Finally, a Dem pol who understands what the words “global economy” mean. I’m sure ole Slick Willy is going to get crucified by the FR lefty liberals for this statement. LOL!!!

From Politico:

Clinton calls for corporate tax cut
By: Mike Allen
July 3, 2011 02:03 PM EDT

ASPEN, Colo. — President Bill Clinton says the nation’s corporate tax rate is “uncompetitive” and called for a lower rate as part of a “mega-deal” to raise the debt ceiling.

“When I was president, we raised the corporate income-tax rates on corporations that made over $10 million [a year],” the former president told the Aspen Ideas Festival on Saturday evening.

“It made sense when I did it. It doesn’t make sense anymore — we’ve got an uncompetitive rate. We tax at 35 percent of income, although we only take about 23 percent. So we should cut the rate to 25 percent, or whatever’s competitive, and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a fair amount, and there’s not so much variance in what the corporations pay. But how can they do that by Aug. 2?”

BTW, I hope all the conservative FR posters enjoyed a Happy Independence Day!!

And all the FR lefty liberal posters had a Happy Govt Dependence Day!!

Here They Come Again Off To A Rocky Start

T-bagger / Republicans can't really believe that middle America is going to all of a sudden forget what the republican party and T-baggers present again or anew in addition to accepting it. Your chances are going to be close. but like Asteroid 2011 MD grazed past the earth's atmosphere or thee “Rapture”so will your anti-government rants and land grabs.

[snip]

Republican governors, feeling their oats, have started a number of policy initiatives across the nation designed to bust unions, block voter registration, defile history in school textbooks, legalize child labor, restrict women’s reproductive rights, and allow police to question innocent people on the street who just happen to look Hispanic. In Ohio, the state government now has the power to take over local governments, disregarding our democratic policies entirely.

Rep. Phil Jensen of South Dakota put forward a proposal that would make it lawful to kill anyone who killed a fetus, which may technically include doctors who perform abortions.
Missouri state Senator Jane Cunningham has proposed a bill that would "modify" child labor laws, eliminating the prohibition on employment for children under 14.
Judson Phillips, president of the prominent Tea Party group, Tea Party Nation, is advocating the idea that only property owners should have the right to vote.
Conservatives in 13 states have proposed laws forbidding their states from adopting Islamic Sharia law. The U.S. Constitution already guarantees a separation between religion and state, but that was not good enough to quell their paranoia. (I wonder if these States felt tempted to adopt Sharia law, which led to this action?)

http://www.seedsforthought.org/articles3/watch.htm

Presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann riding in the back of a pickup truck carrying turnip, yam and other assorted vegetables attempted to stand up while the vehicle was in motion, lost her footing, and summarily fell out of the vehicle; thus injuring herself.

[snip]

Should the Republican party instead opt to nominate someone with some actual political prowess, it’s believed Bachmann could easily run on the new 4 To 7 Party ticket.

STERLING, Vir. (CAP) - Buoyed by the growing success of an increasing number of candidates aligning themselves outside the standard Republican and Democratic ranks, a new political party has begun to emerge that tosses traditional politics on its head. The "4 To 7" party is quickly becoming a force to be reckoned with in the fall elections.

"People think we're the Tea Party but we're not," said 4 To 7 Party chairman Larry Flynn. "In fact, we have nothing to do with the Tea Party. That said, a lesson learned from the Tea Party movement did pave the way for the creation of 4 To 7, so we do owe them a nod."

According to the group's charter, the basic tenet of the party's philosophy is to nominate and promote women for public office who are considered "moderately hot." Flynn said that only women who fall in the four-to-seven range on an attractiveness scale of one to ten can run as members of the party because of their high probability of winning their elections.

"See, it doesn't matter what she says, how stupid or unqualified she is to hold office - if she is moderately hot, she will win," said Flynn. "It's what the American people want in their elected officials - moderately hot, stupid broads."

"We could care less about whether or not our politicians are qualified, experienced, or even moderately intelligent," said Cole. "What we want them to be is attainable. That's the genius of the 4 To 7 movement.

"Women that are too attractive - eights, nines, tens - are too out of reach, and the ones through threes are just too homely," Cole noted. "But those middle-of-the-packers are perfect. Men feel they could date them, women feel they could be them. Everyone will vote for them."

http://www.crystalair.com/story.php?id=201009008
================================================

Did anyone notice in the article, doctors did say they fear the jarring motion of the fall could lead to delayed congnitive impairment and the possible onset of a condition known as Palindromiasis, whereby an otherwise capable person becomes prone to sudden outbursts of illogical and nonsensical statements?

Really, how many falls did she have prior to confusing historical facts?

This proves it. Americans on the right are getting dumb and dumber!

Feisty:

It is a cancer that is spreading throughout this country and it will destroy us. We have a group of people that have lost their way some time ago. They (New GOP/TP Party) have adopted an ideology where deceit, lies, misinformation, moral and ethical corruption are now considered vitrtues.

We deserve better.

(By the way, this Congress is on pace to be one of the least productive in history.)

NO surprise there!

Teapublican's will be swept OUT in a larger tsunami then the one which swept them in 2010!

Here's what you get in Wisconsin when you have a balanced budget and union members starting to pay their fair share for their benefits and pensions:

Source: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/06/union-curbs-rescue-wisconsin-school-district

So the "disaster" that the Democrats and unions predicted didn't take place. Many schools in Wisconsin, running a deficit before the new budget was passed, in fact are now flush with cash. Schools that would have laid off teachers and administrators, schools that would have had to cut programs, schools that would have raised taxes, all of them now can do the exact opposite. The unions had run Wisconsin schools, and bled them and the tax payers dry, for years. The same thing is true is so many other states. Wisconsin though stared down the unions, point out that they were the problem, and if that problem was fixed, the schools are fixed. The Democrats and the unions resisted though, they protested and riot, cut work and abandoned their students, took in millions of ad money from the unions, and had a super-sized conniption fit over being asked to pay their far share. It didn't work, but now the Wisconsin schools do work, and the taxpayers get some relief from the burden the Democrats and unions put on them.

In other news, the largest teachers union has endorsed President Obama for re-election in 2012. Of course they did, they know Obama will continue to steal the taxpayers money, just for them.

Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_EDUCATION_UNION_OBAMA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-07-04-18-04-01

Boston.com

Some good news -

Developers across the Boston area are moving forward with a number of large construction projects that were stalled by the recession, creating thousands of jobs and ending one of the state’s most prolonged building slumps.

At least nine major developments are under construction or preparing to begin-

And not so good news -

Kip Tiernan, who founded Rosie’s Place, the nation’s first shelter for homeless women, and whose persistent, raspy voice echoed from the streets to the State House as she advocated for the poor, died of cancer Saturday in her South End apartment.

She was 85.

Usually clad in a canvas hat and work pants, a cross and a skate key dangling from a leather strap around her neck, Ms. Tiernan helped create an A-to-Z of agencies that assist the disadvantaged in Massachusetts. By example, she also inspired so many people to try to ease suffering that, directly or indirectly, she may have touched more lives of the poor in the Commonwealth than anyone else in the past four decades.

________________________________________________________

Now she was an activist. A true activist.

On August 2^nd, the country will face the danger of a debt default resulting from Congress’s failure to raise the debt limit in a timely manner. As we approach that deadline it is clear that there are many Republicans willing to risk a default to achieve their ideological goal of reducing government spending. Although they say they are motivated by a concern for the nation’s finances, the total unwillingness of the Republican leadership in Congress to consider as much as $1 of tax increase renders these concerns as hallow.

Several news sources are reporting that Sen. Rand Paul and a group of senators in the "conservative wing" of the Republican Party “will actually vote in favor of raising the debt ceiling next week”, but “it will be contingent on passing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution." Amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. There aren’t enough votes in either house to pass the legislation and, even if both Houses of Congress were to pass the legislation, ratification of three-quarters of the states would take years. You might remember that in 1995, the Senate defeated a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution by a vote of 65 to 35.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas is rejecting one solution to the debt limit impasse being floated by Democrats that argues the president has the authority to ignore the ceiling because it is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. "That's crazy talk," said Cornyn on "Fox News Sunday." The question arises: Is it crazy or does the 14^th Amendment render the debt ceiling debate null?

I believe that a debt crisis is imminent. I have serious doubts that Congress will raise the debt limit in time to prevent the Treasury from running out of cash to pay its bills, including interest and repayments on the debt. Since the ultimate crisis may come during Congress’s August recess, the Treasury may have no recourse except to consider radical options for preventing default.

One idea to stave off default involves the Federal Reserve who could temporarily buy some of the Treasury’s $300 billion stock of gold. This would allow the Fed to create cash that the Treasury could use to pay its bills until the debt limit is increased, at which time Treasury could simply buy it back. It would be a purely paper transaction that would have no real effect on the price of gold or anything else. The Fed could simultaneously sell an equal amount of securities from its portfolio to prevent the money supply from rising more than it desires.

A more radical solution would be to simply disregard the debt limit altogether on constitutional grounds. The essence of the argument involves section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

In my view this means that the president would have constitutional authority to take extraordinary measures to protect the public credit and prevent a debt default even if it means disregarding the debt limit, which is statutory law subordinate to the Constitution.

I believe that the Fourteenth Amendment trumps the debt limit. There is strong support for this position in article after article by constitutional scholars. In an article by George Washington University law professor Michael Abramowicz, (“Beyond Balanced Budgets, Fourteenth Amendment Style,”), the point is articulated simply and articulately. Abramowicz concludes that any government action “making uncertain whether or not a debt will be honored is unconstitutional.

“A debt does not become valid or invalid only at the moment payment is due. A debt’s validity may be assessed at any time, and a debt is valid only if the law provides that it will be honored. Therefore, a requirement that the government not question a debt’s validity does not kick in only once the time comes for the government to make a payment on the debt. Rather, the duty not to question is a continuous one.

If as a result of government actions, a debt will not be paid absent future governmental action, that debt is effectively invalid. The high level of generality recognizes that instead of referring to payment of debts, the Clause bans government action at any time that affects the validity of debt instruments…. Moreover, there is no such thing as a valid debt that will nonetheless not be honored.

This means that the very existence of the debt limit is unconstitutional because it calls into question the validity of the debt. So would any other provision of law. That is a key reason why Congress created a permanent appropriation for interest payments at the same time that the Fourteenth Amendment was debated. Previously, Congress had to pass annual appropriations for interest.

Of course, if the administration ignores the debt limit to prevent a default on constitutional grounds, there are certainly those who would claim that it has violated the law. However, this raises an interesting question: who would have standing to enjoin the administration’s action?

The Justice Department would certainly not sue the president or the Treasury secretary under these circumstances, so who would? Only the Congress as a whole would have standing, which means that both the House and Senate would have to pass a joint resolution condemning the president’s action and authorizing a law suit, something that would be very unlikely given Democratic control of the Senate.

It has been reported that many democratic are warming to the constitutional option for breaking the deadlock on the debt limit and preventing a default. At a press conference last Wednesday, President Obama was asked directly about this by Chuck Todd and he refused to rule it out.

It goes without saying that provoking a constitutional crisis over the debt limit is a bad idea, but a debt crisis would be worse. At a minimum, the Fourteenth Amendment greatly strengthens the President’s hand in getting the debt limit increased in a timely matter. He should not be afraid to use it and, if necessary, let the Supreme Court interpret the meaning of the provision within the 14^th Amendment.

FR: “Even as President Barack Obama's re-election effort is powering toward an impressive early fundraising haul, campaign officials are trying to reassure donors who have concerns about a range of policy decisions and pace of change during Obama's first term,” AP writes.

Sure, why wouldn't Obama get a second term? Unemployment up 25%, gas prices up 110%. Debt up 33%. Why wouldn't the country want to continue those 'changes' and those 'success' stories?

Big hugs gor speaking the truth Feisty,

FOX NOISE hacked? Where is Andy Breibart? I bet that twit loved that tweet.

Watching Morons is getting disgusting

Anyhow,

I hope all the teapotty people had a good Independence Day despite their hatred of this govenement.

Happy Birthday, Malia Obama, you have become 13 and a teenager!

I'm sure with your beautiful face and elegance you'll follow in mom and dad's footsteps and get a doctorate degree instead of having children out of wedlock.

America The Beautiful
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7Wt4XlXUrc&feature=related

IL: It goes without saying that provoking a constitutional crisis over the debt limit is a bad idea, but a debt crisis would be worse. At a minimum, the Fourteenth Amendment greatly strengthens the President’s hand in getting the debt limit increased in a timely matter.

If the President can borrow and spend money independent of Congressional approval, Congress should just pack their bags and go home, they would no longer be necessary.

The other day I said Obama had promised that if we spent a trillion, unemployment would not exceed 8% ……

Libs were diving out of their tree houses to jump on me….. yea, words are important and I had been sloppy. I should have said …..

I'm not saying Obama promised, but the Obama administration did present charts and projected unemployment would not exceed 8% …….

Wow ……. that feels a lot better. I like it …… how's another …..

I'm not saying Obama is a liar when he says taxes are the lowest ever, (he could cleverly be referring to his tax revenues while inferring tax rates on the rich), but shouldn't he know that taxes (rates) have been lower before, like under Reagan, like when Reagan turned around the previous worst recovery in the last 70 years? He's President ….. he should know that right?

Ten days ago or so, Obama stopped by Fort Drum and in a pathetic effort to suck-up to the military, told the 10^th Mountain Divison ……

"….. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn't receiving it posthumously."

Problem was ….. Jared Monti is dead, he did give his life on June 21, 2006 trying to rescue a wounded soldier. Obama did award him the Congressional Medal of Honor – he stood and handed it to Jared's grieving parents. What kind of commander in chief cannot remember such an important, emotional, special moment?

The man Obama "misspoke" about was Sal Giunta. I remember the ceremony. I remember Obama remarking or joking …."I like this guy …." ….. as if all this was some fraternity panty raid, not Giunta risking his life to save his mortally wounded buddy who had been dragged away by the Taliban, in an effort to make sure his dying friend passed with those who loved him, not the Taliban. Giunta lost another friend that day too in that horrible ambush.

One soldier since Vietnam has not received the CMH posthumously. The one that did, the one that Obama presented himself …… he couldn't get right. Only 4 CMH have been given in 10 years for service in Afghanistan. Bush awarded at least 1 of the other 2. Simply unbelievable.

I'm not saying Obama is a clueless narcissist who isn't impressed with anything unless about him, but if you want to honor our military, honor our greatest heroes – especially those who gave their lives for our country ……. You would think the commander in chief could at least honor them by getting their names right.

Obama ended his little pep talk (campaign speech) by saying …….

"your commander in chief has your back."

Yea Obama, …… and I got your back too.

Come on Republicans, get on board, and quit playing your games. Let's build our country and quit trying to tear the progress down, while trying to make President Obama fail. It's a bad plan you guys have, and it's going to back fire in your face.

JoAnnaSmith1

If the President can borrow and spend money independent of Congressional approval, Congress should just pack their bags and go home, they would no longer be necessary.

That's not what the Constitution states. Congress is the branch that passes budget legislation. Once a bill is enacted and expenses are incurred under that bill, the amount should be accrued as a liability and expensed. That"s GAAP, generally accepted accounting principles. An expense is not incurred at the time it become due for payment. It becomes due on the date it was incurred.

That is the distinction many people fail to understand and the Constitution is very clear about all debts incurred by the US.

bob,

Actually, it would seem the narcissist is you. You seemed to be quite impressed with yourself, but I cannot as of yet figure out why.

President Obama called the Monti family and personally apologized. And they accepted.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/bridgewater/news/x2108621341/Jared-Montis-family-accepts-Obama-apology#axzz1REpOEoGg

So basically, what we have here is little old you, having no answer to the question "Why is it that Republican financial policies did not work as advertised when implemented by President Bush and the Republican controlled Congress?" . . . instead, trying to create a distraction by digging up some old played out crap.

Awe insprinng bob. Seriously.

Pat, Boston, MA

Boston.com

Some good news -

Developers across the Boston area are moving forward with a number of large construction projects that were stalled by the recession, creating thousands of jobs and ending one of the state’s most prolonged building slumps.

Sorry to her about founder of Rosie’s Place, the nation’s first shelter for homeless women. She died with her boots on and will be remembered for good deeds.

That is great. Also did you see where you governor, Deval Patrick, anther one of my fellow Chicagoan (thumping my chest) wrote an article in WaPo?

How Grover Norquist hypnotized the GOP

[snip]

Last week, Republican leaders withdrew from talks with the vice president on a bipartisan plan to reduce the deficit because, as another part of the solution and like every bipartisan budget deal for decades, the president proposed to raise revenue. Specifically, he proposed to raise $1 in new revenue (through closing loopholes or ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans) for every $2 in spending cuts. In response to that modest proposal, Republican leaders walked out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/how-grover-norquist-hypnotized-the-gop/2011/06/30/AGYOUlsH_story.html

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

Also, Pat when that moron Eric Cantor walked out the defict went up a point. What do T- Baggers care? They are mostly a bunch of idiots incapable of change.

Hi Beverly.

Yes, I did see Gov. Patrick's article last week and it received a lot of coverage all across the internets.

Evidently if Mitt Romney wins the nomination Gov. Patrick is going to go out on the campaign trail and explain just how bad of a guv'na Mitt really was.

Can't wait.

I saw Gov. Patrick on CSpan talking about his new book. He was in Washington DC and the room was packed with people from what I could see on tv.

He told some extremely interesting stories about his life. His manner is so different from so many politicians, pundits, etc. He's soft spoken, handsome, intelligent, respectful.

I think very highly of him.

btw, Rev. Al is going to be hosting for Cenk this week. I'm so glad to see a supporter of President Obama on tv. The media being "left" is such BS. It's anything but.

There was a scorching diary put up about MSNBC, Hamsher, Adam Green, etc. the other day which I won't cut and paste.

It wasn't pretty.

JoAnnaSmith1

If the President can borrow and spend money independent of Congressional approval, Congress should just pack their bags and go home, they would no longer be necessary.

Lady Sniff WTH do you think they are doing now?

The Grim Weeper cut their work weeks down.

FYI: I really don't think you enjoy being a slave. If Congress won't pay them, then the executive must.

Southerners were used to having their way in Congress--they had dominated the institution from 1787 until secession in 1861--and many believed that when their representatives arrived in House and Senate, they would be able to tear up the nation's IOUs.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/04/29/The-Debt-Limit-Option-President-Obama-Can-Use.aspx

Teapublican's Oath

" I pledge allegiance to Grover Norquest and to the Republicans for whom he stands for. One nation under my God, indivisible with liberty and justice for the mega wealthy"

Once a bill is enacted and expenses are incurred under that bill, the amount should be accrued as a liability and expensed. That"s GAAP, generally accepted accounting principles. An expense is not incurred at the time it become due for payment. It becomes due on the date it was incurred.

__________________________________________

That's true for entities that are required to follow GAAP. Unfortunately, the US government and virtually all state and local govt entities do not follow GAAP. If the US govt were required to follow GAAP, they would have to record an expense in the current fiscal year for the net present value of the SS and Medicare benefits earned by future beneficiaries during that fiscal year. That huge accumulated number would make the national debt of $14+ trillion look like pocket change by comparison and show how hugely bankrupt the US govt actually is.

btw, Rev. Al is going to be hosting for Cenk this week. I'm so glad to see a supporter of President Obama on tv. The media being "left" is such BS. It's anything but.

And there is nothing wrong with a supporter of President Obama hosting a program. If there is room for lies being said about President Obama, if there is room for obvious pundits who are Republican leaning, if there is room for the left to challenge President Obama every second of every day,

then there is room for those who don't lie about President Obama and who support his re-election.

We're being drowned out by the left and the right.

From The MSNBC Front Page:

"Obama administration officials are offering to cut tens of billions of dollars from Medicare and Medicaid in negotiations to reduce the federal budget deficit, but the depth of the cuts depends on whether Republicans are willing to accept any increases in tax revenues.

"Medicaid would be cut by $100 billion over 10 years, as President Obama and many Republican lawmakers have suggested."

Before the talks led by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. broke off 12 days ago, negotiators said, they had reached substantial agreement on many cuts in the growth of Medicare, which provides care to people 65 and older, and Medicaid, which covers lower-income people. Those proposals are still on the table when Congress reconvenes this week, aides said, and are serious options that Democrats could accept in exchange for Republican concessions that raise revenues."

So much for not cutting our social entitlements and keeping Medicare and Medicaid safe. I have to wonder when Obama is going to stop talking out of both sides of his mouth and fight for core Democratic principles.

Change just doesn't happen. You need to fight for it. You need to work for it. You can't compromise every time there is a crisis and expect to effect change.

President Clinton gave him some great advice. Don't blink.

He apparently has an eye tick.

Presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann riding in the back of a pickup truck carrying turnip, yam and other assorted vegetables attempted to stand up while the vehicle was in motion, lost her footing, and summarily fell out of the vehicle; thus injuring herself.

Mr Bachmann riding in a second pick up truck carrying fruit; did not fall over due to a third leg which had recently grown when he realised he would be surrounded by fruit.

-Im not saying hes gay but he does speak with a San Francisco accent

Pat, Boston, MA

Yes, I did see Gov. Patrick's article last week and it received a lot of coverage all across the internets.

Evidently if Mitt Romney wins the nomination Gov. Patrick is going to go out on the campaign trail and explain just how bad of a guv'na Mitt really was.

Can't wait.

You needn't worry. He'll probably not get it; I think. Some fruitcake with a guitar; another unknown T-bagger may get the nod. Supposedly he is a "Rock star". in other words he is their T-bagger delight; a savior. I saw him on Huckelberry Hound's Show talking crazy and trying to hypnotize the animated corpses back to life with his guitar.

He is crazier than Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul. You know in order to be a Republican, these days especially, you've got to be nuttier than the rest.

P.S. No outrage from everyone here who were screaming don't touch my Medicare?

@ bob ~ If you have a look at that attached link, you will find that it supports what has been my impression that large amounts of the stimulus have never actually been paid out.

http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx

So, if the stimulus hasn't been paid out, then it can hardly have created the number of jobs it was intended to create. Thus, your point is diminished from the start.

In addition, much of the stimulus went to tax cuts. Ironically, that is the area where almost all of the money has actually been "paid out," apparently in the sense that the projected cuts have been realized.

And still there are no jobs.

So, if tax cuts didn't create any jobs, then tell me, bob ... whose promise does THAT break?

You know, the promise that went, "just give us the money, and you'll see."

Yeah, right. Fool me once ...

sreeeeminglib

Mr Bachmann riding in a second pick up truck carrying fruit; did not fall over due to a third leg which had recently grown when he realised he would be surrounded by fruit.

-Im not saying hes gay but he does speak with a San Francisco accent

I'm saying he is a loon possessed by a mysterious spirit.

JoAnn,

While I certainly agree that the overall financial situation has gotten worse during this adminstration, I can't see anything that the Republicans have done to make it any better. The trajectory this country was already on when Obama took over was heading to a complete disaster - remember we were losing 600 -750,000 jobs per month. While, debt has certainly increased substantially, and unemployment is deeper than any of us would like (I have two college graduates (May 2010) living back at home who have only been able to find part-time jobs that don't pay anywhere near enough for them to live on their own). I certainly don't see how a failure to pass an increase in the debt limit is going to solve anything. What I see is that the US debt is currently financed at historically low interest rates (in the range of 3%), and that if the rates rise back to their historic norms (5-6%) any agreed upon spending reductions will be wiped out to do nothing but pay for interest on the existing debt. (For every 1% increased in interest rates there will be a 1.3 Trillion increase in debt servicing costs, per Sen Warner.)

Getting rid of tax spending that benefits very limited, specific activites and persons need to be eliminated for the benefit of the overall economy. Tax policy should not reward corporations for shipping jobs overseas, by making those earnings only taxable when they come back to the US. If they were taxed like any other income, there wouldn't be an incentive to ship our jobs overseas, as US workers are the most productive in the world.

Nash,

How can a commander in chief hear their story, tell their story in the presentation, present to their grieving parents the highest honor that can be bestowed and not possess the honor of at least remembering their name.

Obama apologized.

Of course he apologized. You don't think when the troops stood their in stunned shock and silence, that the "smartest man in the room" couldn't figure out he made a little boo-boo.

It was a disgrace. Surely he got it after someone explained it to him. The Monti family accepted, they have class and honor.

Narcissist? Take 1/2 of the one sentence .....

I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn't receiving it posthumously."

Obama turned Giunta's heroism into what he thought was an Obama accomplishment. (The other 1/2 of the sentence was about Obama too.)

Regardless, the military gets it - they understand Obama (this is the worst, but one of many disrespectful occurrences - want another one, Nash?)

With regard to the last comment about why repub financial policies didn't work, Bush was guilty of overspending, de-valuing the dollar among other things. He failed to get his Fannie and Freddie reform legislation past the dems (55 repubs for, 45 Dems against), and the collapse happened.

With regard to your comment last week, a reply will quickly follow. There is another "common sense" comment below, and I will repose an exert from the comment before.

Me a narcissist? Hardly. I try to educate myself by reading stuff from people a lot brighter than myself.

You should try it ...... that is unless you consider me a lot brighter than you.

"Why is it that Republican financial policies did not work as advertised when implemented by President Bush and the Republican controlled Congress?"

If it is true that the stimulus cost $278,000 per job then the same question can be asked of President Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress.

www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html

BTW, the reference to President Obama's "foot-in-the-mouth" statement over the Congressional Medal of Honor should be held up as an example every time a candidate misspeaks. They all should be held to the same standard by the media. For example, is it true that Austria speaks Austrian?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAmaGgBrDAs

@AM

In addition, much of the stimulus went to tax cuts. Ironically, that is the area where almost all of the money has actually been "paid out," apparently in the sense that the projected cuts have been realized.

Good try, and if you want the link from Rommers paper I'll post it. The tax cuts were included in the Stimulus because there was no way to pump that amount of money into the economy as fats as the Administration would like. This has been confirmed by President Obama's "Shovel ready jobs were not in fact shovel ready". So these cuts were part of the overall Stimulus plan and if they didn't work the Administration/Congress should be blamed.

The venomous cut and paste team of feity and bev have yet again reduced a marginal liberal blog to the sewer level! You two have the amazing ability to ruin even the good feelings left after a very nice Fourth of July celebration! Nice work 'girls'!..... at least we had short break from your lies, mistruths, and slanderours posts, while you both spent the weekend fuming in your holes ! lol

Guess it'll be Christmas before that happens again!

bob:

Effective immediately . . . our "discussions" are over. The comments section here is full of enough crap without us pretending to "debate". You say what you got to say, and I'll do the same.

Our experiment with "responding" to each other has proved an epic failure.

Peace.

From Nash:

Why can no one ‘splain to me why our entire financial system collapsed after we implemented “pro business” policies?

It wasn’t “pro business” policies that caused the economic collapse, it was big government social engineering and “pro re-election” policies by our politicians.

Is anyone else noticing how these folks (speaking about me Nash?) just ignore stuff they don’t have an answer for?

Actually, my response to you was over 700 words (yea …. I hate long posts too, but you asked Nash.) Not have an answer? I thought it was pretty good, it got a big green star by conservatives and collapsed by the liberals – always a good sign, but most important of all …… no one could refute or challenge anything.

Or blame it on the folks receiving bullsh!t mortgages instead of the folks handing them out. Like poor folks FORCED these folks to make these loans.

Of course poor people can’t make force banks to give them loans, only the government can do that.

When the federal government threatens discrimination because poor people can’t afford their payments, when the government requires a certain percentage of loans go to poor people who can’t afford their payments …….and when the federal government in effect guarantees those loans …. Yea …banks make “bullsh!t” loans.

These folks made these loans because they were GETTING RICH off of them! Duh!

From a G. Will / Washington Post piece:

In 1994, Clinton proposed increasing homeownership through a “partnership” between the federal government and the private sector, principally Fannie May, a government-sponsored enterprise. It became a perfect specimen of what such “partnerships” usually involve:

Profits are private, losses are socialized. Yep …. Duh!

Ira, thanks for the heads up on what's going on with Medicare and Medicaid.

This is not good. I agree with you. We voted for a Democratic president for specific core reasons. This will be interesting.

Possibly devastating. We'll see. I hope President Obama comes out soon and explains what he is willing and not willing to accept. Medicare and Medicaid cuts I thought were always unacceptable to the Democrats.(?)

@ bob:

Actually, bob, when George W. Bush practically INSISTS that the banks lend the money, whether buyers are qualified or not, then you're right ...

... "only the government can do that."

But don't believe me, bob. Believe Bush in his very own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&feature=related

George Will is wrong. Clinton may have begun the process, but it was, by and large, republican Congresses that decided not to look too closely at what the banks were doing. And it was George W. Bush who actually created the bubble.

After all, if it was already well under way, then what do you suppose Bush was talking about in this little speech?

Hi Anna Molly

@ bob ~ If you have a look at that attached link, you will find that it supports what has been my impression that large amounts of the stimulus have never actually been paid out.

In addition, much of the stimulus went to tax cuts. Ironically, that is the area where almost all of the money has actually been "paid out," apparently in the sense that the projected cuts have been realized.

And still there are no jobs.

So, if tax cuts didn't create any jobs, then tell me, bob ... whose promise does THAT break?

Good job, educate; booby trap; if that's possible. I think booby trap may going down that bath tub drain with Grover Norquist.

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinvestment_act_had_nothing_to_do_with_subprime_crisis.html

Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act — a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”

Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley (PDF file here).

Here is the other stuff Nash (if you are going to continue to ask at least try reading it this time):

Bottom line is that the economic collapse was not a revenue / tax issue or the marginal cost of the wars ….. The ECONOMIC RECESSION WAS A CREDIT ISSUE PRECIPITATED BY THE COLLAPSE OF THE HOUSING MARKET WHICH THREATENED THE MELTDOWN OF OUR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

The single biggest reason for the collapse was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which turned our financial institutions / economy into a Las Vegas craps table. It was signed by President Clinton …… not Bush. Still want to blame Republicans? OK. They did sponsor it. But, in fact it was very bi-partisan, only 8 members of the Senate didn’t support it.

Everyone loved it ….. a lot of the poor and others got their houses they couldn’t afford, the politicians got to say … more Americans are realizing the “American Dream of owning their own homes” under my administration/since I’ve been in office/blah-blah, Fannie and Freddie made big money to buy politicians, realtors got rich, mortgage companies got rich, banks and Wall Street got rich ……. And then we finally rolled snake eyes.

Bush?

He began in September of 2003 to create a new agency that have the authority to set capital-reserve requirements and to determine if a company was adequately managing its risk. Blocked. In 2005, Republicans introduced the the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act of 2005. Blocked again – Repubs 55 for / Dems 45 against.

Barney Frank, the ranking of Dem on the Financial Services Committee said ………

“These two entities (Fannie and Freddie) are not facing any kind of crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Mainly Bush and Repubs were called racists ……. Meanwhile Obama went on collect Wall Street money by a 4-1 margin, top 3 recipients of Fanny and Freddie money – 1) Dodd, 2) Obama, 3) Kerry ….. heck Obama’s chief of staff, Emanuel, got more than McCain …… Chuckie S. / D. New York – something like $9 million from (as Obama says) …. “fat cats” from 198 to 2010!

Oh well blame Bush.

But the reality of it is that Big Government’s (repubs and dems - mostly dems) social engineering created the economic disaster with the willing tool of of big Wall Street whom government bailed out.

Obama was late to the table, but he certainly jumped to the head of the table and is as culpable as anyone in putting together his turd sandwich, certainly no victum.

The Department of Justice has been praised for filing in court Friday a detailed opinion against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that bans federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

The court brief is filed in support of federal employee Karen Golinski who is suing to secure equal benefits for her wife, and comes in direct response to the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group’s filing to dismiss the case. This is the first substantial defense of DOMA lawyers acting on behalf of the Republican House leadership have put forth since the DOJ announced it would not defend Section 3 of the law in February.

The DOJ letter urges the court not to dismiss Golinski’s case, saying “Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. Section 7 (‘DOMA’), unconstitutionally discriminates,” and goes on to recognize the federal government’s past “significant” and “regrettable” role in defending DOMA.

The DOJ contends that heightened scrutiny should apply in this case because of the “history of discrimination” against gay and lesbian people. As a basis for this assertion, it cites various acts of discrimination made by the U.S. Legislature, as well as state and local governments’ acts of discrimination.

The brief goes on to argue that DOMA fails even a rational basis analysis because it fails to fulfill a legitimate government interest.

The brief concludes: “…DOMA Section 3 was motivated in substantial part by animus toward gay and lesbian individuals and their intimate relationships, and Congress identified no other interest that is materially advanced by Section 3. Section 3 of DOMA is therefore unconstitutional.”

The DOJ’s court filing has been likened to Judge Vaughn Walker’s 2010 ruling striking down California’s gay marriage ban known as Proposition 8 because of its clear and thoroughly supported finding that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.

Indeed, the Human Rights Campaign has hailed the DOJ brief as “historic”:

The Administration’s decision to call DOMA what it is — a law that serves no purpose but to single out a group of people for second-class status — was a watershed moment in the fight for LGBT equality. Now the federal government has taken that historic stand a step further and put real meat on the bones of why there is no basis for DOMA to stand. This step represents real leadership from the Obama administration and further hastens the day in which we will leave this odious law in the dustbin of history.” — Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/doj-files-historic-anti-doma-brief.html#ixzz1RF7xL0an

Leftys---- Whine and cry all you like, any republican that votes for the debt ceiling to be raised will be gone in the primaries next year.

If he manages to get through the primaries we will vote dm if necessary to get him out of office.

Which gets right the heart of the matter, and the reason why we're facing a debt ceiling crisis--the Republican Party is firmly in the grip of radical ideologues who don't CARE what damage they do to the world economy or the long-term prospects of the USA. They'll do whatever is necessary to destroy the ability of government entities to provide the services needed in a modern society.

Republicans ALREADY VOTED to increase the national debt when they passed their budget. In fact they voted for a plan that won't balance the budget until the 2060s. Anyone who believes their goal is to actually balance the budget is being deceived. Their intent isn't sensible budgeting, it's destruction of government services and the social safety net.

Sensible budgeting requires a responsible mix of budget cuts and revenue increases. EVERY part of the budget needs to be fair game for cuts. Republicans, however, have already excluded much of the budget from cuts, as well as any possibility that the wealthy or corporations bear part of the pain.

No, instead their solution is as always--more from the middle class, less from the wealthy elites.

Nash, as far as responding to bob is concerned he brings up the same talking points every day. Every day he's proven wrong, yet the next day he pops up to assert the same thing once again. There's a name for people who keep insisting that the facts are other than they are, but the word escapes me at the moment...

Tax policy should not reward corporations for shipping jobs overseas, by making those earnings only taxable when they come back to the US. If they were taxed like any other income, there wouldn't be an incentive to ship our jobs overseas, as US workers are the most productive in the world.

____________________________________________________

The real problem is that the US corporate tax system is not used by the vast majority of industrialized countries. The vast majority of industrialized countries use a "territorial" corporate tax system. Under that system a corporation only pays tax in the country where the operations are physically located. The US uses a "worldwide" corporate tax system that taxes US corporations on all income regardless of where the profits were earned. The only other industrialized country of any size that uses a "worldwide" system is South Korea. Recognizing that the US corporate tax system is uncompetitive, the US tax code includes a provision that postpones the taxation of overseas profits until they are brought back to the US, thereby providing a big incentive to leave the profits overseas.

For the vast majority of industrialized countries there is no such penalty for bringing foreign earned profits home and that capital flows freely back to the corporation's home country. What the US needs to do is to reform its corporate tax system so that it is competitive with the rest of the industrialized countries by replacing the worldwide tax with a territorial system.

Bill T, regarding your apt description of feisty redwig and bev, the corrupt organizer.... I remembered this piece I saw while reading a bit on Al Gore in "The Moderate Voice"..... a very good description of 'the girls' standard operating procedure in any discussion at this blog:

At its core the problem is a total failure of persuasion. Progressives often fail to get support for their policies because they often try to bully people into expressing agreement instead of undertaking the hard work of actually persuading them. That is the common root of many failed progressive efforts, from the speech codes that try to prevent dissent from emerging on the same college campuses where progressives used to champion it to the failure of global warming “climate change” activism to the ongoing political collapse of health care reform.

The common thread between these diverse progressive policy failures is an incoherent and often enraged failure to understand that sometimes people might disagree with them. When people disagree or even just start to express concerns, most progressive commentators just slap them into a category labelled “stupid” or worse and proceed to demonize them as evil to boot. When the dominant reaction to dissent is not argument but contempt and demonization, it imposes a heavy cost on progressive political viability. The voters don’t like being alternatively condescended to and outright condemned as jerks and rubes. The most surprising thing is that so many highly intelligent progressives are themselves surprised by this conventional and seemingly obvious feature of human psychology.

Joe,

And that would help the US economy how? Corporations are already sitting on trillions of dollars with no movement toward improving employment. The only investments, if you can call them that, is to buy out competitors.

Joe in Albany:

To your point.

The total debt of the US, including pensions, social security, etc. exceeds $60 trillion. (Someone please check that, I think it's correct)

Whether accounting on GAAP basis or not, the question of when a debt is incurred is the point of contention. If the Treasury issues a 20 year Treasury Note or Bond, are they not responsible for the interest and repayment of principle (par value) at term? They are. The debt was incurred at the time the Treasury obligation was issued not when it becomes payable.

Why is that different if the Treasury buys pencils from Staples and the bill is not due for 30 days.

The Government owes Staple the money for the pencils. The debt was incurred.

Anna,

So, I guess it's pretty sad, created all the uncertainity by driving up all that debt crippled business and .....the money wasn't even spent, huh?

Saving it for political benefit on upcoming legislation that isn't upcoming since repubs got the House? Saving it for election favors .... I dunno.

Who is the leader .... you know..... the President?

Tax cuts / jobs? - Good point for tommorrow ..... see ya then.

Bush on bank lending? Yea, your right ..... Bush was big government and there was a lot of problem with that. The only credit I give to Bush on the collapse is that he did try to reform Fannie and Freddie. It was blocked by dems, not repubs.

Would that have prevented the collapse, maybe. Regardless, other changes needed to be made also.

George Will wasn't wrong.

You didn't realize the private sector, like Johnson at Fannie making $100 million in 9 years, got rich and that losses were socialized - paid by the tax payer?

Pat from Bostson--- You're right. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with an Obama supporter hosting a show on Obama's own network! lol. But there IS something wrong with the host being the racist, race-baiting, Jew-hating, riot-starter and bomb thrower named Al Sharpton. Have you ever actually read about the Tawana Brawley case? I doubt it. Have you ever read about the Crown Heights riots or Freddie's Fashion Mart? I urge you to do so. Unfortunately, your deeply held need to be accepted by Black people has caused you to be blind to the actions of a rotten vermin of a man whom most Black people don't even like. You need to get out more.

If FOX NEws had a former, unrepentant member of the KKK as a host, people would rightly raise a fuss. So, why is this derelict a host on MSNBC?

Hey, Joe -- how about modifying TRADE policy, instead of TAX policy? As I said below, the world is flat only because we MADE it flat. Monetarism won't fix it, Joe ... monetarism CAUSED it.

Or if you're going to modify tax policy, instead of giving those SOBs a "holiday," which historically doesn't work -- at least not in 2004, the last time it was tried -- make them PAY to repatriate those profits -- make them ACTUALLY invest in R&D and infrastructure, and actually train their own workers, instead of looking to the federal government to do it, which is just another corporate welfare handout that most companies don't even need.

Give them tax breaks, but ONLY if they use that money to create jobs -- not one job at a time, but meaningful job creation.

Pat, Boston, MA

btw, Rev. Al is going to be hosting for Cenk this week. I'm so glad to see a supporter of President Obama on tv. The media being "left" is such BS. It's anything but.

And there is nothing wrong with a supporter of President Obama hosting a program. If there is room for lies being said about President Obama, if there is room for obvious pundits who are Republican leaning, if there is room for the left to challenge President Obama every second of every day,

then there is room for those who don't lie about President Obama and who support his re-election.

We're being drowned out by the left and the right.

It is so refreshing to see Rev Al "tell it like is" hosting on Msnbc. He has assumed the position of pit bull. Rev Al would never tell the base to stay home. Pat I don't Jane Hamster, Ariana Huffington, or Daily Kos a click. I told you guys a long time ago how I felt about them; particularly Jane Hamster who reminds me of a bump on the log. Ariana is a chameleon who really lost me even before she put Breibart on her blog.

I know many people don't like Rev Jesse Jackson the " Country Preacher" w so affectionally call but; if he could host as a fill in he'd put a lot of undecided in the Obama ledger. Jessie know his stuff, he is like a computer with his statistics, and he is a fighter. He got a lot done for people. I was told when the reporters call the first thing he says is Okay you got your tape on. That shocks some journalists. Usually, they expect to give you the topic and then expect you to prepare for it.

Joe,

And that would help the US economy how?

_____________________________________________

Because it would eliminate an uncompetitive corporate tax structure that puts US companies at a disadvantage in the global economy. Hell, even if all they did with the money they bring back to the US was increase dividends and stock buybacks, some portion of that money will be spent in the US economy. And that's money that is not being spent in the US economy because it is trapped overseas by the US corporate tax code. (I know that if I got increased dividends on my stocks and stock mutual funds, I would spend some portion of it and 2/3s of the US economy is driven by consumer spending) And if the companies were to use some of that money to invest in new plants and equipment in the US, new jobs would be created to run those new plants and equipment. And those people would also increase their spending in the US economy.

bob ~

You didn't realize the private sector, like Johnson at Fannie making $100 million in 9 years, got rich and that losses were socialized - paid by the tax payer?

I don't know exactly whom you are talking about. It was Mudd before it was Williams, who took over in 2009. But which 9 years were those, bob? And please point me to Bush's outrage over the banks, if you can.

I'll bet you can't.

Meanwhile, this article about Fannie from the Spring of 2009 is interesting.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124025875130536247.html

In particular, I loved this line:

Some lawmakers have called on Fannie and Freddie to cancel retention bonuses, but their regulator has insisted the payments were needed to avoid a talent drain.

So, according to the Wall Street Journal, it was Congress that actually didn't like the bonuses, but the regulator more-or-less overruled that. And the "regulator" in this scenario would be whom? Obama's regulator? Nope. It was Bush's regulator, appointed under the TARP, which was enacted before President Obama ever took office.

The government seized control of Fannie and its main rival, Freddie Mac, in September through a legal process known as "conservatorship," under which their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, is seeking to restore them to financial health. Swamped by foreclosures, the two companies reported combined losses of about $108 billion for 2008.

Under the conservatorship, the regulator has veto power over all major decisions, including hiring and firing of executives, compensation and pricing.

And exactly WHAT talent were they trying to keep from draining? Doesn't sound much like talent to me.

@ Beverly ~ I actually like Al Sharpton, too. More often than not, I agree with him, as I do with Cenk. I think he's a great replacement host for MSNBC.

Republicans laugh at him, but in reality I believe they see him as dangerous. He cuts right through all their manure.

See, here's the whole problem with your approach, Joe:

And if the companies were to use some of that money to invest in new plants and equipment in the US, new jobs would be created to run those new plants and equipment. And those people would also increase their spending in the US economy.

Conservatives always love to talk about what happens "if" companies do these things. Problem is, they never do it, just like they didn't do it in 2004. They stuffed the money into shareholders' pockets, and if they didn't do that, they used it for M&A. Hewlett-Packard for example, brought home more than $14.5 billion in profits, paid almost no taxes on it, and out of gratitude, proceeded to cut 14,500 jobs as a result of acquisitions paid for with the repatriated money.

http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/4292323

By contrast, liberals always love to talk about actually making them do it, for a change.

See my post above on that exact point.

Give them tax breaks, but ONLY if they use that money to create jobs -- not one job at a time, but meaningful job creation.

__________________________________________

AM: When every other major industrialized country (except for South Korea) is NOT taxing overseas profits that are brought back to the corps home country, it's a PENALTY on US corps to tax them on these profits. And there are no significant restrictions in other countries on what the corps do with those overseas profits like you are proposing. Removing a PENALTY and getting US corp tax policy in synch with the vast majority of our major global competitors is not a "tax break". Unless you are a lefty liberal.

Re: trade policy, Barry is sitting on three trade agreements right now and has been for a long time in order to placate Dem big labor.

Nashville Fan:

Great post on CRA - the lie the right wing will not let die. Here's some facts that should destroy this lie, but they won't. Right-wingers refuse to acknowledge these facts, but they illustrate the outright disinformation behind the campaign to run away from the damage that occurred on the Bush watch. It is very important to note that while the crash occurred during the Bush Administration, it is also true that President Clinton could have stopped the death of Glass-Steagall, which is probably the single biggest contributor to the crash.

CRA was originally put into place to address the practice of red-lining. Borrowers who actually were creditworthy were being denied loans simply by virtue of their zip code. CRA dealt with the legitimate issue of unjustified discrimination. However, CRA applied only to depository institutions and only those that were federally insured - think FDIC. (Remember, we still hadn't seen the S & L crash, and it sure looks like we didn't learn from that.) Anyway, fewer than one in four loans were being originated by such banks. Other lenders were clearly picking up the rest of the loans. Clearly, the banks were not a major player....YET.

Time passes and Fannie and Freddie essentially become de facto purchasers of paper in the secondary market, and oh how they thrived. We are now seeing a virtual guarantee that says, "If you make bad loans, if you do not exercise due diligence, do not worry, we'll buy your paper." Things are really getting fast and loose. Still, the CRA is only a minor issue and the references to ACORN and President Obama in this regard are the most foul-smelling of red herrings.

The sub-prime lenders rear their nasty heads and bring in incredible profits. Greed now rules the market from top to bottom. Bank CEO's and Boards of Directors get the gambling itch. Gramm-Leach-Bliley essentially removes any semblance of regulation. Bankers want a piece of the action and they start snapping up the sub-primes AND they begin aggressively marketing their own sub-prime paper. (For an excellent progression, check out what happened when The Money Store was purchased by First Union. As ALWAYS, the incompetent bankers walked away from this without a scratch.) There's very little risk because Fannie and Freddie will bail them out. Due diligence is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD.

Calmer and wiser heads are warning of disaster as Bush takes office, but very few listen. Everyone is making money and that is why this blame game is so stupid. Everyone is hitting the jackpot: buyers, sellers, speculators, appraisers, realtors, and bankers, bankers, bankers. Local governments have no incentive whatsoever to close the gambling parlors. They're raking in tax money, and spending as fast as they can. (That's why it's so utterly irrational to blame the unions. The elected officials were drunk on dollars and any sense of propriety had disappeared.) Worse, the federal government had passed a law that severely limited local law enforcement - think D.A.'s and Attorneys General - from initiating their own investigations into bank irregularities.

Republicans were loving this. Why not? America was getting rich. Even Barney Frank was saying everything was just hunky-dory at Fannie and Freddie as late as 2003. Then in 2004, he sobered up along with some of his colleagues, and began to sound the alarm. He was ignored. Again, it is impossible to blame one group on this. Everyone was making money. (As an aside though, I point out that right now Frank is issuing a similar warning, virtually all the warning signs are the same, and again, he is being ignored.)

There's so much more to the whole fiasco, but there's more than enough evidence to make it clear that the blame game is completely counterproductive. I'd love to say I'm blameless, but I participated too. I turned a few houses myself, and the only question I ever asked was, "Where the hell is all this money coming from?"

The lessons I learned? Regulation is an absolute necessity. Oversight is critical. Greed perverts capitalism. American memories go back about 15 minutes.

Lessons I remembered? If it seems to be too good to be true: It is!

I see the ridiculous "uncertainty" talking point has been raised again. If Conservative in fact BELIEVED that narrative they'd be doing everything in their power to settle the debt limit issue. Instead they're doing FAR MORE to CREATE uncertainty with the specter of a government shut down than could possibly come from just having Democrats in charge of Congress (horrors!!).

Its another illustration of how modern Conservatism isn't about consistency of thought or principle. It's nothing but a giant PR campaign to sell policies favoring the wealthy elites.

It would all be roses, Joe, "if" it worked. Problem is, it doesn't.

But when you start arguing that we should be doing what Korea is doing, then doesn't "American Exceptionalism" go right down the drain with it?

Get a new idea, Joe.

See, here's the whole problem with your approach, Joe:

And if the companies were to use some of that money to invest in new plants and equipment in the US, new jobs would be created to run those new plants and equipment. And those people would also increase their spending in the US economy.

Conservatives always love to talk about what happens "if" companies do these things. Problem is, they never do it,

____________________________________________

AM: apparently you skipped over the first half of my post without reading it, where I addressed your concern about "stuffing the money in shareholders pockets".

David Walker:

Thank you for that information. It seems like "learning lessons" is something our 24 hour disinformatin culture is designed to prevent.

But when you start arguing that we should be doing what Korea is doing, then doesn't "American Exceptionalism" go right down the drain with it?

_________________________________________________

What are you talking about?

Go back and re-read my post. I'm NOT talking about doing what "Korea is doing", I'm talking about stopping doing what South Korea is doing.

"American Exceptionalism" is about being the best when competing on a level playing field. When our corp tax code slants the playing field against us to our disadvantage, its not about "American Exceptionalism, it's about not being stupid by trying to compete with one arm tied behind our back volutarily.

BTW, as I've said before, I'm pretty convinced that "American Exceptionalism" is fast becoming a relic of the 20th century. Just like Spain, France and England were each once the greatest powers in the world, I think the US is now on a path that will result in our becoming little more than the socialist mediocracies they now are. The 21st century belongs to China, India and Brazil.

Anna Molly said:

Or if you're going to modify tax policy, instead of giving those SOBs a "holiday," which historically doesn't work -- at least not in 2004, the last time it was tried -- make them PAY to repatriate those profits -- make them ACTUALLY invest in R&D and infrastructure, and actually train their own workers, instead of looking to the federal government to do it, which is just another corporate welfare handout that most companies don't even need.

Give them tax breaks, but ONLY if they use that money to create jobs -- not one job at a time, but meaningful job creation.

Anna, this is a very lucid, well thought out argument. The problem, as I see it, lies with the age old concept of greed. If there were a way to tie tax cuts to job creation in a meaningful, enforceable way, it would provide a win/win for both the government and the businesses. The government would win by increased revenues in taxable wages and the company would win by increased production. I like the concept.

Joe:

AM: apparently you skipped over the first half of my post without reading it, where I addressed your concern about "stuffing the money in shareholders pockets".

Addressed it how? Is that the part about taxing it as real-time earnings and at ordinary income rates?

Yes, I can live with that. If you do that, then bring the money home. It may help some with revenue, although unfortunately it won't create any jobs. Shareholders will only hoard it more because they will have less to hoard.

But, as much as I'd like to see it, I'd also like to see you get majorities in Congress for that.

Damage,

Let's get something straight right now. There are racists on Fox. Just because they don't have a fulltime membership in the KKK, does not mean they're not racists. There are racists in Congress as well.

I have zero need to be liked by African Americans. Zero. What I admire is despite it all, they are still very patriotic and love this country with every bone in their body. They never fail to tell us what a great country we are, despite...

Their history is captivating, full of brave souls. They have much to be proud of. They are not on tv lying and spreading hate. White people are. In the GOP. But not limited to the GOP I might add.

What we need is a more diverse media. MSNBC is not an Obama station. Have you listened to them?

Al Sharpton's name is more well known than any racist out there. It's unfair. Only he gets targeted.

Do you want him to apologize? Ask him to. Everybody else has to it seems at some point in their careers. "I was wrong" seems to be standard these days. Will you accept his apology? I bet not.

And don't tell me to get out more. Why don't you READ more? Why don't you call out the racism that is all over the place since Barack Obama's election?

___________________________________________

Beverly, I'm no fan of Hamsher or Huffington. Bill Maher either, after what I read about what he's been saying. Not by a long shot. Nor of Adam Green either after what I read about him. Beware, be very aware of activists looking for money on the internet.

Where is Arianna today? Paris? London? Caan? A Hollywood party? A Hollywood awards show? Or just having dinner with Rep. Issa (R), the second richest Congressman.

She's full of it. Most of them are. They just echo each other. All day, every day.

Why isn't the media more diverse? We need different points of view historically.

All these people on tv are very well off. They have nothing better to do than to see who can be the most disrespectful. It's been going on since Day 1 of the Obama Administration.

Nash,

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

The CRA was one of the federal government's first interventions into/violations of our free market system by attempting to encourage commercial banks to help meet the needs of low income families and communities.

I have placed most of the blame for the collapse on the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

Effective immediately . . . our "discussions" are over. The comments section here is full of enough crap without us pretending to "debate".

I've tried to be polite Nash. My responses to you have certainly been more civil than my responses to a lot of others such as Navy. I thought you had actually dished it out more than you had received, but that is probably just my perspective.

You have accussed me of being condescending among other things. Before the last line of the previous post, I never felt that I was toward you, certainly wasn't intentional. The last line of the previous post ...

Me a narcissist? Hardly. I try to educate myself by reading stuff from people a lot brighter than myself.

You should try it ...... that is unless you consider me a lot brighter than you.

You gave me a shot about being a narcissist, I gave you a shot back, but note that it was a question, a challenge perhaps, but I never said I was brighter than you.

My grades and testing where above average, nothing special. I'm brighter than a lot of people and there are a lot of people a lot brighter than I am.

Your I.Q. and testing?

I could not care less, but I have afforded you much more attention and respect with my responses than I do the average blogger here. Regardless, no offense was intended and accept my apology if I did offend you.

In all candor, I don't care about how I.Q.s match up. What is important is the next election and the arguments made. The undecided that read these comments don't care about bob, they care about the argument. (No offense intended or implied.)

You say what you got to say, and I'll do the same.

Our experiment with "responding" to each other has proved an epic failure.

Actually I have enjoyed it Nash.

As far as an "epic failure" ..... I don't think so ..... we do afterall, have people talking the real issue involving the economic collapse instead of the other Bush rates crap.

Addressed it how?

________________________________

AM, since you didn't seem to want to go back and re-read it, I copied it for you:

Hell, even if all they did with the money they bring back to the US was increase dividends and stock buybacks, some portion of that money will be spent in the US economy. And that's money that is not being spent in the US economy because it is trapped overseas by the US corporate tax code. (I know that if I got increased dividends on my stocks and stock mutual funds, I would spend some portion of it and 2/3s of the US economy is driven by consumer spending)

So, AM, you don't believe increased consumer spending will result in a better economy and job creation? If so, there appear to be many, many openings on Barry's economic teams that you might be qualified for. It beats honest work. Oh yeah, that's right, you're a lawyer....... just forget I even mentioned "honest work". :~)

Nor of Adam Green either after what I read about him.

What did you hear Pat? Where can I find it?

Funny you mention the race card, my elderly aunties were over this weekend and believe with all their heart it ALL about the FACT that President Obama is black!

You wouldn't believe some of the things their neighbors & fellow church attending 'christians' are saying including the 'N' word!

Needless to say, they are revolted by the idea this man is being judged by the color of his skin here in America 2011!

David Walker said:

Great post on CRA - the lie the right wing will not let die. Here's some facts that should destroy this lie, but they won't. Right-wingers refuse to acknowledge these facts, but they illustrate the outright disinformation behind the campaign to run away from the damage that occurred on the Bush watch. It is very important to note that while the crash occurred during the Bush Administration, it is also true that President Clinton could have stopped the death of Glass-Steagall, which is probably the single biggest contributor to the crash.

David - the one thing I will agree with on the whole housing crash is that Bush did not have any backbone to do something earlier. It probably had something to do with the amount of bashing he was receiving from the left at the time.

From the Wall Street Journal, January 8, 2009:

Mr. Bush wanted to limit systemic risk by raising the GSEs' capital requirements, compelling preapproval of new activities, and limiting the size of their portfolios. Why should government regulate banks, credit unions and savings and loans, but not GSEs? Mr. Bush wanted the GSEs to be treated just like their private-sector competitors.

But the GSEs fought back. They didn't want to see the Bush reforms enacted, because that would level the playing field for their competitors. Congress finally did pass the Bush reforms, but in 2008, after Fannie and Freddie collapsed.

The largely unreported story is that to fend off regulation, the GSEs engaged in a lobbying frenzy. They hired high-profile Democrats and Republicans and spent $170 million on lobbying over the past decade. They also constructed an elaborate network of state and local lobbyists to pressure members of Congress.

When Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama, then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed for comprehensive GSE reform in 2005, Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut successfully threatened a filibuster. Later, after Fannie and Freddie collapsed, Mr. Dodd asked, "Why weren't we doing more?" He then voted for the Bush reforms that he once called "ill-advised."

But Mr. Dodd wasn't the only Democrat to heap abuse on the Bush reforms. Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts defended Fannie and Freddie as "fundamentally sound" and labeled the president's proposals as "inane." He later voted for the reforms. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York dismissed Mr. Bush's "safety and soundness concerns" as "a straw man." "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," was the helpful advice of both Sen. Thomas Carper of Delaware and Rep. Maxine Waters of California. Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York berated a Bush official at a hearing, saying, "I am just pissed off" at the administration for raising the issue.

The blame is large and wide. Both republicans and democrats helped to create the problem. No matter how you shake it, it's the government that endorsed the free reign of money and both sides of the aisle have their own part in the meltdown.

Nashville_fan

bob,

Actually, it would seem the narcissist is you. You seemed to be quite impressed with yourself, but I cannot as of yet figure out why.

President Obama called the Monti family and personally apologized. And they accepted.

Good day to you Nash! With all due respect, I believe that bob's point is a good one. The president should have put forth a bit more effort in his dealings with the CMH recipients. After all, he is the Commander In Chief.

He has presented two CMH's... one of those recipients returned home alive and one did not. You would think that Mr. Obama would put forth the effort to know the difference.

The fact that he had to appologize to that family is the sad part.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Funny you mention the race card, my elderly aunties were over this weekend and believe with all their heart it ALL about the FACT that President Obama is black!

You wouldn't believe some of the things their neighbors & fellow church attending 'christians' are saying including the 'N' word!

Needless to say, they are revolted by the idea this man is being judged by the color of his skin here in America 2011!

So you are telling me that they have never read any of your posts out here on this forum?

(Because we see you judge people out here based upon what you think the color of their skin is - you do it almost on a daily basis.) Sorry... but it's true.

Dear Sick of Bickering:

President Obama is human. He screwed up. He apologized. What is to be gained by continuing to beat that horse?

Are we here to solve problems, or are we here to remind each other of all our screw ups?

It seems to me, it says more about a person how they respond when they screw up. Maybe that is just me.

Dear Nash...

Your are correct... he IS human and he proves it every day.

And not to beat the horse... but Mr. Obama's lack of attention to detail in this matter is indicative of how he deals with MOST issues... I mean lets face it, it was not a difficult task and (as you said) he screwed it up. Looks really bad too when he is gearing up another election.

As for how the situation was handled... I think MORE is said by how the Monti family handled that GAFFE. They showed grace and dignity.

Just saying.

Dear Sick of Bickering:

For a person who is sick of bickering, you sure are argumentative.

Just saying.

I am sure you have never f$#@# up anything before.

Enjoy your smugness.

IL: Congress is the branch that passes budget legislation.

The haven't done so, ie., passed a budget, at least while in control of the Democrats, in over 800 days.

Obama can try with all his might to use the 14th amendment to override the Congress with the Debt Ceiling, but by doing so, he'll seal his fate in next years elections. He's played enough games with his war/non-war in Libya, both Congress and the People are getting a little perturbed with his antics.

My Dearest Nash,

I certainly don't intend to be argumentative... it just seems that you are not grasping the (basic) point of my statement... that being that Mr. Obama shows a pattern of... what did you call them... oh yeah... SCREW UPS.

In a year when he is paying GREAT attention to the details of his campaign fund raising events... you would think he could pay a small amount of attention to getting something like the name of a Medal of Honor recipient correct. That's all.

Oh yeah... and it was REALLY nice that he took 5 minutes to place a phone call to the Monti family. I know that the 5 minutes it took out of his fund raising schedule were worth a lot.

BTW... I will enjoy my 'smugness' if you will enjoy your frustration, bitterness and anger. ;-)

NOW... you may have the last word. Go ahead... it's ok.

NF:Effective immediately . . . our "discussions" are over. The comments section here is full of enough crap without us pretending to "debate".

bob: I've tried to be polite Nash. My responses to you have certainly been more civil than my responses to a lot of others such as Navy. I thought you had actually dished it out more than you had received, but that is probably just my perspective.

This is NFs MO, in the face of superior opposition on the issues, she bails. But not before a few extra personal attacks by her.

It's true Nash, you don't hold up well under pressure.

Your concern is noted Smiff.

lol

Brianb:

Let's start with your quote, "David - the one thing I will agree with on the whole housing crash is that Bush did not have any backbone to do something earlier. It probably had something to do with the amount of bashing he was receiving from the left at the time."

You can't be serious. The Bush Administration was among the most arrogant in my lifetime. Are you seriously suggesting that the left gave Bush/Cheney so much as a nanosecond of pause? Please! And the reason I'm not filthy rich is because fish live in water.

As for the article you quote, is that supposed to be a rebuttal to my post? The GSE's fought back? No kidding. The executive crew was making money hand over fist. Further, I'm pretty sure I covered that when I pointed out that Fannie and Freddie had become de facto insurers of mortgages. There is a mountain of data that shows bankers were also very keen on the idea of Fannie and Freddie doing exactly what they were doing.

As far as Bush/Shelby wanting to regulate the GSE's, it is a fact that the Bush Administration was into double digits when it came to reconciliation. That was all it would have taken to bring regulation to GSE's. Again, I am not pointing the finger solely at Bush. This nonsense could have been stopped by any number of people. You are however, in spin mode, and I'm calling BS.

As far as the CRA lie that will not die, check bob lotsanumbers post at 1.65, wherein he writes of CRA as government interference in free markets. That's an outright crock. Wow, there's a first, a steaming pile of BS from bob lotsanumbers! All the government said in CRA is that red-lining is illegal - nothing more than an attempt to level the playing field.

But I'm just wasting my time. You guys just want to argue.

Brianb:

The problem, as I see it, lies with the age old concept of greed. If there were a way to tie tax cuts to job creation in a meaningful, enforceable way, it would provide a win/win for both the government and the businesses. The government would win by increased revenues in taxable wages and the company would win by increased production. I like the concept.

Brian ~ I missed this earlier while I was arguing with Joe. Thank you for the very kind words. The only way that we will improve THIS economy is to create demand, and the only way to create demand is to create jobs and get moving again. On that we can surely agree.

Joe:

So, AM, you don't believe increased consumer spending will result in a better economy and job creation?

Oh, you meant THAT part? That's the other half of what was done with the money in 2004. Trouble is, the "consumers" didn't increase spending enough to make any difference or create any jobs. You give one person a million dollars, and he/she buys one refrigerator and one car, banking the difference. You give 12 people jobs making $80,000 and they buy several new GM cars. You give 20 people $50,000 and they will buy groceries and shop at Target and Kohls and Home Depot. Tax cuts are pretty much proven not to create jobs because they do NOT create the necessary demand.

Why would you want to go down that road again? Wouldn't it be easier to make a direct tie between repatriated profits and job creation?

Oh yeah, that's right, you're a lawyer....... just forget I even mentioned "honest work". :~)

You had me until ad hominem. ;-)

Counselor, surely you must have developed an immunity to lawyer jokes by now?

David Walker said:

As for the article you quote, is that supposed to be a rebuttal to my post? The GSE's fought back? No kidding. The executive crew was making money hand over fist. Further, I'm pretty sure I covered that when I pointed out that Fannie and Freddie had become de facto insurers of mortgages. There is a mountain of data that shows bankers were also very keen on the idea of Fannie and Freddie doing exactly what they were doing.

David - why are you being hostile? I wasn't disagreeing with you. In fact, there was a bunch of support for what you said. It was written in the article I posted. Unless I misread what you were saying, I was looking for some common ground in the discussion. Why do you always think that conservatives are the bad guys? Right is right, wrong is wrong. My opinion is that Bush didn't have the backbone to push reforms earlier, before it was too late. What's wrong with that opinion?

@ David Walker

You made an earlier post that mentioned states attempting to investigate lending practices and were blocked by the federal government. I remember reading a news story about several states sending officials to the federal regulators (under Bush) in an attempt to get traction on the concerns, only to be blocked in federal court by the federal regualtors asserting the states had no jurisdiction. You seem to have knowledge of that activity, and I have been unable to find a credible reference or story. Would you share your source of that information, if you have one?

Thanks in advance.

Brianb:

I must have misunderstood your post. Your response was this: "David - the one thing I will agree with on the whole housing crash is that Bush did not have any backbone to do something earlier." One thing? There was considerably more to that post than that "one thing". Perhaps we are just missing each other's point by the tiniest bit. I will watch more carefully.

I don't think "conservatives" are bad guys. In fact, I have pointed out time and time again in First Read that self-identified "conservatives" quite frequently are perfect definitions of "totalitarians" That is not to say you are not a genuine conservative. Indeed, I think you will find that true liberal types have a strong streak of conservatism in their make-up.

I have much to do, but let me point out that the "CRA is the root of the housing crisis" is one of those long-running right-wing talking points that is swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the loud crowd and no amount of facts will budge them from the lie. It just pisses me off. We have so many serious problems and these idiots dwell on outright lies.

I see Conservatives are working really hard to pin the Bush Recession on CRA--totally ignoring not only the fact that less than 1 out of 5 SUBPRIME mortgages was even qualified under CRA, but that the economic collapse actually originated in the derivatives market--an area that Conservative Republicans worked hard to keep from being regulated in the first place, and continue to work to keep unregulated now.

The Great Recession was nothing less than an end-to-end failure of the deregulatory, Laissez-Faire fervor of Republicans. Have they learned anything from their failure? Not at all. They're doubling down on snake eyes, thinking the next roll will be a winner. Come to think of it, why not? The only winners have been the only people the GOPTP is really concerned with--the wealthy elites.

Dave - lotsanumbers:

Here is one link: http://www.ssd.com/files/Publication/9fc8fafa-61c6-4f05-9986-89ad5473311b/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/096c1166-0988-4655-8a5a-98b492d90f55/national_bank_act_does_not_preempt_state_judicial_enforcement_actions.pdf

That's not the definitive link, but it may give you some ideas on where to search. What I wrote earlier was from memory, which isn't quite what it once was. In any case, it seems to me that it was around 2004 or so and the law was passed that said A.G.'s and other law enforcement officials were precluded/prohibited from prosecuting cases in federal world.

There were some local authorities at the time who recognized what was going on and wanted to look, but the feds claimed jurisdiction. If you find the info, please let me know. I always thought it was quite damning.

@ Joe ~ I was teasing you. I'm so immune to lawyer jokes, I don't even remember them, although I have books full of them on my shelf, and I'm told that I tell them quite charmingly when I'm under the joy juice anesthesia. A real hoot, I guess.

Alan, NJ:

So these cuts were part of the overall Stimulus plan and if they didn't work the Administration/Congress should be blamed.

Yeah? And your point? You know I'm not a lockstepper. That's not stimulus by any reasonable measure. If we hadn't extended the cuts, and we had put the increased revenue back into the economy in the form of direct job creation, we'd probably be in a very different place right now. Agree?

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

"Do NOT permit the hatred, lies & deceptions to steer you from the consequences of what’s at stake!"

Were you telling that to and about yourself while looking in the mirror this morning?

The consequense of a 2nd term with Obama in charge will be death to the country. You have already bankrupt your own state and now you want to bankrupt the country.

But they still can't, or won't, tell us what 'conservative' means. They 'conserve' nothing. Yet they pride themselves on calling themselves that. I've invited 'em several time on here to explain, but so far- no takers. (well....they're ALL 'takers', but you know what I mean...)

DBO - they "conserve" one very important thing - EFFORT.

This Congress is on track to be the least productive in our history.

VermontGirl - Isn't it true that there are democrats involved in Congress? Liberal democrats? I'm glad to see that you realize that the effort being conserved is shared by the democrats.

Actually, it turns out that liberals DO celebrate the Fourth differently

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/hackers-put-big--and-false--news-on-fox-twitter-account/2011/07/04/gHQA31GByH_story.html

I hope none of the First Read kiddies are involved.

400 bills passed the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives in the last Congress only to die in the Senate due to Republican filibuster. Now, under Republican control the House rarely even comes to work. See a pattern?

Gee John... when the democrats get together and produce bills, what are their purpose? What else are they trying to give away? 400 bills you say? What was the content of these bills? How many of these bills did something to try to save the economy? How many of these bills were NOT give-a-ways of some sort or another? How many bills went all the way through that actually involved republican ideas and some sort of benefit to the country and not just special interests?

The point being... it's not just the republicans causing the bottleneck in Washington. There's a war going on and it started when Clinton was impeached. the democrats have been against the republicans causing the republicans to be against the democrats. Two opposing forces that refuse to help each other or work together. It's NOT, NOT, one sided. Both sides share in the war, lobbing bombs at each other... total disagreement and complete disarray.

Good to see you brought up those scorpions again IR - very timely! ;o)

Thought was time for a little best of Redneck Red

Joe in Albany is so very interested in what Former President Clinton has to say maybe he would be interested in what he has to say on our present debt crisis

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bill-clinton-exclusive-proposes-debt-impasse-deal-fears/story?id=13963218

Well done, IR. Nothing like an old tale with a moral to put things in context.

Looks to me like Mr. Clinton knows how to recognize a scorpion when he sees one;

"They were in a similar anti-government fever, anti-tax fever in 1995 until, you know, the struggle went on for a year and they shut the government down twice," Clinton said. "The public made a judgment that that was not right. And then we finally broke through. It wound up with the balanced budget act and forced surpluses and real prosperity."

Could the dispute this time push past the Aug. 2 deadline when, officials say, failing to raise the nation's debt ceiling could lead to America defaulting on its loans? Clinton didn't discount the possibility.

"When I passed my budget in 1993, they routinely said it would bring on a terrible recession, [that] it was the end of capitalism as we knew it," he said. "And we had the best eight years in our history. But they just kept saying it. You've got to give them credit. The evidence doesn't deter them. ... It's an ideological conviction. So, I don't know that it can be resolved until there's some break in the action."

You go Feisty!!

J fron Bartlett, IL

Nashville Fan, Since Meet The Press was pre-empted by Tennis this week, I watched ABC's Sunday show. They had a panel on discussing the Constitution as well as immigration.

It became clear to me that the Teapublicans are just trying to use the Constitution to justify their agenda of moving wealth to the top 1%, giving power to corporations and rolling back environmental and health insurance regulations. The Teapublicans don't even understand the Constitution or the history behind its framing. I wouldn't claim that liberals have a special knowledge of the Constitution, however, its clear to me the conservatives are using that document in the same way they use the Bible: to try and claim a higher authority backs their agenda.

Amen Amy . . . and my sympathies that you spent your Sunday listening to politicians yapping . . . hard work indeed! :o)

Nashville Fan, That George Will gets up my nose! I couldn't watch him every week.

Amy -- too true. In fact, have you also noticed that the Tea Partiers actually seem to have abandoned the Bible they never understood in the first place in favor of the Constitution that they also do not understand.

No wonder God has personally endorsed so many republican candidates this year. He obviously needs to hedge His bets and keep some skin in this game.

It is interesting that we are asked to measure the impact of the stimulus based on "cost per job", and yet we get no analysis about how much revenue was generated by these jobs. How many other jobs were created as result of the stimulus job. How many taxes paid, lunches bought, goods purchased. Manufacturing bases kept in this country.

This is the type of simplistic "analysis" that is a waste of time and purely political. And ridiculous.

Its great to cite that it cost $280,000 per job, which is actually pretty low given the materials costs for major construction projects, which in this case were primarily roadways, bridges, etc.

Well, Nash, I guess the Chinese would be the ones to answer that question. Seems like an awful lotmof stimulus money went to build or expand factories there.

Obama just went down to one of those companies to congratulate them. Cree industries got $39 million in 2009 to build a better light bulb. Used it to build a factory in China in 2010.

When Obama tosses out that "saved and. Created" jobs number, he leaves off the part of WHERE those jobs were saved or created.

Guess he figures no one need to know the pesky details.

Any proof of that allegation?

Sure, John

http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/7/12/7

Like I said- Obama leaves out the part about WHERE those jobs are created or saved.

Turns put it's China. Go figure.

Oh, how can anyone forget this little "success" story?

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/schumer-seeks-to-block-stimulus-funds-for-chinese-backed-texas-wind-farm/

For the record, I do not know that Schumer succeeded in blocking that deal. In fact, I'm pretty sure he failed.

With Obama, you need to listen to what he DOESN'T say-

Like, "the difference between 1994 and now is, this time, you've got me". It was true, too- the losses in 2010 made 1994 look like a Democratic success story.

Rule of thumb- always infer the worst when Obama makes statements open to inference. Like "change". We got change, all right.

People forgot that an attack of appendicitis is also a "change".

Now it's timemto "change" doctors. This one has no clue about them proper treatment.

no joe:

Like I said- Obama leaves out the part about WHERE those jobs are created or saved.

Turns put it's China. Go figure.

No, it turns out that YOUR ARTICLE leaves out the part about where the jobs are created or saved. This one, on the other hand ....

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57862796/Cree-Chip-China-Heart

... reveals that the $39 million in stimulus was used specifically to add jobs in the US -- at Cree's North Carolina factory.

Cree Received $39 Million From The Stimulus To Create Jobs At Its Factory In North Carolina.

Cree was chosen for a $39 million tax credit through this Recovery Act program, which is called the AdvancedEnergy Manufacturing Tax Credit, nicknamed 48C for its line in the tax code. So far, the investments they’re using the credit to make, along with the private capital they’re putting into those investments, have led to375 new factory jobs in the last year, and they’re planning to add 300 more next year.

(Jared Bernstein, “Recovery Act In Action #4: A 48C Story,” WhiteHouse.gov, 3/24/10)

The fact that Cree was ALSO able to build a factory overseas THE NEXT YEAR may go as much to the success -- as measured by profits -- that Cree experienced because of the stimulus.

Isn't that how it's supposed to work in your flat-earth, free-trade world, no joe?

NF: It is interesting that we are asked to measure the impact of the stimulus based on "cost per job", and yet we get no analysis about how much revenue was generated by these jobs.

Well it doesn't seem to be that much of a revenue generator, now does it? 9%+ unemployment,14 million more out of work, many for more than 6 months, 10 million more under employed, month after month after month of anemic employment numbers. So the 'stimulus' has stimulated nothing, and left us with a huge debt to pay.

The White House site? I guess you did not read whatmi said about drawing inferences from anything Obama- or his administration- had to say.

How many jobs did Cree, with its "China Heart", create in China in 2010, after taking stimulus finds in 2009?

That is the real question.

AM how does 39million netting 375 factory jobs considered success? Even if you add the 300 more in the upcoming year, the numbers just don't add up to a lot of jobs.

Oh, and AM? Seems that revenues are down for Cree this year, but it is not stopping their lobbying expenditures- or their Obama donations.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/06/ceo-6-14-2011.html

As usual NJ's link doesn't illustrate what she says it does. http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/7/12/7

1) It doesn't say the Chinese factory was paid for with stimulus funds.

2) It doesn't even say Cree RECEIVED stimulus funds.

This one is no different. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/06/ceo-6-14-2011.html

It says a "manager" gave a total of $4,450 to the Obama campaign during the 2008 campaign. Not only legal but small potatoes compared to the Koch brothers, who gave almost ten times as much to Scott Walker in his campaign for Wisconsin governor. http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/wisconsin-scott-walker-koch-brothers They gave a similar amount to Iowa's TP governor Terry Branstad.

All of that ON TOP OF the legalized bribery enabled by the Citizens United decision, which NJ supports.

The link from led magazine provided the proof you asked for that Cree opened a plant in China after receiving stimulus funds. That they received these Fu ds is not in dispute-nor is Obama's visitmto the company.

You left something out of the open secrets piece

The company also contributes significantly to Democratic candidates. During the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, political action committees and individuals associated with Cree donated a total of nearly $60,000.

And, the manager is named.

I suppose you believe that cherry picking and nitpicking help you "win" the argument. I believe that those reading actually click the links, and read for themselves; this, they get the whole story.

In case you ARE disputing Cree receiving stimulus funds

http://dukechronicle.com/article/biden-pushes-led-lights-durham-visit

And, yes, it talks about Biden's visit. Obama was there, too. Twice.

Nit picking? Project much? You've combined the fact that Cree opened a plant in China and the fact that Cree received stimulus funding (mostly tax credits that Republicans insisted be included in the ARRA) and you imply (without proof) that something improper is going on.

Classic Conservative smear, enabled only by the fact that these contributions were LEGAL and IN THE OPEN. What dots can you connect through American Crossroads? How about Crossroads GPS? Can you make similar connections through the US Chamber of Commerce? You can't, because that funding is anonymous and hidden.

So let's say in the interest of bipartisanship and overall improvement in the electoral process that you join me in a call for Congress to pass and the President to sign the DISCLOSE Act. Since you're so concerned about openness and honesty in the campaign funding process you'd do that, right?

Nit picking? Project much? You've combined the fact that Cree opened a plant in China and the fact that Cree received stimulus funding (mostly tax credits that Republicans insisted be included in the ARRA) and you imply (without proof) that something improper is going on.

Classic Conservative smear, enabled only by the fact that these contributions were LEGAL and IN THE OPEN. What dots can you connect through American Crossroads? How about Crossroads GPS? Can you make similar connections through the US Chamber of Commerce? You can't, because that funding is anonymous and hidden.

So let's say in the interest of bipartisanship and overall improvement in the electoral process that you join me in a call for Congress to pass and the President to sign the DISCLOSE Act. Since you're so concerned about openness and honesty in the campaign funding process you'd do that, right?

...as opposed to the "righty manifesto" as written by Grover Norquist......entitled "Ideology Before Country"...

Well said, Say. The evidence is at the top of the page, as well. The fact that ALL THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES COMBINED can't manage to raise as much campaign funding as President Obama is a strong statement that Conservatives are lying with their constant drumbeat about the President's unpopularity. I'm sure they aren't alarmed, however. The corrupt wing of the Supreme Court has legalized bribery through Citizens United and the wealthy elites plan to swamp the general election campaign with attack ads in order to continue their war on the middle class.

John b

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/01/obama-fundraising-goal_n_870088.html

So, if they get $60 million for the quarter, seems like they missed the mark.

Which answers none of the points above.

riata hemp,

Hey there Sunshine....or should I call you willie pete, johnbirch42, dennissyllabaugh, etc. thought you were moving to Costa Rica??

In your opinion, is this good or bad?

lol

That's exactly what I thought. ;-)

Mixed Bag, Good point, unfortunately they have already done their damage... and are scurrying away!

Another Conservative nontroversy...anything to avoid talking about the real problems faced by the nation. In the modern era turnover in presidential advisors is a non-issue, closer to normal than not. http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2002/05elections_dickinson.aspx

What's the big deal? Get rid of ALL the monetarists, I say.

The world is only flat because poor policy-making MADE it flat.

Perhaps you're correct, John B.-

Maybe the distinction to be made in this case is whether the architects of the Obama stimulus depart to the acclamation of a grateful public, or merely slink away as, more than two years later, job creation and economic growth continue to languish.

MB, there can be no doubt that there's work still to be done. We didn't get tho this position quickly, and "declaring victory" at this early point just isn't a realistic thing to do...so it's good that no one has done so.

I like peanuts.

I like M&M's.

I don't like Peanut M&M's.

Is that weird?

But do you like cranberries?

The problems in this country were created because our government in Washington DC spent too much money.

The Liberals solution? Send them more money.

bob:

Seriously. Have you ever heard of "lobbying" bob? Citizens United bob? The corporate people OWN Congress bob. So it is not a coinky dink that this type of crap passes bob. So first you co-opt government to do your bidding. And then, when all hell breaks loose, you bame "the gubment".

You need a logic class bob.

bob ~ Thank you so much for making such an eloquent case for public campaign finance. Starting right now.

I'm pretty sure that this is NOT what you intended, but that's what you got.

Joanna says: "The problems in this country were created because our government in Washington DC spent too much money."

In the Republican world view, but not in the real world. Republicans are using this recession to justify unraveling the security net FDR wove for Americans during the Great Depression, and which Republicans have always hated (while taking every penny they themselves could get.)

I cannot tell you how many die hard Republicans I know who take food stamps, free school lunch, Maine Care, Social Security disability payments and educational grants for their kids, while complaining about "those libruls" and their "welfare state." It's all I can do to keep a straight face.

Only pseudo-liberals think the way that conservatives around here attribute to us. "True" liberals do not like corporate campaign donations or lobbying. We do not like to see our elected representatives have to spend hours out of every precious working day raising money. We do not like to think about all the corruption that it breeds.

But we liberals did not make this bed. Corporatist conservatives did.

What conservatives REALLY hate is that there are democrats -- and Barack Obama is perhaps the best example -- who can play very successfully in what used to be the conservatives' waterpark.

But I would not call the corporatists "true" conservatives. I would call them rhetorical opportunists.

Whatever argument works today.

Anna Molly

And it's important not to let conservatives define Democrats' positions for us. Or to fall into a knee jerk oppositional stance, just because the conservatives are yanking our chain.

I'm sick of Teapublicans defining the issues in their own twisted way. Their policies create division and missed opportunities for positive solutions in every state with a Teapublican governor. Look at Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio and Maine. The right wing is sacrificing teachers' benefits to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest, and rolling back environmental protections at the behest of private industry.

You mean people like Ed Haddock?

No, he is not the "fish muppet", but the CEO of a for profit technical school, among other ventures. Seems he raised $200,000 for Obama last time out, and the campaign is finding him a little stingy this time. They gave a solution- White House access.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/13/obama-campaign-arm-advise_n_875986.html

See, he was just another one of those little people who sent Obama their paper route money.

By the way- once again, Obama expected to raise $60 million INS JUNE alone- so, getting that much for the quarter seems a little shy of the mark.

no joe ~ what's your point beyond another attempt to pin the campaign financing mess on liberals? My point was that private campaign finance is the problem ... period. But yours seems to be that private campaign finance is the problem ... because Barack Obama is doing it well.

Or am I missing some unspoken subtlety here?

Either way, the right solution seems to be LESS private financing, not more. Agreed?

My point is to shine a bright light on Obama's fundraising- nothing more nor less.

The media dutifully parroted the "small donors make up most of my donors" lie that Obama co tines to repeat, with no interest whatsoever in reported the actual facts. His "paper route" donors made up less than 25% of his donors. The rest were big money donors, who expected what they got- cushy jobs, government contracts, insider access.

I guess this guy just fell through the cracks- or maybe his measly $200,000 was not enough, given the multitudes of $350,000 plus donors.

Looks like they need more "measly" donors this time.

Since the paid propagandists who constitute the media will rarely report on this, it is incumbent on those of us who do care about the truth to get it out there.

By the way- since it is your view that there be public financing, do you remember WHICH candidate eschewed it last time?

JoAnnaSmith1

The problems in this country were created because our government in Washington DC spent too much money.

The Liberals solution? Send them more money.

I saw a artical that the wars have cost us almost 4 trillion, medicade part D 6 trillion, joanna your the Pot calling the kettle black, i would love to know how you feeling about the 42 billion that was spent on HLS, and the 800 billion on extentions of tax cuts for the rich. but according to you the liberal only spend money.

ALSO where are the dam jobs the repuiblicans promised, the rate has goan up since they took control.

no joe:

By the way- since it is your view that there be public financing, do you remember WHICH candidate eschewed it last time?

Sure, but no need to be smug about it. McCain would have, too, except that HE needed it.

My point exactly. LoLoL

How about this oldie but goody-

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obama.html

Suddenly, public financing is an issue.

Tells me the fundraising's really not going so well.

I love how conservative posters want to have their cake and eat it too . . . first they pretend like they support "public financing" . . . then they declare corporations to be "people" with the unlimited right of free speech.

Huh?

More gaming the system and word games for the masses.

Keep on making my point for me, no joe. I'm loving it.

Cute, AM. I am merely pointing out hypocrisy.

Unless, of course, you are telling us you voted for McCain because of this?

Most importantly this is a point which Conservatives have already lost in the court of public opinion. Once they begin to tell us it's "the system" and "both sides are responsible" they're doing nothing but covering for themselves.

no joe:

Unless, of course, you are telling us you voted for McCain because of this?

Why would I vote for McCain because of that, especially when I believe he would have thrown public financing under the bus, too, if only he'd been able to.

Not only democrats are hypocrites, no joe, although many are. There, satisfied?

But the REAL point is that we keep doing things to make our politicians more desperate, thereby leading them to do things they might otherwise not do if only we had public campaign finance.

Why would we want to do that? Unless, of course, we believe that their desperation works to our advantage.

And we all know it's not the $5-raffle-ticket purchaser who believes that, don't we?

Why? Because it is YOUR big issue, AM.

Tells me how really important it is to you.

The "why" question related entirely to something else, no joe, but I'll bite for the strawman.

I didn't hear McCain saying we needed to get rid of private financing, did you? Even McCain-Feingold doesn't do that. But if he HAD said it, I would have agreed with him. I was as much for public campaign financing then, as I am now. And 2008 presents the perfect example of why we need it. After Citizens United, it will only get worse.

Evasion, empty sarcasm, and pointing to other wrongs is not how you win an argument with me, no joe.

Q - What do you call someone whose hand is always reaching out for your paycheck?

A- that's easy, a liberal / socialist / progressive

After spending like a drunken sailor, Obama has now 'sobered up', 'has seen the light', and wants to cut spending? Including cuts to Obamacare? Of course that will only happen if the Republicans agree to tax the hell out of the already beleaguered middle class! What hypocrite we have in office! Political rhetoric at the highest level..... !

I am not attempting to "win an argument"-

Merely pointing out your flexible principles.

If , indeed, public financing was a major issue with you, younwould not have supported the candidate who stuffed his pockets with wads of cash that got converted into cushy jobs, government contracts, and insider access.

That you did support Obama tells me all I need to know about the importance of the financing issue to you. Which is, not much.

Another example of why I could never be a liberal. See, I have only one set of principles- applies to everybody. So, I do not have to twist my principles into pretzels commending MY side for doing something I decry on the other side.

I guess what it comes down to is that liberals are not FOR or AGAINST any issue- they are FOR or AGAINST a given politician- depending on whether he or she has an R or a D after his or her name.

Therenis a name for that kind of thinking. . .

Pride,

Since when is an income of over $250,000 middle class? My total household income gets close to this total, but I know I'm in the upper 10%, and I would have no problem returning to the pre-Bush tax cut levels of taxes, especially if the revenues were targeted to debt reduction. What is needed is shared sacrifice, and that also means entitlement reform. The Social Security and Medicare programs both need to be revamped to limit benefits on a sliding scale, there is no reason why households with incomes over 250,000 should be drawing from these programs.

I know the refrain will be we should get out what we paid into the program - and that can be another solution, let them draw only the amount they put into the program on an actuarial basis. I'm tired of seeing that we protect seniors, many of whom don't need it, while at the same time stealing the future from our children and grandchildren.

That's so funny, no joe, that I can hardly believe you're saying it to ME.

Nothing stopping you from sending in that extra cash, Kathy. The government would be glad to have it. So you don't forget, mail it before midnight tonight.

AM, you are just like every other member of the Libs R Us cabal. Nothing your idol does will ever generate even a hint of disapproval.

You just demonstrated it.

Amy: In the Republican world view, but not in the real world. Republicans are using this recession to justify unraveling the security net FDR wove for Americans during the Great Depression.

The recession ended in June/2009.

Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129990734

AM, you are just like every other member of the Libs R Us cabal. Nothing your idol does will ever generate even a hint of disapproval.

Really?! Just like. LoL Not really. They're all MUCH smarter than I am. I keep thinking that being nice to conservatives will have a payoff in heaven. At least they're getting a trip to St. Louis.

But why do you always have to make this personal, no joe?

You just demonstrated it.

Yes, just like I demonstrated it when I opposed HCR -- I don't think it goes far enough and violated his campaign promise not to sign a bill without a public option -- opposed his position on Gitmo, have been unhappy with his actions -- or rather inaction -- in regards to what is happening in the states -- opposed extension of the Bush tax cuts, opposed his decision to increase offshore drilling, and opposed pretty much his entire economic team and approach ... just to name a FEW areas of disagreement.

Yes, indeed. Just another Obamabot. That's me.

Well, AM, I guess he can't count on Your vote in 2012, now, can he?

Against THIS field? Yes, I guess he can depend on my vote.

Until Donald Trump gets back in, that is. LoL

Thanks for your input, Kathy. There's a point that goes even deeper--the deliberate flattening of the tax structure. $250,000 is a lot of income in most of our world's but the richest among us can spend that without a second thought. The richest 1% control more wealth than the lowest 70%. http://www.alternet.org/economy/145705/the_richest_1%25_have_captured_america%27s_wealth_--_what%27s_it_going_to_take_to_get_it_back

The situation of that top 1% is dramatically different from the doctors, lawyers, and small businessmen bringing home a comfortable but reasonable income. The ONLY reason to lump them together is to save on the tax bill of the ultra-rich who could easily afford to pay more. Saving THEM money is the Conservative agenda...and they've been wildly successful.

They haven't been normal since Reagan was elected. While Regan discontinued his own policies because they failed, modern republicans continue to tout his 1980 campaign ideas as their party platform. Conservatives want to be in power but when they are, their ideological anti-government, anti-revenue beliefs make then unable to govern effectively. We cannot be a strong country, an economic and military superpower, if we the people--all the people and businesses--are not willing to invest in it.

David Brools is center right in the same way that Arianna Huffington is center right.

These are two opportunistic people who go in whatever direction leads to the money.

Only on First Read would a statement like this one about David Brooks be greeted with anything but laughter.

Then again, with Obama's re election chances dwindling by the day, they need something to rally the troops.

Anybody take a look at the "direction of the country" poll numbers lately?

Not good for an incumbent president.

Good Morning Anna Molly:

One of my Wisconsin contacts said that those who were present when the Chief Justice reportedly attempted to choke another justice are now saying, they didn't see a thing. When is a witness not a witness? I guess when they are present and blind. What is the back story here?

Don't know, Ron. Trying to take some time off politics, especially following what's happened here. So I haven't followed lately, except for the local Fox News broadcaster who tried to interview Prosser and got his microphone grabbed out of his hand. It was an interesting bit of video that clearly supports the impression of many that Prosser is not a good-tempered man.

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. At the very least, anyone who has changed their story in such a dramatic way has serious credibility issues. If they happen to be justices, well then, it's probably no big surprise anyway. Blind justice, doncha know. And I'll bet that it breaks down on ideological lines. No surprise there, either.

Ron,

They are now clinging to the age old adage,..."Justice is Blind!" (or more literally, justices ARE blind) har har,...but, YEAH I guess their partisan slip is showing, LOUD and PROUD, eh?

Unrelated question. Did you go to St. Louis and did you visit the neighborhood they call "The Hill".

Forrest, trip is pending and Saturday night dinner will be on The Hill! YUMMO, can hardly wait. Thanks for asking.

Let me know what you thought after your trip, I am interested, hope it is as plesant as I described, I feel somewhat responsible since I offered a suggestion. Have a nice trip.

PS be careful in St. Louis people don't actually stop at stop signs they just sort of pause!

In Oklahoma we called those "Okie Rolling Stops!", very familiar with the dangers! Thanks!

Wonderful, and wonderfully told. Thank you.

Good for the soul JoAnne.

JoAnne......delightful, simply delightful. And you are so right, driving along those country roads in that part of the world, you can hear the sounds of yesteryear of long long ago and realize how fortunate we are to be a part of their sacrifice and legacy.

So glad you had a good time.

Thanks for sharing that JoAnne . . .almost feel like I was there! :o)

Beautifully said, JoAnne! Sounds as if you had a wonderful time and met a couple fine folks for dinner.

One of my favorite things to do is get in the car and take the off roads to explore. It's even better when friends are met at a destination.

So beautifully written JoAnne! I really enjoyed that and very glad you shared it.

JoAnne...

That's awesome. I grew up about 40 minutes east of Boonsboro...used to play them in high school sports all the time, so I know the area well. Beautiful, beautiful country out there. We took occasional field trips to Antietem nearby. And you are right...when you walk around out there, you can really put yourself back in the time period. Glad you were able to go there on Sunday!!

I've always thought this, Joanne. Most real Democrats, I mean the old school, REAL Democrats who are still around and make up the majority of the Dem party would be shocked by the things they see the liberals say on FR. Just the same way they were shocked when they saw how the lefties acted during the Vietnam era.

It's a comfort to me knowing that most of the liberals on this site are extremists off on the fringe and that nobody who aligns with them politically would ever be president. Not anytime soon anyway. Their hatred and irrationality and lack of common sense cancels that out. I have several Democrats in my immediate family. Smart, civil people. They too would be appalled at what passes for political discourse among the extremists and those with no life.

Joanne

perhaps the only thing that will save our political process today is friendship and respect for those Americans who came before us.

Damage123 -

I fear you missed my point entirely. I'm one of those lefties who acted so "shockingly" during the Vietnam era, and I was as proud of being a liberal then as I am now. I would very much love to see a true liberal elected President before I die, but doubt that it'll ever happen - any more than we'll ever see a President Bachmann or a President Santorum from the other side.

Put it this way - I could re-print your entire post, just changing "leftie" and "Democrat" to "rightie" and "Republican", and it would be every bit as valid. Don't you agree?

I just don't see why we should feel the need to.

P.S. to Amy - Thanks - that was my point exactly.

And you have just about summed up what's wrong with both politics and the media today.

Because it's not real till one of those high paid no it all pundits say it Houston, even though the whole country has known it for months. If the media would pay more attention to the voting public instead of these high paid pundits they'd get it right more often.

You said it Houston, Anna Molly and MO 681343.

Government is broken and the American people have known its been broken for a long time. The Senate is a disgrace; their arcane rules allow one person and/or the minority to basically shut down Government; dysfunction at its finest. Pundits argue, the beltway media is stuck in its own bubble. Then someone like Brooks makes a statement that Americans concluded years ago and suddenly, he/she is a smart man/woman speaking truth and wisdom.

Well, alrighty then...

I assume that you're all similarly interested in what Mr. Brooks has to say about President Obama's leadership.

On the PBS Newshour, 6/24/2011, David Brooks contrasted President Obama's leadership on the debt crisis and the raising of the debt ceiling with the leadership that Governor Chris Christie demonstrated in moving his public employees pension reform bill through a New Jersey state legislature controlled by Democrats:

"I think that's the way you lead. And I don't think Obama has done this. I don't understand the passivity, except it's become a pattern for the administration."

Truth and wisdom.

I'll bet when you said truth and wisdom MB it gave you a headache.

Mr. Reality Check

Theodore Roosevelt (last of the progressive Republicans) coined the term "bully pulpit" to describe the power a President has to inspire people and promote new ideas, not to describe a position from which to "bully" the opposition.

Bully used to be a word connoting a superb or wonderful idea. It was Theodore Roosevelt's favorite exclamation as in "let's create national parks and preserve the wilderness. Bully!"

The term bullying for strong arming comes from a derivation of a German word for "pimp." Which when you think about it, is pretty much what the Republicans are doing for the big corporations.

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

Amy--I think you just gave Reality check a reality check!

I like that Amy. The GOP/TP pimping for their masters the coporations.

Well, that's a unique spin. The bully pulpit is a term that's been around for decades meaning the President (of any party) has an advantage because he is the President and when he speaks, people listen. A preacher has a "bully pulpit" on Sundays because when he/she speaks, those in church must listen--unless of course, they nod off.

The liberals pimp for their God, the almighty Government.

The Democratic Party is the Party of Government. They care not a whit for individual freedom, just the power of the State. They will destroy the private sector and have the US become another failed Euro-socialist state.

Keep going Bob your on a roll. You just keep making all us Liberals points this morning.

Bob,

Let's talk about the power of the state - where a Governor can appoint a dictator to run any city he wants the way he wants it run and give away the assets of that city to corporate interests. Where once again child labor is being promoted. Where the state can come in and search records any between a doctor, patient and family concerning the most difficult life decisions. Where what goes on between consenting adults becomes the states concern. These are all positions currently being promoted and executed by Republican governors and legislatures. So much for individual freedom.

Kathy1960

Sounds like you live in Massachusetts, run by Dems!! Care to back up your claims with actual facts or a link to a credible source?

They just haven't realized when they speak for the wealthy their speaking against their best interests. It's what they call we win at any cost, even if it puts them in the poor house.

Don't be too hard on them. They're just trying to prove that fools and their money can never be parted.

That first line is what I think our President will have to do, tell Boehner and McConnell to forget it--no increased revenues, no more spending cuts. The GOP is playing a dangerous game of risking America for the sake of the next election; the only people who think they are right are their base supporters of about 35% who believe "winning" is what it is all about.

The Executive Order works for some things but if it involves spending on infrastructure or anything else, Congress has to fund it so while the idea is a good one, practically, it has limited potential but there are non-funding things he can do with Executive Orders.

Which is currently the worst? The Congress from 2007-2008 has to be close to the top of that list. They did nothing at all while they waited for the 2008 elections. They couldn't even get their collective act together to take a vote on expanding benefits for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

"refuse to bring any viable legislation to the floor."

Lib idea of "Viable legislation" = more trillions stolen from hardworking taxpayers for Democrats to give away to their leeching constituencies.

The most productive Congress since LBJ was the one from 2009 through 2010, led by Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, they implemented a good part of President Obama's agenda with needed legislation against the odds of a miniority party in the Senate determined to obstruct, delay, deny everything.

See Bob that's you and the GOP/TPs problem. You want to bring up inconsequential subjects that do nothing to move the country forward. That's why the 112th congress is the most ineffective congress in history.

Thanks for making my point.

Your right about the 111th Congress Jody. I was talking about the 112th Congress. Sorry I didn't make myself clear. But the GOP used the filibuster on every item brought to the floor so they could try and stop the 111th Congress.

The only shot the GOP/TP has is hoping a bad economy will help them. Why else would they keep trying to bring the economy down. They think it's their only way back to power, tank the economy. Not only have they not brought any job creating legislation forward, they've voted against or blocked any real job creating legislation. So much for country first, what a joke.

The Repubs won in Nov because the voters were sick of the massive deficit spending. If by "economic progress" you mean continued massive deficit spending and the bankrupting of our economy and down grading of our national credit to third world status coupled with 9%+ unemployment as the new norm, than I suggest it might be time for you to move to a third world country. Because the voters are not going to allow Obama to continue US on his path for any longer.

It's not all the republicans that are saying I got mine to hell with you. Most are saying to the rich you've got yours and I support you, here take mine. Their just to dumb to realize it.