The Obama/Boehner Plan:

Can President Obama and John Boehner cut a deal on solving the debt ceiling issue? Perhaps the two of them can find common ground. But can they twist and break enough arms to get a bill through Congress? That is the real question. I'm not sure they can.

The Cut, Cap and Balance House bill will die a miserable death in the Senate today and the Gang of 6 proposal will not find legs to get through the House. So it's up to the McConnell-Reid plan or some negotiated plan between the President and Boehner.

Democrats are unhappy that they were not included in the negotiations, plus there are concerns that President Obama will give away more than he needs to. Will the President make concessions in Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid without some form of tax increases? These concerns are real in the eyes of Democrats.

The Tea Party Republicans are always unhappy. They want to destroy the very government they are serving. With Cantor looking over Boehner's shoulder he can say, "No Deal" without even reading the small print. In short, Boehner has little to no control over his own party.

The devil is in the details and my cynical thoughts are saying both sides have forgotten how to compromise. I do not believe anyone will be happy with an Obama/Boehner deal and the deal will fail. I admit, I'm making a prediction without seeing the details, but the realistic side of ol' Ron doubts that a broken Congress can heal fast enough for them to pass a debt ceiling bill.

There are other realists who assess the situation in a similar manner; namely the Feds and the financial community. They are continuing to put in place their doomsday plans. When their money is at risk, they know how to manage it until Congress comes to its senses.

“Ground Hog” day continues and we still do not have a deal on the Debt Ceiling and more rumors are floating around with still no real idea of what is or is not included.

Governors, Wall Street, Economists, Businesses of all sizes, the American People all want our politicians to stop the “Obstructionist” and ideological bickering and pass a Debt Ceiling Bill that includes spending cuts AND revenue increases. Polls over the last several weeks are running overwhelming in favor of President Obama and against the DRACONIAN Ideology of the “Radical Right”. Even some Republicans are against the “Obstructionist Agenda” of their own Party.

Some big wig Governors like Kasich, Walker, Christie, Scott and other Tea Party are all seeing their approval numbers head south. In Ohio yesterday is was passed that Collective Bargaining Law recently pushed through by their Tea Party Governor will be on the ballot come November and the people will get a vote. Over 1.3 Million signatures were secured (4 or 5 times what was needed) and 900,000+ have been certified. Currently 58% of the voters in Ohio oppose this collective bargaining law and it will be recalled. People, America is waking up to the GOP/TP anti-American agenda and they are not happy campers – not by a long shot.

Speaking of “Collective Bargaining” the FAA will shut down today if their funds are not reauthorized and airports across this country will start closing down. Why? It is because the GOP/TP (surprise) wants to add an anti-union amendment to the reauthorization bill. Yes, they want to destroy collective bargaining just like Ohio, WI etc from the Unions. If they do not get their way America will not be flying anywhere. We will be walking, driving, swimming, going by train etc to our vacation sites, business meetings etc.

In all my years I have never seen one party that is becoming so anti-American in their ideology. Never. This FAA farse will cost our country Billions of Dollars in lost revenues. Do we see a pattern here yet? Come on people, connect the dots – you can do it. The people in Ohio and WI have.

The Senate today will take another vote of the “Ryan Bill” opps I mean the so called Duck, Dodge and Dismantle Bill. This is in all its glory a re-write of the “Ryan Bill” except the cuts are even more DRACONIAN in scope, virtually give the 2% tax cuts forever, drastically cuts all entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security) and wipes out virtually ever Social Safety Net like Medical Research, Food Stamps, FDA, FEMA, Education, Product and Food Safety etc etc etc. In fact, under this bill the “Ryan Bill” would fail as it would have been TOO tame, NOT DRACONIAN enough for the new right wing radicals.

It appears that Murdoch has his hacking tentacles into US Companies as well. It was reported yesterday that an American Company Photo Graphics (??) was indeed hacked by one of Murdoch’s companies and there was a law suit and a $29 Million Dollar settlement (Murdoch –lost). The DOJ is now going to investigate them as they should. Now, while we have proof on one company being hacked, this will have little bearing on any further legal action as the “Statue of Limitations” has expired but it does demonstrate that Murdoch has hacked at least one US Company and where there is one I am positive that others will pop up as well, as with e-mails, paper trails etc. If Murdoch is found guilty of a felony (which these are) he cannot hold a TV/Radio License in the United States – that could mean total collapse of his “Empire” here in this country and all his political power will go in the toilet.

The repeal of DADT has been certified by the US Military finally allowing the gay community to serve our Country in the open and with honor and pride. Next step is getting rid of DOMA for good.

The right wing pundits are still talking up “Leadership” of the right. Actually they should be talking about the lack of any leadership from the right. The only person who even remotely looks like a leader on the right may be Rep. Boehner. The GOP/TP has broken every promise they made in the 2010 election campaign except one. They promised jobs, a better economy and improved education. So far every bill they have passed will kill off 700,000 jobs or more, stall or cripple the economy. They are for cutting educational programs like the “Pell Grants”, K-12 etc. The only promise they kept to date was to be the “Obstructionist” Party and try to do everything in their power to make President Obama fail even if it means increasing Unemployment, reducing State and Federal Revenues (which are already depressed at record levels), closing down airports, crippling the economy to a point where a depression that will make the “Great Depression” look like a picnic a real possibility. They also do not care if your 401K Plan, IRA, Pensions etc goes back into the same shape that the previous Administration left them. They do not care if our seniors and retired/disabled military people get their checks or not.

This NEW GOP Party is becoming the new anti-American Party. There is absolutely no doubt that is the path that they are following. All you need to do is look at the bills they have passed or are proposing currently, what have they blocked from passing, what do they routinely oppose, what are those 400+ bills stalled in the Senate. Examine their rhetoric of late and tell me it is not anti-American hate speech.

They are anti union, anti women’s rights, anti religious tolerance, anti gay, anti middle class, anti education, anti science and research, anti small business and the list goes on and on. These are all basic American principles that this country was built on and they are against all of them. The only things they support in lock step are Wall Street over Main Street, Big Business over Small Business and Millionaires/Billionaires over the other 98% of the population. This is not an ideology that is compatible with democracy as we know it today and it is not an ideology that will move this country forward. In fact it will do just the opposite – PERIOD.

Word of the Summer; LOOMING. Battles are looming over all types of spending cuts;

Looming budget battle

Looming debt

Looming Deadline

Looming crises

Looming tax hikes

Looming dangers of action and inaction

Looming, looming, looming…

The only thing that is looming is fear spread by the critics of President Obama. This is the Congress’ issue to deal with. Legislate and the Executive in charge will look it over and sign to either approve or veto. The president doesn’t make laws he makes sure the laws are enforced.

This whole looming issue would not even be an issue if the Republicans weren’t so hell bent on seeing the president fail. This crop of TEA Drinking Conservatives remind me of Gremlins that are trying to bring down the plane. Every time we tell a Conservative to look out the window they don’t see it. When the plane goes down because of the Demints and the Wests, it will be too late to say told you so because this country will be a heap of burning ash.

Feisty & Ron:

Great posts to end the week. It looks like the tide is changing. More and more people are stepping up in vocal opposition to the radical ideology on the right. The American people now realize they were sold a bad deal by the GOP/TP last election.

They have not kept one promise except the one to try and make President OBama fail. There are no Job Bills, no Economic Stimulus or anything that they campaigned on.

They people do not like being played for suckers as we see in Ohio yesterday and they are going to throw the radicals out in 2012.

President Obama in 2012 for sure.

Looks like Democrats are now the “obstructionists”. Will the FR lefty liberals be calling them out for the Defaultageddon they are threatening to unleash on the American people??

My bet: 100 to 1 against. For them it's ALWAYS the Republicans fault, regardless of the actual facts.

From MSDNC.com:

WASHINGTON — As efforts to avoid an unprecedented U.S. default entered crunch time Friday, President Obama faced growing tensions with senior congressional Democrats, who are angry at White House concessions to Republicans and at being left out of the talks.

With the clock ticking toward an Aug. 2 deadline to raise the U.S. debt ceiling, Obama and the senior Republican in Congress, House Speaker John Boehner, worked toward a plan that could include up to $3 trillion in spending cuts but might leave tax reform for later, congressional aides said.

Friday is essentially the start of crunch time. The White House initially set a July 22 target for a deal that would leave enough time to get it through the legislative process. But it has backed off that timeframe in recent days with both sides still far apart on the issues.

Navy: I enjoyed yours as well.

A couple of days ago the usual leftist suspects trashed me for pointing out that the debt reduction ideas proposed by Bowles–Simpson as well as the Gang of 6 had moved the debate closer to the conservative Republican position and farther from the liberal Democratic position. My goodness, I hope those folks didn't choke when they read this in today's WaPo:

"Congressional aides...said the White House acknowledged that the emerging agreement is to the right of the Gang of 6..."

Ouch! Revenge is a dish best served cold, so eat hearty my leftist friends.

A cowboy named Bud was overseeing his herd in a remote Pasco pasture when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced toward him out of a cloud of dust.

The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, RayBan sunglasses and YSL tie, leaned out the window and asked the cowboy, "If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, Will you give me a calf?"
Bud looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, "Sure, Why not?"
The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his Cingular RAZR V3 cell phone, and surfs to a NASApage on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.

The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg , Germany .. Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses an MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response. Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer, turns to the cowboy and says, "You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves."

"That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves," says Bud.

He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on with amusement as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.

Then Bud says to the young man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?"

The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why not?"

"You're an aide in the Obama Administration", says Bud.

"Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did you guess that?"

"No guessing required." answered the cowboy. "You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You used millions of dollars worth of equipment trying to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don't know a thing about how working people make a living - or about cows, for that matter. This is a herd of sheep. ...

Now give me back my dog.

LouisJ:

You nailed it - Kudos.

The radical right keeps on exploiting the fear and hate that is festering in our political environment today. Right out of the Karl Rove play book.

You do not need ideas or you can sell snake oil and get away with it when you exploit fear and hate to move your agenda. That is exactly how they won in 2010, but no the American people are aware of their (GOP/TP) agenda and I do not think they are going to buy the same bridge again.

President Obama 2012 - for sure.

Fact Friday - It's been two-and-a-half years since "The Stimulus" was signed into law, and still the lies continue. There is little debate that it worked - only how well it worked. You can decide for yourself by typing into a search block "did stimulus work". It's that easy, and of course there are many conclusions, most asserting that it would have worked better had there been more money in the package.

However, there is one outright lie that continues to gall me, and we see it repeated regularly and that is the false proposition that the stimulus package was a gazillion-dollar payoff to Obama supporters. As a matter of fact, one-third of the package was a TAX CUT. The remaining two-thirds went to a wide variety of projects and recipients. You can find out for yourself where the money went in one of four different ways. First, you can simply believe me, but I'm just an arrogant, pompous, liberal hack. Second, you can go to any search block and type, "stimulus + pie chart". Third, you can type, "stimulus components". (As you can see, there are any number of search parameters that are limited only by your imagination.) You don't have to believe me. The fourth choice? Believe what no joe and her cohorts say about stimulus payoffs. Unfortunately, if you avail yourself of any one of the first three options, you will no longer believe what she and her cohorts say.

There are two lessons here. The first is that it always wise to double check what others say. The second is that appearances can be deceiving, which is to say, one might believe that the stimulus was a gift to Obama supporters. That conclusion is easy enough to reach given the fact that the stimulus was passed with no Republican help. Moreover, many Republicans participated in a loud and frenzied song-and-dance routine decrying the evils of the bill and telling all who would listen that they wouldn't accept the money.

However, if you are paying attention and not swallowing the G.O.P. BS line, you know that any number of Republican legislators were more than happy to accept the money and take credit for all the wonderful things they were doing for their constituents. They even had press conferences trumpeting their wonderfulness. (Republican legislators really believe their supporters are stupid. They may be right.) There are some very evil liberals who point out that Governors Rick Perry and Tim Pawlenty used the money to balance their budgets. Hard to believe, I know.

Now, about that debt ceiling. We're going to find out how many Republican legislators are as stupid as they think their constituents are. A lot of first-term G.O.P. crazies are getting ready to kiss their fannies good-bye. Boehner is going to have to call the extremists out. There is no way he can strike a balance between Republicans who know what MUST be done, and the extremists who simply don't understand arithmetic and budgets.

UAW: THANKS for the best laugh of the Barry Presidency!!!!!!

From MSNBC yesterday& worthy of repeating for those who might have missed it.

By NBC's Mike Viqueira

Finally,isn’t it ironic that those who cast themselves as the stoutest defenders of the
Constitution and who promote the genius of the Founding Fathers are the same
ones who can’t accept that there is a Senate controlled by duly elected members of the other party, not to mention a House minority that opposes them? The Founders understood the political imperative and expressly designed a Congress that takes it all into account. To say that the opposition should roll over because Americans spoke clearly in the last election doesn’t reckon for the fact that the Founders
staggered elections for a purpose, and that voters have sent a Democrat to
the White House and to the majority in the Senate in previous elections.

Basically we’re allowing 100 inmates to run the asylum!

These ideological radicals are NOT the MAJORITY!

Oh, pleeaaaase UAW, that joke has been around for at least 10 years long before President Obama even considered running for president.

Jody:

Like I have been saying - NO NEW IDEAS or JOKES. I saw that in "Readers Digest" I think many moons ago. Nothing changes.

Basically we’re allowing 100 inmates to run the asylum!

These ideological radicals are NOT the MAJORITY!

______________________________________________

Nasty Redhead: Your Senate Dems could have changed the filibuster rule in January 2011 and chose not to do so. If you want to blame someone, then blame Harry Reid and the other Senate Dems.

I saw that in "Readers Digest" I think many moons ago

And like every good RWNJ, they claim it as their own material...

They're running on EMPTY all right... lol

PS: Is it any wonder the idiot in Albany found it - hillaryious? Doesn't take much to entertain those who've been lobotimized! ;o)

Is it a Deal or no deal? I'm concerned as most Democrats are, that the President is again, giving the store away to the Republicans-Tea Party. Could it be that he is willing to give the big three Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and of course a plan to cut into the Affordable Health Care Plan.

Mr. President, with all due respect, please grow a set Sir. You have this Right Wing extremist group on the ropes and again you want give them the knock out blow that they deserve.

Sir, the American people are on your side and we don't want any changes to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. So, please don't away the store.

Mr. President, the majority of people in this country are Democrats and we want to continue to support you. However, you are making this very hard. Remember, you did not cause this budget problem. Mr. Bush and his fellow Republicans caused this problem, and they own it.

Meanwhile...back in the real world. Maine's Teapublican governor loses another top aide, this one, the Commissioner of Marine Resources (regulates our lobster and fish industries.) On the job for six months, this former diplomat and commercial fisherman resigned in a blaze of glory, firing off a resignation letter aimed at LePage's management style, and accusing him of threatening to create another port to take business away from Portland, which is a Democratic stronghold. Unfreakin' believeable. What kind of governor threatens the largest city in his state for partisan reasons? This isn't even right-wing ideology at work, it is just plain Tea-craziness.

https://docs.google.com/a/bangordailynews.com/leaf?id=0BwQeUpZp3bz1MTljNTEwMTctMDY3ZS00MDJhLTljNmUtNTA3MWFkZGQ2ZTVk&hl=en_US&ndplr=1

Ron, I believe a deal will be done with the teaparty folks sitting on the side lines. So both Dem and Repub will have to "eat their peas". But both of us are just doing our speculation today!! I am encourged that Boehner is not say muchyesterday.

What scares me is the lobbyists, speical interests that are lining up or already getting to pressure the way this will be done. And I am not talking about old Norquist who blew his cover in the last week.

If you are right, then the "backup plan" to raise the debt ceiling will be done.

Joe, I can't let your incorrect statement pass. The minority GOP filibustered against the rule changes. How appropriate that they would continue to obstruct even rule changes that would have eventually benefited their own party. Pay attention.

Call me optimistic but I firmly believe President Obama will not gut social security, medicare or medicaid. Clinton made drastic changes without a protest from liberals. There are fixes that do not gut the programs. Obama knows the public is on his side and he also knows the House GOP won't agree to anything and that democrats will not agree to drastic cuts either. I'm guessing that McConnell and Reid have a back door plan. Haven't seen or heard from Mitch in a week.

Even Norquist has stepped up in opposition to a permanent extension of the Bush Tax Cuts. He has now said that his pledge will not hold voting to end tax cuts as a tax increase. A major contradiction to the TP/GOP rhetoric in Congress. Maybe he finally saw the poll that 84% of Americans want the top 2% to be taxed at a higher rate. Although I think the damage has already been done for the TP/GOP. Their rabid opposition to the middle class and blind support for the rich will deal significant damage to their ability to influence and sway the general, middle class public in the coming years. Polls now show a significant rise that puts the GOP as a plurality for the blame of our economy. more than 54% of the public blames Bush for the problems and believes that Obama would help the economy better than the GOP.

Although, the Democrats have to be very careful when it comes to the Bush Tax cuts. The media consistently portrays them as a tax cut for the rich, while this is true, it also provides tax breaks for the middle and lower classes. So a blind opposition to the tax cuts is an uneducated one. repealing the tax cuts could raise billions and billions in revenue, because that also includes re-instating the higher tax rates from the pre-Bush era. If if the lower income tax's are continue while the rich are taxed more, a repeal wont generate as much revenue. BUT IT IS NECESSARY. increasing taxes on the rich, closing loopholes and throwing in higher taxes for corporations could make up for the billions of revenue lost in the middle and lower class. This should be considered first and foremost above inhibiting the elderly and sick from their entitlements.

Jody, I didnt think that was a joke. It's basiclly my experience with Obama. Health Insurance didnt need his help already had it. Mortgage Modification didnt need his help, sold my house and bought a new one. A Job? Been employed since I was 14. Education? Paid for college myself. It's amzing what you can do w/o government assistance....

Now if you are asking me about taxes? I'd appreciate it if they were lower......

You know what I find hilarious is the fact that the critics are saying that President Obama is settling with the TEA Party. That is frakkin hilarious.

This would be the headline...

President Obama agrees with Michelle Bachmann and Rand Paul

Now that is funny.

Feisty:

They claim everything as their idea except when their ideas and agenda drives this country to the brink of bankruptcy. Then it is everybody elses fault and they try and run away from the mess they created blaming everybody else along the way. It wasn't me it was that other guy.

BS and the American people kow recognize it for what it is. A total lack of leadership and honesty. More to come I am afraid.

According to our hosts, if President Obama and Speaker Boehner cut a "big" deal based on Bowles-Simpson, with "triggers" to ensure compliance with the terms of that deal, we're basically told that, politically, the only winners are Obama and Boehner.

FR: "No one else wins. Not Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats who want to take back that chamber. Ditto Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans."

So...are the regulars that blog here good with this outcome?

I've been here long enough to know that usually, whatever President Obama does, it'll receive support on this board...whether it's continuing the Afghanistan war, or extending the Bush tax cuts. Both are anathema to most liberal/progressives.

Are you with the President this time as well?

Obama doesnt have that much common sense Louie....

From George Will's column today:

"Obama's rhetorical floundering is the sound of a bewildered politician trying to be heard over the long, withdrawing roar of ebbing faith in a failing model of governance. From Greece to California, with manifestations in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Illinois and elsewhere, this model is collapsing. Entangled economic and demographic forces are refuting the practice of ever-bigger government financed by an ever-smaller tax base and by imposing huge costs on voiceless future generations.

Richard Miniter, a Forbes columnist, is right: "Obama is not the new FDR, but the new Gorbachev." Beneath the tattered, fading banner of reactionary liberalism, Obama struggles to sustain a doomed system. Democrats' dependency agenda — swelling the ranks of government employees, multiplying government-subsidized industries, enveloping ever-more individuals in the entitlement culture — is buckling under an intractable contradiction: It is incompatible with economic growth sufficient to create enough wealth to feed the multiplying tax eaters."

Ouch again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sustaining-the-unsustainable/2011/07/21/gIQAI6mtRI_story.html

UAW ~ And that only goes to show how little people like you know about people like us.

In the heartland, even city-slickers like me know a calf from a sheep from a dog.

But I'd have still have picked the sheepdog over the sheep.

Because sheepdogs are smart. Smarter than conservatives, apparently.

Navy, I've said it before, they want to claim the Championship Ring without having to play in the game.

UAW, I know it irks you that he is the Executive in Charge. The fact that he runs the show drives all TEA Drinkers up the wall. But to be able to repair the damages this country sustained under Republican Control makes your heads explode.

That deserves a Monty Burns, 'Exxxxcellent...'

President Obama is not cutting entitlement benefits, he is going after the problems that are driving up their costs as his primary concern. Things like the Medicare Advantage program. Increase the premiums on Medicare for the wealthy who can afford it etc. Benefit cuts are the very very last thing he is looking at on any of the entitlements.

Look this whole mess is a WIP (Work in Progress) and we will not know what this animal looks like for awhile.

Northstar:

I hope you are right and a deal can be made without the Tea Partiers. Actually I like peas, it's okra that I can't stand. I'm thinking 11th hour, 59th minute, a deal will be reached. Probably the McConnell/Reid plan.

Joe, I can't let your incorrect statement pass. The minority GOP filibustered against the rule changes. How appropriate that they would continue to obstruct even rule changes that would have eventually benefited their own party. Pay attention.

__________________________________________________________

Jody, do you have any credible source for you statement? My understanding is that each session of congress adopts its own rules by majority vote and therefore there is no filibuster rule on the day a new Senate first convenes. See the bold italics below.

.

Seems that YOU are the one that needs to "pay attention"

LMAO@U!!!!!!

From cbsnews.com January 5, 2011:

Senate Democrats on Wednesday unveiled their final plan for reforming the filibuster, a rule that has made it nearly impossible to pass legislation without the support of 60 out of 100 senators.

Under the reform package put forth by Democratic Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico, senators who filibuster must actually remain on the floor to make their case, something that they do not need to do now.

Senators also could no longer filibuster motions to proceed - the move to begin debate on legislation. That's not insignificant: It currently takes 60 votes and up to three days of precious Senate time to even start discussing a bill on the floor.

The package also mandates that senators could no longer use "secret holds" to anonymously threaten to filibuster a vote on a bill or nomination, a practice that has kept many executive and judicial branch appointees from being confirmed and has infuriated many senators. It also speeds up consideration of presidential nominees by reducing the time that must elapse between a vote to end a filibuster and a final vote from 30 hours to two hours.

In a concession to skeptical Republicans, the proposal includes a guarantee that the minority party can offer "germane" amendments to all legislation. Republicans have complained that they need the filibuster because Democrats have often pushed through legislation without giving them a chance to amend it. Doing so allows a majority party to both expedite passage of legislation and avoid "poison pill" amendments that require members to cast embarrassing votes.

A summary of the proposal notes that the use of the filibuster by the (in this case, Republican) minority has risen dramatically since 2006.

"Blocking a vote with a filibuster used to be rare and reserved for extreme situations," the proposal says. "Today, major bills, non-controversial bills, sometimes multiple steps on the same piece of legislation, and even non-controversial nominees face filibusters. There have been more filibusters since 2006 than the total between 1920 and 1980."

While the resolution was put forward today, a vote is not likely until the week of January 24th, following a two-week recess, CBS News Capitol Hill Producer John Nolen reports. It is too early to tell if there are enough votes to pass the measure.

Ironically, this is one of the few measures that could pass with a simple majority - not the filibuster-proof 60 votes or the two-thirds vote generally necessary to change Senate rules. That's because the Constitution allows the Senate to set its rules on the first day of a session by simple majority vote. Wednesday was that first day.

How, then, can Democrats drag the vote out until late January? In a nice illustration of the byzantine nature of the chamber's rules, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can "recess" the session at the end of the day, effectively extending that first day until the vote later this month.

The reason for the delay in holding the vote, it appears, is that even some Democrats -- perhaps fearful of a weakened filibuster if and when they are in the minority -- are skeptical of making changes to the rule. Democrats who back the reforms thus plan to spend the next few weeks trying to bring them around.

DO you people read the news or watch anything besides your own posts. Navybouy you can take any bit of bad news and spin it so Mr Obama looks to be Boy wonder! Aesop would blush at the crap you all post here. Stop your posting and go read some news! Capitulation is the order of the day! Boy are those progressives going to be mad at Mr Obama. But he might look good in Speaker Boehner suit and tie!

So the joke was in Readers Digest. I consider that Readers Digest and Fox News...baby food. But that is about the reading and thinking level of most rwnj's.

If Obama side holds their ground they can't lose, if they cave to the GOP whims it just shows they shouldn't be reelected, they either have a pair or they don't, they caved the last time when the GOP did the same thing and Obama extended the BUSH tax breaks this time if Obama does not hold the line I'm not going to vote for Obama, We need a President that can be tough when need be, not a sniffling wimp .....

FR: "Obama agenda: Dems revolt"

So...it's not entirely about Speaker Boehner and the Tea Party House members after all, is it?

I see you Tea Baggers and Eco Terrorists are at it again. Better watch it today, though. It's hot. You might give yourself a stroke if a deal is made ;)

If the dems cave to the republicans on the taxes, and taxes are not increased on the top tier...im not sure I can plug my nose and vote for democrats (or anyone) in 2012.

and thats what republicans are banking on, because they know their dumb blind lemmings would vote for them regardless. but we democrats, we care just a little bit more and we'll not show up if our spineless representatives and president can not effectively get it through the entire congress and senate that THE PEOPLE WANT TAXES RAISED. PERIOD.

this is a non-debate, the polls prove this...and it speaks volumes that most dems are pretty silent on this issue, you know whos' in their pockets...the very people who dont want their taxes raised.

There appears to be NO PARTY FOR THE PEOPLE.

@ Fiesty,

I agree that the Bush Tax cuts cost us a lot of money. And I assume when you post the 2.5T that it cost, you are acknowledging that 1.8T was the tax cuts to the middle class.

I fully support the Senate Dems and Reps that want to drop the tax rates, but cut the loopholes simplifying the tax code.

Enjoy the day.

LouisJ;

They (GOP/TP) do seem to like to take credit for the win when they do not even play in the game. We have seen this one time and time again, taking credit when they have done absolutely nothing to deserve it. In most cases they were even opposed to the game even being played.

Great posts this week and you have a great weekend.

With this heat I am having two (2) cold tall ones at the DDI today. Maybe three. Once a sailor always a sailor.

Amy....how many time do I have to tell you Portland Me. according to Tim Samples is in Massachusetts. And you are a M a s s h o l e! I lived in real Maine, where they dig ruddy blue taters and I know those people would not be supporting your agenda. You still never answered if you were from away! that would explain everything!

FR: "Obama agenda: Dems revolt"

Yesterday First Read, you scored it: "Boehner in a lose-lose situation"

How things change.

Just stop with the left wing rhetoric about the Bush tax cuts and how they "added to the deficit".

Don't believe tax cuts raise revenues? What if I showed you that the Bush tax cuts brought in $1.5 trillion in revenue over 6 years above the inflation adjusted pre-cut baseline? Would you believe it then or would you ignore it and keep advancing your disingenuous liberal rhetoric?

That's right Feisty Redhead...the Bush tax cuts didn't just pay for themselves, they brought in $1.5 trillion more in revenue cumulatively between 2002 and 2007 than would be expected tying revenue growth to compounded rate of inflation. To be clear, it was the explosion of Republican spending during the 2000s that caused the deficits, not Bush's tax cuts.

Now, here are the numbers to prove that:

Revenue for all of 2001 - $3557.94B X (inflation rate for 2002) 1.59% = $56.57B. $56.57B + $3557.94B = (expected 2002 revenue) $3614.51B. Expected revenue for all of 2002 - $3614.51B X (inflation rate for 2003) 2.27% = $82.05B. $82.05B + $3614.51B = (expected 2003 revenue) $3696.56B. Expected revenue for all of 2003 - $3696.56B X (inflation rate for 2004) 2.68% = $99.07B. $99.07B + $3696.56B = (expected 2004 revenue) $3795.63B. Expected revenue for all of 2004 - $3795.63B X (inflation rate for 2005) 3.39% = $128.67B. $128.67B + $3795.63B = (expected 2005 revenue) $3924.30B. Expected revenue for all of 2005 - $3924.30B X (inflation rate for 2006) 3.24% = $127.15B. $127.15B + $3924.30B = (expected 2006 revenue) $4051.45B. Expected revenue for all of 2006 - $4051.45B X (inflation rate for 2007) 2.85% = $115.47B. $115.47B + $4051.45B = (expected 2007 revenue) $4166.92B.

Expected cumulative revenues 2002 through 2007 adjusting for compounded annual inflation - 3614.51 + 3696.56 + 3795.63 + 3924.30 + 4051.45 + 4166.92 = $23249.37B.

Actual revenues 2002 through 2007 - 3299.19 + 3440.38 + 3891.15 + 4243.60 + 4696.05 + 5166.12 = $24736.49B

Actual revenue with Bush tax cuts $24736.49B - $23249.37B (expected revenue adjusted for compounded inflation) = $1487.12B (amount of revenues that were taken in with the Bush tax cuts above what was expected by adjusting for compounded inflation).

This is not an isolated occurrence either. The same thing happened with Reagan's tax cuts for the top marginal bracket, Kennedy's cuts to the top marginal bracket, and Mellon's cuts to the top marginal bracket. Every time it's been done, it's raised revenue because it increased economic activity. But facts and empirical evidence are facts and evidence that should be ignored, right Feisty?

I fully support the Senate Dems and Reps that want to drop the tax rates, but cut the loopholes simplifying the tax code.

I agree cdahl.

BUT, I don't want promises this will be enacted in the future. If everything is on the table, it should be done now.

PS: I acknowledge your figure - essentially, we borrowed close to a trillion dollars for those who least needed it! ;o)

You have a good day too & stay cool if you're in the 'heat-dome'.

I agree with Jessica 100%. Sadly, there hasn't been a party for the people, Democrat or Republican, for a while now. Still waiting....

Ron, OK I will make you a bet. You eat okra if a deal is done on the deficit. I will take the other side. If the back up plan of MConnell I will eat a whole can of mushy peas!!

Game???

Below is reply from Napoleon’s representative when General Kosciuszko asked for assurances should he lend his support.

“The emperor will never agree to any conditions. One needs to be blindly devoted and obedient to his will. He decides himself and based only on his wisdom and what circumstances suggest. His genius and power need no advice, exceptions or guarantees. I even have an order for you to sign this proclamation, and if you decide not to go along, then we will force you and declare it in your name.”

Consider the parallels of today. I especially like the blind obedience displayed, and its shocking resemblance to the liberals that post here.

US Navy. That Republican-created Medicare Advantage program was a huge give-away to the insurance industry and cost the government billions. The idea behind it was to give seniors a free market alternative to government- run Medicare. Like most privatization schemes, this one added to the cost, without improving services. Basically, Medicare Advantage plans are 14% more expensive than traditional Medicare.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113380641

"President Obama is not cutting entitlement benefits,"

Hi Navy,

Gosh, I hope you are right.

@fiesty redhead - That's right pull PROPANGANDA from one GEORGE SOROS propaganda mills and consider it fact. THINKPROGRESS - posts LIES only

It is NOT fact - ITS PROPAGANDA! Information purposely placed so as to DISTRACT from the TRUTH!

Brooks and Krugman are both right. Brooks is right insofar as politics is sport and it's all about winners and losers. That's the way most of the MSM looks at things and likely that will be the main thread of the media conversation should this thing actually come to pass.

The problem is Krugman is right for a more important reason. Austerity in a weak economy is bad policy. Austerity is dramatically slowing the economies of places like Iceland, Ireland, and England, causing their economies to lag behind ours in the recovery. That's a bigger deal, and yet less likely to get the attention it deserves.

More hypocrisy from the only Presidential candidate ever to not take public financing of his campaign:

For Fundraising, Obama Relies Even More on Wall Street

Posted By: Eamon Javers | CNBC Washington, DC Correspondent

CNBC.com

| 22 Jul 2011 | 09:49 AM ET

Does Wall street have a problem with President Barack Obama?

Not so you'd notice where it counts—in his reelection effort.

Plenty of high visibility figures have complained about Obama on everything from Wall Street reform to potential tax increases to his anti-fat cat rhetoric.

But a new study by the Center for Responsive politics out Friday morning shows that Obama is relying more on Wall Street to fund his re-election this year than he did in 2008.

A copy of the study was obtained in advance by CNBC.

In fact, the Center found that one-third of the money Obama's elite fund-raising corps has raised on behalf of his re-election has come from the financial sector.

Jody in Iowa and Joe in Albany: you are both right. The Senate Democrats could have changed the filibuster rules on the first day of the new Congress with a simple majority vote, yet chose to keep them the same AND the Republicans agreed to do the same, should they gain control in the next Congress.

My opinion on the debt deal: something will be done, it will include cuts that some Democrats don't like and it will include tax increases that Republicans don't like. Neither party will be entirely happy, yet both sides will be able to claim victory. Any additional budget and appropriation bills for the next year and 1/2 will have to fit within the framework outlined by the President and Speaker.

The last version of futility from the Tea Party will die on the Senate floor, as it should. The Tea Party has been shown to be an unthinking mob set on destroying the country. While the philisophy will not die, hopefully it can be buried long enough that the country can recover from the recession. I expect you will see that the influence of the most outspoken individuals will wane before the next general election. Most of the politicians who fully embraced the tenants of these fundamentalists will not likely be reelected. They will find that when you use gasoline to put out a fire, you can get burned.

Boehner was just on CNBC, and he said that there was no agreement. In fact they aren't even close to one. The house just sent their cut, cap, balance bill to the senate. This is what they are sticking with.

Mike in SA, that is simply not true. Don't know where you got your numbers, but even a simple comparison of estimates versus actuals is meaningless unless the basis for the estimates are understood. All one has to do is intentionally under-estimate revenue to make the tax cuts look like a success.

A more in-depth analysis is available at FactCheck:

www dot factcheck dot org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

Jody in Iowa and Joe in Albany: you are both right. The Senate Democrats could have changed the filibuster rules on the first day of the new Congress with a simple majority vote, yet chose to keep them the same AND the Republicans agreed to do the same, should they gain control in the next Congress.

__________________________________________

Um..... No. Jody stated that the Republicans prevented the rule change by filibustering it.

She is wrong. Let's see if she will admit to her mistake. LOL!!!

Joe. My mistake, I should have said the GOP minority "threatened" to filibuster the new democrat suggested rule to require real, on the floor debate to qualify as a filibuster. The old rules remain in place until the new rules are agreed to. Some other rules were agreed to and changed but they were rather insignificant. It's in the Senate record if you care to bother looking.

dirp101. Thanks for the help.

Letter I sent My representative Joe Barton yesterday:

Sir you are failing. America is waiting for the House to do some real work and stop with the “Symbolic” votes on plans that every poll available shows Americans do not want. The GOP/TP activities and stonewalling going on right now have pushed record numbers of people to become Independents including myself. Last outcome of last November and the last Presidential race were due to Independent voters that are fed up with party ideology.

We do want spending cuts and we want the budget to be balanced. The truth is that spending has been out of control in Washington for at least the last 45 years. Why was this stuff not important to you guys when George W Bush was president? And yet the debt ceiling was raised 7 times.

We also want Tax Revenues to be collected by cutting tax loopholes that allow Exxon Mobile to get Tax refunds from the IRS when they pay no taxes in 2008, and the list goes on. Maybe if someone like Warren Buffett paid the same % of tax as his secretary and cleaner, that even makes sense and is fair. I am not so sure of the $250,000.00 starting point but certainly not giving tax breaks and loopholes to companies that take jobs overseas, those should be incentives to stay here and hire Americans.

Last we want to get back to work and we cannot wait for the 10 year plan that Ryan proposed, like I keep hearing in 10 years. Work with corporate America and yes tax breaks for REAL Job Creators, not the fictitious one’s Speaker Boehner keeps speaking of, the small business that you guys say on the other hand are the ones that hire most Americans. Get people back to work, the tax base increases and we will be on the right path again.

Recap – Cuts, Tax Revenue, Jobs = a renewed healthy American economy. The Tax and cut issue is a long term issue and needs to be handled with care and with much thought and consideration. JOBS are immediate! I know most of you guys in DC do not really know how bad it is out here but people are hurting right now and your priorities seem all Party and not American priorities. Every single poll on any news network shows 76% of Americans want cuts, tax revenue, and jobs so who do you answer to sir? Who is supposed to be represented sir, the people of America or the GOP/TP Party?

Stop voting on these waste of time campaigning Symbolic Bills and reach across the aisle sir. Get over all the Get Obama, make Obama a one term president stuff and do the job America needs you to do.

His Reply:

Thank you for your continued support in our fight. Thank you for contacting me. Please keep me informed of matters important to you

Fiesty and Retired drunk sailor.

Republicans may raise the debt ceiling for a mix of spending cuts and revenue raisers. Yes, Barack Obama may win the 2012 presidential contest. Yes, bureaucrats and judges will continue to impose new and costly regulations on the economy.

But it doesn’t matter. The long-term trends are almost all bad news for the left wing of the party.

This week’s fight over raising the federal debt limit exposes a key weakness in the warfare-welfare state that has bestowed power onto the Democratic Party: Without an ever-growing share of the economy, it dies. Every vital element of the Democrats’ coalition — unions, government workers, government contractors, “entitlement” consumers — requires constant increases in payments, grants and consulting contracts. Without those payments, they don’t sign checks to re-elect Democrats.The Democrats are a coalition, forged in the New Deal, of diverse interests that do not get along well. Imagine the deer-hunting union member sitting down with the vegetarian college professor and the lesbian lawyer and you will begin to see the trouble party leaders have holding the horde together. So far, money and government preferences have been essential. It is largely a party of unions, government workers and retirees, “green” industries, “entitlement” payees, professors, teachers and social-change activists — all of whom require government payments in one form or another. The only major element of the Democratic base that doesn’t receive government payments is the professional class (lawyers, engineers, stock brokers and so on). These high-earners amount to less than 5% of the population and are not reliable Democrat donors.

Democrat champions in the punditocracy confidently predict that the future of the world’s oldest political party is bright. But in fact, the coalition that is the modern Democratic Party is doomed. Every pillar upholding its heavy roof is crumbling.

Like it or not, Obama is not the new FDR, but the new Gorbachev: a man forced to preside over the demise of a political system he desperately wants to save.

US Navy Disabled,

I will disagree with you on the statements included in post #1.9. It would seem you haven't a clue about your radical right or the liberal left.

You state:

The radical right keeps on exploiting the fear and hate that is festering in our political environment today. Right out of the Karl Rove play book.

From what I have seen on the "boob tube" news channels, and what is in the liberal news print media, the fear and explotation appears to be coming from POTUS and the liberal Spending Party leaders. According to various political pieces, seniors will not be getting their Social Security checks in August (Obama).

You do not need ideas or you can sell snake oil and get away with it when you exploit fear and hate to move your agenda.

Now think back on the past few weeks Navy, and you would agree that the snake oil comes from the White House and your Spending Party. The Republicans are merely attempting to solve the spending issues in the nation today, but you and others are attempting to deflect the issues from this president to place a positive spin for him.

exactly how they won in 2010, but no the American people are aware of their (GOP/TP) agenda and I do not think they are going to buy the same bridge again.

Please Navy, the American population is aware of what is going on in politics today, and what party is accountable for much of the expense, lack of leadership and overall stall on any issues while reflecting the media to the other party as the reason for no change. I would believe they can read between the lines and connect the dots as you like to refer to, to see how the Dems have not presented anything directly germane to the discussions while playing the media partners to blame the GOP.

If I were a card-carrying liberal in America today, I too would be spinning the problems of the Obama administration, attempting to put a positive on each failure he has, for yourpolitical life may change after 2012. You can then go back to the" blame the Bush" strategy, but then again, it appears you have never divorced yourself from it.

Robert: Sir you are failing. America is waiting for the House to do some real work and stop with the “Symbolic” votes on plans that every poll available shows Americans do not want.

Source: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/21/rel11b.pdf

See the results of Question 23.

Mr. Obama

We are not amused.

Cut Social Security, Disability, Medicare and medicaid, and January 20 2013 will be your last day in office and on January 21 2013 you will be reporting to your new job, Which will be Flipping Burgers at McDonalds!!!

We the people are not amused. Cutting Benefits while allowing the Billionares and Trillionares to keep their budget busting tax Cuts is not fair and is wrong. If you cut benefits we hope the Congress impeaches you and removes you from office.

By the way, should you cut Social Security and the other benefits, we will give the Senate to the Republicans in 2013 as well as the White House.

In any case, you have lost my vote.

It is NOT fact - ITS PROPAGANDA! Information purposely placed so as to DISTRACT from the TRUTH!

I have sworn off feeding trolls!

I will make an exception in this case...

IF YOU ACTUALLY READ MY COMMENT YOU WOULD OF NOTICED IT CAME FROM THE A/P - you MORON!

You can attack sources all you want - it doesn't change the FACTS!

YOU MAY NOW CONTINUE WITH YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED RAVINGS OF A LUNATIC! ;O)

Mike(numbers) thanks for the link debunking the Conservative lie that tax cuts pay for themselves. It's a measure of Tea Party madness to even believe such a ridiculous assertion that cutting your pay brings you more money. Broad swaths of the ideological spectrum have acknowledged that this is a lie, yet it doesn't stop the Conservative echo chamber from repeating it daily. From your link;

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has said that the major tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 have "increased revenues." He also said that tax cuts in general increase revenues. That’s highly misleading.

In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product.

Here's my cynical take! We are playing a game of monopoly and near the end of the game. Now we have the conservatives who want to win it out and control it all! Then we have the liberals who will give their money away KNOWING that they will eventually reacquire the money.

Do I really have to choose between the two? :(

I will try to break down economics to a simple form that can be easily understood. Until Reagan took office, the highest marginal tax rate was between 70 and 90%. During that time, the economy steadily grew and all boats rose with the tide. The rich made richer, the middle class got richer. Once the upper tax rate was lowered into the 30s, we entered a boom-bust cycle. Reagan lowered the rate, economy went boom for a few years and then collapsed into a recession in the late 80s, early 90s. Clinton got elected, raised the marginal rate up a few points and the economy settled again into a steady growth. Bush lowered the rate back down, another boom cycle, followed by a big bust that lead to Obama being elected and this mess that we are still in.

Lowering the marginal tax rates at the top end leads to speculation and the creation of money that is not real and leads to inevitable bust cycles that damage the middle class at a higher proportion than the wealthy. For example, capital gains income (which is taxed at a lower rate) increased from $239B in 2002 to $985B in 2007, which is 33% annual growth, slightly more than the rate of inflation.

Here is the simple fix to the problem, increase the overall tax rate. When we ran a surplus in 2000, the average tax rate was 15.4%, in 2008 it was 12.5%. In an ideal world, there would be a semi-flat tax of 20% and 25% for income over 250K. Single filers would get a deduction of 20K, married filers 40K, and the first two children would be 10K each. Those numbers might need to be adjusted a little bit, but we should generate between 17 and 18% in tax revenue in order to generate an annual surplus to bring down the deficit. Once the deficit is gone, the tax rates come down to 17.5 and 22.5% to settle our tax revenue around 15 to 16%. Those people who pay honest taxes will see rates stay the same or come down, while those who have been gaming the system will now be paying their fair share.

On the spending side, we should be targeting 15 to 16% from the start to generate our surplus and then run balanced once the deficit is gone. Get us out of the wars by year end (we aren't making things better by being there), cut the massive pork that is rampant in the system, and control healthcare costs, should cover most of it.

Of course this is a pipe dream, as the bought and paid for politicians on both sides of the aisle would never allow it.

the latest attempt to balance the budget proposed has died.

why dont liberals want to balance the budget?

if we have disaster, the blood is on their hands.

Nice attempt at spin mitch, but only 21% of Americans favor the way Republicans are handling the debt ceiling, and it doesn't look good for the GOPTP.

It's self-imposed damage, too. Had they simply passed a routine debt ceiling increase as has been done 74 times since JFK was President this would all be over.

Breaking news for all of you lemmings who made the case for the anointed one to use the 14th Amendment. You were entirely wrong and wasted much energy on nothing. The anointed failed one just told an audience in MD that his attorneys advised him that he could not use the 14th Amendment if the debt deal is not done. Not so smart are you???? LMAO!!!

mitch j
the latest attempt to balance the budget proposed has died.
why dont liberals want to balance the budget?
if we have disaster, the blood is on their hands

That they will. The Senate voted down cut, cap, balance 51-46. So once again we know what the Senate doesn't want, but the country has no clue about what they do want.

Also, Harry Reid yesterday: Harry Reid slams House Republicans for taking weekend break in debt ceiling deal.

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/07/21/2011-07-21_harry_reid_slams_house_republicans_for_taking_weekend_break_in_the_midst_of_debt.html

Harry Reid today: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., canceled planned weekend Senate sessions, increasing the pressure on Obama, Boehner and other top-level negotiators to strike a deal.

Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Senate-rejects-House-GOP-apf-3051861922.html?x=0&.v=7

Harry "Changing Circumstances" Reid, what an idiot.

Bottom line: If entitlement and tax reform is completed on time, then the Bush tax cuts and the health-care law don’t get touched.

In other words: The pub's will get the cuts they want and then they will default on the tax increase which will give them a major blow against the new HCB at a cost of the BTC's. The BTC's alone would be much less than the total cuts being asked for so that the pub's are going to win BIG if the cuts don't get passed in a couple of years.

Am I crazy or does anyone else see this?

mitchj: the last proposal to balance the budget attempted to do so by requiring cuts to everything except defense AND by requiring a 2/3 majority to raise revenue. Such a proposal effectively hands the keys to the assylum to the insane. While a 2/3 rule exists in the Senate (ala the filibuster,) most of the people in the Senate are, usually, less subject to the winds of politics and, consequently, perceived as being closer to sane. As such, the Senate correctly voted to kill the bill.

Two thirds of our three tiered government have become prosecution and defense lawyers.

When it’s a social issue the GOP/TP become the prosecutor, the Democrats the defense.

When it’s a revenue issue Democrats become the prosecutor, the GOP/TP the defense.

We the people become the plaintiff, and always pay the fine.

The Journalist, court reporters replace word-for-word reports with editorial sound bits.

This would all work very well except at this point there is no judge to call contempt.

In order to save the United States an economic calamity because the Politian’s have all decided to try out for Drama Queen of the year…

Now would be a good time for the United States Supreme Court to step in and act as moderator between the House of representative GOP/TP and the Democrats.

Put all the Supreme Court Judges names in a lottery drawing, and randomly pick three.

The GOP/TP and Democrats would make their cases in writing, and then the Judges decide for the Drama Queens what they could not do for them selves............................ Just like in a divorce.

Repeat this if necessary in the Senate and between the house as a whole body and the President if it takes this as well.

Involving the Supreme Courte Judges now would be a very good time, just in case the Drama Queens play this out to the tune of default, the judges should be available to start the processes of recall and special elections.

Dysfunctional families have to have a judge in their lives to get along.

"Mike in SA, that is simply not true. Don't know where you got your numbers, but even a simple comparison of estimates versus actuals is meaningless unless the basis for the estimates are understood." - Mike

My post links directly to where I got my numbers.

I do feel I need to apologize for not being nearly as clear as I should have been however. In rereading my post, I do not make clear that I am speaking about TOTAL national revenue. TOTAL national revenue includes growth in local and state revenue...you know, from which education and roads and public hospitals, etc. are predominantly paid for and which obviously affects state and local budget deficits. I should have been more clear about this.

While the Bush tax cuts had a small negative effect on the federal deficit (~$300B 2002-2007), had the financial meltdown not occurred, as your own source admits, federal revenues were tending wildly upwards (averaging roughly 10% per year growth between 2004 and 2007) and would have surpassed the inflation adjusted estimate sometime in 2008 or 2009.

As it was, the Bush tax cuts were a boon to state and local treasuries while being roughly flat and trending upwards for the federal treasury resulting in a net strong positive effect to our total national revenues and total national deficit of roughly $1.5T.

LetMeExplain:

We the people become the plaintiff, and always pay the fine.

Thanks for trying to explain the legal system to us rubes, but in my own limited experience, it's usually the defendant who pays the fine.

After that, you lost me with logic like this:

Repeat this if necessary in the Senate and between the house as a whole body and the President if it takes this as well.

Sounds a bit like a recipe for washing my hair, but otherwise, I can't quite make it out.

Dysfunctional families have to have a judge in their lives to get along.

If you're trying to imply that the judge should be you, no thanks.

Single filers would get a deduction of 20K, married filers 40K, and the first two children would be 10K each.

Love the idea. Why we give deductions to large families is beyond me. I would up the deductions to 3 kids though as that is the population replacement value. (between 2 and 3...maybe 5K for the 3rd kid).

Replacement value should not be the standard. The population is already too large. Your kids will pay for your bad choices when the environment is wrecked and there are no resources left for them to consume, as there already is no money to pay for their schools, their health care, and their infrastructure.

Couple of questions Mike,

Where is your proof that it was the tax cuts that caused the extra income, this growth could have happened without the tax cuts in place. Our economy was growing before the tax cuts.

You are saying the revenue exploded to an increase of 1487.12B for a 10 years span.

The tax cuts cost us 2.5T in 10 years.

Second question: Isn't trillion a bigger number than billion?

Both Republican and Democrat parties want the same thing, Centralized Federal power so they can rule from Washington and dictate what all the little serfs will do. It's SO tiring listening to these sides go round and round with the same 30 second sound bites (handed to them from Ministries of Propaganda) forming their arguments about the details that don't matter to that big picture. The Federal Government has no mandate to anything really but provide for the common defense. Everything else should be the States preview. But these people in both parties with their great intentions to mold the world in their own image handed over all the power to a Federal government who now teach and indoctrinate them into the Slavery of Centralized Government.

TIME TO WAKE UP

I think we can all agree that what grows the economy is people spending money. The more consumption the more demand, the more demand the more jobs (simply if business is booming you need more workers).

The problem was created by the Centralized Government in collusion with Central Banking. A Centralized Government tends to grow itself rather than shrink. (i.e. you might not allow a local politician like a city councilman give himself a raise because there's a better expectation you'll show up at a council meeting to protest that raise, whereas in Washington, there's really no one watching how Washington grows. Even worse, the people that do show up are lobbyist, with a special agendas to get things none of us would likely approve if we sat in on a meeting.) The system is currently running in a methodology to grow, grow, grow. It does that by continuing to Centralize power. It does that by wooing Corporate lobby on the right, and socialist programs on the left all to gain more and more control.

For the decades that it has that control, it has used CREDIT to fund what it couldn't afford. In collusion the Centralized Banking it started printing money that didn't exist, it bailed out banks that should have just failed (and allowed the people running them that should have been jailed for stealing much of the wealth of Americans with "Derivatives", while hedging their bets with Credit Default Swaps.) It has created a house of cards that made people dependant on its continued existence, when Constitutionally the power should all lie with the States unless the States pass a constitutional amendment GRANTING it power.

The idea of cutting spending is twofold.

First, to go to extreme, if you hypothetically eradicated the entire Federal Government and left only the Justice Department and Military there would be VERY little in taxes for ANYONE to pay (rich or poor). All that extra money then is in the pockets of all consumers. Think of everyone having an extra 250-2000+ per month in their paycheck, they are going to spend that money consuming.

Consumption > demand > jobs.

Second since there's no money hungry programs in this hypothetical there no need for the government to be operating on CREDIT. Confidence throughout the world would increase in the dollar and we wouldn't being paying interest on Trillions of dollars of borrowed money. That confidence would help not only to motivate American's to start spending, but Foreigner's as well.

Now no one is advocating the wholesale end of all Federal Government programs cold turkey. But many believe that we can phase out these bloated bureaucratic programs to either private enterprise or at minimum the States can pick up these services.

What doesn't grow the economy or create jobs is: growing government.

Because the power is Centralized "We The People" don't really have any oversight on how the budget gets done. We've pushed all these ideological veiws up the ladder to the Federal level, electing robots of the system that aren't really interesting in getting "We the People" lower taxes or social programs to help people, but rather that only grant them more power to attempt to give them control over one side to push their world view.

We need balance. Balance comes though the foundational principal of the Constitution which is not the rhetoric of taxation, inflation, class disparity, moral righteousness, corpocracy, security, wars, entitlements, energy policy, foreign policy, roads and highways, social security, medical care or any other of the 100's on topics we can all disagree on, but rather to the pursuit of liberty.

lib·er·ty

1. The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on ones way of life.

Liberty is American, all else is ancillary to it.

If our government were scrupulously faithful to the Constitution, we would not need to be especially concerned when a person who represents a philosophy different from our own takes political office.

Paul, Ron (2008). The Revolution: A Manifesto (p. 66). Grand Central Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Robert 1960. That's about the same answer I always get from Charles Grassley. Tom Harken and Dave Loebsack always write a nice letter discussing what I mentioned and telling me what they're doing to help. In fact, Loebsack's responses are indepth letters sent via US mail.

Seems the CCB turd has sunk...not that anything less was expected from this meaningless waste of taxpayer money and resources...

"..yeabut...yeabut...yeabut...it's Cap, Cut, and Balance! It passed in the House!"

And that's as far as it got, but the House just doesn't know how to read a clue.

The GOP/Teabag party has to make concessions just like the Democrats, and this agreement has to be a bipartisan agreement. The GOP/Teabag politicians are up to their elbows in this crap, and they want out. They put themselves in this position...not Obama...not the Democrats...they did this to themselves by thinking that they can float to the top on the coattails of the Tea Party. Well fellas, how does it feel to sell your soul?

The GOP/Teabag party may want to put away the useless ideological pledge they took (and many have bagged it already) and take care of business...stop standing in the way of moving this country forward...your political careers may very well depend on it.

Technology is the future. What I am seeing is anytime a small guy becomes bigger he is swallowed by the biggest of the big. Instead of doing business together in a competitive fashion you conquer! So in some ways efficiency is a good thing and in others it limits jobs and choice!

Too big to fail whether government or private corporations is our problem, but you do have to find a way to compete with India and China. Balance has to be achieved.

Downsizing to achieve efficiency means less jobs and weakens the Overall economy!

jollyoldsoul1

A dentist during an exam once asked me "where are you from?" I told him Maine and he looked puzzled. Then I told him I'd spent part of my childhood in Connecticut and he said "I thought so!" I asked why he knew I hadn't grown up in Maine and he said "because you still have teeth."

I am well aware people to the north refer to my city as The People's Republic of Portland. That doesn't stop them from sending their alchoholic and mentally ill relatives to live on our streets and use our social services. Portland is the economic engine of the state, and home to a welcoming community of creative and innovative people. We are not Ma-zzholes!

As to my roots in Maine, my father's ancestors were soldiers in Napoleon's army, captured by the British and brought to Winter Harbor, Maine as POW's, where they escaped and eventually married nice, local, Puritan-stock girls. We visited their adjoining farmlands one summer, in Eastbrook, Maine, where my great grandfather was born, and a more beautiful spot on this earth cannot be found. I love Maine!

Mike in SA, you sourced a website called "usgovernment.com", a private site concocted by a "person" identified as Christopher Chantrill. Mr. Chantrill may or may not even be real, having virtually no footprint except for suddenly having a slew of right-wing websites fully stocked with standard Conservative talking points. If he is a real person he's compiled an immense amount of information in an extremely short period of time, suggesting he's a front for some Conservative group. Most of these sites have similar names which speak to an intent to deceive people into believing that the information actually originates with the US Government.

As such you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical that any of Mr. Chantrill's numbers contradict the MULTIPLE government sources cited above who disagree with your Conservative talking point--that lowering taxes magically increases revenue.

US Navy,

What you may not realize is that we have a spending problem in this country. Balancing the federal budget is no different than a child balancing their $10 allowance. There is only a certain amount of money to go around. Once it is gone you have to borrow to keep spending. The dems and probably some repubs want to borrow and spend more money to fix a problem that was created by spending too much money. Do you think that will actually make us better off or do you think it will come back to bite us much harder when the real recession occurs?

Amy:

I am well aware people to the north refer to my city as The People's Republic of Portland. That doesn't stop them from sending their alchoholic and mentally ill relatives to live on our streets and use our social services. Portland is the economic engine of the state, and home to a welcoming community of creative and innovative people. We are not Ma-zzholes!

One of the reasons that Scott Walker and other republican legislators often express resentment of my fair city, even though this is where they spend a large part of their time, much of that voluntarily, is that it has been so successful, even though it always has been a center of progressive thought.

In their own small way of thinking, they just can't understand how that works. Whenever I get out into the less urban areas of this state, I can see why they might resent us. Trouble is, they don't seem to have enough synapses to make the connection between what we are and what we achieve here.

And the worst part is, that in their resentment, rather than trying to emulate this city's success, they blame us for what they don't have and actually want to tear down what is truly good and replace it with what they're used to.

JohnLaz:

What you may not realize is that we have a spending problem in this country. Balancing the federal budget is no different than a child balancing their $10 allowance.

Any parent knows that, if a child wants to buy something that exceeds their allowance, one way of doing it is to cut spending and save for it, like I did for my own first bicycle. But another valid way for a child to supplement his/her allowance is to find a way to raise more money -- sell lemonade, walk the neighbor's dog, or ... even ask for a higher allowance if it's warranted.

You may be a very nice man, John, but we're all getting pretty tired of conservatives talking down to as if we WERE children and being told -- over and over again, I might add -- that we don't know this country has a spending problem. Believe me, we're all smart enough here to have figured that out before now.

Maybe you could do US a favor, though, and open up your mind to the possibility of raising revenue as a part -- not all -- of the solution to that problem. We certainly have to make cuts, including cuts to military spending, which will no doubt require tough choices; but as things are obviously proving out, cuts are simply not enough, nor are cuts alone necessarily THE most desirable option, especially when it comes to Social Security and Medicare. Revenue simply has to increase, as well.

Any child -- and any good parent -- knows that.

JohnLaz:

I am well aware of the need for Spending Cuts and have written numerous posts on the subject. The point is virtually every economist of note (many Nobel prize winners) also make the valid claim that we need to increase revenues as well. This is a fact. Spending cuts alone will not get us out of this mess. You need to have Spending Cuts AND Increased Revenues.

You really need to read more and understand what is going on before you open your mouth.

As reported today by hans nichols, bloombergs WH correspondent, many congressional democrats are scratching their heads in confusion as to what obama is doing. Yesterdays NYT's leak about a debt settlement agreement close at hand probably didn't help either.

Today, obama took his re-election campaign to maryland where he referenced the US's slow economic growth as being symptomatic of the overall slow growth of the past 10 years. I wonder why the jr senator from illinios and his fellow democrats didn't point this out at the time and do something to stimulate higher growth? I recall no dire warning from the left that they thought this was an issue. Yet today the libs bltch about the rights bringing up the topic about controlling spending while they themselves did nothing to address our nations growing debt.

In another bloombergTV headline the great divider obama blames the republicans of blocking a more aggresive debt reduction plan. Ohhhh those bad republicans!

Seems like just a short time ago that obama and his FR lib supporters were touting on how thoughtful and intelligent he was by wanting to use a surgical approach on cuts and that the right wanted to use a hatchet.. Now we find that it is obama who wants to use the hatchet and blames the right for wanting to make more responsible cuts. Gee obama, not only do you promote division, but you also are painting yourself as a big time flip-flopper.

On a side note it seems that some democrats are pissed that the right will likely use the expiration of the obama tax cuts in 2013 as a means to say that that is the increased revenues that the left wants. Obviously the left feels that since the tax cuts are scheduled to expire, that the right still needs to come up with more tax rate increases. Looks like the lefts agenda is to increase taxes at every opportunity now so that they have money to spend on new programs. Opps, sorry I meant to say "investments" lol!

More news available at bloomberg.com or viewing bloombergTV. BTW bloombergTV reports on global economic and business news. Politics are only reported as they may pertain to the economy, national or global. Sorry left and right wingnuts, no comedic commentary and no blaming one party over the other, unless perhaps in the occasional op-ed viewpoint.

"Where is your proof that it was the tax cuts that caused the extra income," - Americans First

What a BS question. I could ask the same thing of you "where is the proof that the tax cuts didn't cause the extra income from increased economic growth?". The difference is that my side is supported by empirical data and a consistency of results. As I noted, the same thing has happened each and every time the top marginal rates were reduced. That and studies by the likes of even noted Keynesians such as Christina Romer.

"You are saying the revenue exploded to an increase of 1487.12B for a 10 years span."

No the $1487.12B in cumulative revenue taken in above what would be expected using the inflation adjusted baseline was in a mere 6 years or roughly $250B a year on average. As you can see, the later years brought in higher and higher returns: 2005 ~$300B, 2006 ~$600B, 2007 ~$1000B.

"The tax cuts cost us 2.5T in 10 years."

Yes, yes, according to who? Citizens for Tax Justice? Yeah, they're not biased at all. Also if you'll note where that $2.5T number was calculated, it wasn't just the Bush Tax cuts...it somehow also includes the affects of increases to the Alternative Minimum Tax -- something that has happened under nearly every president since 1970 including Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama. In fact Congress voted to increase it as many times in just the 4 years that the Dems controlled both Houses (4) as happened in the entire 14 years the Republicans controlled Congress prior to 2007. Why CTJ felt the need to include this as part of the "Bush Tax Cuts", I can only speculate. An educated guess would be that the Bush cuts by themselves did not produce the type of number that the partisan Citizens for Tax Justice would like to "prove" their position so they add a couple trillion to the total by including increases to the AMT threshold. BTW, since the AMT is not indexed for inflation, were this not adjusted regularly, more and more average tax payers would be subject to the AMT.

"Second question: Isn't trillion a bigger number than billion?"

Yes and here's something that obviously nobody has told you...1000B = 1T.

"If he is a real person he's compiled an immense amount of information in an extremely short period of time, suggesting he's a front for some Conservative group. Most of these sites have similar names which speak to an intent to deceive people into believing that the information actually originates with the US Government."

Had you taken ANY time to find out where this information comes from you would have found that it is from...the US government. It was already compiled, all he had to do was publish it on the web. And please..go ahead, check the links...gpo.gov...census.gov. Of course you'll probably try to somehow deny that the Census Bureau and the Government Printing Office are parts of the federal government. After all, whatever story you've cooked up in your head is WAY more important and valid than fact, right? BTW, you tinfoil antenna is bent. Might want to straighten that out or...you know...quit with the right-wing conspiracy theories.

"As such you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical that any of Mr. Chantrill's numbers contradict the MULTIPLE government sources cited above who disagree with your Conservative talking point--that lowering taxes magically increases revenue."

I just showed you the numbers. It's not a talking point. It's a fact.

Jody:

Another excellent post to end the week. Seems we are on the same page.

The GOP/TP is running on empty.

Jody,

As always, GREAT.

Thanks for the excellent recap, Jody----another wacky week in politics. I thought things were supposed to be a little slower in the summer?

Hope you survive the heat & have a great weekend.

Voter ID laws proposed by TEA Drinking idealogues is another Segregationist attitiude that has no place in 21st century society.

Jody, you missed Obama going out campaigning this afternoon with the debt limit "crisis" still unresolved.

Priorities, huh?

Every time I read about the deficit plan or the Gang of Six Plan it's been changed. Seems the provisions that are to be negotiated aren't even firm, yet they are being reported as fact.

They talk about triggers. The Bush tax cuts are set to expire and the GOP wants something in return for that to happen. a scale-back in HCR. The Bush tax cuts have a top marginal rate of 35%. The new marginal rates under the Gang of Six plan is somewhere from 23 to 26%. Going from a 35% rate to a 23% rate is a 34% tax cut. Why would anyone want an offset from the Democrats for lowering the top marginal rate by 34%. As for the Democrats, giving back any of HCR, which was already stripped of most meaningful provisions is to give away any gains and the political capital lost in the 18 month HCR fight.

Then I read the home morgage deduction is on the line. Not sure that's true and it should be clarified cause as it reads it's just scary.

From what I’ve read, the proposal most likely to emerge out of the Senate committee is one where the interest on second homes is eliminated, one where the total amount of mortgage debt will be capped at a lower level than the $1.1 million that it's currently capped at, and, rather than having an interest deduction where the deduction ranges from 15% all the way up to 38% for very wealthy Americans, will be a constant 10, 12 or 15% in the form of a tax credit.

That's a whole lot difference than the home mortgage deduction is going away.

What I'm saying is the media needs to be careful in defining the terms of the agreements and should stop reporting what the agreements contain until they have firm info. Everyday we get they agreed to this and by the end of the day we find they didn't. Speculation should be replaced by fact and when speculating, please say so. It makes good press but nothing else.

Excellent Job, Jody. I look forward to your recap every Friday.

Feel good stuff for the liberals. I love it the way you guys pat yourself on the back. lol

all 14 of them! In my navy they call that a circle jerk!

Feel good stuff for the liberals. I love it the way you guys pat yourself on the back. lol

Yes, it is great to have friends, you should try it sometimes instead of just swooping and a pooping. Your butt must hurt. LOL back at ya.

Ira, there is a lot I like about the gang of six plan, but, you're right, that mortgage interest deduction clause is a non- starter.

I would not have thought that Washington could do more to damage the real estate market. Silly me- they actually did think of a way.

Hi Jody, you sure rung the bell this morning, Great Post. Got a few chuckles on Cindy. Voted.

Another great post if you believe this crap. Jody, get a life. Maybe a Job?

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." ~Ronald Reagan, October 27, 1964

Excellent as always Jody!

See you over @ the Dew Drop Inn later! We'll have some of that 'special' cranberry juice waiting - nice & cold! :o)

I see the pigeons are crapping all over the place again - watch where you step!

Ira-

I believe the triggers as they apply to the Bush tax cuts and HCR are punitive measures to be implemented if the provisions of the "grand bargain" deal aren't fulfilled. Obviously, if they are fulfilled, the Bush tax cuts are gone in any event. The triggers must be unpalatable enough that compliance is preferrable. Anyway, that's my take.

You were right yesterday when I suggested we would be completely starting over with the tax code under the "Gang Of Six" proposal...that was too dramatic. The home mortgage deduction will not be eliminated, but will undergo major changes, likely along the lines you've suggested.

Many of theses issues are yet to be decided by the individual Senate committees. According to Senator Conrad, they'll be provided with targets to be met. If they are unwilling or unable to meet those targets, a separate panel will achieve them instead. This arrangement is intended to prohibit any watering down of the proposal.

It remains to be seen whether the arrangement will produce the desired results, but Conrad appears determined that the "Gang Of Six" plan not be significantly altered.

I assume there will be some short-term deal to raise the debt ceiling based on an estimate of how long it will take the Senate to produce legislation that could be voted on.

We'll see, won't we?

Mixed Bag..

The triggers...I'm just not sure and would love some clarification.

As for the rest...as usual we agree...and a wait and see attitude is the best we can do.

I just hate the...they agreed to this...no they didn't reporting.

Get it right or don't report it.

It just gets so confusing you can't keep track of what is contained in the proposal.

Both Republican and Democrat parties want the same thing, Centralized Federal power so they can rule from Washington and dictate what all the little serfs will do. It's SO tiring listening to these sides go round and round with the same 30 second sound bites (handed to them from Ministries of Propaganda) forming their arguments about the details that don't matter to that big picture. The Federal Government has no mandate to anything really but provide for the common defense. Everything else should be the States preview. But these people in both parties with their great intentions to mold the world in their own image handed over all the power to a Federal government who now teach and indoctrinate them into the Slavery of Centralized Government.

TIME TO WAKE UP

JUDY WOODRUFF: But, Sen. Conrad, speaking of outside groups, the loudest criticism we're hearing in the last couple of days since your plan has surfaced is coming from liberal groups, who are saying it asks sacrifices from the middle class, while giving tax breaks to the high-income earners and corporations.

(LAUGHTER)

SEN. KENT CONRAD: Well, they have got it wrong.

Clearly, they have not read the plan or apparently don't understand it, because that's not what the plan does. What the plan does do is face up to the reality we're borrowing 41 cents of every dollar that we spend, that revenue is the lowest it's been as a share of our national income in 60 years, that spending is the highest it's been as a share of our national income in 60 years.

That means you have got to work both sides of the equation. And we have done that, and we have done that in a careful and fair way. And, at the end of the day, I think they will look back, once they understand the plan better, and realize this is as good a deal as they're going to get.

Look, the harsh reality is this. A failure to rightsize the entitlement programs means they are going to go broke. That's not our word. That's the word of the trustees of the programs themselves. Anybody that says you don't have to make any change is not telling the American people the truth.

And the truth is all of us are going to have to give some ground to solve this American problem. And it's in America's interest that we do so.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec11/debt_07-21.html

I think we can all agree that what grows the economy is people spending money. The more consumption the more demand, the more demand the more jobs (simply if business is booming you need more workers).

The problem was created by the Centralized Government in collusion with Central Banking. A Centralized Government tends to grow itself rather than shrink. (i.e. you might not allow a local politician like a city councilman give himself a raise because there's a better expectation you'll show up at a council meeting to protest that raise, whereas in Washington, there's really no one watching how Washington grows. Even worse, the people that do show up are lobbyist, with a special agendas to get things none of us would likely approve if we sat in on a meeting.) The system is currently running in a methodology to grow, grow, grow. It does that by continuing to Centralize power. It does that by wooing Corporate lobby on the right, and socialist programs on the left all to gain more and more control.

For the decades that it has that control, it has used CREDIT to fund what it couldn't afford. In collusion the Centralized Banking it started printing money that didn't exist, it bailed out banks that should have just failed (and allowed the people running them that should have been jailed for stealing much of the wealth of Americans with "Derivatives", while hedging their bets with Credit Default Swaps.) It has created a house of cards that made people dependant on its continued existence, when Constitutionally the power should all lie with the States unless the States pass a constitutional amendment GRANTING it power.

The idea of cutting spending is twofold.

First, to go to extreme, if you hypothetically eradicated the entire Federal Government and left only the Justice Department and Military there would be VERY little in taxes for ANYONE to pay (rich or poor). All that extra money then is in the pockets of all consumers. Think of everyone having an extra 250-2000+ per month in their paycheck, they are going to spend that money consuming.

Consumption > demand > jobs.

Second since there's no money hungry programs in this hypothetical there no need for the government to be operating on CREDIT. Confidence throughout the world would increase in the dollar and we wouldn't being paying interest on Trillions of dollars of borrowed money. That confidence would help not only to motivate American's to start spending, but Foreigner's as well.

Now no one is advocating the wholesale end of all Federal Government programs cold turkey. But many believe that we can phase out these bloated bureaucratic programs to either private enterprise or at minimum the States can pick up these services.

What doesn't grow the economy or create jobs is: growing government.

Because the power is Centralized "We The People" don't really have any oversight on how the budget gets done. We've pushed all these ideological veiws up the ladder to the Federal level, electing robots of the system that aren't really interesting in getting "We the People" lower taxes or social programs to help people, but rather that only grant them more power to attempt to give them control over one side to push their world view.

We need balance. Balance comes though the foundational principal of the Constitution which is not the rhetoric of taxation, inflation, class disparity, moral righteousness, corpocracy, security, wars, entitlements, energy policy, foreign policy, roads and highways, social security, medical care or any other of the 100's on topics we can all disagree on, but rather to the pursuit of liberty.

lib·er·ty

1. The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on ones way of life.

Liberty is American, all else is ancillary to it.

If our government were scrupulously faithful to the Constitution, we would not need to be especially concerned when a person who represents a philosophy different from our own takes political office.

Paul, Ron (2008). The Revolution: A Manifesto (p. 66). Grand Central Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Listen to this whole video and tell me this guy doesn't sound more like a Democrat with his foreign policy of peace and desire to end corporate welfare.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXKrdE2x5og

Now there maybe be some reasons that everyone can come up with not to Vote for Ron Paul, but if you don't vote for him, what your really voting for is the one party monopoly held by the "Rebulicrats" who's sole goal it is to grow government. A Centralized government with no motivation other than to gain more and more control over your life regardless of what side of the same party your are on.

Also, realize, he wouldn't be President forever. Everything he believes in wouldn't get passed by the Congress, but he's the counter balance this country needs to reduce the size of "The Machine".

Ira-

The 24 -hour news cycle...sigh...what are you going to do with the media?

They've got no hard facts about the final "Gang Of Six" proposal because it's a work in progress, as are the negotiations to lift the debt ceiling.

So...they go with what they DO have.

Speculation and rumor.

We do know the broad outlines and intent of the GO6 proposal...at least they're encouraging even if the process isn't.

Still and all, Ira...I regard this as progress.

Excellent excerpt, dangerfield.

It's no coincidence that people like Senator Conrad and Senator Coburn ended up on the "Gang Of Six."

The phrase is thrown out pretty casually here at First Read, but both are clearly the real "adults in the room".

Yes, Mr. West, an e-mail just screams courage!

I have been DYING to say this myself. Great post Jody.

GBM, couldn't resist the Cindy line.

alive. Contrary to the GOPTP belief that liberals are slackers, I worked from 1966 until October 2008 when I retired. Worked hard, saved money, invested smart--I can do what I please with my time and it's great.

To the conservatives who moan and groan about this week in a nutshell, do one of your own! It really isn't difficult but it does require time management skills.

Bryan E. Couldn't resist. The media spent a lot of time discussing West's rant but no one mentioned what a coward he was.

Brian E (quoting Jody): Yes, Mr. West, an e-mail just screams courage!

Brian E: I have been DYING to say this myself. Great post Jody.

LoL West accused Wasserman-Schultz by e-mail of not having enough courage to say it to his face.

And despite the fact that it was actually West who distributed the e-mail, his defenders say that if SHE can't stand the heat SHE should get out of the kitchen.

Pot meet kettle, as many here like to say.

Great weekly recap as always, Jody.

The Conservative attack on voting rights isn't over yet, in fact it's just begun;

The president of the Tea Party Nation says it “makes a lot of sense” to limit voting rights to those who own property. On the group’s radio show two weeks ago, Judson Phillips noted that the Founding Fathers stuck “certain restrictions” on voting rights; while some “you would not think about today,” the property rule—which, ThinkProgress notes, stems from the 18th century—might deserve some thought, he suggested.
“If you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community,” Phillips said. “If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community.”

http://www.newser.com/story/106549/tea-party-boss-only-property-owners-should-be-able-to-vote.html

This is EXACTLY the same argument I heard from John Birch Society members I knew 35 years ago. This illustrates that there is nothing new about the Tea Party...the Koch brothers have merely spent a vast amount of money to mainstream the ideas of the JBS that their father founded. These are people who were disowned by sensible Conservatives including Barry Goldwater and William F Buckley long ago. No they RUN the GOP.

History will not look well upon this period when the Republican Party mainstreamed crazy.

Anna Molly, Jody & Brian: I find the entire exchange between West & Wasserman-Schultz hillarious. Thank goodness I don't live in FL where the Congressional Reps have been baking in the sun for too long.

BTW, if you got out in 2008, your timing could not have been better. I hope you were able to "buy low and sell high" and cashed in before the market tanked. I stll have many moons to go before I can cash in for the final time. I just hope most of it is still there.

P.S. to AM: you need to watch your references or you will be accused of being a racist. :)

You libs would have rather West went to her office? Then you would of screamed about his being a bully. Maybe he should of walked back to the House floor and called her a snivilling bitch. At least that's what I would have done. She expels lies all the time and you back her as you do the dimwits on MSNBC. He did the right thing. Confronting her face to face would do nothing other then given you libs something else to rant about.

History will not look well upon this period when the Republican Party mainstreamed crazy.

Two problems with the above.

1. It would seem to assume one or a few persons views are automatically all persons views within that movement.
2. It seems you are so terrified of having the Status Quo of both parties (particularly your own I'm sure) changed that you are COMPLETELY UNWILLING to listen to anything the larger group wants to DISCUSS, not necessarily "enact". That's not to say this particular issue you've brought up is either right or wrong, but goes to show how one thought causes you to throw out the baby with the bathwater and go all "crazy" yourself by sticking your intellectual capacity in the sand of bias.

Dangerfield,

Conrad is retiring, so he can afford to laugh. He will feel no consequences or backlash. This is not a personal attack on him just the truth. I give the dem senators credit for having to deal with their R counterparts.

During this whole process I have tried to put party allegiances aside and stressed that it was important for a balanced approach in the deficit talks to persuade the GOP to raise the debt limit. I agreed that Obama had to be the adult and needed to work and compromise with the unmoving republicans to avoid unknown economic fallout. Regarding the big three, I understand that entitlement reform something anti to Democratic philosophy is regrettably necessary.

However, with all these mixed reports that only cuts are certain and taxes will be triggered later I am growing wary. My take is that cuts will be implemented to bribe the GOP to raise the limit and then reforms or tax cuts will NEVER be addressed. The taxes or revenue increases better be part of the equation now, because there is no way that those perpetual running politicans will deal with raising taxes as a separate issue in an election cycle.

I am getting the scary feeling that the rug will be pulled from under the feet of the population again. Worse yet the yankers may be Boehner and Obama one on each corner.

Ohhhh JODY,

Oh, your post is soooo wonderful. It should be in glittering gold script instead of common black.

You should run for president, no, maybe run for posting god. LOL

1. Sprayed my Diet Dr. Pepper at the eyebrow raiser aimed at Uncle Floyd - Good one!

2. Bachmann cleaning up her act - and the laundry reference made me wonder if she's fostering some new teens?

3. Rick Perry - where to start? But didn't he just call for prayer for rain in Texas? And didn't G-d already respond? I think about 90% of Texas is in a D4 drought, right?

4. I only take exception with the ability to give 110%,...it can be done - but it requires CREDIT and a rise in the Debt Ceiling - LOL

You are simply the best, Jody! I mean Cindy!

However, with all these mixed reports that only cuts are certain and taxes will be triggered later I am growing wary. My take is that cuts will be implemented to bribe the GOP to raise the limit and then reforms or tax cuts will NEVER be addressed. The taxes or revenue increases better be part of the equation now, because there is no way that those perpetual running politicans will deal with raising taxes as a separate issue in an election cycle.

As you say Dog it ain't going to happen. I believe that the Obama extension of the tax rates was in the hope that it would turn the economy around, not as a bargain to extend unemployment benefits (although that too put money into economy). Tax rates will not rise before January 2013. You can take that to the bank.

dirp:

P.S. to AM: you need to watch your references or you will be accused of being a racist. :)

LoL Good point, dirp, and thanks. I didn't even think about it because that's not the issue for me in this situation.

It just goes to show how REALLY oblivious to it I am.

If that offended anyone, I sincerely apologize for my obliviousness.

Clara,

Perry is planning to have his prayer rally on August 6th. He is hedging his bets on what happens with the debt ceiling limit. If it is not raised and economic conditions - wall street crashes/US rating is downgraded he will blame Obama for not compromising. If it is raised with a smidgeon of tax increases he will blame Obama for placing an undue burden on people, industry. It the limit is raised with only cuts and no revenue increases he will mock the depth of the cuts as smoke and mirrors.

Perry will announce that he can not with good conscience sit idly by while his beloved country withers on the vine (he will use a metaphor for the current drought etc.). Either way Rick Perry will announce he is running for President.

Jody not only was your post thoughtful and intelligent as always, it makes the wingers head explode with so much truth in one place.

Thanks

dirp101. Timing was good, I admit it. Did all those things. In fact, I got completely out of the market in late 2007, the writing was on the wall if one bothered to read it--ala housing bubble, housing prices down, foreclosures up; stock market on a binge and purge weekly. I wouldn't trust the market today either.

Thanks for the kind words to those who liked Friday's nutshell review.

Americans First. I believe you're right about those heads exploding.

dirp101. I should clarify that last sentence about not trusting the market today, unless you have a long time before cashing in and it sounds as if you have a ways to go.

nightmare. No, you missed the sarcasm--Debbie Wasserman Schultz was on the House floor and made her remarks to all present (to West's face if he was there) while West sent her an e-mail telling Her to say things to his face. Seriously, think about it.

nightmare2

Confronting her face to face would do nothing other then given you libs something else to rant about.

Maybe not, except that failing to confront HIM face to face, is exactly what HE complained about -- by e-mail.

Maybe he should of walked back to the House floor and called her a snivilling bitch. At least that's what I would have done.

Well, then, I guess we know all about you, your own attitudes toward women, and how you are exactly like West.

And if West had done that, his remarks would have been taken down, as they would have been in clear violation of House rules. Perhaps that is why he wasn't motivated to do exactly that.

Because for all his decorations, Congressman West appears to be a coward at heart.

And certainly not a "gentleman" of the House, which ironically, is the only thing that Wasserman-Schultz did call him.

Short of Genius--I listened to the John Birch Society position 35 years ago. I had an uncle and multiple acquaintances who were members. I read multiple books and pamphlets provided to me by those folks and engaged in hours of conversation.

They were wrong. Wrong that the UN was about to take American sovereignty, as radical Conservatives still insist. Wrong that both parties were infiltrated with dangerous elements posing as legitimate politicians. Then fingers pointed at Nelson Rockefeller, today John McCain as proof. Wrong that ALL Liberals are undercover Communists. Wrong that an evil industrialist was bankrolling the whole evil plot to enslave humanity. The it was Armand Hammer, today George Soros. Wrong that an impending world monetary collapse would make the inflation of the Wiemar Republic pale in comparison and the only solution is precious metals. Uncle lost a ton of money when that bubble burst after 1980. Now we're working on another.

They were wrong when they were a radical minority disowned by both political parties, just as wrong now that they run the Republican Party.

Oh, and telling us the "Democrat Party" is just as responsible shows us that you aren't here to debate the issues as a moderate. You're a Conservative who knows the GOPTP has lost and you're hoping to lay enough blame on Democrats to salvage something out of the situation. "Democrat Party", you see, is a term of derision used by Conservatives all the way back to the despicable Joe McCarthy...a hero of the John Birch Society, incidentally.

Jody:

Truly, you are very, very good at this summary thing. Unfortunately, while it has a tremendous upside, it also has something of a downside. It reminds me how much I've forgotten. Gettin' old ain't for sissies!

Anna Molly

Thanks for informing me your reading comprehension skills are inadequate to understand more than a sound bit written down to the level of a 2^nd grade student.

We the people become the plaintiff, and always pay the fine.

When a Politian speaks out of two sides of their mouth, they claim they are doing this for their constituents as in “We the people”, they then make the people the plaintiff giving the politician the moral authority to push their true agenda.

Hiding behind the Plaintiff they then drive their own hidden agenda and the people pay for this, again, again, and again.

-

After that, you lost me with logic like this:

Repeat this if necessary in the Senate and between the house as a whole body and the President if it takes this as well.

What’s to understand? If you could understand the sentence before this you would not have to have it reworded.

There are two bodies in Congress, a. The House of Representatives. B. The Senate.

When speaking about both of them together they are considered the Whole body of the Congress.

If you need any more explanation than this go back to school.

-

Sounds a bit like a recipe for washing my hair, but otherwise, I can't quite make it out.

Dysfunctional families have to have a judge in their lives to get along.

Molly is the hair you are washing Blonde?

-

Molly :::If you're trying to imply that the judge should be you, no thanks.

Molly nobody trying to judge you… I know that it’s hard for you to wrap your mind around the idea that you are not center stage here…..

I wrote:::::::::

Now would be a good time for the United States Supreme Court to step in and act as moderator between the House of representative GOP/TP and the Democrats.

The Supreme Court is made up of Judges… Every one of them.

XOXO

@ JohnB ~

Excellent post about the John Birch Society.

I had forgotten about Armand Hammer. We could more men and women like that now.

@ Jody:

Ditto to David's comments. All of them.

Now, what was I talking about, again? ;-)

LetMeExplain:

Thanks for informing me your reading comprehension skills are inadequate to understand more than a sound bit written down to the level of a 2^nd grade student.

Oh, dear, after 19 years of school and several years of teaching English, that COULD be a problem, couldn't it? So glad you brought it to my attention. I'll get right on that.

If you need any more explanation than this go back to school.

Sorry. Been to law school already. You?

Molly is the hair you are washing Blonde?

No, but the individual I'm speaking with appears to be sexist -- or is at least pretending to be.

The Supreme Court is made up of Judges… Every one of them.

You're entitled to that opinion. But I, for one, do NOT want the Supreme Court moderating this dispute.

And I see absolutely NO textual support for that in the Constitution or any other law.

XOXO

Ira and mixed bag - something else to think about when it comes to mortgages. The dodd-frank capital requirements on banks may put home ownership beyond the reach of the many and only for those with stellar credit ratings and hi income. The requirements seem to have unintended consequences for many looking into home ownership as the banks don't want to take the risks or tie up capital.

Funny how LetMeExplain isn't willing to explain something to AM. Is that an oxymoron, or is he just a moron?

american: does that mean that people with No Income, No Job, and No Assets would no longer be able to get a loan, which the bank won't be able to package with other NINJA loans as a AAA CDO ? You mean that only people who have a job, are able to prove they are likely to pay the debt (by their good credit and saving for partial payment) will be able to get a loan?

*Shock* OMG, what will the banking world do, being forced into giving real loans to responsible people, which are then made into CDO's with real values attached to them ?

I guess the hostess from the local restaurant won't be able to get into the $550,000 homes anymore and will have to settle for the $150,000 2BR, 2bath condo.

That's the nice upside of the Dodd-Frank law, it effectively killed the unrealistic expectations generated from the misinterpretation of the community investment act. CIA provisions get trumped by the new reality.

Anna Molly

Oh, dear, after 19 years of school and several years of teaching English, that COULD be a problem, couldn't it? So glad you brought it to my attention. I'll get right on that.

All you ever do is come on the board and act as you are the teacher in the class… then take everything out of the context it was written in, then line by line troll for the gullible by grading all of the others posts. Get over your self.

Why is it that you never actually write an opinion of your own, unless it degrading another poster?

Are you afraid or is it that you just do not have any creative to say. It is always easier to set back in a conversation and wait for others to carry the heavy work while you become the great critic.

Sorry. Been to law school already. You?

Well you evidently sleep through the chapter on constitutional law, or you would not have posted such a juvenile response before.

No, but the individual I'm speaking with appears to be sexist -- or is at least pretending to be.

I wrote what I wrote specifically for you, not all women. Every other comment you have is you finding, or creating in your mind sexists remarks… when you do that enough other folks are going to start wondering if sex, or lack their of is driving an agenda.

You're entitled to that opinion. But I, for one, do NOT want the Supreme Court moderating this dispute.

And I see absolutely NO textual support for that in the Constitution or any other law.

Thank you… I see you do understand exactly what I was driving at, and if you would have posted this, instead of all the other … what ever… I would have treated you as an adult in the conversation.

Having the Supreme Court step in at this point and mediate the dead lock in the House of Representative before they are allowed to damage the credit of the United States would be a bold move, I have not had the time to go statute yet but I will be in the Library today late, and follow up for my self to see if there is legal precedence and hold that knowledge until I can speak to it very clearly. I posted my first post to see if any of the other folks posting might have an opinion on the Supreme Court mediating if Congress cannot break this stalemate.

John BS

Nothing you've said changes my problem with your talking points:

1. It would seem to assume one or a few persons views are automatically all persons views within that movement.
2. It seems you are so terrified of having the Status Quo of both parties (particularly your own I'm sure) changed that you are COMPLETELY UNWILLING to listen to anything the larger group wants to DISCUSS, not necessarily "enact". That's not to say this particular issue you've brought up is either right or wrong, but goes to show how one thought causes you to throw out the baby with the bathwater and go all "crazy" yourself by sticking your intellectual capacity in the sand of bias.

The fact that you "read the pamphlets" of a movement from 35 years doesn't justify your blind opposition to anyone that doesn't agree with you, and subsequent conclusion that if one group 35 years ago was wrong, then all groups that ever REMOTELY sound like the same thing are also wrong.

That's just being ignorant, close-minded and stubborn in my opinion.

Here's what I assume will be an example:

• Are you for peace rather than war-mongering?
• Are you for cutting Military Spending?
• Are you for ending corpocracy?

I'm guessing yes.

So here's a guy whom I think you would agree with, but whom whom I'm sure you you don't. Heaven forbid you ever admit that he holds any of the same views you would, right? After "he's a nut".

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXKrdE2x5og

I read the wiki on the John Birch Society as I wasn't familiar with it and have summarized what it proclaims its values are.

I then submit that because of your vehement opposition to these values, we reverse the meaning of each and see what you might represent. Feel free to correct me, I only present this as a stepping point to see where you are coming from. Note: I left out the civil rights portion because I don't agree with their position, which I'll assume means we agree.

Values – Of the John Brich Society (taken from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society)

The society upholds an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, which it identifies with Christian principles. It seeks to limit the powers of government and opposes wealth redistribution, economic interventionism. It opposes collectivism and Totalitarianism, particularly communism, but also socialism and fascism.

The society is against "one world government", and has an immigration reduction view on immigration reform. It opposes the United Nations, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and other free trade agreements. The society argues that there is a devaluing of the U.S. Constitution in favor of political and economic globalization, and that this trend is not an accident.

Values – Of John B (extrapolated for questioning because of his hard opposition to the above, going so far as to use it as an example of evil.) - put in quotes for easier reading.

John B and those patting him on the back, upholds a "Let's re-write" interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, which it identifies with Social Engineering principles. They seek to expand the powers of government and want to enact wealth redistribution, economic interventionism. They are advocates of collectivism and Totalitarianism, particularly communism, but also socialism and fascism.

John B and those patting him on the back support a "one world government", and want to expand immigration to increase their power base as their view on immigration reform. They want to hand over the US to the United Nations, are for? (not sure about this one - but I'm guessing your anti-Free Market so I'd assume you acutally agree with JBS?) North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and other free trade agreements. They argue that there is a shoring up of the U.S. Constitution by favoring political and economic globalization.

Is that close? (Probably not exactly but interesting when you flip the script isn't it?)

LetMeExplain:

Why is it that you never actually write an opinion of your own, unless it degrading another poster?

Are you afraid or is it that you just do not have any creative to say. It is always easier to set back in a conversation and wait for others to carry the heavy work while you become the great critic.

Categorically false. I do it all the time. Three of my own opinion pieces today, on this very thread, pretty much immediately below this, and lots of other opinions during discussions with other posters who behave with civility, and don't devolve immediately into petty personal attacks.

To me, your post was simply indecipherable. I apologize if I offended you. If I did, then I was wrong.

Have a nice day, and don't let my bad manners keep you from posting. I promise not to trouble you again.

p.s. Just so you know, I happened to "book" my Constitutional law class, which means I got the highest grade and earned a prize. Not saying it to brag, but just so you know since you pretty much accuse me of knowing nothing about it.

Getting the highest grades today doesn't mean your right, means you did well on a test.

I'm guessing this guy would disagree with your opinions:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sNWbiAMf80

Anna Molly

Fair enough, sorry if I was rude also….

My sole purpose in posting at all is to put pressure on the politicians to compromise.

I have read so many other posters trying as well to prod the politicians to behave ina mature manor and find a middle ground.

As I type it looks like everything has completely fallen apart, the President is about to speak on MSNBC…

So I do not really want the Supreme Court to intervene, but it may have to if the Congress and the President continues this deadlock.

It was intended as a shot across the bow of those Congressmen who refuse to their job to make the government work.

Just thinking out load.

Have a nice day.

I may not agree with you Molly but I will fight for your right to disagree with me.

Not a Genius--what a clever straw man you've tried to construct...ignoring that the effort is futile before you began because I already told you what I disagree with about the JBS movement and its modern embodiment into the Tea Party movement. I'll not respond to that other than to add that I'm also against the militia and white supremacist connections to the John Birch Society. If you need to educate yourself on those feel free to visit the web site of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Now that I know you're a Paulista I have a better feel for just what sort of radical Conservative you are. Yes, the Libertarian Birchers get along very well with the Ron Paul groupies. If I had to guess you probably believe Conservatism has been a miserable failure for the last 30 years as it was in earlier Laissez Faire periods because it wasn't pure enough, or wasn't applied in full. That makes today's Libertarians as wrong as the college Marxists of the 1970s, who also believed in something that simply didn't work except in theory. You asked what I believe, however, so for now that's what I'll address.

I believe that EVERYONE deserves an equal opportunity to do as well as their native ability allows. To do so requires the availability of good public schools, schools which Conservatives are working to destroy.

It requires that ALL WORK be treated with respect and be worth an honest day's wage. That's the opposite of the current Conservative belief that all labor except that of the very wealthy is overpriced and must be suppressed.

It requires investment in the infrastructure of our nation, anathema to radical Conservatives who believe that if we need roads, for example, someone will provide them.

It requires a reasonable level of regulation to ensure things like safe food and drugs, clean air and water, safe workplaces, and a reasonable expectation of fairness in the economic sphere.

I believe that's the fundamental genius of America...a coupling of Capitalism and the economic power that brings together with an expectation that the Capitalists treat workers fairly, pay enough to support a healthy middle class, and not cheat their customers. Today's radical Libertarians stand that on its head, comfortable with gutting the middle class engine that made us the world's dominant economy and seeing no need for regulation beyond "Caveat Emptor."

It's an Ayn Rand world in which only the wealthy are seen as having worth, with everyone else as easy targets who deserve to be exploited. It's a Laissez Faire world which theory claims should be self-regulating and eminently fair but in reality blows huge bubbles as the already wealthy become so rich they feel no reason not to take enormous risks that harm the greater economy and huge numbers of regular people when the bubbles burst. It's a philosophy which has failed every time it's been tried--in the late 1800 Gilded Age, with the stock market crash of 1929 and ensuing Great Depression, and with the series of ever larger bubbles that have repeatedly damaged the economy starting during the Reagan Administration with the Savings & Loan debacle and culminating with the 2007 Bush recession.

Now you know what I believe.

Four Points Shy:

Getting the highest grades today doesn't mean your right, means you did well on a test.

I'm guessing this guy would disagree with your opinions:

And your point? My own Constitutional law professor was pretty well known in Washington, too. There may have been time when Napolitano was considered by some (not me) to be a distinguished jurist, but now he's nothing more than a partisan Fox News hack. And the Mises Institute is a pretty partisan outfit, too, from what I can see from a little research.

I'm guessing I could find plenty of other equally -- or more -- distinguished judges who would disagree with Napolitano on just about everything.

As for the test, I didn't bring the subject up in the first place, but a guy who bills himself Four Points Shy of Genius probably ought not throw stones. Let's put it this way: I did well on a test that a lot of others did not do quite so well on. By the way, law school exams are not multiple choice.

How well did you do on that test?

@ LetMeExplain:

Thinking out loud ought to be encouraged, not discouraged, and therefore I apologize again.

By all means, keep thinking and posting. And don't mind me. Sometimes I let myself get away from me. I meant no disrespect. You have to know me better to understand that.

I'll feel better knowing that you're out there somewhere fighting for the same things I do. Because, as you say, it now looks like we're in BIG trouble.

I believe that EVERYONE deserves an equal opportunity to do as well as their native ability allows. To do so requires the availability of good public schools, schools which Conservatives are working to destroy.

You think government run schools are the best run schools? Really? Regardless, I also believe everyone deserves an equal opportunity to do as well as their native ability allows. But there's the disctiction, you would take from everyone's wages to pay for education for all. I belive that Freedom allows for the same but as an opportunity that each individual needs to strive for. It's the striving that makes us better people, a more generous people. Without that effort why try at anything when everything is handed to you regardless of effort?

It requires that ALL WORK be treated with respect and be worth an honest day's wage. That's the opposite of the current Conservative belief that all labor except that of the very wealthy is overpriced and must be suppressed.

The market determines what is an "honest" day's wage is, not the government. Specifically the government doesn't grant you the a good wage, your natural right is to earn the good wage based on your individual merits, skill, education, honesty and loyalty. If you don't like the wage you get, no one holds you back from going out to earn a better one or starting your own business such that you are paid according to those values you naturally hold as an individual.

It requires investment in the infrastructure of our nation, anathema to radical Conservatives who believe that if we need roads, for example, someone will provide them.

Where do you get this drivel? Ron Paul basically says if you can't make it better with privatization, then at minimum the taxes collected for infrastructure should go to infrastructure. And seriously your "Evil Conservatives/Libertarians" talking point is roads? roads, really... roads??

It requires a reasonable level of regulation to ensure things like safe food and drugs, clean air and water, safe workplaces, and a reasonable expectation of fairness in the economic sphere.

Libertarian views protect the people from infringement of their rights. If a drug company infringes by poisoning people or giving them bad drugs that's infringement, if we pollute the air that's infringement of others rights to enjoyment and usage of clean air and water. He's said out right that these would allow for a stricter regulation.

...with an expectation that the Capitalists treat workers fairly, pay enough to support a healthy middle class, and not cheat their customers. Today's radical Libertarians stand that on its head, comfortable with gutting the middle class engine that made us the world's dominant economy and seeing no need for regulation beyond "Caveat Emptor."

On this we actually sort of have some common ground. Although it is "buyer beware" in some ways with Libertarians, through removal of big brother central government that zombifies the public to expect everything is safe and wonderful) it also moves us closer to "treat workers fairly, pay enough to support a healthy middle class, and not cheat their customers." I would submit that it's Centralized governance that retards peoples ability to "beware". We may disagree on how we all get to "treat workers fairly, pay enough to support a healthy middle class, and not cheat their customers.", but I for one don't want a social construct placed on me from an all-powerful elite from the Kingdom of Washington, DC determining what that method is. Let the States decide. for the reason I sated above:

(i.e. you might not allow a local politician like a city councilman give himself a raise because there's a better expectation you'll show up at a council meeting to protest that raise, whereas in Washington, there's really no one watching how Washington grows. Even worse, the people that do show up are lobbyist, with a special agendas to get things none of us would likely approve if we sat in on a meeting.)

It's a LaissezFaire world which theory claims should be self-regulating and eminently fair but in reality blows huge bubbles as the already wealthy become so rich they feel no reason not to take enormous risks that harm the greater economy and huge numbers of regular people when the bubbles burst.

Well I feel like you got the first part right, but to blame the bubbles and class disparity on Libertarian economic views? Sorry, I disagree and rather agree with Paul after reading about both economic theories.

I myself identify with a school of economic thought known as the Austrian School of economics, whose key twentieth-century figures included Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Hans Sennholz. The Austrian School has enjoyed something of a renaissance ever since Hayek, one of its brightest lights, won the Nobel Prize in 1974. And with all kinds of financial bubbles bursting, from the dot-coms a decade ago to housing today, financial analysts have been particularly interested in the Austrian message, especially since the Austrians were among the only ones who consistently warned about those bubbles. Mises himself was practically alone in 1928 when he insisted that not only had permanent prosperity not arrived (as the mainstream of the economics profession had been foolishly assuring everyone throughout the decade), but that a great economic downturn was inevitable.

Paul, Ron (2008-04-30). The Revolution: A Manifesto (p. 102). Grand Central Publishing. Kindle Edition.

It's today's Keynesian economics that is perpetuated by both parties that has caused the recent bubbles in my opinion. I'm not sure if you've read about both, and I certainly don't expect you to change your paradigm, but if you're interesting in expanding your repertoire of discourse.

Here's a outline to start:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

From it:

Austrians often note that Hayek warned about the impending stock market crash in 1929 in stark contrast to contemporary economist, Irving Fisher, who only days before the crash claimed that the US stock market had reached a permanent high plateau.

Between teh two of us, guess it comes down to that there maybe be some reasons that everyone can come up with not to Vote for Ron Paul, but if you don't vote for him, what your really voting for is the one party monopoly held by the "Rebulicrats" who's sole goal it is to grow government. A Centralized government with no motivation other than to gain more and more control over your life regardless of what side of the same party your are on.

He wouldn't be President forever. Everything he believes in wouldn't get passed by the Congress, but he's the counter balance this country needs to reduce the size of "The Machine".

How well did you do on that test?

Well you know what they say...

Q: What is the difference between a lawyer and a sperm cell?
A: At least the sperm has a 1 in 600 million chance at becoming a human being.

No, I haven't. I'm not a Lawyer. ;)

My point was that answering questions on a test doesn't make you more or less correct on Ideological views of Constitutional interpretation.

BUT - I do stand corrected, I stopped at the end of your first sentence of your "P.S." mentally.

"Just so you know, I happened to "book" my Constitutional law class, which means I got the highest grade and earned a prize."

You were only clarifying that you've studied Constitutional Law, not that you were lording your achievement over him. My apologies I missed that not reading the balance of your statement.

Not saying it to brag, but just so you know since you pretty much accuse me of knowing nothing about it.

You think government run schools are the best run schools? Really? Regardless, I also believe everyone deserves an equal opportunity to do as well as their native ability allows. But there's the disctiction, you would take from everyone's wages to pay for education for all. I belive that Freedom allows for the same but as an opportunity that each individual needs to strive for.

You think grade school children should pay their own way through school? Because that's what you just said.

What if their allowance doesn't cover it?

I paid my own way through college and law school, but I don't begrudge those who need help the opportunity to get help. Grade school and high school, however, do NOT qualify for your argument that people should pay their own way, especially if you REALLY have an interest in equal opportunity.

Why do I get the sense that maybe you don't?

Just for reference, there are a lot of private schools where students don't pay their own way. They call those schools "endowment" schools. For example, Harvard and Yale. If you can get accepted to Harvard, and you can't afford it, they pretty much make sure that you go, anyway. How does THAT fit your theory that everyone needs to work for it?

And did they, by chance, teach spelling in YOUR school? Or were you just the hapless victim of an inferior public school? That explains me, by the way, just in case you're wondering.

The market determines what is an "honest" day's wage is, not the government.

So, then, exactly what harm does having a minimum wage law do? Unless you think that an "honest" day's work is worth less than $58.00, which is the current federal minimum wage for an 8-hour day.

Why do I get the sense that maybe you do?

My point was that answering questions on a test doesn't make you more or less correct on Ideological views of Constitutional interpretation.

Lord only knows that that's the truth. We see living proof of it every day from our very own Supreme Court. Or do you have some reason to believe that Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy did not well on THEIR law school exams?

See ya. ;-)

Between teh two of us, guess it comes down to that there maybe be some reasons that everyone can come up with not to Vote for Ron Paul, but if you don't vote for him, what your really voting for is the one party monopoly held by the "Rebulicrats" who's sole goal it is to grow government. A Centralized government with no motivation other than to gain more and more control over your life regardless of what side of the same party your are on.

(Emphasis mine)

Guess I wasn't far off the mark when I stated that the Lbertarian/Bircher segment of the Conservative movement believes in a massive, cross-party conspiracy to steal our freedom. That's a tremendous level of paranoia.

As for the Austrian School, there's a lot of great material on why it's inadequate and in many ways wrong here; http://world.std.com/~mhuben/austrian.html

In particular it's a great way to explain certain aspects of the world in a way that conforms to Libertarian beliefs, a poor way to actually describe reality.

To sum up, although the Austrian School was at the forefront of business cycle theory in the 1920s, it hasn’t developed in any positive way since then. The central idea of the credit cycle is an important one, particularly as it applies to the business cycle in the presence of a largely unregulated financial system. But the Austrians balked at the interventionist implications of their own position, and failed to engage seriously with Keynesian ideas.

The result (like orthodox Marxism) is a research program that was active and progressive a century or so ago but has now become an ossified dogma. Like all such dogmatic orthodoxies, it provides believers with the illusion of a complete explanation but cease to respond in a progressive way to empirical violations of its predictions or to theoretical objections.

http://johnquiggin.com/2009/05/03/austrian-business-cycle-theory/

Oh look, there's that comparison to campus Marxism, though I found this essay AFTER I made the analogy. In any case the issue of real importance for this discussion is why Libertarian economic theories don't work. The purpose of any real theory is to predict and explain what is observed in the real world, and the Austrian School just doesn't in a lot of cases, in spite of being better than Marxism or the Classical Economics that failed us so badly with the Great Depression;

The Austrians were the first to offer a good reason for the non-neutrality of money. Expansion of the money supply will lower (short-term) interest rates and therefore make investments more attractive.

There’s an obvious implication about the (sub)optimality of market outcomes here, though more obvious to a generation of economists for whom arguments about rational expectations are second nature than it was 100 years ago. If investors correctly anticipate that a decline in interest rates will be temporary, they won’t evaluate long-term investments on the basis of current rates. So, the Austrian story requires either a failure of rational expectations, or a capital market failure that means that individuals rationally choose to make ‘bad’ investments on the assumption that someone else will bear the cost. And if either of these conditions apply, there’s no reason to think that market outcomes will be optimal in general.

A closely related point is that, unless Say’s Law is violated, the Austrian model implies that consumption should be negatively correlated with investment over the business cycle, whereas in fact the opposite is true. To the extent that booms are driven by mistaken beliefs that investments have become more profitable, they are typically characterized by high, not low, consumption.

Finally, the Austrian theory didn’t say much about labour markets, but for most people, unemployment is what makes the business cycle such a problem. It was left to Keynes to produce a theory of how the non-neutrality of money could produce sustained unemployment.

It's just too bad that an initially promising field of endeavor so quickly turned into a faulty means of justifying preconceived notions;

Unfortunately, having put taken the first steps in the direction of a serious theory of the business cycle, Hayek and Mises spent the rest of their lives running hard in the opposite direction. As Laidler observes, they took a nihilistic ‘liquidationist’ view in the Great Depression, a position that is not entailed by the theory, but reflects an a priori commitment to laissez-faire. The result was that Hayek lost support even from initial sympathisers like Dennis Robertson. And this mistake has hardened into dogma in the hands of their successors.

The modern Austrian school has tried to argue that the business cycle they describe is caused in some way by government policy, though the choice of policy varies from Austrian to Austrian – some blame paper money and want a gold standard, others blame central banks, some want a strict prohibition on fractional reserve banking while others favour a laissez-faire policy of free banking, where anyone who wants can print money and others still (Hayek for example) a system of competing currencies.

Rothbard (who seems to be the most popular exponent these days) blames central banking for the existence of the business cycle, which is somewhat problematic, since the business cycle predates central banking. In fact, central banking in its modern form was introduced in an attempt to stabilise the business cycle. The US Federal Reserve was only established in 1913, after Mises had published his analysis.

So despite your conclusion that I won't or haven't considered Libertarian/John Birch Society beliefs that isn't the case at all. I believe very strongly that they're just wrong after studying them in detail.

You think grade school children should pay their own way through school? Because that's what you just said.

No that's not what I said at all, nor did I infer any of the other things you wrote after that. If you were aware, listened to, or gave thought to of any ideas outside your own myopic box, you might find that my view is aligned closest to the Libertarians. As such, I gave example above twice:

(i.e. you might not allow a local politician like a city councilman give himself a raise because there's a better expectation you'll show up at a council meeting to protest that raise, whereas in Washington, there's really no one watching how Washington grows. Even worse, the people that do show up are lobbyist, with a special agendas to get things none of us would likely approve if we sat in on a meeting.)

As that applies to school, the further up the control goes the worse the program in my opinion. I'm not against ALL Taxation, all public schools, all everything as you would attempt to pigeon hole me. I'm against a bloated Centralized Federal Bureaucracy that devolves the progress better made by free individuals who have stand a better chance of having oversight at what their government does. If you can think outside your box for a moment there are many ways the States or local communities can provide a better class of education of which I don't need to go into detail in an attempt to explain to brick wall.

Attacking my spelling and/or typos is part of your argument? Then you bait a trap saying "that explains me" - You're not going to be a very good lawyer bringing up arguments like that. But in fact my I've always has difficultly with written language, while excelling at Math or more specifically spatial relationships. I have a keen mind for complex multidimensional visual problems and physics. I don't know why that's the case; if perhaps I'm Dyslexic, or that I just found sitting in an English class extraordinarily boring an hence pay attention, or if it was that my family moved while I was in second grade an put me in a progressive school that was teaching they crazy new thing "phonics" rather than memorization because Washington wasn't dictating what got taught. However, after moving again that same year to Wyoming, back to a school that used memorization it certainly got worse. Whatever the cause, that's my personal cross of poor spelling. Thanks for pointing it out in attempt to discredit the forest by looking at the tree.

So, then, exactly what harm does having a minimum wage law do? Unless you think that an "honest" day's work is worth less than $58.00, which is the current federal minimum wage for an 8-hour day.

No harm. I'm in favor of a minimum wage. If the Federal Government hadn't taken over the role of big brother, I think their would be more pressure on the States to have minimums commensurate with the economic level of that particular state. Here in CA for example it's 8.00 vs the Federal 7.25. My point was that John B's statement,

the current Conservative belief that all labor except that of the very wealthy is overpriced and must be suppressed.

..is a fallacy. The market (all free people) determine what they will pay or get paid for. Their isn't some grand conspiracy to suppress the little people enacted by the whole of conservatives.

So despite your conclusion that I won't or haven't considered Libertarian/John Birch Society beliefs that isn't the case at all. I believe very strongly that they're just wrong after studying them in detail.

Then we shall agree to disagree, as I too can copy paste someone elses position in opposition to you.

mises.org/efandi/ch31.asp

www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/henry-hazlitt-and-the-failure-of-keynesian-economics/

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoxDyC7y7PM

www.forbes.com/2009/05/15/unemployment-income-consumption-opinions-contributors-keynes.html

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,839744,00.html

sistertoldjah.com/archives/2010/11/30/why-keynesian-economics-is-wrong/

www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/economic-recovery-consumer-spending-keynesian-economists/9/1/2010/id/29895

.

.

P.S. You gotta love that your agruments come form this site that you yourself posted:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

Which is titled: Critiques Of Libertarianism, with links to all your counter-arguments.

I'm guessing that is how you could say:

Now you know what I believe.

Way to think for yourself! <golfclap>

Their isn't some grand conspiracy to suppress the little people enacted by the whole of conservatives.

Yeah, there is;

Tim Fernholz and Jim Tankersley reported this week on a little-noticed report distributed by House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) office last week, summarizing the findings of the Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee.

[T]he paper predicts that cutting the number of public employees would send highly skilled workers job hunting in the private sector, which in turn would lead to lower labor costs and increased employment. But "lowering labor costs" is economist-speak for lowering wages -- does the GOP want to be in the position of advocating for lower wages for voters who work in the private sector?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_03/028650.php

I told you from the beginning that DECADES of study of Liberatarian positions has led me to my rejection of same. You show your colors as a true ideologue by finding it inconceivable that I wouldn't see the genius of Paul, Mises, and Hayek. Then you move to criticizing my sources instead of rebutting the arguments found there.

Now, talk to the invisible hand, I'm done listening.

Hilarious. Now who's paranoid?

Guess I wasn't far off the mark when I stated that the Lbertarian/Bircher segment of the Conservative movement believes in a massive, cross-party conspiracy to steal our freedom. That's a tremendous level of paranoia.

Their isn't some grand conspiracy to suppress the little people enacted by the whole of conservatives.

Yeah, there is;

See ya Mr. Knowitall.

Glad you've had decades to study every conceivable topic that has been discussed, you must have like 12 Doctorates by now.

(waves to his Lordship)

Some of you guys on here are too funny.

Slamming voter id laws, and throwing mud at people who have a different view. Do you want someone who is not a citizen to be able to vote in our elections? Do you want someone who is not a citizen, or otherwise not eligible, to receive unemployment or welfare money? Do you want a non-citizen, or someone who is otherwise not eligible, to receive in state college tuition rates that citizens enjoy?

If so, why?

I can tell you why I don't want these things and why other thinking people don't want these things. Altruism is bs.

I'm drinking, and loving it. We will get something positive done for this great nation. Go tea party!

Drinking Yak? Heh, drink that yak and wake up in the morning with a stranger in the sack.

Viva-la-tea party. It's sweeping the nation like wildfire. Put your seat belts on liberals, you're riding the tail winds.

The Republican TEA Drinkers are nothing but a bunch of isolationist segregationists.

Imagine a neighbourhood in which you and other people live at various economic levels. The richest guy on the block is paranoid that “everyone hates him and his family” so he hires an army and convinces or forces most people in the neighbourhood to house one soldier to make sure that you and everyone else don’t build rocket launchers and blow up his house from a distance.

This is and has been the foreign policy of the USA for decades.

Which would make you more resentful, a soldier stationed in your own living room 24/7 making sure you or a neighbor doesn’t plot to build a rocket launcher, or getting regular calls from your rich neighbor suggesting he’ll help you with things if you’re nice to him?

Reversing our past foreign policy is not being an "isolationist".

Your comment on being segregationist I know for a fact doesn't apply to Ron Paul. So take the lies elsewhere, or back up your BS with facts.

Yak,

Remember when the Tea Party was showing some strength, the Liberals tried to emulate the Tea Party with something called a coffee party. It never went anywhere. It takes work. Something foreign to libbies.

Emulate? Edward, you have no idea of what you speak. The Coffee Party was never represented to be more than a source of moderate and factual information intended to counter the radical beliefs of the TP. It's still alive and well, and extremely active. http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/

@ JohnB

Yakkity, yak ... don't talk back. Tea partiers don't like that. ;-)

Hey, does anyone know what the "Earnings" link on the top of our Newsvine home page is for? I clicked on it and it said that earnings could be paid out in $25 intervals or donated to charity. How does one earn money on Newsvine??? Does anyone know???

Chris;

I have no idea.

Chris, as I understand it, you earn a small amount of money everytime you post comments. You can find an explanation in the Newsvine rules.

I hope Chris isn't counting on his comments as supplemental income - he'd starve!

Thanks, Jody. You are on here a lot. How much do you have in your Newsvine account?

Feisty, don't worry about me starving. The farmers markets around here provide plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables at terrific prices, you evil harpy.

Make sure you eat your peas, Chris! ;o)

LMAO.....An evil harpy! Out of the mouths of babes come wondrous things!

You so funny! hahahahahahaha

Chris, I just checked my "earnings"- a whooping .01 cents from the "April distribution," whatever that is. I comment every day on Newsvine. I did "earn" .10 cents in January, perhaps by "seeding" a bunch of articles on my account page. That's where you copy a link to another source, like my hometown newspaper, and write up a little summary of it. It's kind of a tedious process, but I guess some people may earn money if they get a lot of "hits." Hey! Go to my page by clicking on my name and click on my articles and we'll see if that earns me money!

Chris, go to the help section on newsvine:

If I write a column on Newsvine, how much do I get paid?

Newsvine works hard to sell advertising around the site so that everyone can benefit from contributing. You will receive 90% of the display advertising earnings from your own domain (e.g. "yourname.newsvine.com"). Ad earnings are based on traffic to your articles and seeds. The other 10% will go to whoever referred you to Newsvine. If no one referred you to Newsvine, the other 10% will be used to offset the cost of bandwidth, upkeep, and improvements to the site. The revenue you earn will be proportional to the following you acquire. Our philosophy is that where you add value to Newsvine, you should receive value in return.

When are my earnings available for redemption, and how long does it take to process?

Earnings are available for redemption 45 days after the end of the month in which they were earned (e.g., August earnings become available on October 15). Payments are processed on the 5th and the 20th of each month (or the nearest business day).

Thanks, Amy!

Whatever will you do with that $0.11??? At least it's tax free!!!

I probably give it here, two cents at a time :)

Chris, last I checked I had about $.68. If I ever get $25, it will go to charity.

Amy, Cynthia, and Jody: Thanks for the information!!! Stay cool today!!!

Feisty, I happen to like peas.

And corn.

And rabbits.

And Chocodiles.

And Mello Yello.

And plain M&M's, but not peanut.

CNN poll shows that 66% support cap, cut and balance.

So, what's wrong with Harry Reid?

As to tax increases to reduce the deficit- seems to me I've heard that song before. Reagan was promised spending cuts in return for giving the democrats increased tax revenue- did not happen. GHW Bush was promised spending cuts and deficit reduction in return for tax hikes- not only did that not happen, but he was hung with the tag of "Liar" for having broken his no new taxes pledge. Talk about adding insult to injury.

Tell you what: show me the REAL spending cuts- not cuts of anticipated spending, I.e., we planned to spend 50% more, but now we are only spending 20% more, so that's a cut- but real, honest to goodness CUTS in spending. Bring the debt down with those- say, to 12 trillion dollars- and THEN we can talk about increased tax revenue.

There is a but- only if every single dollar is dedicated by law to deficit reduction. Not one dime in spending.

Bill,

Mr. Bush owns this Debt problem. Of course as always, he never in his life was successful at anything other that running all of his businesses and the United States into the grown.

I guess that what happens when you have a Red Neck Cowboy in charge. Oh yeah, watch out for Mr. Bush's clone by the name of Rick Perry.

Former President Bush bankrupted an oil company which has to be difficult to do.

Wow, Bush is certainly a master wizard! He's been out of office for two and a half years, and managed to add $4 trillion to the debt!

Maybe it was the 9000 plus earmark laden Omnibus spending bill he signed after he was out of office in 2009. Maybe it was the trillion dollar stimulous bill he signed after he was out of office. Or the HCR he rammed through, from his ranch in Crawford. Perhaps it was the third war he started with Libya.

I tell you- he is one powerful ex president!

How does he do it?

no joe ~ Aren't you sort of cherry-picking your polls?

CNN poll shows that 66% support cap, cut and balance.

So, what's wrong with Harry Reid?

I mean, aren't there also polls that show a vast majority of the public also believe that taxes will need to be raised as part of the effort to bring down the deficit?

You know that's true.

So what's wrong with Mitch McConnell and John Boehner?

Bill:

Dems insist on tax hikes as being part of any deal, so riddle me this: why isn't that position just as "intransigent" as conservative opposition to same?

Way too easy. Because it's grounded in reality. When a business doesn't have enough revenue, it has three choices -- raise prices, get more business, or cut costs. All of these are obviously valid approaches because businesses raise prices all the time in response to economic conditions, and sometimes, probably, just because they can.

So following fundamental business principles, as Republicans usually advocate that we do, raising revenue, as part of an overall deficit reduction program, is a valid option that should be open for reasonable discussion.

Under those facts, which are the facts we have, the flat-out refusal to admit the validity of the revenue option, as Republicans have done, is obviously where the intransigence lies.

There is only ONE bill, AM- so, it's pretty hard to cherry pick among bills when there is only one bill to pick from.

As to the "balanced" approach- if a poll were done to raise taxes on just, say, lawyers, I can pretty much guarantee you it would get majority support from non- lawyers.

A wag once said, in reference to just this subject, "don't tax you, don't tax me- tax that guy behind the tree".

Start talking to me about "balance" when people start being asked about paying higher taxes themselves.

Anna Molly..

Good morning..

Under those facts, which are the facts we have, the flat-out refusal to admit the validity of the revenue option, as Republicans have done, is obviously where the intransigence lies.

Under the 6 Plan revenues are a key plan and are the reason the plan does not contain unfunded taxes.

The “Gang of Six” plan would:

Aim to reduce deficits by $3.7 trillion over ten years;

Call for the elimination of some tax deductions and preferences and the reduction of others, raising $1 trillion in new revenue, while also reducing marginal income tax rates to as low as 23 percent for high earners;

Require $145 billion in cuts to national defense and homeland security operations and hundreds of billions in cuts to other federal departments;

Shift to a new measure of inflation called “chained CPI” which would have the effect of reducing future Social Security benefits by mandating smaller annual cost-of-living adjustments.

There are alternate sources of revenue in this plan to offset the tax cuts.

The need to address REVENUE is addressed in the 6 plan..

....and have a great weekend.

Ira:

The need to address REVENUE is addressed in the 6 plan..

Really?! Golly, Ira ... that will probably kill Bill. ;-)

What I like in what I read above is the cuts to defense spending. I call that realistic.

What I don't like is the "chained CPI." If anyone needs COLA it's seniors, who have the least ability to make up those gaps.

By the way, can you explain the wisdom of lowering the marginal rate for high earners to 23 percent? How does that make any sense?

You have a great weekend, too.

no joe:

Start talking to me about "balance" when people start being asked about paying higher taxes themselves.

I pay my share, no joe, and you've never seen me whine about it, have you?

Anna Molly..

I don't believe that there have been COLA adjustments to SS for the last 2 years....????

I would love to see COLA adjustments also, but given the choice between cutting benefits by 35 to 50% cause the fund is running out of money or not increasing COLA by, at most, 1%....there virtually is no inflation...I'll give up the 1% for full benefits.

The marginal tax rate for ALL tax payers is lowered...not just for the wealthy. These decreases in taxable revenues are more than offset by revenue increases so they are NOT unfunded. It's the compromise game.

In the end, I believe revenues to tax cuts are 3:1 resulting in the $14 trillion decrease in the debt.

Mixed Bag...that about right?

Ira:

I would love to see COLA adjustments also, but given the choice between cutting benefits by 35 to 50%

I don't buy into that. If seniors have not had COLA's for the past two years, then it's unconscionable, and asking people to accept that as future SOP is not acceptable. It's simply not a valid moral choice to cut the benefits. If Congress keeps its promises, the fund will not run out of money for many years. All Congress has to do is to commit to putting the money back, figure out how to fund that, and then look for a long term solution. But unfortunately, Congress is mostly composed of cowards who don't want anyone to know exactly how they got themselves into this jam.

Al Gore was right about the lock box, wasn't he?

What exactly are the revenue increases that offset the marginal rate reductions? And if they're closing loopholes, then maybe it's full employment for Ira, but doesn't that just invite gaming of the system all over again, this time with even more to gain? And why should there be any compromise at all? Isn't that just taking money out of one pocket and putting it back into another? Why can't we close the loopholes AND leave the rates alone? That would certainly produce much more revenue.

People aren't morally entitled to those loopholes, Ira.

Anna Molly..

You raise excellent points to which I will only say..

Politics and ethics and morality and what is the right and good thing to do...in this environment especially....are just 2 very different things.

You're on a mission to make all things right and that's noble...an optimist.

I'm an old man who used to be an optimist.

You know the difference between an optimist and a pessimist?

My 40 years experience.

Real world experience.

Spot on Bill, Fairfax VA.

Food for thought:

For the average retiree it takes less than 4 years to get back every single penny back that they paid into social security and medicare. After that it is all pure gravy train.

From then on if they live 5, 10, 15, 20, or 25 years they will be feasting like little piggies at the government trough. Like I said above, I know because I'll be at that point myself in three more months.

I need the money to live on as I wasn't exactly a master of the financial universe but at least I'm honest enough to recognize that this is a ponzi scheme that actually destroy's a man's soul. Social security sucks and it is unsustainable.

Ira:

You know the difference between an optimist and a pessimist?

My 40 years experience.

Real world experience.

Hello?! Any chance, given that you know what I do, that you might want to re-think that?

Well Nitemare,

I got mine and, as for yours,....well, lets look real hard at that one. Maybe you should wait a few more years. Maybe we can reduce your payment so we can redistribute your wealth. (didn't know you were rich??) Hey, if the government says you are rich, then you are. (RICH = EVIL) But not to worry. You can atone for your evil, rich ways by giving your wealth to the poor people, till your as poor as them. Then you get a free pass to heaven.

Anna Molly..

You're an optimist thru and thru and, please don't take that as an insult.

Me, I'm jaded...too many times being on the wrong side of what I know to be right.

Comes with the territory.

I really hope you never change...it is really refreshing.

And you're a prince, Ira. I know that territory only too well, by the way.

Nothing goes, everybody knows, like you always want it to be .... (Chicago)

nightmare2:

I need the money to live on as I wasn't exactly a master of the financial universe but at least I'm honest enough to recognize that this is a ponzi scheme that actually destroy's a man's soul. Social security sucks and it is unsustainable.

I can picture you now, kneeling before the great god, Rush Limbaugh, and crying out in pain, "Flog me again, Oh, Master."

Because if ever there was a master at making people believe it's all their fault while he robs them blind, it would be Rush.

Although, Congress is getting pretty good at it, too.

Edward:

You can atone for your evil, rich ways by giving your wealth to the poor people, till your as poor as them. Then you get a free pass to heaven.

Tell you what, Edward. Why don't you, if you're so smart and so rich, just give the man a job?

Anna Molly-

I'm not a social conservative, and I'm generally pro-choice, although I'm not particularly proud of what that stance entails.

Isn't abortion a moral and ethical issue? If it isn't, why do most of us find the practice so revolting, and why are we so insistent, whatever our political views, that there be as few abortions as possible?

If there are no moral objections, why not simply abort away, and not give it a second thought?

Instead, most in our society, myself included, agree to tolerate it...don't we?

Something tells me if the abortion issue were weighed entirely in terms of the moral and ethical issues involved...we wouldn't.

Anyway...

If the trustees of the entitlement programs tell us that those programs are headed for insolvency (as Senator Conrad says they tell him), it would be immoral and unethical not to listen to them and take the necessary steps to preserve them, within the parameters of what's achievable, wouldn't it?

I don't understand what's ethical about a stubborn insistence to continue down a path that guarantees insolvency for the entitlement programs, insolvency that we know is coming, based on simple, demographic realities.

There's a choice to be made...we can't or won't always be able to act based purely on moral and ethical concerns.

You do what's doable...especially in light of the alternatives.

At least...that's how I see it.

Way too easy. Because it's grounded in reality.

With all due respect counselor, that's your reality, not mine. Here's my reality: the welfare state is unsustainable and only unthinkably egregious levels of taxation could even hope to keep it afloat. Just look at the struggling PIGS in Europe for illumination on that point. And to borrow from George Will's terrific piece this morning, our "system is buckling under an intractable contradiction: It is incompatible with economic growth sufficient to create enough wealth to feed the multiplying tax eaters."

That's the core problem, AM. What you and most on your side just don't get is that we have a spending problem, a spending problem so big that taxation would need to rise to 25% of GDP (compared to the historical norm of 18%) to make ends meet. Now THAT is reality.

Mixed Bag:

I'm not a social conservative, and I'm generally pro-choice, although I'm not particularly proud of what that stance entails.

Isn't abortion a moral and ethical issue? If it isn't, why do most of us find the practice so revolting, and why are we so insistent, whatever our political views, that there be as few abortions as possible?

I'm sure I've made my own position on this clear before now, but yes, that's also the same way I feel. If anything, we just differ on the means by which we make sure that there be as few abortions as possible. And I don't even know that much for sure.

Something tells me if the abortion issue were weighed entirely in terms of the moral and ethical issues involved...we wouldn't.

Well, as individuals, we wouldn't -- and yes, I agree with that -- but that's based primarily on our own moral codes, which I find it very difficult to impose on others. My own solution has always been to be as careful as possible never to be placed in the position of having to make that choice, and that's one small bit of wisdom that I have passed on to my daughter, although I believe she would have figured that out for herself. We're neither of us conventional Christians, but you don't need God to tell you what's right. And doing what's right involves making good decisions, in the first instance.

As for social security, it was a very nice try at trapping me into buying the argument that we have no alternatives but to cut benefits, but it simply won't work. For one thing, although there is a moral question involved with both, it isn't quite the same moral question. For another, like the decisions that one has to make long before one makes the decision about abortion, Congress has had decisions to make along the way, and some of those decisions contributed to the current quandary, but there ARE viable alternatives that Republicans in general reject out of hand, while at the same time they try to convince us that the ONLY thing that can be done is to reduce benefits.

We understand each other enough, I'm sure, so I don't have to review with you what they all are.

You do what's doable...especially in light of the alternatives.

So that's our point of disagreement, I guess. In my opinion, we haven't done enough to avoid having to reduce benefits. We haven't in good faith explored all the alternatives. Just like doing enough to prevent an abortion.

Except the moral dilemma left at this point cuts exactly the opposite, and no lives will be lost if we DON'T cut benefits.

But what about if we do?

Bill (quoting George Will):

the multiplying tax eaters."

Would that be the top 2 percent (and growing)?

Seriously, if you want to convince me, George Will is perhaps not your best choice as an impressive source.

What you and most on your side just don't get is that we have a spending problem, a spending problem so big that taxation would need to rise to 25% of GDP (compared to the historical norm of 18%) to make ends meet.

No, I get that, completely. But what YOUR side won't admit is that there are other alternatives to meeting our obligations besides taking benefits away from seniors who rely on them, and although they may not be totally sufficient in themselves, that's certainly no reason to reject them completely.

I don't remember, for example, that you answered my last post on that very subject -- the intransigence of Republicans about even considering raising revenue, which is a very valid decision to make in the business world when there is a "spending" problem.

After all, isn't that exactly why undercapitalized corporations sell stock?

Maybe it's time we ALL buy some stock in America.

Something tells me ole 'four points' isn't any better with math than he is with political posturing.

Just sayin'.

I have further decided that 'shy' is the wrong adjective, too. I'd say downright 'elusive'.

Who would your impressive source be AM Oberstupid or Maddcow? You give qoutes from Soros as being true and un bias. So you seem to me to following the Kool Aid trail. As for your right and wrong statement. You seem to forget history and how during the time of Ceasar right and wrong was quite different. The different Priests, Rabis, and church leaders changed the boundries of right and wrong. You proably want history to show the KKK as being Repub. based. When in fact it was and still is majority Dem. Remember Senator Byrd being at one time a Grand wizard. The majority of slave owners were Dems. They fought the Lincoln republicans over it remember.

Good discussion, Anna Molly-

Actually...

I don't entirely disagree with you on Social Security.

I clearly remember the last time Social Security's solvency was an issue. At that time, Social Security, in terms of being a significant deduction on a paycheck, was much, much less than federal income tax withholding, and my recollection is that it was also significantly less state tax withholding.

After reform passed, Social Security, and to a lesser degree, Medicare, became a substantial portion of the amount withheld from my own paycheck. If an increase in the payroll tax is part of an effort to "fix" Social Security, it will have a more substantive effect than it did last time since the baseline tax is so much higher this time around. The lower the income, the bigger the hit if the Social Security payroll tax is raised.

I would think very seriously about means testing and perhaps raising the age requirement a bit before raising the payroll tax to any significant degree.

That said, it's whatever works, and can be passed and signed into law.

If a solution can't meet those requirements, why bother?

Where the rubber hits the road, it's what politics is all about, however much we'd prefer it was purely about ethics and morality, AM.

Educate yourself, Bill. Read David Cay Johnston's book "Perfectly Legal". It outlines how the tax system is rigged to the benefit of the rich, and especially the super rich. Through the tax system, the country's wealth has been steadily redistributed UP the income ladder. Between 1970 and 2000, the average income for everyone in this country (including the rich and super rich and adjusted for inflation, etc.) rose by 5 cents per hour . . . total over the entire period. During the same period, the average income for just the top 1% rose by $646.00/hour . . . every single year. And the Bush tax cuts and other tax policies passed during 2001 - 2007, only made it worse.

In other words, Bill, the 'tax eaters' are the rich and the super rich while the taxpayers are the poor and middle class.

Seriously, if you want to convince me, George Will is perhaps not your best choice as an impressive source.

Gee, and I tried so hard to pick a better conversation starter today. But before you go into knee-jetk trash mode, I would suggest you read Will's piece. It's not a Navy Vet style low IQ rant, it's a thoughtfult exposition of the conservative point of view on the issue of big government -- which is why I referenced it. You may not agree with him, just as you may not agree with me, but you do yourself a disservice by reflexively brushing aside his ideas.

When a business doesn't have enough revenue, it has three choices -- raise prices, get more business, or cut costs.

Good grief, you can't be serious about that raising prices part. Businesses like cable TV can (and do) get away with that because they are almost (but not quite) monopolies. Most other businesses operate in much more competitive environments and don't have the luxury of that kind of pricing power. Particularly nowadays with our economic problems, consumer demand is relatively low vis a vis more normal times and businesses would be hard pressed to maintain their market share by indiscriminately jacking up prices because they needed more revenue. Heck, if were that easy I'd quit my dayjob and start selling apples on the street corner -- for $50K each.

that will probably kill Bill. ;-)

Oh nooooooo, anything but that. Surely a bleeding heart liberal such as yourself wouldn't permit the ultimate sanction to be applied to 'lil ole me? I mean, you wouldn't support my untimely demise just because I'm a conservative with a sharp pen....or would you?

Nitemare2:

You give qoutes from Soros as being true and un bias.

Show me one time, just one, that I've quoted George Soros.

I'm not an Obamabot, nor am I an Olbermannbot, although I do thank Countdown for reviving and channeling my political interest. I like Rachel Maddow quite well (and I'm not gay, so don't bother with the next illogical insinuation in what appears to be a very small arsenal), but nobody tells me what to say or think, and especially not Authoritarians who use sexist epithets like "Maddcow." Being from a dairy state and having somewhat of a fondness for cows, I take that personally.

How Caesar or the KKK factors into this, I'm not entirely sure, but true right and wrong, at least as I understand those terms, hasn't changed much in the entire history of the world. People corrupt that from time to time, but in my opinion, there are fundamental principles that endure. I doubt that Caesar and I would have been political allies, either. Robert Byrd at least disavowed his association with the KKK many years ago. I won't pretend to say that the KKK was Republican at its inception, and I have no idea about its current membership. I suspect that neither do you, however, as the KKK wears hoods for a reason, and that information is not likely to be public. But I do know enough about history to know that, over time, most of the Southern Dixiecrats became Republicans, which is why all the Southern states are now red, and of course, the northern states are mostly blue.

Lincoln's home state, Illinois, is now among the bluest of the blue.

I doubt that Lincoln would recognize -- or relate to -- the Republican party today, but I suspect he might still be at home in Springfield, Illinois.

At least, that's my opinion.

But if you've been in touch with Lincoln recently, and have some other information about that, feel free to share.

Mixed Bag:

If a solution can't meet those requirements, why bother?

Where the rubber hits the road, it's what politics is all about, however much we'd prefer it was purely about ethics and morality, AM.

Somehow I missed this. Sorry. My only addition to your excellent analysis, and again, where we appear to differ, is that, if we don't care enough to keep ethics and morality in the equation, pretty soon we won't have much of a society left to be political about.

And I'm not sure that's entirely a good thing. For one thing, what would we talk about? ;-)

This thread is why I love your posts, AM. Good work.

Bill:

Businesses like cable TV can (and do) get away with that because they are almost (but not quite) monopolies. Most other businesses operate in much more competitive environments and don't have the luxury of that kind of pricing power.

LoL $50,000 apples. Good luck with that. A year from now, maybe, if we don't do something about this crisis pretty soon, but right now, no.

I never said that it's always successful, but it's at least an option, and it has to be considered. By the way, have you seen the prices at restaurants these days? Where does monopoly fit in there?

And, no, I would never sanction a conservative with a sharp pen. Most assuredly, I would not.

Peacey-lovey liberals always appreciate smart men of any persuasion who come to the debate with sharp pens.

@ Matthew, again, thank you. I see you got my point about the tax eaters.

They just don't seem to get it, do they?

@ Bill -- p.s. Thank you for taking a different approach. Mea culpa. I'll read the article. Promise.

By the way, how does George Will go over at parties? Does it make all the conservative women twitter? ;-)

the 'tax eaters' are the rich and the super rich while the taxpayers are the poor and middle class.

Sorry pal, YOU are the one who needs educating:

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development evaluated the household taxes -- income taxes, plus Social Security levies -- of developed countries in 2008. It found that the United States "'as the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10 percent of the population.'

The Associated Press reported last week that 47 percent of US households don't pay federal income taxes at all. Either their incomes are too low, or their liability is wiped out by sundry credits, deductions and exemptions. "The result," the AP writes, "is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government."

Did you catch that last part: the TOP 10% OF EARNERS paid 73% of the nation's income taxes.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/13/tax_hikes_forever_105149.html

Let me also say this, I've glanced at your posts around here every now and then. And while there may be a few liberals on this board who could teach me a thing or two, you are decidedly not one of them.

Well. Now I've read it, Bill, and I still don't agree. Here's a cite to it for anyone who wanders by and wonders what we're talking about.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7664200.html

You might have expected that, but I'm particularly interested in your opinion of this statement:

Obama could muster sufficient Democratic votes (one-third plus one, in one house) to sustain his veto of Congress' disapproval of his requests. But this would not enhance presidential power. Rather, McConnell's proposal would put a harness on the president, tightly confining him within a one-time process.

Do you agree with this, and does this mean that you reject the "unitary" presidency theory adopted by George W. Bush? Do you think that Will would recognize that this is essentially what he said here?

Where in the Constitution is there any authority for putting a "harness" on the President, and how does that square with the separation of powers that gives Congress the power of appropriation and the President the power of administration?

Does Congress somehow have the idea that the President decides what will be spent?

Or does Congress merely believe that it can't really control itself when it comes to appropriation? Because that's what I think it means. Just like it couldn't bring itself to come up with solutions to the deficit crisis in the first place, and had to appoint a commission to study it.

I'll say again exactly what I said then. Why all this fuss? Why doesn't Congress just do its job?

Let me also say this, I've glanced at your posts around here every now and then. And while there may be a few liberals on this board who could teach me a thing or two, you are decidedly not one of them.

Come on, Bill, please ... this is beneath you.

p.s. Bill, I always get a kick out of hearing members of Congress complain about the lower 47 percent that doesn't pay any taxes because their income isn't high enough or because of those sundry deductions, etc. that you mention.

Who writes the tax code, anyway?

Nice try, Bill, but you are the one who has a reading problem, I was talking about the top 1%, not the top 10%, which renders your argument moot. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know that when you get into that top 1%, the data changes . . . drastically (note the disparity of the rise in income level I posted). But that is a little too inconvenient for your narrative, so you choose to use the data that has no bearing upon, nor in any way refutes what I posted.

Bill, almost every single liberal on here could teach you something, you are just too stupid and arrogant to realize just how uninformed, misinformed, uneducated and generally unaware of the truth, that you are. Plus, your last statement just proves that you are an arrogant pr!ck.

have you seen the prices at restaurants these days? Where does monopoly fit in there?

I assume you're referring to the high cost of eating out. Rising food prices have a lot to do with that, and all resturaunts are affected more or less the same way. BTW, that dynamic is brought to you in part by Helicopter Ben.

Come on, Bill, please ... this is beneath you.

Nope, I've seen his crap before he got what he deserved.

how does George Will go over at parties? Does it make all the conservative women twitter?

Nope, he's too old for that stuff doncha know.

As for your other thoughts, I'll have to take a pass for now -- but I promise to reengage on Monday. Have a nice weekend.

AM

Not beneath him at all. In fact, I'd say it's a trademark of how he deals with most of the women on this board. But I speak from personal experience. What could I possibly know?

Clara, AM, to Bill, facts that do not agree with the way he wants things to be are 'crap'. And when he can't dispute the facts/crap, he attacks the person. As I said before, his sentence that you call beneth him, AM, just proves he is an arrogant pr1ck who can't stand it when he is proven wrong, as I've done on more than one occasion (note this thread as an one example of that). It is one reason he is on ignore.

The Duck, Dodge and Dismantle Bill is a joke on the American people. Virtually every economist of note says this Balanced Budget the GOP/TP is trying to ram down the throats of our Country is a very very bad bill and poorly constructed to boot.

Examples of how drastic and bad this proposal is for America: http://www.cbpp.org/files/6-6-11bud.pdf

1. “It cuts total funding for non-defense discretionary programs by approximately 70 percent in 2021, and by more than $3 trillion over the next ten years, relative to the already reduced funding levels that Congress recently approved for fiscal year 2011 (adjusted for inflation).

This is the part of the budget that includes veterans’ medical care, most homeland security activities, border protection, and the FBI. It also includes education, environmental protection, protecting the nation’s food and water supply, and medical research, as well as services for disadvantaged or abused children, frail elderly people, and people with severe disabilities”.

2. “The budget slashes Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program by $1.5 trillion over the next ten years; Medicaid funding would be cut by 54 percent in 2021. (This is on top of the more than $600 billion in Medicaid cuts it would impose by repealing the Affordable Care Act and its coverage expansions.) It cuts SNAP by a remarkable $350 billion — or 50 percent — over ten years. And it cuts Supplemental Security Income, which provides poor people who are elderly or severely disabled with benefits that raise them to about 75 percent of the poverty line, by $238 billion over ten years; SSI would be cut in half in 2021”.

3. “It cuts at least $86 billion over ten years from Pell Grants, which help low-income students afford college. Other cuts include $84 billion in farm programs”.

The CBPP had a follow up report released on July 16th: http://www.cbpp.org/files/7-15-11bud-stmt.pdf

“Talking points that the legislation’s proponents circulated on July 15 seek to foster an impression that the measure would protect Social Security and Medicare. Such an impression would not be accurate. The legislation would inexorably subject Social Security and Medicare to deep reductions”.

“The measure does not cut Social Security or Medicare in 2012. And it does not subject them to automatic cuts if its global spending caps are missed. It is inconceivable, however, that policymakers would meet the bill’s severe annual spending caps through automatic across-the board cuts year after year; if they did, key government functions would be crippled”.

“Policymakers would have little alternative but to institute deep cuts in specific programs. And as noted elsewhere in this statement, before the debt limit could be raised, Congress would have to approve a constitutional balanced budget amendment that essentially requires cuts even deeper than those in the Ryan budget. Reaching and maintaining a balanced budget in the decade ahead while barring any tax increases would necessitate deep cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. After all, by 2021, total expenditures for these three programs will be nearly 45 percent greater than expenditures for all other programs (except interest payments) combined. Big Cuts in these programs would be inevitable”.

“Moreover, because taxes — including payroll taxes — would be virtually impossible to raise as a result of the new constitutional barrier, Social Security solvency would have to be restored entirely through benefit cuts. Balanced Social Security packages that include measures to raise Social Security’s $106,000 payroll tax cap, so that higher-income Americans do not escape the tax on much of their earnings, would effectively be ruled out”.

This new CC&B is so bad for America in that even the Ryan Bill would not be passed under this new Bill. Reason – the Ryan Bill would not be DRACONIAN enough, it would be to tame.

As if this was not bad enough look at what Nobel Prize winning economist say about this bill in a letter to the President:

Nobel Laureates and Leading Economists Oppose Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment - http://www.cbpp.org/files/7-19-11bud-pr-sig.pdf

The Cut, Cap & Balance bill puts in place a 2/3 majority vote requirement for any tax increase and with it gives Grover Nordquist all he ever wanted--it makes Grover the King of the USA. It will be next to impossible to ever pass any tax increases even if they are necessary to keep this country strong and safe. It guarantees that the USA will be a permanent "Debtor Nation" and one in continual decline.

Wisconsin cracks me up I heard on NPR that there are 7 public sector unions in WI. Only 5 of them are covered by the new laws. The other 2?........Supported the republican candidate for gov.

Navybouy and the heath-care bill was well constructed and we knew exactly what was in it before it was unceremoniously jammed up our rectums sans lube!

Duh Brundo......fire and police! They were smart enough to see the writing on the wall! Ive been waiting for the "recall' election to come. I want to see how the gang of 14 on here spin it when no one gets recalled. History tells us all about successful recalls all 1 of them!

For a little more color on those jobs numbers ....

http://host.madison.com/ct/business/biz_beat/article_a4fc36de-b3d1-11e0-bc4d-001cc4c03286.html

State officials attributed the difference between job growth and the unemployment rate to more people looking for work. Those people are then counted as unemployed when the jobless rate is calculated.

"With 15,100 more people entering the labor force in June than in May, we believe more jobseekers are entering the workforce with optimism of finding employment," Department of Workforce Development Secretary Scott Baumbach said in a statement.

But Laura Dresser of the liberal Center on Wisconsin Strategy notes that most of the new jobs added were in the low-paying service or hospitality sectors. She also notes only 800 manufacturing jobs were added in June, less than 10 percent of the total.

"It's great they're adding jobs at Wisconsin Dells but this doesn't hide the fact we're still down over 100,000 jobs since the recession began," she says.

Despite the fact that the jobs created here were mostly seasonal, low income jobs, Republicans are celebrating:

Despite the mixed news, the numbers were cheered by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, which said it shows Walker's policies are working

"Recent rankings and surveys have shown that business leaders here and nationally like what is happening in Wisconsin," said WMC President Kurt Bauer in a statement. "But the most important measure of success is job growth. Today's positive report shows that the business-friendly policies advanced by the governor and Legislature are rebuilding the foundation that leads to private sector job creation."

Really?! I guess they must have forgotten about those numbers from May.

One has to wonder what the Walker supporters are going to say about the drop in the employment numbers when all of those summer jobs go away . . . at the end of summer. What do you want to bet there will be total silence from them?

Actually, I suspect they will just blame it on national trends, which is what they did in may, according to the JS article, which you probably didn't get a chance to read because the link is corrupt. Here it is again:

http://www.jsonline.com/business/124013694.html

Even Gov. Scott Walker's goal of adding 250,000 jobs in his four-year term is far from assured, the Center argued. It noted that the Wisconsin Department of Revenue is projecting the creation of 183,400 jobs through 2014, which leaves Wisconsin short of Walker's goal.

"Gaining 250,000 jobs is possible, but only if we stay on the trajectory of the last four months," the Center reported. "Unfortunately, the disappointing national jobs numbers in May diminish the prospects of growth at the current rate in coming months."

It's all relative, isn't it? ;-)

Conservative bloggers often accuse me of not having a real job or living in the real world.

_____________________________________________________

Being a lawyer is a real job. Satanic in its origins and nature, but, still real. That's why most politicians started out as lawyers (see John Edwards). I hope you never descend into that lowest level of Hell. Have a nice day. ;~)

BTW, One of my favorite cartoons that I have shared with lawyer friends and colleagues over the years shows Satan leading a newbie into Hell past a door that says "Lawyers Only" with the caption "Oh my God, there really is a special Hell for lawyers"

Anna Molly, Again thank you for the real story of the state of affairs for us in the flyover part of the country. Your research and example of this bank sale speaks to the epxereince of ordinary people everyday.

Anna Molly:

You are on a roll. Kudos. Great posts from the Heartland. Have a great weekend.

@ Navy:

Kudos to you, too, Navy. Especially loved the groundhog reference.

You have a great weekend, too. And stay cool.

@ Northstar:

Thank you for the kind words and have a great weekend. Hope it cools off for you, as it has done here, at least temporarily.

@ Joe:

Liberals are, by definition, already in the lowest level of Hell, aren't we? Being a lawyer is just piling on.

By the way, we don't need a special Hell. Somedays being a lawyer is Hell on earth.

Have a great weekend, Joe.

Anna Molly---I look forward to your tales from the real world of Wisconsin. As I do Amy's stories from Maine. How else are we to see the day-to-day impact of the decisions we make when we vote (or choose not to vote)?

Have a great weekend, Joe.

Same to you Anna Molly.

Well said, Anna Molly.

I'll say again what I've said before--there should be NO golden parachutes for anyone including Corporate executives and sports coaches. The ordinary person doing a job who makes a mistake is lucky to get unemployment when fired, why should CEOs or football coaches be rewarded for failure.

Ive always told everyone my past Im proud to be an independent a vet with multiple service awards and the Chief Network Eng of a 60+employee global Corp. Ive lived in 5 countries and 14 states and have never been unemployed. As I said before growing up in my family being on the gov dole was a no no. My grandfather (a decorated vet of Iwo and Guadalcanal) would have kicked our asses if we ever tried to file for UE or welfare. As kids we cleaned old cement off of bricks for 2 cents a brick. These are american morays that have been lost!

Anna Molly..

Some of these same people love to say I don’t know anything about anything.

I have clients that say the exact same thing to me everyday.

Q: Hey, what do you call 20 lawters chained together at the bottom of the ocean?

Ans: A start.

Awwwww come back, don't leave. I'm enjoying the heck out of you liberals slobbering all over yourself.

@ Ira ~ LoL I've heard that called a "good" start.

Q. What's the difference between a dead snake and a dead lawyer lying in the road?

A. There are skid marks in front of the snake.

;-)

Anna Molly..

Hadn't heard that one...

That's funny...lol!!!

Anna Molly, you contribute so much to this blog, I really respect and enjoy your posts. The story about the golden parachutes attached to the executives who destroy their bank has become so common in American life, is it any wonder people feel we are on the "wrong track." When did we start rewarding failure? When we started valuing wealth over work, and protecting the income of the top 2% over the success of America as a whole.

Amy B. Portland, ME..

When did we start rewarding failure?

I don't mean to be sarcastic with this post so please don't take it that way.

We started rewarding failure with the bailouts of the banks and the auto industry. This whole to big to fail doctrine.

The banks have recovered nicety and are again in the business of screwing the American people with new fees and tight credit.

GM is back on track as being one of the worst managed companies in the US. With 122 months excess inventory...that's enough till 2021....they are surely destined for bankruptcy again.'

....and there are no new regulations or controls to prevent it again and we did not demand a management change or new business model when we bailed them out.

That is our government at work!

Have a good weekend.

So true, Amy, and thanks for the kind words.

Ira:

We started rewarding failure with the bailouts of the banks and the auto industry. This whole to big to fail doctrine.

With all due respect, sir, I don't the bailouts are where it started. Too big to fail started with ignoring the antitrust laws and regulations that allow too big to begin with.

The bailouts merely prevented ordinary folks from feeling the incredible pain they would otherwise have suffered, while the executives would have felt no REAL pain at all.

Agreed as to where we are now, though. Right back where we were. Another regulatory failure.

People won't buy cars until they have jobs, Ira. Perhaps GM was merely being optimistic that Republicans' promises to provide those jobs might actually materialize.

Anna Molly..

...and they are still being ignored....that's my point.

There's no teeth in the financial regulatory law or new powers bestowed on the SEC for enforcement.

There surely could have been.

Who is rewarding failure...

Not just the corporations but also the government by not making changes to the laws that allowed the events to occur. By not demanding that GM change their business model. By not having continued oversight over the banks and the bailed out companies. We just allowed this mess to be repeated with zero change.

It's going to happen again unless regulatory bodies prevent the implosion by oversight....something our Congress is unwilling to do.

That was my point.

Anna -

Though I do not necessarily agree with your politics you put forth some of the best written, least inflammatory, well thought out posts on this board. Your posts often challenge me to think about why I disagree with you - good stuff.

Anna Molly...

People won't buy cars until they have jobs, Ira. Perhaps GM was merely being optimistic that Republicans' promises to provide those jobs might actually materialize.

Not sure that's true. Give them a $4,500 junker trade in and they will set records in car sales.

Optimism is nice. It has no place in business. Actual results is what matters and cars should not be built on optimistic sales expectations. These folks at GM are just incompetent.

@ Mark ~ Thank you so much for the kind words. Maybe you should post more so we could hear what you think, as well. I would look forward to that.

@Ira ~ I know exactly what you're saying, but not sure you're quite understanding me. You criticized the bailouts when the real cause, as you well know, was the regulatory failure. I'm just trying to draw a separation between the disease and the cure. Chemotherapy didn't cause the cancer. Chemotherapy doesn't always work, either, but that's no reason not to try it, even when it's very expensive, and it's also no reason to blame it because the patient ultimately dies from the disease.

And that's just about where we find ourselves now because, from the look of things, there will be no bailouts the next time, and there will, almost certainly, be a next time. On that point, we certainly do agree.

Give them a $4,500 junker trade in and they will set records in car sales.

Sorta warms your heart to know there are so many people who are forced to drive clunkers, doesn't it? But the fact that it worked once doesn't mean it will work again. Given the numbers we keep seeing, and the fact that no one IS buying new cars, it's seems fair to conclude that people are pretty tapped out.

Anna Molly...

......or simply there is no demand as it has been filled by the incentives....

It's not always that people are tapped out...

Sometimes it's just bad business decisions.

BTW...I really enjoyed our chat today..

Have a good one.

LoL Ira -- I certainly agree with that. But if only for the jobs that were saved, and even if they were saved only temporarily, I'm still glad for the bailout.

But I guess that's just the sentimentalist talking.

And me, too. Have a great weekend.

Anna Molly...

Just as an addendum to what we were discussing this morning...

Per CNN Business today.

The US lost $14 billion on the US automaker bailout.

......and for GM nothing has changed.

So avoidable and sad.

"I'm so full of what is right I can't see what is good."

-Rush, "The Color Of Right"

They cowered in a hotel in Illinois like spoiled children, shirking their duty to the people they represent. Everyone in the US knows that to be true.

Yak, Did you get any of that on you? What total spew that post of yours is. Anyone with any semblance of intelligence knows that you need at least one member of the minority to provide a quorum. They were doing their jobs by trying to block the passage of a bill they knew would hurt their constituents. Only Fox watching Tea Bags buy into your crap!

Anna, Nice post. Leave it to the GOTP to hurt the ones he need our help.

In WI: One recall election doneDems = 1 Repugs = 0, eight more to go and one DOA governor in January.

The bill's sponsor, a Republican, urged Senate Majority
Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, to schedule a vote on the measure. And
Republican Gov. Scott Walker also called for action.

"My hope is we can find a way to work between the houses
and get that passed as quickly as possible," Walker said. "With or without the
delay we have to have the extension."

Apparently Mr. Walker does have a heartbeat. It was probably shocked back to life when he figured out he is going to face recall and kiss his "Government" job goodbye.

Thank you, my friends. But according to Yak, who obviously knows best, we must be the only three people in the country who think this way. Except, of course, for those 10,694 people who voted democrat in the Hansen recall last week.

They're all apparently equally deluded.

;-)

Good one, foofus.

Anything the Tea Party likes spells disaster for the country.

No Jody....maybe a broken heart for bleeding liberals. But not disaster for the country.

Nothing "jolly about you, Tea Bag!

You say that anything the Tea Party likes spells disaster for the country... but yet look at the current parties in charge. And how are they not currently spelling disaster as it is? What's better?

Jollyoldsoul,

Event though i have you on ignore, i click that little plus every once and a while when i need a laugh. Thanks for helping me get through my day!

Maybe while your sitting around having those stupid thoughts you might spend some time looking at what specific departments are affected during time when the debt ceiling agreement was not meet. And actually look at the federal policy on how it works.

You'll get your check. That elderly threat rolls around every election cycle. One year you'll have to eat dog food, the next time it's cat food, the next thing you know you're thrown off a cliff while eating cat food, the next time you get thrown under the bus while eating dog food. Seems you'd be keen to the notion it's used to scare old folks. If you are buying it, stop it.

Terrific post, fred owens. Your thoughts are the thoughts of millions of others.

Fred Owens:

I agree with Jody. Many share your thoughts. You should write more often here.

Great post, Fred. It's important to put a human face on all of this.

On the other hand, it appears that JakeJ and 3dpartyadvocate need to get a heavy dose of reality.

Keep going. And thank you.

True post 3rd party.

Sorry Fred they are not my thoughts. Fred, Why do you think the gov. owes you a check?

Why do you think my tax dollars should be used to feed you. You sound like a parasite to me. I will try to prepare my life such that I am not a burden to my fellow tax payer.

That is the problem with you libs, you think someone owes you something. Libs don't mind tax increases because they don't pay taxes. They just receive them in the form of a monthly check.

alive1960 -- You should really change your moniker. You sound dead to me. Dead in your soul.

If Fred is indeed telling his own story, he PAID for those benefits, as do we all -- at least all of us who actually work. Fred's not a parasite. But Congress owes him what it promised and what he paid for.

Congress stole the money by raiding it for other purposes. Otherwise, there would be a $2.2 trillion surplus in Social Security. Congress owes it to Fred to put the money back. The people who benefited from the raid -- i.e., those who benefited most from the Bush tax cuts -- are the true parasites here if they don't see the moral necessity of keeping the promise that was made to seniors when they paid into the system.

You owe to Fred your thanks for all his years of hard work that he believed would allow him to retire with dignity and security.

Libs don't mind tax increases because they don't pay taxes. They just receive them in the form of a monthly check.

Guess again, buddy. I pay plenty of taxes. But I wouldn't mind a small tax increase if it meant that the retirements of all seniors, including YOU, would be secure. Apparently you would begrudge that to me, and to others. I wouldn't mind paying forward so that I would know that my own daughter's retirement would be secure. Apparently you would. I hope if you do have children, then, that you're taking steps to make good provision for them.

Because if your point of view prevails, they're going to need it.

alive1960 - and I am sure that when you reach 65, you are going to refuse to collect the social security income that you paid into your entire working life because you don't want to be a burden on tax payers

alive1960 dead2011,

Your post confirms where you head is at... "way up your butt where it belongs"! You said.

That is the problem with you libs, you think someone owes you something. Libs don't mind tax increases because they don't pay taxes. They just receive them in the form of a monthly check.

Earth calling dead2011. Come in dead2011... Stop with the anal extractions... immediately!

Most of us libs pay taxes and have jobs. Ever heard of George Soros? How about Rob Reiner, Steven Spielberg and the list goes on. So in other words STFU!

Keep dreaming, Will. Cenk and Keith quit; Ed's still there. MSNBC, the best place for politics.

Probably not. I anticipate they will pick up one or two refugees from Fox as it falls under Rupert Murdoch's weight.

Far from ushering in an era of journalistic integrity, the whole Cenk thing signals a turn, whether hard or soft, to the right. Ratings are, indeed, what it's all about.

Someone needs to ask him why did he spend the time passing a PAY AS YOU GO into law if he continues to ignore it.

Well, then cantbelievemostofit, go somewhere else--it's a free country. Incidentally, freedom of speech allows liberals to post as much "crap" as conservatives do; your post is a good example.

If you do not like it here go someplace else, I guarantee you we will not miss ya at all.

cantbelievemostofit

Please go to where all of the Red Neck Bigots go. FOX Noise.

Feel free to publish something that reflects your own bias. All you have to do is click.

Isn't it funny that only one or two conservatives, at most, ever seem to do that?

But then again, that's hard work, isn't it?

It's much easier to take snarky shots from the cheap seats.

Though silly rantings, I'm staying. It's fun to read what these bleeders say. Hahahaha

Why are you here? If you dont like what you are reading, go somewhere else. Whatever gives YOU the idea that liberals cant speak their opinion? First Amendment gives YOU and me that gift. Now go somewhere else if you dont wont to read what a liberal has to say.

I'd like you to stay, that way you might learn there are two sides to every coin and even learn something. Of course that requires an open mind.....can you do that?

But in 2006 Obama voted against raising ANY debt ceiling due to the fact he said it should not be raised unless congress can come up with a balance budget.

Is'nt that a doozie? who would'a thought? say it is'nt so. Obama said that? nah.

If you "close up the government for awhile", how do you expect to hold elections?

Totally excellent point, Jody.

And here I was only thinking about how we might get the roads plowed, and the garbage picked up, and the ambulances to run, and the firefighters to put out fires, and the search and rescue teams to rescue drunken boaters, and the police to enforce the laws.

jody, you and anna molly need to get a room

And alive1960 needs to get out of dodge. Seriously.