. It didn't work for Reagan, Bush 41 or Bush 43. It took Clinton who convinced Newt Gingrich that raising taxes was necessary. Too bad Bush 43 and the GOP didn't leave things along--we wouldn't be having this debt ceiling and budget deficit discussion. Failed republican policies brought the country to its knees yet they keep selling the same policies as "new and improved".

I watched the clip of Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly and I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw.

Yup, Stewart has been on the O'Reilly show a few times before and the encounters have been riveting. It's like two heavyweights duking it out in the center of the ring, with neither giving any ground and both hitting back hard. The coolest part abouty the last time he was on was the firm, genuine handshake at the end. These guys have different views, but they share a mutual rtespect for one another.

Jody, you seem to share Obama's problem with arithmetic.

$250,000 does NOT equal a million, let alone a billion.

Are you aware that there are billions of unspent funds in EVERY government department- some going back ten years? In any business you could name, a department with a balance on its books would have its budget cut by that amount. So, if Acme widget Corporation budgeted $1 million for its plant in Topeka, and the plant showed $300,000 left on the books, Acme management would budget only $700,000 for Topeka.

Not the government.

At this moment, ALL those funds should be subject to recession- returned to the Treasury. Going forward, simple good practices should dictate that all departments must include any positive balances to offset budget requests.

Between that, and cutting all federal agencies 20%, we can start to tame the deficit.

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

David Walker, I disagree with you on only one point, that being your timeline of debt. If you look here http://zfacts.com/p/318.html you'll see that we were WELL on the way to paying off our WWII debt by 1980. At that point candidate Ronald Reagan created the phony narrative of a debt crisis, then in fact created a very real debt crisis once he became president. President Clinton forced Republicans to the table after the 1995 GOP government shut down debacle and they negotiated a plan that put us back on a path to fiscal sanity. When GW Bush was elected president he and his compliant majorities in the House and Senate totally destroyed any semblance of sane budgeting.

Presidents Reagan and GW Bush along with Republican majorities in Congress destroyed our budget in only 30 years. Supply Side economics is a dismal failure. That's something to keep right in the front of our minds as we debate idiotic fantasies like the Republican Ryan budget.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

The magic taxation mark of $250,000 is not some sort of sacred demarcation point. Seriously? Are people really going to starve if they're making $250,000 annually and their taxes increase two or three per-cent? Taxes have to be raised all along the income continuum, and we are going to have to levy surcharges on upper incomes.

Hey, it was the President who "drew the line" in the sand at $250K, but you perpetrate the same lie that a 2% or 3% increase is all that is needed. So, you are against removing the cap on SS contributions? What about deductions? Can we keep all of those?

From what I understand the Clinton tax rates bring in an additional $400B a year. The current deficit is $1.3T. Where does the other $900B come from? BTW, even left wing economists agree that tax cuts add to growth but its not efficient, so assuming they are right increasing taxes will lower growth by some factor.

John B, Des Moines, IA:

With respect to the timeline of debt, please note that I wrote of a "trend". Clinton too could have paid down the debt even further, but Alan Greenspan tells us in his book that he advised against it.

Indeed, we could have paid down the debt on several occasions, but we didn't and that's why I pointed out that this is the trend. This is part of the American fabric. Turning that trend line down - or in today's silly lexicon, bending the cost curve - is going to require a complete overhaul of our collective mentality.

Ain't gonna be easy. In fact, if I were a betting man, I'd say we won't be able to do it.

Anybody notice that, yesterday the financial world did not come crashing down?

That's exactly right, no joe.

The doomsday scenarios pushed by the scaremongering left regarding the consequences of Congress refusing to increase the debt ceiling are gross exaggerations. In fact, federal tax revenues are somewhere north of $2 trillion/yr while interest on the debt is currently about $200 billion/yr. So at the end of the day, we have way more than enough cash to service our debt and the nonsense that the U.S. would default and collapse the economy and financial markets is just that – nonsense.

The real issue is that the federal government currently borrows about 40 cents of every dollar it spends. And the real impact of not raising the debt ceiling would be on those ongoing government operations funded by that 40 cents -- without the ability to continue borrowing, we're talking about the mother of all government shutdowns. And while many on the left would be apoplectic about that, the fact of the matter is there just may be enough folks in Congress who would be willing to accept that consequence rather than raise the debt ceiling. Then, the fun would really begin.

Because the Treasury would have to prioritize what to fund. First in line would be our bondholders around the world, closely followed by continuing to cut checks for Social Security and probably Medicare. After that, everything is fair game. And then, the truly draconian austerity imposed on the government by a refusal to raise the debt limit would have to be implemented – there would be no choice. So all these pathetic Dems and leftists who cried and screamed about the pocket change the Republicans have cut from the budget so far would now be confronted with the harsh reality that the party really is over.

But even that could be prevented if Obama and his buds sign up for SIGNIFICANT budget reductions in return for an increase in the debt ceiling. As the Washington Post reported recently there is some sentiment among Dems to do just that:

"A growing number of Democrats are threatening to defy the White House over the national debt, joining Republican calls for deficit cuts as a requirement for consenting to lift the country's borrowing limit."

That's encouraging because if Democrats don't sign up for real cuts they run the risk of seeing even more significant reductions imposed on them. So pay me now or pay me later, but if you wait until later the price of poker will have gone up considerably. Boehner and McConnell are playing this exactly right so far. This is a defining moment where we have a chance to extract real spending reductions in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling.

And the only irresponsible folks in the room are Dems who still have their heads in the sand on this issue.

Alan, NJ:

Never, ever concern yourself with facts if it interferes with your dogma.

Read the whole damned post. I wrote that there were three - count 'em, three - crucial variables. One of the permutations within the revenue variable was tax increases along the entire continuum.

Reading is fundamental. Comprehending what you read is crucial. Try it.

@David Walker

One of the permutations within the revenue variable was tax increases along the entire continuum.

I took this to mean a tax increase on earnings from zero to infinity. I didn't get into whether you wanted to tax those who currently pay no federal tax. Do you? I bow to your superior vocabulary and English comprehension. Perhaps you can explain your thoughts in simpler terms to us lesser mortals.

WELL, DARNIT, LOOKS LIKE TIME TO REPEAT MYSELF. THIS IS AN ARTICLE I POSTED YESTERDAY, DERIVED FROM AN EARLIER EXCHANGE WITH ALAN. IT GOES DIRECTLY TO THE POINTS MADE ABOVE BY DAVID WALKER AND BILL, FAIRFAX.

BUT IT'S LONG. IF ANYONE WANTS TO DUEL ABOUT IT, PLEASE HAVE THE COURTESY TO FIRST READ AND UNDERSTAND THE PIECE. THANKS.

Understanding the Deficit and Debt

It is typical of governments to borrow to "cover the cost of living," as you phrased it, for two reasons:

1. Current expenditures outstrip current receipts, periodically That kind of borrowing is essentailly "bridge loan" money, short-term, with short-term maturation periods covered when receipts exceed expenditures. Same stuff any businessman would recognize as a line of credit for operating capital. The U.S. usually does that with T-bills, but there are a number of instruments available.

There isn’t any means of eliminating this type of borrowing and its attendant cost of short-term interest - as long as the country's perceived credit-worthiness is sound, rates will be low. (This is a concrete example of why the debt ceiling increase is so important.)

2. Longer-term borrowing as necessary for either capital investment - bridges, major transportation projects, etc. - or because other government expenses present demands in excess of revenues.

But consider what kinds of expenses those usually are:

A. Wars: Historically (going back to the 1690's), nation-states that used a banking system to capitalize the costs of wars usually ended up winning. This is profoundly illustrated in Paul M. Kennedy's book, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, in Chapter 3. To paraphrase him, "The victors were those who had one more dollar left at the end."

Since this kind of debt is so large, it is sometimes treated separately from other government expenditures. Great Britain, Kennedy explained in that chapter, set up a special "Sinking Fund" after the American Revolution to handle the massive cost of that war, which was made worse by the loss of the colonies and other territories because those had provided vital revenues and trade proceeds.

Long-term budgeting to establish a special fund for retirement of such debt even now is not a bad idea.

B. Major capital investment: While most consider such investment to be public infrastructure, it can also be a national investment in supporting business growth or development, as the President undertook in the past two years; it can be a national investment in advanced education or research intended to strengthen the labor market and fulfill the needs of business or medical science or other related objectives.

Again, the President has quite correctly identified a wide spectrum of such needs. And he has undertaken efforts to address them, especially in ways that also contribute to the recovery of the economy and an increase in American-made products with international markets, or domestic consumers presently satisfying their demands with imported goods.

This kind of investment is usually financed with bond revenues, at maturation rates ranging from a few years to 25 or more years. "Hard" investments, meaning buildings, bridges, railroads, etc., are often financed with directly-linked bond issues - the buyers know precisely for what their money is to be spent. Some of these projects, although not all, may be revenue-producing, when completed, or have various taxes, fees or assessments associated with them, from which some or all of the bond payments are made.

Such projects then are essentially "self-liquidating," although a liability exists until the bonds are retired because if the income falls short, then the public entity guaranteeing them must step up. Still, in the case of this type of debt, it’s reasonable to argue that it be excluded from the debate over debt and expenditures because it also has relatively little effect on actual demand on the Treasury. There is minimal taxpaayer impact but significant public benefit.

"Soft" investments such as education or research, may be financed through general revenue bonds or other instruments that are backed by taxpayer funds and any other non-obligated Federal income. The objective of these commitments is - or at least could be argued to be - a form of "national defense" because the country as a whole is committed to ensuring America is meeting the future needs of its economy, its population, and all other aspects of national life affected by these investments.

If some of these investments are focused on immediate concerns, as for example the Small Business Investment program the President succeeded in passing last year, then they are certainly aimed at protecting our economic recovery and sustaining it in a national emergency.

This type of debt may be necessary to continue to meet both immediate and long-term goals. As a matter of public policy, before targeting all such programs of this kind for either elimination or very deep cuts, each should be individually debated and open decisions reached about them. But also, some means of paying off this debt needs to be specified if it is to be sustained - again, reached by open debate.

A preferable choice may be some targeted increases in revenue, as well as a "reserve fund" of some certain per cent built up from rising Federal receipts that attend the growth of the economy and continued economic recovery. That provides both "current receipts" contributions to debt service and retirement, as well as acknowledgement that as things improve in the future, the money generated has already been spoken for - and won't be available for any other purposes or to encourage new spending programs.

C. "Cost of living" borrowing: The term in this sense means keeping up with anything else like other long-term debt service, social safety net costs, expenses of any government operations, military expenditures apart from war financing, salaries for solons, paying for Veterans' Hospitals, and sometimes having a party such as the Cowboy Poetry Festival. Aside from the Department of Defense Budget, this "discretionary" spending, according to the President, amounts to 12% of the national budget.

In addition, debt service payments are part of the "cost of living." Borrowing to pay the interest charges is something like making one credit card payment with a different credit card - this is, absolutely unsustainable unless there is a clear understanding of just why and how such borrowing is made, it serves a vital public interest, and there is a clear program to bring it to an end within a foreseeable period of time.

Medicaid and Social Security Trust Fund Repayment
Is a National Obligation

It is essential that the public understand that borrowing to pay interest payments or retire general revenue bonds is actually the impact of Medicare and Social Security on the national deficit and national debt. Sixty per cent of the national debt is owed to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds - the country is not paying for Social Security or Medicare benefits, the people who are eligible for the benefits paid for them ahead of time. It is a gross inaccuracy that distorts the debate to call these programs "entitlements" - beneficiaries paid up front.

It was this borrowing, from the late 1960's forward, that has truly been a problem. To default on the debt owed to the American people - taken from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds - by either "privatizing" these programs or essentially chopping them to small bits - is a massive betrayal of trust. This is a debt that the nation must face squarely and accept as an obligation of honor.

Most of the spending cuts thus far proposed avoid the 800-pound gorilla in the room by instead taking out on America's no. 1 debtor - the American people - and then blaming the victim for the problem. But the gorilla is that painful, tedious and necessary attention to spending cuts, program by program, over time, are only half the problem. The other half is revenues. There is absolutely no way to address cumulative deficits and mounting debt without increasing revenues.

Overall, a planned program to both increase revenues from targeted tax increases and boost Federal receipts by supporting further economic recovery and if necessary restoring new Deal type programs like the Works Progress Administration to sharply decrease unemployment is necessary. Judicious government cuts may have to be made alongside commitments that for another two to four years may continue some deficit spending - but more effort to address debt retirement through dedication of some added revenues must be a part of the package.

It IS absolutely clear that revenues must be increased in combination with judicious spending cuts. There are many avenues for increasing revenue worthy of consideration that do not threaten economic recovery or job creation. The nation has learned, the hard way, that Milton Friedman's "trickle down theory of economics" is utter bunkum.

Working people pay a direct tax to support Medicaid. For anyone who has been working since 1965, those substantial payments represent a sort of medical annuity The trust funds were somewhat forcibly required to be lent at interest, which should be applicable now to the value of that annuity.

The major reforms that will benefit Medicare have yet to occur - they consist of addressing health care costs. Mainly, they consist of dumping the Reagan-era reimbursement "reforms" that substantially underly the skyrocketing costs of medical services.

The GOP/TP approach to the debt ceiling is unreasonable, unworkable, and unjust. It is the worst possible way to pursue public policy, and it relies on the public not understanding the character of debt, deficits and the financing of a government.

Navy..."Lying Hypocrites all of them." All of them? As in all politicians? Hypocrisy like this:

“The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.” – Senator Barak Obama, D-Ill. – 2006

NJNB nj There is a practice around budget time to spend as much of the money as there is left. I know when I was in the military, every year around that time we had what we called "toy time" Make a list of everything you needed in that calendar year but didnt order!

I implore the media to please keep these guys honest.

In his analysis of the Trump fiasco Lawrence O’Donnell talked about the media’s complicity in it. He offered that perhaps a lesson had been learned and that going forward the media and pundits would not allow themselves to be used in such a degrading way.

No lesson learned. Look at all the tom-foolery associated with Newt Gingrich and the media is reporting every word. The man has a half-dozen positions on every issue and the media keeps referring to him as a political genius, highly intelligent and an intellectual heavy weight. Sure he is.

He just might needs some meds. He jumps around like someone in need of Adderall.

retired navy,

We are going to go join Obama's army. I hear he is hiring staffers for his campaign, there are your jobs you have wanted the govt to give you. You, Feisty and Bev can work and contribute to society together stuffing envelopes. haha

It is essential that the public understand that borrowing to pay interest payments or retire general revenue bonds is actually the impact of Medicare and Social Security on the national deficit and national debt. Sixty per cent of the national debt is owed to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds - the country is not paying for Social Security or Medicare benefits, the people who are eligible for the benefits paid for them ahead of time. It is a gross inaccuracy that distorts the debate to call these programs "entitlements" - beneficiaries paid up front.

It was this borrowing, from the late 1960's forward, that has truly been a problem. To default on the debt owed to the American people - taken from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds - by either "privatizing" these programs or essentially chopping them to small bits - is a massive betrayal of trust. This is a debt that the nation must face squarely and accept as an obligation of honor.

OK. I accept that it's a betrayal of trust to the American people.

Now tell me how you plan to finance this debt considering that the money paid up front has been spent? How do you finance the retirement of the Baby Boomers when their contributions have already been used to pay for the prior generation's benefits? They were working on a ratio of 12:1 workers to beneficiaries. As the Baby Boomers retire the ratio becomes 2:1. When SS was introduced benefits started at age 65, but life expectancy was 62. Now benefits start at 66/67 but life expectancy is 74. How do you square this circle? Medicare receives around 150K in contributions but pays out 450K in benefits. Again, how do you finance this? In 2000, Al Gore ran on a promise of a lockbox that would protect revenues for these programs. He lost the election and these revenues have been spent and more. It would be nice to go back in time and rectify this but unfortunately we are here with the problem now.

I also think that Republican proposal to reduce spending by the same amount as the debt limit is raised is not feasible but I have heard nothing from the Democrats that makes sense either. You can call it a breach of trust if you want but entitlements (and you can also rail against the terminology) have to be reformed (cut) because we don't have the money and we can't fight demographics. How they should be reformed is the debate. I don't think the Ryan plan is feasible either because the amount paid by the government would be open to severe political pressure as more Baby Boomers retire, but at least it is a concrete proposal. What do the Democrats propose? (Or do you disagree that entitlements need to be reformed in any way?)

Here is a star, Alan-

For budget year 2008, HHS had a budget of $709 billion.

For 2011, the HHS budget was $911 billion.

Since HHS seemed to be doing okay in 2008, I'm thinking they could stand a cut of $202 billion.

In fact, maybe every federal agency should get cut back to that level. Those were the good old days, when the federal deficit was $405 billion- and we complained.

When compared to $1.6 trillion, it looks like chicken feed.

You're right John A, it is a long article. Unfortunately, it's not a particularly objective article so it's easy to see why you felt a need to post it -- TWICE.

Here's a shorter article that says a lot more.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43048928

The gop TEANUTBAGGERS spent two years blocking job creation to make the DEM'S look bad so they can regain power in 2012, how sad is that.

NONE decision-making on most of the posters' parts here. Nice to see that we have such a highly educated group of non-thinkers in here.

When the Republicans have a candidate, I'll consider what he has to say, and what he's done. And I'll consider what Obama says, and what he has done. And then I'm going to make a decision and vote. As opposed to have already decided ahead of time and not give one candidate a chance. Like apparently a lot of you here.

Once again, ad nauseum, I am so glad the foaming at the mouth radicals who think their political party is a sports team to root for have nothing to do anymore with who gets elected to important positions in this country. Particularly the Presidency.

Derek you're either a republican or democrat quit dithering

Daniels was the Budget Director for President Bush and look how well that worked out. He was responsible, in part, for the economic policies of the previous administration that put this country into a recession that was surpassed only by the Great Depression. I do not think America wants to go back to that type of leadership again. Also as reported yesterday in his own State he passed a law stripping all funds from Planned Parenthood and Medicaid that has denied 9,000 women any access to basic Health Care.

As usual USN....shortsighted and clueless. The Bush administration didn't put this country into a recession....the policies of the Clinton administration did (loosening of Fannie and Freddie regulations, repealing Glass-Steagall, NAFTA and WTO free trade agreements). What policies did Bush institute that sent jobs overseas? Now, Bush isn't blameless, in fact, he was compliant in allowing the Clinton polices to remain in force to the degree it allowed the crash to happen.

How did defunding Planned Parenthood deny access to ANY healthcare to 9000 women? What a total lie. Going to go with another liberal that stated that was the only facility available to rural women? Seeing that there are 20something PP locations in Indiana and 250 hospitals and clinics, where do you see this being accurate?

I disagree with you on only one point, that being your timeline of debt. If you look here http://zfacts.com/p/318.html you'll see that we were WELL on the way to paying off our WWII debt by 1980.

_________________________________

John B: Unfortunately, your chart is very misleading. It shows ONLY that the debt as a percentage of national income was going down. That was due to a growing economy, not paying down debt.

Not one nickel of the WW II debt was paid off. If you go to the US Treasury website you will find the debt in 1950 was $257 billion and in 1979 it was $826 billion.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

hs321,

Excellent post!! Funny how facts like that get glossed over... Watch...the response will be something to criticize someone else instead of defending what Obama said back then to what he's advocating now...

Alan -

One of the points in that article was that indeed there have to be adjustments made to address the shifting issues of demographics, longevity, and costs. Along with that I observed that this is not necessarily immediately the task for the 2011-2012 budget, or for the debt ceiling vote, both of which underly the reason for the discussion at all.

As I pointed out these and a number of other major public policy matters involved in the debt and deficit must be take on in a transparent and thoughtful manner. NONE of the GOP proposals (there are at least 2, now) employs that method. The Congressional Progressive Causus did, in fact, offer some pretty good starting points for both budgeting and policy debates.

And by the way - I have been paying both Social Security and Medicare taxes since 1965 (for Medicare) and since 1960 (for Social Security). My payments, at face value, are pretty close to the numbers you cited - but those numbers do not include the compounded interest that the trust funds have been earning on their loans to the government. This is the point about that particular debt - a GREAT deal of the issues facing the trust funds vanishes when two steps are taken:

1. Establish a repayment schedule that is bearable (more on this later); and,

2. Undertake cost-reduction reforms of Medicare and Medicaid to sharply rreduce the expense of health care delivery.

The repayment schedule is one of the more important debt reduction policy issues, and really should be treated seriously on its own merits as an adjunct, rather than central, aspect of the current budget debate. It's clearly tied to revenues over an extended period. Default, as has been proposed on this aspect of our national debt, is not an option.

There was an effort, some long while back, for that "lockbox" approach to preserving trust fund income and repayment, but that failed. Evenutally some form of dedicated revenue, or savings realized from reduced expenditures, or both (most likely scenario) should be instituted to retire this debt. And it does not have to be all in one massive push, either. This particular debt is in the form of general revenue bonds with a retirement schedule - simply ensuring retirement of such bonds on schedule with the funds being delivered to the trust funds should be sufficient.

However, some of that debt is in arrears. A separate repayment schedule for that segment of the debt will be necessary, and probably on a shorter payment period than the share of debt that is "current."

This is partly why I wrote that long, detailed article. To explain that a phased retirement plan of debt is normally how governments handle their finances. This is not at all like a household budget, in any sense.

Regardless of how this is ultimately addressed, it is obvious the U.S. will require a long-term program of restrained budgets as well as increased revenues.

As for health care delivery cost restraint, the President declared some months back that he wished to reform Medicare and medicaid to operate on a "reults based" structure rather than the present "cost-plus" system that is in place. Essentially, the President wants to alter reimbursement structures to undo Reagan-era "reforms" tht turned literally EVERY aspect of medical services - including administration, accounting and billing - into its own profit center.

Why do you think it costs $150 for a bandage at a hospital when you can buy a whole boxful for $3.50?

It's because the entire structure is layered with profit - every step of the process has a profit component: Ordering bandages, receiving bandages, distributing bandages throughout the hospital, inventorying bandages periodically, getting the bandage out to use, applying it to the patient, marking the chart that a bandage was dispensed, transcribing the record into central files, adding the use of a bandage to the billing, preparing and sending the billing, and eventually accounting for the payment of the bill.

Each step includes its own, individual profit margin added to the account.

That's what has to change.

Well, enough for now, Alan. As for the other ding-dong who didn't recognize the neutral, factual content of the main body of the post, maybe he can go back to the beginning and look at the initial request. No matter to me - he isn't here for a discussion in any event.

Patriotic American U.S.A.

The gop TEANUTBAGGERS spent two years blocking job creation to make the DEM'S look bad so they can regain power in 2012, how sad is that.

What are you mixing in your kool-aid today Pat? What did the Tea Party do to block job creation? Yes, they spoke out against ARRA, which has been a total failure. They promoted less government involvement in private industry...which has worked out very well.

Check the last 4 months of jobs reports. The private sector is increasing by around 200,000 jobs per month. Coinicidence that didn't start until after the democrats got creamed in November?

Oh but to a democrat those aren't real jobs are they? Since the taxpayers aren't funding them, they aren't union and they don't have ridiculous benefits. It isn't a job until it costs the taxpayer $200,000 for a temporary position is it?

One of the points in that article was that indeed there have to be adjustments made to address the shifting issues of demographics, longevity, and costs. Along with that I observed that this is not necessarily immediately the task for the 2011-2012 budget, or for the debt ceiling vote, both of which underly the reason for the discussion at all.

Two points. The debt ceiling is immediate and I agree with you that it can be separated from budget discussions. Two, I do not agree with the Ryan proposals but the fact that it only affects people under 55 is in effect pushing off the effects and is in line with what you are saying about a longer timeline for debt reduction.

Joe, debt as a percentage of GDP isn't insignificant, it's critical. If your income is $10K/yr you can't even afford a car payment of $250/mo because it's nearly 1/3 of your income. If your income is $100K/yr that car payment is less than 4% of your income and you're probably looking at a better car.

When you say the WWII debt was never paid off are you suggesting the United States defaulted on its war bonds? I hope not, because that's not how it happened. As John A stated so clearly there's a role for revolving debt in a modern, sophisticated society.

What there is NO place for are simplistic claims that only cash accounting is acceptable or flights of fancy like the Conservative claim that tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves. Those are the things that got us into this mess.

johnA ref post 1.37 on SS and medicare - your expansive rhetoric aside....

It was this borrowing, from the late 1960's forward, that has truly been a problem. To default on the debt owed to the American people - taken from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds - by either "privatizing" these programs or essentially chopping them to small bits - is a massive betrayal of trust. This is a debt that the nation must face squarely and accept as an obligation of honor.

Begs the question...

Is it really a betrayal of trust when we the American people were also complicit in the politicians (L or R) endeavors to institute, maintain and modify government plans in hopes of social reformations that would supposidly benefit the disabled, the poor and the elderly? Plans that have proven to be shortsighted and unsustainable.

No doubt FICA revenues need to be increased across the board for everyone to sustain ever increasing lifespans and healthcare costs. Your disdain of "privatising' or cutting into small bits is duly noted, but isn't it time for us to all acknowledge that we are in this postion because WE ALL chose to "kick the can" for whatever reason? Current medicare already has many purchasing "supplimental plans" to bridge coverage gaps and part D limits $$$ coverage for scripts. Shouldn't we all acknowledge the continuing government budgetary drain of these programs within the context of increasing FICA taxes to cover increased costs or to cut government outlays to cover increased costs?

You may argue that we all pay into SS and medicare and that the polticians have used the funds like an ATM, but I argue, in addition, that we collectively don't pay in enough for what we minimally expect and that we have no viable way to keep the politicians away from our FICA money.

For those who believe that politicians can control healthcare costs thru controlling waste, fraud and healthcare provider costs (as in doctor, nurse, pharmaceuticals and facilities) you are all drinking, smoking or popping pills way to much. One needs to only ask themselves what government plan has ever eliminated waste, fraud and costs? Another way to look at it is why shouldn't we expect our innovators to be rewarded for their accomplishments?

It looks like people are growing tried of the Republican-Tea party. They made a big case for jobs in 2010, and have failed to even act on plans for job creation like they should.

The social conservatives running will not stand a chance of winning in a general election and .President Obama is the only real choice we have. To save the United States, we must re-elect President Obama.

Why is it so hard for the left to see we have a spending issue, not a revenue issue. Even during Bush's 8 years, revenue increase all but 2 of those years, how could this be? I thought Bush and the republicans were giving away the farm? The GOP wants to grow revenue by growing the economy, by letting everyone keep more of what they make, thus spending more, thus more economic growth. Raise taxes, and economic growth will fall as will revenue flowing into the federal government due to the slowing economy. Obama and the democrats have spent 4 years vilifying businesses big and otherwise as evil greedy dregs on society. Hello, these are the very people who create jobs! No one needs to get hurt, it's that simple.

Also in an earlier post above, the claim was made that Clinton forced the republicans to balance the budget. Dream On! This was one of the central planks in the 1994 Contract With America. The republicans forced CLINTON to balance the budget, NOT the other way around. The republicans forced the issue, Clinton got the credit.

I respectfully disagree with FIRST READ's assertion that Romney's ability to raise ten million dollars in a single day is important.

It is not.

What is important is the fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe The Church of Latter Day Saints is a cult more akin to Scientology than a mainstream religion. I believe it was Romney's former campaign manager from his 2008 candidacy who listed this as the reason Romney failed to get the GOP nomination.

Romney is stuck. He cannot forsake his religious beliefs at this point and he can't outrun them. Even if he manages to to buy the GOP nomination by sheer fund-raising ability he cannot win in the General election because the Christian right will stay home. They don't see him as a "Christian".

It's sad, it's not right, but it's true. He's good looking, bright, wealthy, experienced and a moderate. He did the right thing enacting a state health care law in Massachusetts when he was governor. He's got money and obviously has access to money. But his religious beliefs will be his downfall. That and the political atmosphere in America today. He is just not Republican enough for the Tea Party.

I think you got it wrong FIRST READ.

hardto starboard - The majority of FR libs only want to dwell in the past, not learn from it.

Last week, CBS hosted a town meeting with obama. Obama again proclaimed how the republicans left him such a mess, but failed to mention the role that the democrats played in it as well. He has forgotten the "hope and change" promise he made during his run for POTUS by living in the past.

His "hope and change" is only about him and not the American people.

Cleaning up the Bush/GOP mess is a dirty job but, somebody has to do it and that man would be and is Obama. Think where we would be now if the Republicans would have been elected into office again. They have had no decent ideas or solutions of any kind. Ryan's plan is just the same old crap you hear over and over. Feed the rich. Crush the middle class.

Like my father has said for many years, "What this country needs is a good revolution".

When you say the WWII debt was never paid off are you suggesting the United States defaulted on its war bonds? I hope not, because that's not how it happened. As John A stated so clearly there's a role for revolving debt in a modern, sophisticated society.

________________________________________

John B: I think you know that I'm not saying the US defaulted on it's war bonds. They were redeemed with new debt that has been redeemed with more new debt several times over. But, never "paid off" as you claimed in #1.31.

Regarding "revolving debt": It sure does sound like you are trying to make the case that still owing the money we used to buy WW II tanks, planes and ships and paying interest on it 70+/- years after the fact is OK in a "modern, sophisticated society". Do you still owe money on the first car you ever bought?? Makes about as much sense as what you're proposing.

he isn't here for a discussion in any event.

You're entirely correct on ONE point -- I won't waste my time in a discussion with you. Ding dong.

Romney is on track to an uncertain outcome. If Romney makes it to the nomination, then Obama will have a tough campaign. Both have positive records to run on which clears the way for an adult debate on political philosophies. I hope it happens because the country needs that adult debate before the country moves on.

I like the comments about raising or not raising taxes. Everyone should realize that is a strawman argument. It is overwhelmingly obvious that the government needs more revenue. To obtain that revenue without raising taxes means the country needs to create more taxpayers. That is the JOBS, JOBS, JOBS argument.

Don't let the carnival barkers distract you with a bearded lady.

Nerm - two points, in recessionary times the economist and business consensus is that jobs are lagging indicators of recovery.

The taxation and spending cuts debate revolves on getting us to economic sustainability and paying down an ever increasing debt. There is no strawman argument as both revenue and spending are out of balance.

american-2051576 -- That is the theory based on past empirical analysis. Consider that past recoveries were allowed to occur without changing the priorities of where the government placed incentives into the economy.

The same economist and business consensus is that small business creates the most jobs in the economy. Change the priority of government incentives to focus on small business. Congress has adopted a broad spectrum of tax incentives and subsidies over the years, most of which are targeted toward multinationals. Redirect some or all of those incentives toward small business. Redirecting the tax incentives and subsidies would be revenue neutral. Change the game for a different outcome.

A debate on spending and revenue should be undertaken with a stable economy. Corrections to government spending and revenue also lag recoveries.

American -

Actaully, the point I made didn't beg the question at all, and in a subsequent expansion of that discussion, I went into further length about the trust fund repayment issue.

You do stimulate me to discuss one other item in this, that I decided was too much to add to those rather long posts. The trust fund loans created what is becoming an "unfunded liability" the way many public employee pension funds have become.

As you correctly pointed out, these liabilities exist because it was far more convenient for politicians - at all government levels - to put off the vexing issue of preparing for the day when the piper's bill came due. That is why New York City went bankrupt when John Lindsay was mayor. Los Angeles, less than 10 years later, approached the brink of bankruptcy because of unfunded police and fire pension obligations.

And what was the reason for this head-in-the-sand mentality? Unreasoning aversion to taxes or other revenue devices to wisely plan for the costs, and sleight-of-hand accounting that obscured the way funds were diverted from those funds to pay operating expenses.

What have we aleady seen this year as a result? "Blame the victim" rhetoric from the right - people who took and kept their jobs in good faith that their deferred income, legally earned, would be paid out upon retirement or forced resignations caused by disability, were suddenly undeserving villains that would not, after all, get their payments.

The Ryan plan is more of the same.

As I detailed in a post above, there is a way to address the problem of this debt, and begin to pay it down. The complaint that people in the future will be paying for today's expenses is more than a little hollow. Government debt paid over a period of time - whether to cover the costs of war or building highways or repaying loans from the trust funds - has always carried that character.

Actually, as I explained above, by setting up a bearable repayment structure, the problem of looming imbalance in trust fund income versus payments will be significantly ameliorated. And let's remember, too, that in both the trust funds, present recipients and the sustained solvency of the trust funds always depended on newer workers continuing their contributions.

As for raising revenues of the funds, I agree that the present cap on income levels subject to the trust fund taxes is too low. I also believe that any new revenues resulting from raising that cap go to the trust funds directly, rather than being treated as a means of repaying general revenue bond obligations to the trust funds. That is only another example of sleight-of-hand financing - the repayment of debt to the trust funds belongs to the nation at large, not merely the pool of present and future beneficiaries.

As for controlling health care costs, look again at what I wrote. Fundamental reform of reimbursement policies, overtuning the obscene system set up under Reagan, will have a MAJOR effect on the price of health care delivery. That isn't a bit of tinkering and tightening up of the system - it is a significant overhaul of medical services reimbursement.

Nerm_L -

Shortly before lst year's elections, President Obama succeed in winning passage of a major small business investment and incentives program. One of its key features was encouraging capitalization with a long-term perspective, versus the quarter-by-quarter P&L perspective. It was a very important step that will yiueld more stable, solid results over time. Unfortuntely, as a long-term approach, it does little immediately to generate jobs.

However, the kinds of jobs the incentive program creates are also more than just temporary. And they will reach well into the economy, in manufacturing, construction, and operations.

John A. -- Understood. Those incentives are directed toward long term stability. But they also added to the debt cycle we are trapped in. Look at the constraints we have -

1. We do not want to undermine the social safety nets because the recovery has not worked down to the middle of the economy yet. That leaves other discretionary spending which is also considered critical. The priorities in government spending were developed by both parties over a number of years, so those priorities are bipartisan. We can adjust that spending and those priorities after the economy stabilizes. A stable economy will allow a robust debate. Current conditions impose limits on cutting spending.

2. We do not want to add tax burdens to the economy because that diverts money away from business activity that can potentially create jobs in the middle of the economy. After the economy stabilizes we can adjust taxes throughout the economy. Again, a stable economy can allow closer scrutiny and debate. Current conditions impose limitations on changing tax policy.

3. We do not want to add government debt because that debt will threaten to destablize the economy in the future.

Basically we are left with using what we currently have in a more effective way to move the recovery to the middle of the economy. The current spectrum of tax incentives and subsidies can be redirected in the economy without changing spending, taxing, or adding any new debt to the debt cycle. Strengthening the middle of the economy is the only way to achieve long term economic stability.

The current political debates are about changing priorities within the government not about stabilizing the economy. The debates are about picking winners and losers not about creating prosperity for all. That is the basis of my 'bearded lady' comment.

@Ed LOL!

Paint me red or blue!

You hear talk about very wealthy candidates (Romney, Whitman, Fiorina) self-funding their races, but they just don't get it. Money doesn't buy likability and withouth that 'grassroots' support, the money doesn't translate into votes - just a lot of noise supported by a ravenous media.

Very true. In fact, I was ALWAYS worried that Thompson might run against Kohl, or even Feingold. I wonder why he never did.

Anna Molly

And good morning, everyone. Even you, Judge Joe. ;-)

That is LOL funny. I must say Judge Joe certainly has some strange verdicts.

I must say Judge Joe certainly has some strange verdicts.

____________________________________________________

Bev, maybe the corrupt Chicago Dem machine judges decide the verdict in trials held there, but, in the rest of the country juries decide the verdict. (Bench trials are rare)

I doubt Paul Ryan will run for Senate--he might be able to hang on to his red district but not the entire state. If a good democrat ran against Ryan for the House, Ryan's kill medicare plan, will be what defeats Ryan.

Ryan gave a speech in Chicago yesterday trying to resurrect his Budget plan to kill medicare by claiming it would "empower" seniors. Outside a sizable group of protesters marched with signs telling Ryan to keep his hands of medicare. Sounds familiar, doesn't it, except the TPers missed the memo advising them that medicare was government run health care.

No talk from the media about Russ Feingold but considering what Scott Walker and the GOP has done in that state, he'd probably win. I hope he considers running but maybe he's thinking about Governor in January when Walker likely gets recalled.

America is lagging in recovery because of worms like ryan and his bull$hit bill. PS - Note to the TEANUTBAGGERS where are the JOBS you liars, also what about our economy "MORE" lies. The gop teanutbaggers are destroying our country.

Jody ~ Ryan's "red" district went "blue" in the Supreme Court election, by about 60/40. There's a message in there somewhere, I think.

Patriotic - so where are the "shovel ready" jobs obama promised? All I have seen so far is money spent to maintain (for a while) public sector jobs thru the 2009 stimulas. Of course there has been the shift to the REPUBLICAN values of "being more business friendly" by obama in Dec. 2010.

Within the context of job creation, obviously you haven't read either documents released by the republicans last fall or most recently by senate republicans. Hardly a lie when obama is also moving in that direction.

Tommy ran up Wisconsin's budget deficit. Apparently, you forget how much of a hole he left Wisconsin in.

Keep in mind that was during the roaring economy of the 90's.

Tommy tried rallying Wisconsin to vote for him as a Presidential candidate in 2007. At that time, Wisconsin quickly reminded him that we did not appreciate the billions he left taxpayers owing.

Obama is a Religious Cult Member............. and really He was for Closing Gitmo before he was Against it. and what about the NOW Obama tax cut Extensiions. I mean after all he was against them before he was for them. But now that we know Obamas real Record. The people are Smarter after Voting in that loser...

I wish this was true. I living just over the border from MA, work in MA, and I have seen more than I want to of The Mitt. Don't make the mistake of counting him out. And that REALLY SCARES ME from what I've seen of him. God help us all if he becomes Prez!

Obama still wants to close Guantanamo Bay. He still supports civilian trials and is against the illegal detention of prisoners without due process. But he's neither King nor dictator, and he can't force Congress to support his wishes. Compromise is necessary in a divided democracy, in order to get things done.

Speaking of compromise, Obama is still against the Bush tax cuts for the rich. However, his 2-year extension served to repeal DADT during the lame-duck session, as well as extend unemployment which the GOP was set against. Plus. the repeal of the Bush tax cuts will become an issue again just before the 2012 reelection, which I'm sure Obama had considered. I've learned that Obama has the knack of pulling victory from the jaws of defeat again and again (see health care reform.) I don't underestimate him, since he is clearly thinking further ahead than I am.

Exactly what Religious cult does our President belong to? Care to share that tidbit. Is the Christian faith now a religious cult? If one is going to label one religion as a cult and its reverend a cult leader, then all religions are cults and their ministers cult leaders. We live in a country of religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution--that guarantee includes Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon and any other faith someone chooses. While some may claim the Mormon faith is a cult, others claim far right evangelicals are cults as well.

Jody,

Look up the Word CULT.

If Obama wanted to Close Gitmo Down all it would take is a Stroke of the Presidental PEN. thats all.. he can do it without Approval of congress..... If he wanted public Trials for those at Gitmo. he could Force his AG to do it. Or Fire him and get somebody that will, And really what you are saying is that Obama who was agaisnt the ObAMA TAX CUT EXTENTIONS but signed them anyway Has no spine to stand up for what he believes in. . Those of us on the right know he has no Spine. and alot on the left are Coming to that realization too. its you FAR LEFT WING WACKOS that will defend obama at all costs.

Not me, but to be perfectly honest, all those examples are so pre-Paul Ryan. Since he squashed that little bug, causing even John Boehner to distance himself from the budget plan he rammed through the House, vanquished the birthers, and then kicked the cockroach Trump in the rump, all while secretly carrying out the demise of Osama bin Laden, it seems we have a far different president, much more like the President I voted for.

I just want him to get out of bed with the oil companies, but ironically, you probably like that part, Steve. Just goes to show, doesn't it?

In addition to the Oil companies, it would be nice if he also got out of bed with Wall street, Big Banks (bailout galore), Warmongers, (started THRID and most useless war) Lobbyists (he said he would get rid of them then appointed the most crooked available) and big business (appointing CEO of GE jobs Czar while he is still employed by GE is such a HUGE conflict of interest it is CRIMINAL!)

I see the libbys got thier payed blogger ol' fatty redhead out here.

Biteme,

Bite me

Bill:

Speaking as a friend, may I suggest you sharpen that sword of yours! ;o)

It's DULL!

Bill:

Obamacare was created by Republicans. Deal with it.

Obamacare was created by Republicans. Deal with it.

The Democrats had the best politician in a generation in the WH, a majority in the House, between 59 an 60 votes in the Senate but it was the Republicans that did it.

Remember the Individual Mandate was a GOP idea that President Obama put in because that is what the GOP wanted to gain approval of he Bill. After he did that the voted against it anyway. There are many many provisions in the HCR that the GOP written.

The lying right had no intention of supporting President Obama on HCR and he should have ignored them and totally gone it alone in the beginning instead of the compromise crap. The GOP/TP has no intention of compromising on anything, they will destroy this country and blame everybody else but themselves. Karl Rove is so proud of them all.

The GOP/TP has nothing to offer America and are floundering in their own BS.

The lying right had no intention of supporting President Obama on HCR and he should have ignored them and totally gone it alone in the beginning instead of the compromise crap.

But President Obama is the greatest politician in a generation, how could he have misread the oppositions intentions? I thought he was playing chess as they played checkers? I thought he was always 3 or 4 moves ahead? Even when the bill was signed VP Biden called it "a F...ing Big Deal".

During the primaries Hillary Clinton was for a mandate (remember wage garnish) of some sort and Barack Obama claimed that there would be no need for a mandate because insurance would be so reasonable that people would want to buy it. So he even compromised a campaign position.

Your spin is ridiculous.

When Bill Clinton was President, Repblicans embraced the individual mandate as a great "market based" solution, a better alternative than "Hillarycare" (ya'll always do come up with a cut name!).

Now President Obama proposes the Republican's great "market based" solution, and magically the very same idea becomes "socialism"?

Come on Alan . . . you are killing me . . . once again trying to defend the indefensible.

P.S. Can you tell me what Newt Gingrich means when he says he likes the individual mandate that Republicans proposed, but he doesn't like the "guvment" (that ironically he wants to lead) forcing anyone to pay. How can you have a mandate without the mandating? I mean, the double talk is just astounding.

P.S. Doesn't private sector insurance mandate us to choke down 15% a year increases? How is that better?

Nashville_fan

Come on Alan . . . you are killing me . . . once again trying to defend the indefensible.

P.S. Can you tell me what Newt Gingrich means when he says he likes the individual mandate that Republicans proposed, but he doesn't like the "guvment" (that ironically he wants to lead) forcing anyone to pay. How can you have a mandate without the mandating? I mean, the double talk is just astounding.

Nashville_fan, somehow I don't think you are going to get an honest answer

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Remember the Individual Mandate was a GOP idea that President Obama put in because that is what the GOP wanted to gain approval of he Bill.

As was pointed out on one of the MSNBC shows last night, virtually ALL Republicans were for the individual mandate right up to the day that President Obama adopted it for his health care reform. Then the individual mandate the GOP had invented and advertised as a sensible market-based approach to health care magically transformed into unconstitutional socialist tyranny.

Even far-right wacko Senator Jim Demint had said that Romney'sindividual mandate in Mass. should be adopted for the entire country. The only pub who favored an individual mandate after Obama adopted it was, of course, Newt Gingrich who accidentally lapsed into rationality for a few moments on MTP but quickly got over it.

Come on Alan . . . you are killing me . . . once again trying to defend the indefensible.

What am I trying to defend? The individual mandate? I was always against it. It was a joke that was put into healthcare insurance reform because the Democrats didn't have the testicular fortitude to call a tax a tax. At least if they they had introduced a tax to pay for this monstrosity it would be defensible.

If you read any posts I put up during the debate you would know that I was against it from the start because it did not address the cost of healthcare, providers, drugs, hospitals, but instead went off on some merry trail relating to insurance. Look at Massachusetts, 50% of providers won't even accept MassHealth.

www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home6&CONTENTID=54338&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

The con job that will put 15M+ into a Medicaid program that doctors will not accept is one of the biggest lies that will come out of this debacle.

"Insurance coverage doesn't equal access to care," said Alice Coombs, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society and an emergency room physician"

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110509/us_nm/us_usa_massachusetts_healthcare_1

I agree with Ms Coombs, but you have Governor Patrick shilling for HCR by quoting the statistic that Massachusetts has 99% Insurance coverage. I agree with VP Biden it is a "Big F..ing Deal" the way this con has been perpetrated.

Give credit where it is due. The individual mandate was a GOP idea and they were right. Each and everyone of us who have health insurance pays higher premiums and higher medical provider costs to cover the people who do not have health insurance, either because of the high premium costs or they determine they are never going to become ill, and they use the emergency room for their health care needs. Romney is simply following the GOP talking points for today--hate universal health care and above all a mandate. While we blame Romney for being a flip flopper, why would we expect him to say otherwise when all republicans want to hear is what they have been told--health care bad, mandate bad? Even if it is the same kind of health care the politicians who claim to hate it have, those politicians sell it as evil. What troubles me are those conservatives, independents and some liberals who seem so willing to believe the legislators and politicians claiming the Affordable Care Act "bad and evil" without ever looking at what the legislators have and asking why not for the rest of us.

Feisty dearest: one dull pencil is worth two sharp minds. Particularly leftist minds :)

Alan, NJ

If you read any posts I put up during the debate you would know that I was against it from the start

The debate started back in the '90s when the Republicans proposed the individual mandate as an alternative to what they derisively called "Hillarycare." Unless you have the excuse of being too young and innocent at the time to comprehend the evil Republican plot to impose the socialist tyranny of individual mandates on Americans, I really doubt you were adamantly opposed to it back then. To me, you seem like a lockstep kind of guy who agrees with whatever the GOP talking point of the day is, even if it's the exact opposite of yesterday's talking point.

It will be a great day if or when the Republicans get past their hate for Obama and instead work for the "American People". If President Obama wants it or like it, they have to go against it. Even if it's perfect for the country.

GOP=good old partisans.

Bill,

Are you aware that insurance companies are 3^rd party payers? Competition among insurance companies cannot bring down the cost of healthcare. They are not the supplier of healthcare so therefore have no control over the cost. 99% of them reimburse on a % of charge basis. By the way seniors are the sickest population and the most costly. Please tell me again how these insurance companies will fiercely compete for their business? You republicans are a silly bunch. Get rid of Medicare get rid of Social Security tell Granny to pay more for healthcare. Are you advocating Granny should die if she can’t pay for her care? If not, who do you suggest finance the shortfall to provide healthcare to Granny? The make a wish foundation?

Ed

@Houston!

To me, you seem like a lockstep kind of guy who agrees with whatever the GOP talking point of the day is, even if it's the exact opposite of yesterday's talking point.

Really? I didn't know the GOP were for single-payer with defined procedures and benefits. You see I understand the need for a budget not an opened ended commitment. Again, if you check my postings from last year you would have seen that I was for death panels because we can't pay for all treatments for all people.

I thought that HCR was too much too soon and suggested a compromise of Medicare for kids. This would have reduced premiums for families and businesses as it would have removed children under 21 from private insurance. It would have lowered child mortality rates but would be relatively inexpensive because kids are healthier than the general population. It would have lasted as long as the recipient was in full-time education so that college student s would also have covered. This would have been a first step towards single-payer. The program would be funded by taxes not a mandate.

Now tell me is this GOP policy?

Sorry, but your ridiculous assertions that the mandate was imposed on Obamacare by the GOP are becoming whiny. The reason I don't like the mandate is because it forces you to buy a private product, its almost unenforceable, and the only reason it is in HCR is because the Democrats didn't have the b.lls to call it a tax.

BTW When do YOU not walk in lockstep with the administration? I take you're for the Libyan intervention? The escalation in Afghanistan? The extension of the Bush tax rates?

Ummm Ed, insurance companies use their bargaining power to negotiate lower rates with providers all the time.

*Stands and applauds Ed!*

Alan, NJ

I didn't know the GOP were for single-payer with defined procedures and benefits.

You also apparently don't know that the Affordable Care Act is not single payer. That's why the individual mandate is IN THERE. Are you really that ignorant, or are you just pretending?

Alan NJ

Sorry, but your ridiculous assertions that the mandate was imposed on Obamacare by the GOP are becoming whiny.

I never said that the mandate was "imposed." You really should stop lying about what other people have written.

@Houston!

I have no idea what you are talking about any more. You accuse me of being lockstep with GOP talking points and when I give my opinion as to what HCR should have been you quote back ACA? I am/was against ACA OK. That does not mean I'm for any GOP proposals. You OK with that?

Do you understand the concept that one can have an opinion that is neither Republican or Democrat?

Sorry about the poor use of "your". I was referring to the thread and not YOUR post in particular.

ummm Bill they try....they really really do but at the end of the day if they don't pay the hospital what it needs to operate at a 2-4% margin over cost then the hospital doesn't accept their insurance anymore. Then the members put pressure on the insurance company to make a deal so the insurance company caves. Vicious stupid cycle happens every year.

Alan, NJ

You accuse me of being lockstep with GOP talking points and when I give my opinion as to what HCR should have been you quote back ACA?

The Republicans were all for an individual mandate right up to the moment that President Obama was for it. Sorry, but I just don't believe that you even gave the individual mandate much thought until sometime after that moment, either.

Sorry about the poor use of "your". I was referring to the thread and not YOUR post in particular.

I don't know of anyone else here who claimed that the individual mandate was imposed by Republicans, either. It was mostly a compromise with conservative Democrats and Joe Lieberman, who was for a public option until he found out the Congressman Anthony Weiner was for it, too.

Umm Ed, chances are your health insurance policy offers providers that are "in network" and also gives you the option of using a provider who is "out of network." It always costs more to use the "out of network" provider. Now by golly, why do you think that is so?

haha....oh that was a good laugh. Great solution Bill. I'm sure glad you don't run an insurance company because you'd be out of business.

No Wisconsin cheese, please. ;-)

Oh Anna Molly - I LOVE me some Wisconsin cheese & brats too! ;o)

For you, Feisty, for sure, but NOT for T-Paw.

Don't give him any carpetbagger ideas, either.

RVZ555

Stop calling that woman "Feisty". Haven't you heard her new moniker is AzzPimple?

Soon you'll notice another collapse. I flagged you as inflammatory

RVZ555. Name calling is against the FR Code of Honor. If you can't refrain from it simply because you don't like liberals, then you deserve to be collapsed and perhaps banned by the Newsvine and FR hosts. You make the choice.

Hey Navy did you notice your Tri-care is going up? Your buddies from the Senate want it with the blessing of Obama. I bet you remember the days that you were promised that your health care would be free for serving over 20. Boy I'm glad I was promised it too. Pretty soon you're going to be paying for your VA too.

Wasn't Obama on the VA board while his short two years in the Senate? I'm seeing a pattern, military not essential, raise their health care, cut their benefits, less than 2% pay raise, no COLA for retirees. Man I wish I can get a do over and get my 20+ years back and do something else.

If you agree with it, then maybe unemployment should be cut down to 12 weeks and people should be tested for drugs to be on welfare. Fair is fair right? Screw the people that busted their a@@ for 20+ but take care of the weak and lazy for doing nothing.

RVZ there is no need to be rude! While I dont agree with most of what Feisty/Bev or NavyBoy say, actually any of the liberal posters on here, I do respect their right to speak their minds. Besides Feisty seems to be able to get herself collapsed at any given moment and Bev...... can be very humorous at times! And what you have to remember that they are the minority! They have to yell louder and make more noise to be seen and heard! But I still cant believe Feisty wants some Wisconsin cheese (with a little Walker on the side)

i flagged you as stupid was pretty funny and who cares about the 'code of honor' its a stupid message board with the same operatives bitching at each other every day.

Just another example, as Stephanie Miller likes to say, of republicans eating their own.

Limbaugh is one hungry guy. And it shows.

That's one of the inevitable good things about a political party being taken over by extremists as the John Birch Society crazies have with the GOPTP. A point comes when proving yourself to be one of the "true believers" requires taking positions that are unpalatable to the great majority of citizens.

Da Noid

Ryan himself is facing angry town hall meetings on his Medicare overhaul. Polls in the NY-26 special election currently show Democrat Kathy Hochul leading over Republican Jane Corwin who has told voters that she will toe the line with Ryan's plan.

I was downtown Chicago yesterday to celebrate Rahm Emmanuel's inauguration. I even got to shake his upon which I got a photo of our New Mayor with service numbers to cal in times of need.

Had I known Ryan was giving a town hall on his voucher program, I would have joined the others in protest.

Chicago Seniors Tell Rep. Paul Ryan: 'Hands Off My Social Security!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1nMelmN4tE

The protest signs read “Hands off my Medicare,” and “Paul Ryan’s plan – Let them eat cat food.

Well said Nash. Republicans have really put themselves in a box with these issues.

Remember the attempts in the Republican party to draft Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for President, even though he most definitely was NOT "born in the USA"?

Good point Nashville! I distinctly remember talk of changing the constitution to allow Arnold, who was supposed to be the Republicans' best hope, to run for President. The ironies pile up.

Nicely put, Nashville. The media needs to focus on calling out the lies, pointing out the facts rather than discussing the lies as if it were truth.

When republicans spend all their time talking about our President's birth certificate, the health care law, or women's reproductive rights, they are not talking about solutions to our problems.

First Read did an excellent commentary in their Thoughts post today. It was refreshing to see the media look within itself. They did that after the Tucson shooting so perhaps we are seeing a shift back to responsible political discussion not creating or promoting controversy where there is and should be none. It is a start.

Perhaps you should read Feisty's post containing statistics from the Congressional Budget Office regarding the effects of the stimulus plan (ARRA) before you spout this kind of nonsense. You're totally offbase on your facts, even leaving the racist overtones out of the equation. Just look around you. President Obama is the only one who is really doing ANYTHING to solve the economic crisis. The Republicans' master plan to redistribute wealth upwards is actually what is now -- and deservedly so -- falling on deaf ears.

In short, people are not buying your lies anymore.

UAW,

I told my husband who the Republican candidate was going to be - Herman Cain. Most of the others have major baggage, and it would help Republicans prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the are not racists! :o)

Besides, he has nothing to lose, and the rest have nothing to gain (as in Sarah Palin walking away as a half term Governor to become a millionairess . . . this helps her keep up her 100,000 a mont wardrobe!).

Anybody remember Michael Steele? I don't mean to be crude, but the word "token" does come to mind.

Most of the others have major baggage, and it would help Republicans prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the are not racists! :o)

That would be a bitter, jagged, little pill for them to swallow!

I have a close family member who couldn't bring himself to vote for President Obama because... wait for it... he's BLACK!

Racsim is very much alive and kicking out there!

It would be MOST interesting to see how the 'crackers' would deal with a black Republican candidate...

Anna, You liberals just don't get it. Most people in the private sector don't want or need government programs to make money. You can't sustain real growth by taking something from one group and just giving it to another. Once the Republicans won the house real businesses grew confident there would be fewere moronic policys coming from the government. Perhaps there is a chance to nullify that ridiculus Dodd/Frank bill, HCR etc.....

Anna, You liberals just don't get it. Most people in the private sector don't want or need government programs to make money. You can't sustain real growth by taking something from one group and just giving it to another

So why do we subsidize the oil industry then?

Nash, We need to stop calling tax exemptions sudsidies. It's just wrong to promote the oil industry as the enemy of this country. Obama spent the better part of his presidency bashing, banks and businesses. All that message did was promote the ideaolgy that "I'm poor and it's someone elses fault". That message worked in 2008 but it hasnt helped the economy at all since then. Like I said VOTE FOR COMMON SENSE IN 2012! The country needs you...

UAW.

Why in the hell do oil companies deserve an exemption? You can call it whatever you like, and I call bullsh!t.

You are dismissed.

Clearly you are paid to come here and spread mindless foolishness.

UAW..

You can't sustain real growth by taking something from one group and just giving it to another.

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

Wow..so this whole trickle down economics thing that Reagan started was totally wrong for this country. The Bush tax cuts for the very rich 1% of this country, wrong. Give to the very rich and they will create jobs, wrong. UAW, for the first time, I am going to agree with you.

And also why do we subsidize the richest with continual tax breaks (a government program)? That's begs the question UAW. Then why is the GOP/TP continually trying to redistribute money from the middle class and poor to the rich?

Guy's stop calling tax exemptions subsidies. In fact let's just stop excessive taxing in all forms. There are alot of American companies who would love to create more jobs in the States instead of over seas. (you can thank higher energy/transportation costs for that). But they won't spend the money they earned over seas here because of the taxes.. Seriously let's get the entitlements fixed now instead of Obama's plan of kicking the can down the road to the next President. We made a good start in the 2010 elections let's get a few more people on board and this country will be great again. I know it will I beleive in the USA and Capitalism. It works like no other system....

You can't sustain real growth by taking something from one group and just giving it to another.

Good, then we're all in agreement that giving one group, say for example oil companies, a tax rate that's artificially lower than other types of business is unwarranted and should stop.

Correct John B. I fully support one tax rate for all regardless of income. That is fair and helps stop the class warfare Obama has been promoting

Nash, why are oil company subsidies/exemptions evil but larger and more costly subsidies going to the ethenol manufacturers and other so called "green energy" producers good? Both use taxpayer money for things that the free market could decide effectively on their own, but only one gets the negative attention from the left while the other (more expensive) is celebrated. I don't get it.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/07/30/energy-subsidies-study/

UAW Pleeeeeeeease

I still don't think we've seen the next President yet. Obviousley real voters have figured Obama is far better at expanding welfare recepients than reforming them.

That lie has been DE-BUNKED. Get another trick pony. Reagan created a fictitious welfare queen

After (literally) years of whining about the size of the Deficit that they created, Republicans have their code words for racism : "welfare" and "crime." Reagan's fictitious welfare queen is back. Corporate welfare, on the other hand, costs taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, but the politicians and media don't talk about that enough.

Since Reagan never named a particular woman, the description can be viewed as an example of dramatic hyperbole. Despite claims that the woman never existed

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

Back in the 1980s Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan repeatedly complained that Ronald Reagan was running up the national debt in order to bankrupt the USA so that the Federal government could no longer afford any of its social programs, from Aid to Families with Dependent Children to Social Security to Medicare to veterans' benefits. He was right, but hardly anyone listened.

The Republicans are still trying to bankrupt the Federal government and they're still trying to eliminate every Federal social program, not only the remnants of FDR's New Deal but even going back to Teddy Roosevelt's conservationist programs.

http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

Who ever comes out with commonsense proposals and runs against him will do well. The "Redistribute the wealth message" for the most part is falling on deaf ears this time. With the exception of the poverty lobby who were 90% pro-Obama before he was born any way....

All the jackasses in the GOP/T-baggers collectively cannot beat president Obama because they increase and redistribute the wealth for corporate welfare.

Bev, Your welfare expansion plan works well until you run out of sombody elses money. The slaves have been freed for over 200 years. It's time to get on with life and join the capitalistic country that has made so many so succesful regardless of color, education, back ground etc. Stop using some one elses success as an excuse for your failure....

Suzy,

If the free market can address our need for alternative energy, they are off to a really slow start, considering that we have been talking about this since the 1970's.

The reality is that the oil companies own Congress and have no interest alternative Energy.

So in short, save the "free market" talking point. The "free market" has not address rising health costs or rising oil prices.

And they won't either, because the only thing that motivates the "market" is money. Period.

But of course, I am sure that will find a way to blame someone else, because that is how ya'll roll.

Bev....come on, Do you actually ever go downtown. I live IN down town Detroit 8 Mile and John R. I AM down town and I see entire welfare families all day every day! As a matter of fact just this morning I had 3 people approach me wanting to sell their "bridge" cards for 50 cents on the dollar! Detroit has been a Welfare city for years. Im just hoping Mayor Bing can fix this city. I cant go anywhere with out a weapon (I do have a CWP)

Is there class warfare between corporations, UAW? That was the subject of the conversation before you found it necessary to deflect onto another subject.

Your deflection suggests that you DO find corporate welfare acceptable. After all, it's an issue you don't seem to wish to discuss.

John there you go again with the old "They got welfare and I deserve welfare way more than them song" Boo Hoo. Listen if you want to eliminate all forms of welfare except those for the truly disabled I'll back you 100%. The reason we have generational welfare is not because there is no oppurtunity it's because we have welfare. Let's reform those programs now. Just stop confusing tax exemptions for welfare, we just need to eliminate excess taxes.....

Actually, Nash, I don't think the free market has had a chance in any of the areas you mentioned- there has been some form of intervention brought to us by government. Many have complained that our government has kept oil prices artificially low. This keeps the free market from pursuing alternative energy forms because it's unnecessary. People are happy with what they have now. Now the government's implementing ethanol mandates. This hasn't positively impacted fuel prices but it has negatively impacted the price of darn near everything else and caused its own host of environmental issues. And frankly, even in countries where there was ample reason to pursue lower cost fuels, it hasn't much been done. Gas prices in Europe & Asia have far outpaced prices in the US but even they were satisfied with the current system until recently. Health Care costs are the same- the cost of health care exploded right about the time HMOs came into being. The more we mess with the free market, the more the attempts to control it have a negative effect.

And you still didn't answer the question- why are oil company subsidies evil and green technology subsidies which far out-pace oil subsidies celebrated? They are both coming from the same funding source- we the people.

Suzy:

I didn't say they were evil, I said it was ridiculous.

Listen Suzy, let's not pretend we are having a "conversation", since we both know nothing anyone can say will change your mind.

If watching conservative polices explode the deficit over and over again didn't give you a clue, then neither will I.

Carry own in your fantasy land . . . tell Tinkerbell I said hi!

Nash, when the only thing you can come up with is dodging questions and slinging insults, I'm pretty sure it's not me who can't have a conversation. But hey, if it makes you feel like the bigger person, that's just fine by me.

Suzy, The USA has become a giant Insurance company with an Army. We try and gaurentee people low healthcare. But it actually explodes those costs when the government agrees to pay the bill (why should the patient shop around it's not his money any way). We try and gaurentee everyone an education but it actually explodes the cost of college when the governmt gaurentees a student's $100k loan (do you think college would cost so much if a kid could olny borrow $15k?). We try and subsidize ethenol but it explodes the price of corn, land etc. Let the free market reign and vote for COMMON SENSE IN 2012!

So UAW, you're in favor of distorting the market by favoring one industry (the oil industry for example) over others through preferential taxation? That's the only real justification to continue giving the petroleum barons a heaping helping out of the pockets of taxpayers.

I agree, but I don't think it will happen until 2016.

And yet you can't stay away! :o)

amen!

Ditto what thepipster said!

You know, I STILL can't believe that a political group would do this kind of damage to the country on purpose.

But I am running out of explanations.

I think it is a concerted conservative effort to destroy everyone but themselves. They have not realized yet that they are destroying thmeselves as well.

Nash,

You're correct, when you have a guy run for President and have a kid with another woman while his wife has cancer. You have the person in charge of writing the tax codes NOT PAY is own TAXES. A guy in charge of the Treasury not PAY his TAXES for 4 years. A guy do docks his boat in a different state not to PAY taxes. You mean PEOPLE like that? Because you know the Democrats are the only ones that are perfect right? A guy that started a 3rd War without approval of Congress? Get real, you have your blinders on, time to take them off. Both partys are screwed up and you can see that.

Nashville - ROTFLMAO!!!

If a political party sends millions of American jobs overseas, collapses the housing and stock market, and subsidizes the same oil companies making billions of dollars in profit every year, then follows up that sterling performance with a refusal to assist the unemployed, foreclosed and victims of disappearing retirement funds, why in the hell do folks keep voting for them?

So where were the democrats? Where was Tip Oneil? Where was Clinton? With monica? Where was the American consumer in demanding only "made in the USA" goods, rather than low cost goods. Even better yet is where is the liberal compassion of helping out the poor and elderly in the emerging markets?

You do realize the folly of what you speak about don't you. Wasn't it the contention of the right to fund unemployment with $$$ already allocated?

Whatever possesses you to think that the government should help anyone with a mortgage that they made a bad decision on or retirement funds tied to the stock market? Your belief that the right wanted the collapse of the housing market or the markets is absurd. Doesn't that fly right in your face about business and right wing greed you say is so rampant? That they want to throw $$$ away??

Amazing that fannie and freddy did back many loans and the government in turn backed them, but yet you want more? What type of aide do you propose to give to other home owners who have seen a loss in home value?

Oil company profits?? Why are the democrats only targeting 5 oil companies, companies whose profit margins have been proven by CBS to amount to only 6% of revenue while computer companies and pharmaceuticals generate 16 & 17%? Shouldn't the democrats want to target equally accross the board?? Perhaps your beloved liberals have their own hands in taking kickbacks.

3Wolves:

Ah, the classic "both sides do it", blanket defense for all ills.

See, the difference is, Democrats ain't running on "family values" they don't have or selling voodoo economics that will not and has never worked.

All of us are human and make mistakes. But the way that Republicans keep effing up and finding someone to blame is damn near an art form.

P.S. Can you name a Democrat that voted to impeach a President for doing the exact same thing that they have done over and over again? But hey, both sides do it, right?

Where was the American consumer in demanding only "made in the USA" goods, rather than low cost goods.

The American consumer was at Wal-mart shopping at the sale. The market driven economy cares not where products are manufactured and has helped to unbalance our trade deficit; one of our many problems.

Your belief that the right wanted the collapse of the housing market or the markets....

I don't think Nash or a majority of liberals think that the right planned the collapse or wanted it. I do believe that Wall Street and the Banks merely thought the house of cards would keep standing and used every loop hole to get as much $ out of us. They gambled correctly knowing that even if the cards fell, WE would pay the price and not them.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals don't want to see that happen again. Conservatives not quite sure, after all they put too much faith in the pure laissez faire market solutions.

Taxing the oil companies, although I am for it, is pure theater. Will not get through the house is only being proposed so Dems can gain points. Another poster brought up a good point about ethanol subsidies. Perhaps it is time to take a look at decreasing those subsidies/tax breaks.

Ummmmm you are the only one that can make things better for the little guy! By doing something to become NOT one of the little guys! Thats the american dream, but you cant have it unless you work for it. It can not be achieved by the government giving it to you.

Nicely said, "Grimey".

The fact that the republican candidate says she supports killing medicare has aided the possible upset. Sadly, I don't think the GOP/TP knows what compromise, common ground, not getting everything they want, etc. means these days--it's all their way or the highway and logic seems to have disappeared.

No he hasn't. It's the same thing with Ron Paul man, they overlook the libertarian candidates because MSNBC is usually left leaning and can't stand not having the Government keeping order in their lives with Laws and Taxes. About as much as the Right with the social laws.

Ron Paul was on MSNBC yesterday and it wasn't and won't be the first and only time.

Joe Schmoe and Buchannan are not exactly Democrats. MSNBC leans right in the morning, gets kinda toward the midlle in the afternnon and goes Progressive/Liberal in the evening.

Unlike FOX that is totally far right all the time.

RVZ555

I'm predicting O'Donnell's show will be cancelled by September.

I'm sure you're eager to see all programs removed from TV that present factual information debunking Republican lies with only Fox and Fox wannabe's remaining. But sadly, your prediction is unlikely to prove true:

At 8 p.m., MSNBC topped CNN for the 38th consecutive month. “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell” topped CNN’s “In the Arena” in total viewers (958,000 vs. 515,000) and A25-54 (258,000 vs. 157,000) for the month.

BTW: If you look at the TV by the Numbers article I linked to, you'll see the ratings of all the other shows on MSNBC are pretty good in comparison with CNN. Even Chris Matthews reruns at 7PM ET often beat John King's Fox Lite show at the same time.

I thought it was funny when I heard that MSNBC's "Lockup" on Saturday nights has higher ratings than Mike Huckabee's FOX show.

It just shows you that us independents are listening to what the left is saying. The old adage keep your friends close , keep your enemies closer! I know thats why I watch the liberal talk shows. I know what the rights thinking.....you never know what the left is thinking! OoooOOo now your scared!

Spoken like a true liberal.. Hate hate hate..

BS Mickey unless you believe there are no consequences for your actions. Karma is going to come down on the GOP/TP like a mother f------! You have done little but lie and spin about this president and his policies. All one need do is check any fact-check site to see this clearly. There is little benefit to deceit in the long run. Someday you will learn.

Damn.......there are going to be a lot of pissed off liberals in 2012!

Wow--really? This is your answer to our economic woes? How many more problems (costly ones like rehab, lost productivity, accidents, etc.) will be caused by legalizing an addictive drug? How about we just finally end the Iraq "war" and start bringing home troops from Afghanistan, too? That should save a few billion dollars.

BTW, I hope Romney is the Republican nominee. He may not be perfect, but if he should win the election (I'm for Obama), I'd rather him be President than someone like Gingrich or Huckabee. I was shocked when Republicans picked McCain over Romney last time, since the issue was the economy in the LAST election as well.

Again with your LIES and misinformation. Cannabis is NOT AN ADDICTIVE DRUG.

Actually, looking at it from a strictly monetary view--if the Government stopped the war on drugs, opened "drug" stores like the old liquor stores, slapped a tax on the drugs sold, it would: save a lot of money, end the drug cartels, stop the killing at the border, empty the prisons of drug dealers and users who commit other crimes to support their habits, encourage kids who get sucked into selling drugs to finish school and get legitimate jobs, reduce the number of prisons needed and eliminate the tax burden for the high cost of incarceration for drug dealers and users....

As unrealistic as it sounds and I'm not advocating it, we spend billions fighting a drug war we will never win, why not legalize and control it. On this, Ron Paul is right but it isn't likely to happen.

Bethie, can't answer your question, because cannabis is not an addictive drug. Alcohol and tobacco (two perfectly legal substances), however, ARE addictive and extremely costly. Mark is right. Cannabis is a huge cash crop in many states (all tax free), has multiple medicinal and commercial uses, is non-addictive, does not cause cancer (in fact it's been shown to shrink tumors), and is yet another example of why Prohibition is a failure as a policy. We waste billions of tax dollars every year on our failed drug policy. It's time to stop believing and spreading the BS propaganda and take advantage of this extremely useful, profitable plant.

Some cities in California have actually voted to allow Pot clubs but are taxing them upwards of 10% greater than normal sales tax. If everyone regulated what was already a well-used drug and siphoned off a reasonable amount of money for rehab and diversion programs, why not? I have to agree with Ron Paul on this one: Pot should be legalized, regulated and taxed.

One city yesterday released a Q1 figure of 300k in tax revenue on Cannabis clubs!

Thank you all for your support!

Bethie lives in Texas, which was just voted by NORML to be the 2nd worst state to busted for pot in next to Okla@!$%#inhoma where the governer just signed a bill to put makers of hash in jail for life!.

The prohibition of cannabis has been a masterpiece in the art of brainwashing and Bethie is living proof of that fact.

After today Osama bin Laden could defeat Obama. He showed the world his true motivation today giddy about the way things were going and he got careless. Voted straight ticket my whole life even voted for that idiot McGovern but today was the last straw.

Signed your petition Steven. Everyone else should even you Conservatives out there.

Signed. Good proposal for a start.

Steven, they already take an oath to defend the constitution (the oath of their office, from the President (Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."), their job is to "represent" the people of the United States. Any lobbying that takes away from that means they broke their oath to defend the Constitution and did NOT/are NOT do(ing) the job elected for (grounds for firing on one, to the courts on the other - with no judges who have been put into office in the last 12 - 15 years). Why would you think they would be honorable for this?