CT: I can't believe these Republican clowns. Have they no common sense or dignity?

Speaker Boehner evaluated the talks going on with Obama, realized they in fact were going nowhere, and he concluded his best path to successfully raising the debt limit was with Harry Reid in the Senate. That sure sounds like common sense.

Andrew Sullivan: The Republican refusal to countenance any way to raise revenues to tackle the massive debt incurred largely on their watch and from a recession which started under Obama's predecessor makes one thing clear.

Apparently Andrew is not aware that the GOP had agreed to $800 billion in tax hikes, and late in the game Obama asked for an additional $400 billion in increases be added to that number. Then Andrew throws in the required lefty-lib tag lines to blame others - that's getting real old.

David Frum: Instead, Republicans put the gun on the table. They raised the menace of deliberate default in a way it has not been raised before.

Spending is out of control. What leverage does the GOP, or anyone else, have without the debt ceiling?You saw Obama's hissy fit last night. More "corporate jets" and "big oil companies" taking the food out of the mouths of poor babies. That's Obama's populist message, and that's the one he uses to keep spending money to the tune of $1.6 trillion of deficit spending per year. Obama isn't interested in cutting spending, in fact, he wants to spend more. Thus Obama torpedoed the talks with more and more demands to raise taxes, and then he tries to blame others for the talks breaking down.

I think when the details of the Obama-Boehner negotiations become widely known, the President isn't going to look too good...particularly after his emotional performance for the nation's press yesterday.

He wanted the "grand bargain" in part to remove the debt issue from a set of issues, including jobs and the economy, that will be very difficult for him in the upcoming 2012 campaign.

He will receive his increase in the debt ceiling...he'll also continue to preside over the adding of $4 billion per day to the nation's debt right up until Election Day, along with further increases in the debt ceiling as necessary.

He wanted the issue gone...

Unless the "Gang Of Six" saves him by coming up with a comprehensive legislative measure that can pass both Houses of Congress and be signed into law, President Obama has ensured that the debt issue will continue to erode confidence in his leadership for the forseeable future.

Spending is out of control. What leverage does the GOP, or anyone else, have without the debt ceiling?

Sounds good, maybe, but in reality this platitude amounts to nothing more than acknowledging -- and institutionalizing -- that Congress can't -- or won't -- do its job.

Congress already has the power of self-control. All they have to do is use it. Our job as voters is to see to it that they do. We've failed our own responsibility as much as Congress has failed its responsibility.

BTW -- I didn't hear the part in the President's remarks about corporate jets and big oil companies. I just heard the part about standing up for ordinary people who are struggling.

It isn't so much "populist" -- although what would be wrong with that? -- rather, it's "humane."

I take it you have no problem with "humane."

MB: President Obama has ensured that the debt issue will continue to erode confidence in his leadership for the forseeable future.

Obama was in fine form with his press conference last night. It will be hard to beat when talks again fail today and he comes out again to sum up his side of the story.

Obama isn't interested in getting a deal. He keeps pulling the same nonsense of changing the deal late in the game, and then stands there baffled that people are tired of his amateur negotiation antics. It makes for great press conferences where he can stand there all indignant, but it shows his lack of skills in leadership and in getting a deal completed. Obama had a chance to close out the deal and get this issue off the table for the 2012 election. Instead, it, along with the economy, will be the top issue for the election, and on those two items, Obama is a big loser.

AM: BTW -- I didn't hear the part in the President's remarks about corporate jets and big oil companies. I just heard the part about standing up for ordinary people who are struggling.

Obama: Now, if you do not have any revenues, as the most recent Republican plan that's been put forward both in the House and the Senate proposed, if you have no revenues at all, what that means is more of a burden on seniors, more drastic cuts to education, more drastic cuts to research, a bigger burden on services that are going to middle-class families all across the country. And it essentially asks nothing of corporate jet owners, it asks nothing of oil and gas companies, it asks nothing from folks like me who've done extremely well and can afford to do a little bit more.

Source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/07/obama_on_deficit_talks_breakdo.html

Apparently paying for an ever growing and bloated government bureaucracy doesn't burden our seniors, doesn't cause more drastic cuts to education, doesn't cause more drastic cuts to research, and doesn't put a bigger burden on services. Only corporate jet owners and oil companies do that, at least according to Obama.

AM: I take it you have no problem with "humane."

It's not clear what is "humane" about loading up the countries next generations of taxpayers with our debt.

Actually, JoAnna-

That's exactly what former Democratic Senate chief-of-staff and MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell has been insisting for awhile now...that the spending cuts are so unpalatable to his base that President Obama has never seriously negotiated on the debt issue. He's only sought to manipulate public opinion.

Yesterday, he suggested exactly that to a very uncomfortable Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who nervously assured O'Donnell that the President had, in fact, negotiated in good faith.

Van Hollen's uncomfortable squirming and painful facial expressions during O'Donnell's questioning was priceless.

What we're witnessing in the debt reduction debates is the result of the radicalization of the Republican party.

Assume that Boehner and the President agree on an $800 billion or $1 Trillion in revenue increases and debt reductions along the lines of The Gang of Six or Simpson- Bowles. I don't think that Boehner can get the votes he needs in the House to pass that. It's not hand ringing its fact. There is no deal to be made on the debt ceiling or national debt that will pass the House. Cantor and TPer's and the people that beleive that default has no consequences will not allow any bill to pass. Firmly entrenched ideologues with no centrist movement to correct the fringe. Stalemate.

As Mixed Bag suggest a short term deal that kicks the can down the road until the next election is what's best now. In 2012, the electorate will decide the direction they want the country to go. It's best to wait for that determination, get a short term deal or McConnell-Reid done and move on. Jobs and the economy are being forgotten in the midst of this fabricated debt crisis.

The debt is a problem, a huge problem but, think about about it, has anyone NOT been willing to lend money to us at 2% or so...no. It's a politically initiated problem that can be tabled until 2013.

The effect of default would be the anti-stimulus and no one wants that.

AM: Congress already has the power of self-control.

Yes they do, but how has that worked out? Recall that Nancy Pelosi on her swearing in as Speaker in 2006 said that her House wouldn't spend additional money without first getting additional revenues, and to great fan-fare Nancy instituted Pay-Go to hold the House's spending accountable. The result in her four years as Speaker: $5 trillion in deficit spending.

Something else needs to be done.

MB: Yesterday, he suggested exactly that to a very uncomfortable Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who nervously assured O'Donnell that the President had, in fact, negotiated in good faith.

That's why you'll never see a vote on Obama's proposal in the Democratic controlled Senate. If Obama was serious about what he had, he'd ask the Senate, with its Democrat majority, to vote and pass it, and he would then challenge the House to do the same. But the Senate and Obama would then be on record for reforming the entitlements, and that would enrage his, and the Democrats, base.

Instead we get this strange play acting from Obama where he "Puts SS and Medicare on the table", but never asks to have a vote on them.

Sorry, Ira-

I can't agree.

These talks broke down in part because of the heat President Obama was taking from Democrats over leaked negotiations of the talks with Speaker Boehner, and his insistence on raising a revenue number by 50% over what Boehner evidently believed had already been settled.

I'm unable to differentiate between the polarized Republicans in the House Tea Party caucus and the polarized House Democrats in the Progressive Caucus.

Both would have bitterly opposed a "grand bargain" between President Obama and Speaker Boehner, just as both groups will bitter oppose the "Gang Of Six proposal if it's put before them.

You know they will, Ira.

It won't just be Republicans.

Then there's the opinion of former Democratic Senate chief-of-staff Larry O'Donnell that President Obama never intended to agree to the deep spending cuts so opposed by his base...and O'Donnell's admiration for the way the President has spun the issue with the press and the public.

Actually, I think O'Donnell's suggestion is too clever by half.

President Obama needed the "grand bargain'...perhaps he was so angry yesterday because he knows he had a "big" deal, but overplayed his hand and watched it slip away.

Great posts from Anna, Joanne, Mixed Bag and Ira! It reveals the two side of this political debate.

I watched Charlie Rose show last night with Paul Krugman and David Brooks among others. Their consensus was the same as Ira's. Vote on raising the debt ceiling either clean or some Senate option to get the house to go along until 2013. Use the election season to hear from the voting public about how to "bend the curve" of the budget defict during the fragile recovery from the recession.

One caution: If the markets decide to stop their waiting game, it could be Sept 2008 all over again. The time is really running out...

JoAnna, try listening to some other news sources besides FOX. If governing were as easy as simply giving the GOP right wing everything they want, when they want it, all the time, then we wouldn't be having this argument. In fact, we wouldn't even be having a government, at least not a democracy. These Tea Party brown shirts would just dictate, and to hell with anybody who disagrees. We've seen how that works before. Have you heard the term "banana republic"? It's where one small cadre demogogues their way into control then proceeds to concentrate all the wealth and power into their own hands. Permanently, if possible. That's exactly what our Founders were trying to prevent. Remember?

Ira Lapin: Assume that Boehner and the President agree on an $800 billion or $1 Trillion in revenue increases and debt reductions along the lines of The Gang of Six or Simpson- Bowles. I don't think that Boehner can get the votes he needs in the House to pass that.

Obama and Reid couldn't get the Democrat votes for it in the Senate either. Obama could ask Reid to write the legislation for his proposal and bring it to a vote. He won't do that, that would expose his proposal as a fraud, even to his own party. It wouldn't get 40 votes.

Mixed Bag..

On this we need to agree to disagree...

In the Senate, there are enough D's and R's willing to accept the fact that they need to both move to the center, compromise and pass the bill...a bill...to assure no default.

No matter what Boehner and the President agree to there is no consensus in the House to get this done. Not the 6 Plan or Bowles-Simpson or any plan.

In the Senate, there is a willingness to move to the center which is clearly absent in the House. The fringe controls the votes and the fringe does not have a D after their name.

It's NOT about money MB and never was. It's about power and who controls the narrative and the TP realizing they need this win to shore up their diminishing support, will do anything to kill this compromise.

Kick the can to 2012 and let the voters decide. After the election and the voters weigh in on this debate....not polls...there will be a deal...be certain of that.

NDFL: Use the election season to hear from the voting public about how to "bend the curve" of the budget defict during the fragile recovery from the recession.

Its no longer about what the voting public thinks, its a problem that needs to be dealt with. The voting public has never said no to getting their benefits based on borrowed money, and I doubt they'll start now. Obama is terrific with his populist message that the rich don't pay their fair share and that he's there to protect the entitlement programs - the trouble is he does so with borrowed money. Things would be much different if Obama had to go the voters and said he'd protect the entitlements, but he'd have to raise their taxes to do so, and that his why he wants that debt ceiling raised until after the 2012 election.

JoAnnaSmith1..

Not so sure JoAnna.

There's a lot more R's in the Senate that would go along with the 6 Plan or at a minimum the McConnell-Reid plan. Never gonna happen in the House.

BTw... Happy Saturday to you and MB, AM,NorthstarDFL and even you Feisty

Ira Lapin: In the Senate, there is a willingness to move to the center which is clearly absent in the House.

Well, then it's time they voted. And rather than having these behind the doors talks, we'll finally see in public where the Democrats stand on the issue.

Not so sure JoAnna.

Ira lapin: There's a lot more R's in the Senate that would go along with the 6 Plan or at a minimum the McConnell-Reid plan. Never gonna happen in the House.

The GOP would force as many the Democrats as they could to vote for it, and defend their vote to their base. Recall that 22 of the Democrats in the Senate are up for re-election next year, and cutting the entitlements will be a tough sell for those Senators.

JoAnnaSmith1..

Vote on what and for what purpose...to be defeated in the House.

Until there's a "bill" in whatever form that comes out of the House...not the Ryan budget...nothing moves.

There needs to be some give in the lower House or nothing changes.

Just an opinion.

Ira-

You can kick the can down the road, but there's real risk there as well.

As the debt continues to rise unabated, the ratings agencies aren't necessarily going to wait until Election Day 2012 to act, nor can we be assured that the worldwide investors in U.S. debt will wait that long, either.

A successful negotiation to raise the debt ceiling ahead of any August default in no way heads off the negative consequences of the cascading debt between now, and November of next year.

Plus, in the meantime, the economy will not enjoy the stimulative jolt that a comprehensive, long-term, bipartisan agreement on the the nation's debt would have provided.

Anyway, Ira...

Have a great weekend as well.

Mixed Bag..

The rating agencies will do nothing knowing that the US can still borrow at 2% and the debt will be addressed and legislation passed in 2013. The 2012 vote will be a mandate on it.

Have a great weekend....

Ira Lapin:Until there's a "bill" in whatever form that comes out of the House...not the Ryan budget...nothing moves

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't ObamaCare pass the Senate first, and was later passed in the House?

Ira Lapin: There needs to be some give in the lower House or nothing changes

And maybe the give comes when the GOP sees that the Democrats are serious about going on the record for what they believe in and for what Obama is talking about. The GOP has made their stand, why should they keep putting their necks on the line until the Senate can pass a bill and show where the Democrats stand?

JoAnna..

We can argue about this all day.

Like with MB ...agree to disagree...my friend.

Great weekend.

Perhaps we can talk later....My grandson is pulling on my leg.

MB: As the debt continues to rise unabated

And that's the true problem and why "kicking the can down the road" is unacceptable. Obama will spend every dime of any debt ceiling increase. If it's $2.5 trillion, he will have spent about $6.5 trillion in deficit spending in 4 years, $1.5 trillion more than Bush did in 8 years. You talk of low interest rates on servicing that debt, but if/when those rates rise, the expense of servicing that debt will be crippling to the country.

Mixed Bag, A bipartisan agreement seems like it can be done in the Senate, but defintely not the House as of Sat afternoon. What is going to change in 2months, 6months in the house? Raising the debt ceiling until after the election will prevent the US from default. This is the risk the markets are looking at in the coming days.

It will take the debt ceiling "hostage crisis" off the table. this crisis was manufactured by the Republicans by linking debt with deficit talks. As Joanna said above it was for leverage. It is the politics of " never say yes" of the House teaparty game plan that is blowing up in their face. Some of them actually believe that defaulting on our debt is a good thing. Unbelievable.

What a weekend! I will get off this thread and enjoy it very soon. Mixed Bay you enjoy it too.

NorthstarDFL..

this crisis was manufactured by the Republicans by linking debt with deficit talks.

Excellent point...the Republicans need to realize that there is a need to separate the 2 as they are entirely different. Not saying that will be happen but it is the only way that the stalemate in the House gets broken.

Great weekend.

An old Cherokee told his grandson, "My son, there's a battle between two wolves inside us all. One is evil. It's anger, greed, resentment, inferiority, lies and ego.The other is good. It's joy, peace, love, hope, humility, kindness, empathy, and truth." The grandson thought about it and asked his grandfather, "Which wolf wins?" The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

Beautifully said - Gingerbread Mamma!

JohannaSmit1 has been exposed as a troll who makes things up. She has no credibility. NONE. ZERO.

Andrew Sullivan:

They are not conservatives in this sense. They are anarchists.

He's right. They ARE anarchists. And that's all we really need to know.

Anna Molly said: but in reality this platitude amounts to nothing more than acknowledging -- and institutionalizing -- that Congress can't -- or won't -- do its job.

I totally disagree with this statement. Why does congress HAVE to always go along with the democrats on everything? The house has sent up 3 different plans. What has the senate done but shoot them down everytime? Who controls the senate? How many more plans does the house have to bring up before liberals acknowledge the house IS doing their job?

My hope is the republicans hold fast to not raising the debt ceiling. The democrats want to raise taxes... how simple is that? Liberals... your democrats in Washington WANT to raise taxes and you are in favor of that? Are you out of your minds? Have you totally lost any semblance of sanity? RAISE TAXES? FOR WHAT? So they can spend it on sending billions overseas to help other countries explore for oil? So they can give it away to undeserving countries and people? You must be insane!

Well, looks like Obama is continuing to destroy the democratic party.

Remember that 7 point advantage democrats had with voters aged 18-29?

Well, there has been an EIGHTEEN point swing. Seems the young voters now favor republicans by 11 points

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2067/2012-electorate-partisan-affiliations-gop-gains-white-voters

And, yes, Pew, the dear souls, decided to focus on race. The fact of the matter is we had a president who was popular with the young, who helped drive his campaign, and got him elected.

His name was Carter, and he was less destructive than this president.

Obama better wake up and smell the coffee. He cannot force his agenda through anymore- thanks to the mid terms. His continual temper tantrums are losing him what support he has left.

67% of people wanted cap cut and balance to pass. Obama does not have a plan, and I can pretty much surmise from the polls that, if he did unveil one, it would have about as much support at HCR and stimulous.

People are sick to death of his failures. If he cannot accept that his plans do not work, and just exacerbate the problem, he should do the country a favor and quit. Tell him to take Biden with him.

nojoe:

Cut cap balance? Even the conservatives know that the balanced budget amendment is a non-starter.

http://74.63.51.110/articles/272154/against-balanced-budget-amendment-rich-lowry

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/214427/balanced-budget-amendment-a-trap-for-fiscal-conservatives

http://conservativesonfire.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/a-balanced-budget-amendment-__-a-bad-idea-and-unconstitutional/

http://realclearconservatives.com/2011/03/30/is-a-balanced-budget-amendment-a-dangerous-gimmick/

So let's stop the political theater about the balanced budget amendment. Not even YOUR guys think it's a good idea.

Amazing how the narsist in chief lies about what the republicans are doing and what he's NOT doing. Here's the video of yesterday's speech as he whines, cries, lies and spins his way into blaming everyone but himself for Boehner walking out of the talks:

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnation.foxnews.com%2Fbudget-battle%2F2011%2F07%2F22%2Fboehner-cuts-president-out-debt-talks-leaving-angry-obama-lashing-out-wildly&h=EAQAiIizQ

Brian:

What's this?

narsist

Did that get through your spell check? Maybe you should look up the big words before you use them in public.

Thanks for posting the video of the speech. It was an awesome event...I hope everyone watches it again.

Most business leaders are convinced that a deal will be made at the very last minute. PIMCO's CEO said the best way to get a deal is to move the deadline to tomorrow.

Northstar & Ira-

Don't forget-

It was President Obama insisting on pushing his "grand bargain" with Speaker Boehner as part of the debt ceiling negotiations.

He could have instead immediately pursued Senator McConnell's proposal...which has the debt ceiling as its primary focus, and has been on the table for awhile.

Now, he'll get the pretty much clean debt ceiling vote (with little or no cuts to spending) that his Treasury Secretary has been demanding since early in the year.

Funny, though...

President Obama doesn't appear to be too happy about that, does he?

Apparently paying for an ever growing and bloated government bureaucracy doesn't burden our seniors, doesn't cause more drastic cuts to education, doesn't cause more drastic cuts to research, and doesn't put a bigger burden on services.

You know, JoAnna, that's kind of what Scott Walker said, too, when he was in the process of fooling the people into thinking that taking everything away from them -- benefits, retirement, and collective bargaining rights -- would somehow save all those public sector jobs. Just stick with me, he said, and we won't have layoffs.

Then, of course, once he got what he wanted there, the other shoe dropped on the extra billion dollars in education cuts that he and his cronies had planned all along. And wouldn't you know it, in the month of June, alone, Wisconsin lost 3,400 public sector jobs -- given the timing, mostly teachers and education workers, no doubt -- while the jobs that WERE added to the economy, supposedly through the Governors Herculean efforts, were mostly low-paying, no-benefit, temporary jobs in the tourist and service industries.

So, that particular scare tactic doesn't really work with me. The President needs to stand firm because no matter what we do, tough times are coming, and maybe even deeper cuts down the line.

I'll take seniors' interests and cancer research over corporate jets any six days of the week and twice on Sundays. That's what I call "humane."

Besides, according to the right, the "bloated government" government that you're talking about IS the seniors, the research, and "services" ... Isn't it? That's what you're already proposing to cut. So, essentially, you're telling people to stab themselves in order to avoid being shot.

And, just like Scott Walker, I have no doubt that the right is fully prepared to take the next step, in any event.

After all, they all study at the same school (ALEC), don't they?

Biwheeler said:

Brian:

What's this?

narsist

Give a gold star to Biwheeler. A typo. WOW! What an amazing find! Are you a second grade school teacher? Do you deflect your way through the meaning of posts by finding typos? Well, I'm so impressed that you made your infantile attempt to prove that I, Brianb am actually human and can make mistakes. You must be really proud of yourself! I do actually know how to spell narsisist...

Now tell me how any of what you commented on changes the meaning of my post. Let's get indepth and discuss the issue and not the typos... eh?

For the record it's narcissist. But no matter how you spell it... Obama is one!

Mixed Bag...

Curious, why would you have him pursue a Parliamentary procedure of last resort when there was time to negotiate? There's always the 14th Amendment remedy or powers specifically delegated to the POTUS under the Emergency Powers Act. You're saying that we should allow a default and make it worse by adding a Constitutional crisis as to whether the President can act under the provisions of the laws I specified. Negotiation is by far a better option. Given there was a small window last week, what would be wrong with the "two-fer" approach. Avoid the second debate on debt reduction, go with a Gang of Six or Simpson Bowles like approach and kill 2 birds with one stone.

That window has closed for a variety of reasons and BOTH sides share some blame...you know that Mixed.

What's left except to separate the debt ceiling debate from the the debt debate and get it off the e table so the country can move on.

I used the term anti-stimulus in a previous post. Default is the ultimate anti-stimulus as the consequences of default could literally bring down our economy. That's not being too dramatic either.

Settle the deficit and kick the can down the road until the 2012 elections and let the American people decide which road to take. There is no point arguing who is at fault at this point as the game of chicken is over and the economic health of our country rides in the balance.

Mixed Bag..

As a BTW...

Even with $15 trillion in debt, the US has no problem borrowing money at 2.36% (as of 7/22). The global economy, at least for now, has full faith in the ability of the US to pay its debts.

The markets,,,Dow and Bond markets are not panicked about the $15 trillion debt as they have rebounded nicely in the last 2 years.

Default and watch for a steep and immediate decline.

AM: You know, JoAnna, that's kind of what Scott Walker said, too, when he was in the process of fooling the people into thinking that taking everything away from them -- benefits, retirement, and collective bargaining rights -- would somehow save all those public sector jobs. Just stick with me, he said, and we won't have layoffs

I was unaware that Scott Walker had taken "everything away from them -- benefits, retirement, and their collective bargaining right". I thought that public employees were being asked to pick up a little more for paying for their benefits and their pensions, and that they still had collective bargaining rights for their pay. In fact, I believe that the public employees are still paying less for their pensions and benefits than the private sector is paying."

AM: Wisconsin lost 3,400 public sector jobs

Wisconsin looks to be lining up it's state employee numbers with what they can afford. Other factors include the fact that the federal stimulus money has run out. That money had inflated the ability of states to push layoffs off for a couple of years.

AM: I'll take seniors' interests and cancer research over corporate jets any six days of the week and twice on Sundays. That's what I call "humane."

Certainly taxes can be raised on corporate jets (really the entire private GA market). That will bring in $300 million a year of federal revenue. That won't go too far to pay for the seniors and such. But it is a solid class-warfare, populist, and poll tested talking point that can be used by the liberals.

AM: The President needs to stand firm

Can you tell us what exactly he's standing firm on? He and the Democrats have yet to put a plan to paper that can be discussed by both houses of Congress and scored by the CBO. That doesn't sound too firm to most people. What Obama is standing firm on (at least today) is he wants about a $2.5 trillion raise in the debt ceiling, just so he can spend that much before the 2012 elections. Lets guess how much of that money will be going to many of the swing states.

AM: while the jobs that WERE added to the economy, supposedly through the Governors Herculean efforts, were mostly low-paying, no-benefit, temporary jobs in the tourist and service industries.

It's better than losing jobs though, like Illinois, correct? At least it's a start.

AM: Besides, according to the right, the "bloated government" government that you're talking about IS the seniors, the research, and "services" ... Isn't it? That's what you're already proposing to cut. So, essentially, you're telling people to stab themselves in order to avoid being shot.

Obama and the Democrats have always been free to propose their balanced budget plans, plans that can support all the programs their hearts desire. They have yet to do so, instead having the GOP produce plan after plan, and legislation after legislation, that the Democrats can be critical of, while again not coming up their plans. If the Democrats want to eliminate the deficit with a 100% increase in taxes, lets see the legislation, and lets see how the House and Senate vote on it. But we haven't seen that proposal "on the table" quite yet.

Great post, JoAnna. But just for clarification purposes, a few questions:

First, are you saying that you don't consider a 10 percent cut in gross pay, which is -- at a minimum -- what Walker's changes REALLY amount to for Wisconsin public sector workers -- to be "taking anything away from them"?

And then, tell me the last time your boss came to you and told you that you were going to have to take a 10 percent pay cut, and what your own reaction was to that. Not fair?

And then, tell me what you think about Walker promising all those public workers -- and the public in general -- that if they only caved in to what he was asking for, he could save all those jobs.

And then, tell me whether you agree that taking away a puny $300 million in corporate jet tax breaks isn't really "taking anything away" from anyone, either? I mean, heck, that's not even an individual hit, like a cut in Social Security benefits would be. And it's all part of the same shared sacrifice, right?

And then tell me whether you are conceding that the federal stimulus money actually did save a bunch of jobs in Wisconsin, and by extension, elsewhere as well. Because, I seem to recall a lot of right wing bloggers out here saying that if it didn't actually create jobs you could count, then it didn't do anything at all. Which one is it?

And then tell me whether you believe that a part-time, temporary, minimum wage job with no benefits, that will end in September or shortly thereafter (according to Walker himself) can actually be counted as "job creation" in a tourist state. And then comment on whether you believe that hot weather has any effect on the tourist trade and may be at least partly responsible for the uptick in seasonal hiring -- which came pretty late -- this year over last year, which was unseasonably cool. As an avowed Packer fan, I'm guessing you may even know something about this.

And then tell me whether you think you can really extrapolate long-term job creation success based on one good month, where the number of jobs created in May was only 900. By the way, and FYI, according to one article I read, even assuming that we continue at the job creation average for the first 6 months of 2011 for the rest of the governor's term, which is certainly not assured, we fall something like 65,000 jobs short of his 250,000 goal. And apparently, a lot of them will be dirt jobs.

But, hey, any old job is better than no job, right?

And then tell me whether you are really opposed, as you seem to be saying, to government helping those people who are struggling most in this recession, and who will not be able to board a corporate jet to get away from it all when the shooting stops. You know ... the ones who will have to go back to their lives and make do with less. Corporate executives will not, of course, have to do with less, at least from everything that I can see so far. Their lives just go on as before, except maybe they'll have to cut some workers' benefits to make up for the loss of the tax break for that corporate jet. Do you consider this to be humane?

And then tell me whether you believe that any old plan is better than no plan at all, or whether Republicans also have to get serious and agree to make some concessions from their side before the President has any real duty to negotiate with them. Because I call what you are suggesting to be "negotiating against yourself."

And finally, tell me whether you really think it's fair to say that only the GOP has produced a plan, when we do have Simpson Bowles and the Gang of 6, and heaven only knows how many other plans that have been put on the table and rejected outright by the Republicans. Because please tell me that you don't have a crystal ball or anything by which you can see what is ACTUALLY going on in those discussions.

Then again, you ARE the one person out here who seems to think you have one of those.

And thank you for your time. It's always a pleasure.

Oh, and two more quick questions, JoAnna, I do hope you don't mind.

If you really believe that the stimulus did save those public sector jobs in Wisconsin (and elsewhere?), at least temporarily, then would it be fair to say that, without the stimulus, unemployment, which rose 2.3 percent during the last year of the Bush administration -- i.e. before the stimulus was adopted -- would ultimately have gone even higher than it has?

And by extension, could it then be said that the stimulus actually DID stop us from going into a deeper recession, or even a depression, even though the stimulus may not have created as many new jobs as we might have liked it to?

Thank you.

Anna Molly...

I don't know much about this stuff but that was one hell of a closing argument.

JS1...your rebuttal.

I can certainly address the pay cut issue-

Many employees of private sector firms have taken pay cuts since the end of 2008. From hourly workers who have had their hours cut, to managers who have had performance bonuses cut or eliminated, pay cuts have been the norm in them private sector.

Moreover, the additional monies contributed by workers in the private sector for pensions and healthcare coverage go back at least 15 years. Once upon a time, there were defined benefit pension plans in the private sector- which companies provided. They have given way to 401k plans, to which companies may, or may not, provide a matching amount.

So, there is a "pay cut", if you will.

Public sector workers are not contribute g anywhere near the percentage towed their own retirement plans, and heaven knows, they are far richer plans than those of the private sector worker.

Private sector workers have been, and will continue, to contribute far more to their own healthcare coverage than do public sector workers- for far less generous coverage.

So, there is another cut the private sector worker takes.

All of this is to say nothing about the millions who have taken the ultimate cut- the total one of losing their jobs. If then labor force had the same number of people today as when Obama took office, unemployment would be 12%. Try telling them how unfair it is for teachers to contribute more for their healthcare insurance and pensions. They'd laugh, if they had laughs left in them.

After all, it is their tax money providing all these bennies.

Why, thank you, Ira. I take that as a VERY high compliment.

Hope you are having a wonderful weekend.

After all, it is their tax money providing all these bennies.

And in exchange for which no work is performed, I suppose. Seriously.

Don't even start.

But really seriously, no joe, do you want to start talking about the policy failures of the past 30 years -- you know the years since Ronald Reagan began the rush to tear everything down. With the decline in pay and benefits has come the decline in private sector unions. Do you really believe there is no correlation between those two things?

Where is all the wealth that workers were promised if only they would just vote against joining the unions?

Where IS it, no joe?

And what happened to all the jobs, no joe?

Brian:

Here's the deal, Brian. Name calling is pretty much the last resort of those who can't argue the facts. You get to the name calling insults in the very first clause of your post.

That's pretty lame. But you didn't even get the insult right. WOW. But don't blame it on a "typo." Typos are usually a result of dropped or inverted letters in spelling. Your spelling was NOT EVEN CLOSE. Typos happen. This was a result of you using a word you are totally unfamiliar with. You spelled it phonetically. Not a typo.

Now here's the point. If you're going insult someone, you should at least be able to spell the necessary language. If you don't, or can't, why should anyone pay any attention to anything else you write?

Bottom line: Sloppy writing is usually a symptom of sloppy thinking.

Class dismissed. Oh. And thanks for the Gold Star!

Anna,

About the corporate jet deflection and demogugery, do you realize the $300 million covers less than 87 MINUTES OF Obama's borrowing?

OBAMA IS LITERALY BORROWING MORE MONEY IN AN HOUR AND A HALF! And he dwells on this as the problem........ and imbeciles actually fall for it?

What is also amazing that you seem to be unaware that this was originally part of HIS STIMULUS. Was Obama's stimulus to enrich the evil fat cats? Or was it prehaps to save private-sector jobs like he bragged about when visiting Alcoa (aluminum for the airplanes)?

I know ....... what was Obama thinking, huh? (What is crazy is that when he accidently gets one right then turns around a craps on it.)

But the point is, who gets hurt by cutting this accelerated depreciation out? The fat cats that have to fly the 8 year old Gulfstream/Citation/King Air/whatever another a year or two or until we get a president with a clue ....... or the guys who lose their jobs when sales orders are cut?

Regarding the stimulus saving government jobs, merely just postpones the inevitable ...... private-sector is the goose that lays the eggs to pay for the government. Until idiots like Obama figure that out, we are stuck where we are...... 9% unemployment year after year......so you tell me...... how is 9% different from 9% after spending a trillion ...... still 9% right.

What has Obama accomplished other than crippling private-sector business and threatening our credit rating?

So now with no joe, you have moved from blaming Bush to blaming Reagan? Too funny.

Want to compare Reagan's recovery to Obama's.

Surely you are not that stupid.

But, Ira-

The world can decide at any moment to change its mind about the soundness of U.S. debt. They cannot be reassured by what they see. How do you think the Chinese view our leadership in terms of the economic decisions we've made? I heard Fareed Zakaria say that the Chinese find what they regard as our "arrogance" all the more infuriating given the position we've put ourselves in.

And, the figures you cite are only good until investors worldwide change their minds, aren't they?

Who is paying $1600/oz for gold, and why?

What will be the likely outcome of relying on borrowing for more than 40 cents of every dollar you spend, and being unable to meet obligations otherwise?

The consequences have already arrived.

We have lost control of our own future with this level of borrowing and debt.

Others can now control, or at least seriously impact, our fate.

I suspect that's why Joint Chiefs' Chairman Admiral Mullen declared more than a year ago that the national debt is now our number one national security threat, Ira.

I don't know about you, but I believe him.

No Jo:

A great deal of your argument, and others, seems to be predicated on the corollary that,

"Well private sector, non-Union benefits are x-y-z, so therefore yours ought to be like that too."

Really? Why?

I thought under the glory of the tenets of the republican manifesto it made total sense to get whatever you can in the "free market". If you have $25 / hour and the other guy makes $15 / hour,.....then so what.

You got what you have and the other guy,...well,....if (s)he wants that too then they are completely free to follow your blueprint to success and do likewise. Nothing is stopping them.

Screw what the "market" will bear. Get whatever your negotiating skills / agent / Union or your talents can get for you. If your acumen and assets cannot command that kind of compensation, then improve your skill set until they can. If your Union negotiates this compensation on your behalf, then they are merely earning the dues you tender them monthly. Darwinian mechanics are in play here, which is why so much ALEC-supported legislation features the extermination of Unions as bargaining agents.

Public employees earn what they do because they have deliberately positioned themselves into that compensation scheme or track, and that, as any republican can tell you,.....is quite simply SMART BUSINESS.

AM: First, are you saying that you don't consider a 10 percent cut in gross pay, which is -- at a minimum -- what Walker's changes REALLY amount to for Wisconsin public sector workers -- to be "taking anything away from them"?

You said Walker "took everything away from them". 10% isn't everything. In fact, it's their fair-share.

AM: And then, tell me the last time your boss came to you and told you that you were going to have to take a 10 percent pay cut, and what your own reaction was to that. Not fair?

If it was either take the cut, or you'd lose your job, you have been put into the position of choosing, so you do the right thing for yourself. "Fair" means many different things to very many people.

AM: And then, tell me what you think about Walker promising all those public workers -- and the public in general -- that if they only caved in to what he was asking for, he could save all those jobs.

Well I guess Walker won't get their vote next time around then, not that he was anyway.

How many "then tell me's" are there left? 9 total! Wow!

Look, Obama and the Democrats want to keep spending money we don't have, trying to create jobs that they can't produce. Doing so has flat out failed. Walker is starting to see the Green Shoots for jobs in Wisconsin, jobs that may not be the best today, but will probably improve tomorrow. It's better than losing jobs, correct?

AM: And finally, tell me whether you really think it's fair to say that only the GOP has produced a plan, when we do have Simpson Bowles and the Gang of 6, and heaven only knows how many other plans that have been put on the table and rejected outright by the Republicans.

The GOP is the only party that has put plans together, voted on them in the full House, and passed that legislation, only to have them sucked into the black hole of the Senate, the Democratic led Senate, where they are never heard from again. Some small groups of people, both Dems and GOP have gotten together in the Senate, and come up with a "plan" of sorts, but it's never been made into legislation where the entire Senate debates, amends, and votes it through. None. Hasn't happened in 800+ days. It's not a plan until it's voted through AM.

bilweeler: Here's the deal, Brian. Name calling is pretty much the last resort of those who can't argue the facts. You get to the name calling insults in the very first clause of your post.

You mean like this?

bilweeler: JohannaSmit1 has been exposed as a troll who makes things up. She has no credibility. NONE. ZERO.

Is that the kind of name calling you're referring to bw? Looking at your posts, that's your first, last, and only resort.

bilweeler: That's pretty lame.

It sure is. Your grade is 'F'.

bilweeler: why should anyone pay any attention to anything else you write?

Good point. Bye-bye bilweeler.

PS, how's my spelling?

Bob:

About the corporate jet deflection and demogugery, do you realize the $300 million covers less than 87 MINUTES OF Obama's borrowing?

Sigh. Yes, Bob. I hear this silly argument all the time. If it's nothing, then why are conservatives going so far to defend it?

Well, I can figure out why Republicans in Congress might defend it. But why do YOU?

Was Obama's stimulus to enrich the evil fat cats? Or was it prehaps to save private-sector jobs like he bragged about when visiting Alcoa (aluminum for the airplanes)?

I never said it was perfect, Bob, and I don't defend Obama for that. I would have done it totally differently, with much more emphasis on jobs and less on corporate fat cats. That part of the emphasis doesn't seem to have worked, does it?

So at least that far we apparently we agree.

Want to compare Reagan's recovery to Obama's.

Surely you are not that stupid.

Definitely not. But if I was, I might remind you that Reagan's recession (which began in 1981 or 1982) was not nearly so deep as the Bush recession, and we haven't seen Obama's full recovery yet, Bob. So why don't we just defer on that, and take it up again when it is complete.

Or are you talking about CLINTON'S recovery from the second recession that was caused by Reagan's S&L bailout and ultimately brought down George H.W. Bush? "It's the economy, Stupid." You mean THAT one?

Sure. We can talk about that one.

Mixed Bag:

I suspect that's why Joint Chiefs' Chairman Admiral Mullen declared more than a year ago that the national debt is now our number one national security threat, Ira.

I don't know about you, but I believe him.

Mullen is no longer Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is he?

Coincidence?

Who is paying $1600/oz for gold, and why?

Hopefully, only those who can sustain the losses when it falls again. It always falls again.

Want to compare Reagan's recovery to Obama's.

Surely you are not that stupid.

Did Reagan have to deal with two unfunded wars? Did Reagan have the previous administration tank Medicare with unfunded scripts? Was Reagan fighting Al Queda? Was Reagan's business community sending every job they could over to China, Mexico and India? Did Reagan deal with a near-Depression?

Did Reagan have to deal with a recalcitrant Congress that bucked every piece of legislation he favored, ...even when that legislation was the other party's legislation re-introduced by himself?

Did Reagan have to combat a 24/7 news cycle on the internet? Was a "Tea Party" around in Reagan's day?

Lets candidly compare apples to apples shall we? It is not even remotely a fair comparison.

Bob:

About the corporate jet deflection and demogugery, do you realize the $300 million covers less than 87 MINUTES OF Obama's borrowing?

AM: Sigh. Yes, Bob. I hear this silly argument all the time. If it's nothing, then why are conservatives going so far to defend it?

Well, I can figure out why Republicans in Congress might defend it. But why do YOU?

You do know who the original defender of the depreciation tax code was, don't you AM? It went in under the 2009 Recovery and Reinvestment Act, i.e., the ObamaStimulus plan. The bill that got 0 GOPers to vote for it in the House and 3 GOPers (one later switched to be a Dem) in the Senate. Obama was more than happy to sign it.

The Democrats are the ones defending this tax break to the wealthy AM.

AM: Well, I can figure out why Republicans in Congress might defend it. But why do YOU?

Again, it's the Democrats that not only defended the tax break to the rich, they voted it into law. So Obama's beef appears to be with those Democrats, and himself, seeing he signed it into law. Maybe he should have read it first?

Mixed Bag

First, you know I'm for the Gang of Six Plan or a Simpson-Bowles like plan and therefore am in favor of debt reduction. I know that 42 cents out of every dollar goes to paying the interest on the debt. Fully aware of it and determined to do something about it

Default, however, is NOT one of the options I choose. To use the word catastrophic would be an understatement.

The global financial services world is not panicked by our debt because it knows we've never defaulted on it. What panics them is the prospect of default and the actions and words of the GOP only stirs the fears of our creditors.

Our arrogance is the result of our never seriously addressing our ever rising debt and our continued borrowing. We're correcting that now....better late than never I suppose. That has nothing to do with the debt ceiling....they are two separate issues that should not be linked.

You can raise the ceiling and keep the economy and the credit of the US intact and then address the debt via the 6 Plan or Bowles-Simpson or any other plan that takes the debt down. I've read or heard....could be Krugman...that both US and foreign economists would love to see our debt decline about $4 trillion over the next 10 years. That's almost the exact amount that all the serious debt reduction plans are suggesting. Taking the debt down to $10 trillion would satisfy the global market and by extension our creditors. It's certainly a very good start.

We're on the same page I think except for the fact that I don't see the need to link debt ceiling and debt talks. Mixed, I know you don't want to see a default...no one does. So why the unwillingness to separate debt from the debt ceiling. Are you willing to live with the consequences?

@ GOPisExtinct:

No, Reagan didn't have to deal with any of those things, and thank you so much for reminding me.

Reagan made his own recessions.

@ JoAnna:

Why do we never get past this? I'm not defending democrats who do stupid things. But at least Obama was smart enough to figure out that tax credits for corporate jets need to go.

Why can't Republicans see it? Are you saying they're not as smart, or are you saying they're just intransigent? Because I already knew that.

Have a wonderful evening. :-)

....and before I say goodnight.

The corporate jet revision is not a tax credit, it is a change in the method of depreciation.

Currently, using an accelerated method to depreciate the asset over its useful life, depreciation expense is higher and therefore taxable revenues are reduced. By changing the method to a straight line method over the useful life, depreciation expense is lower and taxable revenues increase. We're talking about a timing difference in recognition of depreciation expense, that's all this is. At the end of its useful life the same amount of depreciation would have been taken.

Now...Have a great evening.

Sigh. Yes, Bob. I hear this silly argument all the time. If it's nothing, then why are conservatives going so far to defend it?

Huh? It is Obama that brings up the silly fat cat corporate jet stuff every time someone turns on a camera. Refute something I said - how irrelevent it is to the big problem of Obama borrowing $58,000.00 every second.

Well, I can figure out why Republicans in Congress might defend it. But why do YOU?

It is an absurd argument by Obama and you. Did you not even read my comments?

I would have done it totally differently, with much more emphasis on jobs and less on corporate fat cats.

Fat cats like Jeff at GE, the guys at all the big banks, the guys on Wall Street, the union fat cats .... all of his cronies, all the guys paying $35,000.00 a plate at his fundraisers ........ yea Obama took care of them - not the small/medium business, the guys who create the jobs......and yea, you are right - he should have put emphasis where the jobs are actually created instead of the unions, government, big banking and big business.

that Reagan's recession (which began in 1981 or 1982) was not nearly so deep as the Bush recession, and we haven't seen Obama's full recovery yet, Bob.

You are not aware the recession was over in June 2009, that we have been in a recovery since 6 months into the Obama administration?

Unemployment is kinda important, right? Reagan had to deal with 10.8% - isn't that "deeeper" than Obama's 10.1%? And btw at this stage of the recovery, Reagan had dropped it to 7%. Poor Obama is still creeping up from 9% month after month - going the wrong way. That is about what ... 4 times the performance of Obama. Pick any indicator ....... they all point to the same thing at the same point in the recovery.

So why don't we just defer on that, and take it up again when it is complete.

You don't want to talk about it until we get a new president?

I completely understand.

Well, then, whatever else happens here, that's all the more reason why the method of depreciation needs to be changed back to what it was before.

And all the more mystery as to why the right wants to fight about this little thing.

Thank you for the clarification.

And you have a beautiful evening, too, Ira.

The President stated, "Or we can issue insults and demands and ultimatums at each another, withdraw to our partisan corners and achieve nothing." The President intends to withdraw to his partison corner apparently, refusing demands by the House.

New House Republicans intend to vote on the platform that elected them. The Upheaval in the House happened due to rejection by the public to the first 2 years of President Obama's first term in office by voters in about 100 congressional districts across the country.

Millions of voters can hardly wait to vote in 2012. These are exciting times. So, impasse and no bill.
Some responders think all Republicans will be voted out. Respectfully I believe those responders will be let down equally in 2012 as they were in 2010.

President Obama is in denial of the 'will or the people'. Or, he thinks he knows better than them.

Why did this Democratic President sign into force the December 2010 "Obama Tax Cuts for the Rich" bill? If he had not done this he would have a couple of hundred billion extra bucks in his pocket, not nearly as broke as he is now.

Oh, and two more quick questions, JoAnna, I do hope you don't mind.

Not at all.

If you really believe that the stimulus did save those public sector jobs in Wisconsin (and elsewhere?), at least temporarily, then would it be fair to say that, without the stimulus, unemployment, which rose 2.3 percent during the last year of the Bush administration -- i.e. before the stimulus was adopted -- would ultimately have gone even higher than it has?

There is no doubt that pumping money into a job system will help it sustain its jobs. Two things though, 1) the money pumped in was supposed to stimulate job creation, and it didn't. And 2), the money has now been borrowed, spent, and now it's owed back to our lenders - with interest. Not a good position to be in.

AM: And by extension, could it then be said that the stimulus actually DID stop us from going into a deeper recession, or even a depression, even though the stimulus may not have created as many new jobs as we might have liked it to?

It kicked the can down the road, just like we're trying to do with debt problem today. In summary, we spent a lot of borrowed money, the money was supposed create a set of jobs, and those jobs where to stimulate the creation of other jobs, and so on and so forth. Today we no longer have the jobs, or the money that was used to stimulate those jobs. And we still owe our lenders the money, with interest, all the while unemployment continues to increase. A lose-lose-lose-lose situation for us.

And it's because of all that it was determined the stimulus plan was a failure.

GOPext,

Did Reagan have to deal with two unfunded wars?

The cost of those 2 wars $760 billion over 8 years - Obama is spending more than twice that this year alone. Poor deflection.

Was Reagan fighting Al Queda?

Actually he was taking the USSR down, thanks for the laugh though.

Was Reagan's business community sending every job they could over to China, Mexico and India?

Actually he lowered taxes on the margins from 70% to 28%, lightened up regulations, created a good business environment ......... so no ........ they weren't moving away like they are under Obama.

Did Reagan deal with a near-Depression?

You don't realize the recession was over in June of 2009 - well before anything Obama tried to do had any effect. (Not very good at this are you?)

Did Reagan have to deal with a recalcitrant Congress that bucked every piece of legislation he favored,

Obama had complete control for 2 years, both the House and Senate - Reagan never did have that. For 6 years he had the House, never had the Senate ........ so to answer to question ..... Reagan managed a worse/more adverse situation. Obama has managed nothing.

Did Reagan have to combat a 24/7 news cycle on the internet?

Reagan didn't have the internet, or Fox - he had nothing but the liberal main stream media 24/7 to oppose him ....... but again a much tougher situation ....... and again he managed it much better.

Was a "Tea Party" around in Reagan's day?

The Tea Party was created by Obama ....... it was a natural re-action to his radical socialistic agenda

Obama can't handle a little grass roots organization with no real leadership?

And that's your excuse?

Are Progressives really this silly when attempting to understand simple logic?

CA Tom, no wonder you probably continue to vote in the clowns in each of our CA state elections. Like those Spending Party folks Tom?

POTUS can't seem to understand what to do to end this impass. Show some leadership Barry!

Why isn't the President compromising over this situation? The GOP is.

Actually he was taking the USSR down, thanks for the laugh though.

Weren't you the one who was pushing this premise a couple weeks ago when it was so universally debunked on these boards?

Actually he lowered taxes on the margins from 70% to 28%, yada, yada, yada.....

Nobody is disputing Reagan was good to the wealthy and business. You ducked the question. Look at middle class wage growth since Reagan. Contrast that with CEO compensation? Question: What's in it for you? http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026/

Obama had complete control for 2 years,

Tell it to the Blue Dog Democrats. Tell it to record fillibusters. http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02/republican-obstruction-at-work-record-number-of-filibusters/

Reagan didn't have the internet, or Fox

Funny. I didn't mention Fox. I wonder why you did? Subliminal?

The Tea Party was created by Obama

Really? Coulda' fooled all the people with Tea bags stapled to their heads. The Tea Party was created by the republicans to camouflage their damaged brand in 2006 - 2007. Anything with an "R" next to its name had a rough time getting elected in 2006. Remember? That is why Dems have the White House and the Senate majority today. America didn't like the deficits repubs ran up during the Bush years. The repubs were not acting according to script, so America canned em'. Republicanism was a damaged brand. They had to introduce something that was effectively republican, but,......not. Enter the Tea Party.

Hope this clears these matters up for ya' kid.

Actually, Ira...

I have no problem with separating a long-term solution to the debt crisis from the immediate need to raise the debt ceiling.

I'm not certain how you got that impression.

I am relatively sure that raising the debt ceiling, now that it's a stand-alone issue, will be accomplished in a matter of days.

President Obama appears to have been interested in doing both in the talks with Speaker Boehner, but it no longer looks like that's going to happen, and any agreement-in-principle on addressing long-term debt (had they actually reached one) would still have taken weeks or months to finalize and bring to a vote in Congress.

Looks like the long-term deal (if it happens) will be crafted by the "Gang Of Six", or by Speaker Boehner and Majority leader Reid.

Reagan made his own recessions.

I think he might have had a hand in making ours too Anna! Nice posts this week. You rock.

That's all you got GOPisexinct - this recession is from Reagan?The guy is who is long dead and buried?

I've been to his library, he is in the ground. No respect? Shameless.

It's like saying the current tax rates where imposed by Bush. Simple fallacy.

Obama is in charge. He is responsible. No one else. The buck stops with the president,he is the leader of the free world, on one else.

For some, that means nothing. For others it means everything.

this recession is from Reagan?

He set the pattern. Remember? Deficits don't matter? Deregulate businesses like the mortgage industry? Deficit, deficit, deficit. Stop credit card interest tax deductions. Change the tax rates around and stick the middle class with a 35% rate and business with a 25%. Raised taxes 11 times including history's largest tax increase in March 1983.

It'll do for a start.

GOPisextinct;

Hope this clears these matters up for ya' kid.

I don't know about him, but you always clear it up for me. Thanks for the kind words. And right back to you.

Mixed Bag:

Looks like the long-term deal (if it happens) will be crafted by the "Gang Of Six", or by Speaker Boehner and Majority leader Reid.

Maybe. Or, they'll just take this opportunity to kick it down the road again.

Good night, you guys. Sweet dreams.

Let's see, where to start . . .

The corporate jet tax advantage actually came about on April 3rd, 1985 when Republican Senator Robert Packwood introduced a 'simple bill' that reversed a law that required people who took a company car home to keep a daily log detailing their usage of that car. These logs made it possible to determine how much personal usage was made of these cars so that use could be valued and reported as income to the IRS. It proposed that a daily value for personal use could be more easily assigned and tracked.

So far, no problem.

However, in the committee report, which is used to craft regulations based on the bill passed, there was a provision that directed the IRS to stop valuing personal use of corporate jets by executives at the rates companies paid to charter planes and to instead apply the much lower value of first-class fare.

However, there is much more to this story that is too long to document here. You will find a great description in David Cay Johnston's book "Perfectly Legal" where I got much of the above verbiage. Bottom line, every time an executive flys coast -to-coast on a corporate jet, it costs taxpayers over $3,000 in lost tax revenue and the executive only pays about $260 for the trip.

So, JAS1, it is not the Democrats who caused this.

Next . . .

From 1970 to 2000, the average rise in compensation (adjusted for inflation, etc.) for all income earners was $0.05/hr over the entire 30 years. Over the same 30 years, the average rise in compensation for the top 1% of those same income earners was $646.00/hour . . . every single year.

It's obvious that we shouldn't ask those poor people in the top 1% of income earners to sacrifice anything to help this country, we need to make sure the other 99% bear all of the burden. After all, the bottom 99% get the equivalent of a whole nickle more an hour than they did in 1970, they can afford it more than the upper 1% who only got the equivalent of $19,380.00 per hour more than in 1970.

Weren't you the one who was pushing this premise a couple weeks ago when it was so universally debunked on these boards?

Nope, you are wrong again.

Go for it if you want, but first why don't you try to defend your statement in the context of the utterly absurd question you asked.

Nobody is disputing Reagan was good to the wealthy and business.

That was my point, Reagan was good for business. A lot of people had jobs, had opportunity, had hope, everyone prospered and quite a few succeeded in becoming wealthy. That's America, that's why this was the great nation that everyone wanted to come to - not the growing hopelessness of Obama's dystopia and shared misery.

You ducked the question. Look at middle class wage growth since Reagan. Contrast that with CEO compensation?

No I didn't. You were talking about "companies sending every job they could over to China, Mexico and India." I stated what Reagan did to make a better business environment, an environment where they would stay home, invest in America and grow the economy.

Pretty pathetic when Obama's America is less friendly to American business than communist China, huh?

Regardless I didn't duck your question and now you try to change the question to middle class job growth compared to CEO compensation. You can't argue your own points, you change the question and accuse me of ducking. Like I said earlier, you aren't very good at this are you?

Question: What's in it for you?

The chance of a better future, freedom, opportunity, etc. for my kids - not a broke, big government socialistic state of shared misery led by two-bit politicians who threatens, will hold them, grandmas and everyone else hostage whenever he doesn't get his way.

Congress already has the power of self-control. All they have to do is use it.

___________________________________

THANKS AM!!!!

It always good to start the day off with a good laugh.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My point, exactly, Joe, and good morning to you, too.

Why does anyone think a balanced budget amendment will change anything except that, from that point on, the budget won't be 95 percent of what goes on in Washington -- it will be 110 percent.

Shared vision? Not in this life.

Matthew, Thanks for the historical context. That is one of the benefits of being on this politcal blog, the real knowledge and experience of many of its posters. Plus, I have always been a sucker for the footnotes while reading any good book. I once had a professor who said," Footnotes are where the history of any debate are found. To be a scholar, one needs to understand the footnotes."

Matthew, Houston, Texas However, in the committee report, which is used to craft regulations based on the bill passed, there was a provision that directed the IRS to stop valuing personal use of corporate jets by executives at the rates companies paid to charter planes and to instead apply the much lower value of first-class fare.

However, there is much more to this story that is too long to document here. You will find a great description in David Cay Johnston's book "Perfectly Legal" where I got much of the above verbiage. Bottom line, every time an executive flys coast -to-coast on a corporate jet, it costs taxpayers over $3,000 in lost tax revenue and the executive only pays about $260 for the trip.

This has has nothing to do with what value is charged to transport anyone on these planes. What Obama is discussing is the depreciation schedules for these planes. And it wasn't just "corporate jets" that are taking advantage of all Obama's depreciation schedules from the 2009 Recovery and Reinvestment Act, it's all of General Aviation, all the way from the business jets to Cessna 152's.

Source: http://www.aviationtaxconsultants.com/pdfs/2009%20Economic%20Stimulus%20Legislation.pdf

So, Matthew, it is the Democrats who caused this.

Concluding, it is the expense of the jets/planes purchased by the end user, and how they depreciate the cost of those planes, are what Obama is complaining about today. And this is the provision Obama is talking about during all his press conference stump speeches, the very provision he enacted in is 2009 Recovery and Reinvestment legislation. This has nothing to do to what people are charged to ride on those planes.

Another article that describes this well is here:

http://www.depreciationguru.com/2009/10/bonus-depreciation-in-wichita-kansas-help-for-the-aviation-sector/

One other article that directly relates that Obama is speaking to his own provisions in his 2009 Stimulus Reinvestment and Recovery Act, and to the depreciation schedules for businesses running those type of planes:

http://www.paperlesscockpit.com/2011/06/obama-says-you%E2%80%99ll-still-be-able-to-ride-on-your-corporate-jet-you%E2%80%99re-just-going-to-have-to-pay-a-little-more/

The main quote:

The tax incentives on the chopping block include “bonus depreciation”, which was introduced with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and renewed under the Small Business Jobs Act when signed into law by President Obama on September 27, 2010. Under bonus depreciation, new general aviation aircraft and major components (like engines and avionics) could be depreciated at an accelerated rate, significantly reducing the tax burden in the first year of ownership and reducing the overall tax burden over the life of the aircraft or component.

#1.79 - Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:01 AM CDT

OMG!

This is positively the most HONEST thing you ever posted NJNB!

Keep them coming - there might be hope for you yet... lol

BRAVO!

Now this is why I continue to come to FR. I want to thank MB, Ira, AM, nojo, joe, JAS1,GOPX, oh hell everyone above. A little snark, but not enough to cloud your debate.

Its so much easier to understand both sides when you leave out the unnecessary attacks.

Thank you.

Good Sunday Morning to you Feisty

Your post is so true.

That was my point, Reagan was good for business.

But not for people,.......my point.

Regardless I didn't duck your question and now you try to change the question to middle class job growth

No. No. No. Go back and read your own entry. I was talking about middle class WAGE growth. Anybody can generate a job, but what does the job pay? A LIVING wage, or $7.50/hr like in Texas?

I stated what Reagan did to make a better business environment, an environment where they would stay home, invest in America and grow the economy.

Yup. And all Americans would have to do to compete with foreign workers is to accept 18 cents / hour, with no Unions and no benefits and the jobs will stay here. Good point,....you first.

The chance of a better future, freedom, opportunity, etc. for my kids - not a broke, big government socialistic state of shared misery

Yes. Your kids will wake up and stand on their dirt floor of their cardboard box home, and go to their factory job making that 18 cents an hour while drinking polluted water. Socialist Republicans will privatize corporate profits while they Socialize the risks (i.e.- Wall Street bailouts). Socialist Republicans will take annual Socialist government subsidies for the pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and other republican campaign contributors.

Presto!!

Republican Nirvana!!

C'mon back when you're ready for another fanny whoopin' Booby####'s.

Happy Sunday morn to my gracious lady friends Feisty, Anna Molly and Northstar and even you Theotas!

What a lovely day it is shaping up to be here in the Motor City. I hope all is well in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Chicago where the hearts of true Patriots beat strongly, and hope for a new America.

WOW Matthew. (referencing post #1.73 above)

Just WOW!

GOPisextinct, I am enjoying this lazy day of Summer here in MN.

Thank you for all your work you did posting on the threads last night.

I stuck to voter registration posts. Found some good passion in people like Sistagirl and others to move to action.

The problem here is this whole Tea Party nonsense many bought into.

These morons were swept into congress by idiots who got duped into thinking you couldn't change the status quo, unless you enabled "the will of the people" by implanting a body of uncompromising extremists, all chanting "Washington has a spending problem. And WE can fix it!"

And now we're all witnessing what happens when compromise takes a back seat to such an ideology.

Washington doesn't "just" spend too much. But rather, Washington spends everything on all the wrong things, which in turn, forces Washington to spend too much. But that can't be fixed by endearing to an extremist, one-sided viewpoint. This one-sided, no compromise stance simply doesn't allow provision for compromise. In fact, its EXACTLY what drives and motivates a hostage taker. And anyone who can't see that the garbage legislation called "Cut, Cap, and Balance" was nothing more than an effort to permanently tie our government into corporate rule, is a complete and utter imbecile.

If nothing else, I hope this exercise in futility has taught the idiots who put these hostage takers in office one thing our earliest military leaders knew DECADES ago:

You CANNOT negotiate with terrorists.

Make no mistake..... that's EXACTLY what they are. And if it isn't obvious that they're NOT enacting "the will of the people", but rather "the will of corporate America", then we shall ALL suffer what's coming next. The systematic "constitutional takeover" of our country by big business.

Now that Obama has eliminated himself from the debt/budget talks, it is now up to Boehner, Cantor, Hoyer, and Pelosi on the House side, and Reid, McConnell, Kyl, and Durbin on the Senate side to come together on a plan. After a brief few minutes detour of these Congress men and women to the White House to thank President Obama for his efforts, and also to tell Obama those efforts are no longer required, the Congressional delegation met for hours on Capital Hill attempting to put a deal together that both of them can agree on. And Obama? He's just needs to sign it when it's done.

The time for deals is gone.

No matter which way this goes, we ALL pay the price. Because one of two things are inevitable at this point:

The Chinese market opens, and they take steps to protect their investment.

or:

A short term deal is framed, and we face a potential credit downgrade.

Either way, Wall Street is going to go bananas on Monday morning. Maybe crash level, maybe not. But the dollar is going to suffer one way or another. Welcome back to the recession.

Any deal at this point, will be a deal to salvage what's left, and avoid any further damage.

GOP - Please define this new America you are hoping for.

Brianb-999431

GOP - Please define this new America you are hoping for.

One without republicans.

Mixed Bag..

Couldn't find a dang place to reply..

So we are exactly on the same page. All that to come to the same place.

Agree...That short term deal will most likely be McConnell-Reid. There's just no time for any other.

BTW...I really enjoyed the back and forth we had.

A discussion without insults and quoting actual facts.

Who's woulda thunk it could happen on FR.

It's Sunday and I'm going to enjoy my grandchildren.

Have a great day.

Talk to you tomorrow.

GOP said:

Brianb-999431

GOP - Please define this new America you are hoping for.

One without republicans.

So are you for one party rule? The only form of government that I know of with one party rule is Communism. Are you defining your belief system?

I dislike democrats, but I don't want to see them extinct. I guess this is what makes me conservative and you liberal.

Hey Matthew,

About the accelerated depreciation on corporate jets, since Anna's comments in #1.41 to your comments #1.74, Obama spent more than the tax change would generate in the next TEN YEARS.

So what does Obama suggest for the next 9 years, 364 days and 17 hours out of the next 10 years?

Good morning, everyone, and thanks for the good wishes GOPisextinct. Again, right back to you.

I'll only roost long enough today to drop a link for an article written by our brilliant, homegrown political writer, John Nichols, whose reach is now national, but whose heart will always be in the heartland. In particular, I hope all conservatives here who accuse us liberals of not thinking for ourselves will pay attention to what this article reveals about who thinks for you.

In reality, it's a guy named ALEC.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/john_nichols/article_dab4424f-057f-544b-aa09-5a6c0a4adadd.html

One month after the 2010 GOP electoral sweep, which saw Republicans grab 650 state legislative seats from the Democrats, gaining "trifecta" control (both houses of the legislature and the governorship) in Wisconsin and 20 other states, Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald and a score of other Republican legislators from the Badger State went to the nation's capital to consider their mission. "Never has the time been so right" for advancing the conservative agenda in the states, declared the legislator chosen to lead the group, Louisiana Republican Noble Ellington.

The hundreds of politicians who partied at the Washington Grand Hyatt Hotel did not come to define an agenda for privatizing education, breaking unions, deregulating major industries, eliminating liability and tort law protections, or erecting voter ID restrictions. The agenda had already been written behind closed doors by the group that was hosting the newly empowered Republican legislative leaders: the American Legislative Exchange Council.

Featured speakers at that "States and Nation Policy Summit" included Republican stars such as Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

For almost four decades ALEC had, under the watchful eye of the most powerful corporate lobbyists and conservative donors in the country, drafted "model legislation" with a purpose defined by one of the group's heroes, economist Milton Friedman, who argued: "Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real changes. When the crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable."

As the new cash crop of conservative legislators returned to the states and took charge in the first weeks of 2011, they had their "crisis" — fiscal shortfalls in recession-ravaged states — and the impossibly extreme model legislation that ALEC had "lying around" became "politically inevitable." Legislatures across the country raced to introduce and pass complex measures attacking labor rights, consumer and environmental protections and voting rights.

Advanced by ALEC members such as Fitzgerald and the group's Wisconsin chairman, Joint Finance Committee Co-chair Robin Vos, R-Burlington, the agenda was rubber-stamped by the Wisconsin Legislature and signed into law by an ALEC "alumnus," Gov. Scott Walker.

The model legislation that has so influenced the political debates of 2011, the resolutions that guide the priorities of ALEC's approximately 2,000 member legislators, and details of the arrangements linking those legislators on issue-focused task forces with corporate lawyers and lobbyists have historically been the closely kept secret of an exceptionally well-funded and well-connected conservative group. ALEC likes to portray itself in benignly wonkish terms as "the nation's largest, nonpartisan, individual public-private membership association of state legislators."

The rest of the article goes on to describe how ALEC has now been exposed as being far from the "nonpartisan" group it has always claimed to be. In reality, it is, and always has been, nothing more than the tool of the Koch brothers and other corporatists.

So whether we liberals think for ourselves, or not, you conservatives really shouldn't harbor any delusions that you do, either. The only difference is that whoever is thinking FOR us is also thinking OF us, and, ironically, of you.

The folks who think for you think only of themselves.

If wages are flat and benefits have systematically disappeared from the private sector over the past 30 years, as posters above have clearly laid out, it isn't unions that are to blame for this. It is the systematic destruction of unions and workers' rights brought about through the shadowy auspices of ALEC and its corporatist overlords. And now they've brought that into the public sector as well, with the ultimate goal being to destroy all unions.

But guys like Scott Walker, john Kasich, Chris Christie, and the other Republican governors clearly didn't think that up themselves.

"Dozens of corporations are investing millions of dollars a year to write business-friendly legislation that is being made into law in statehouses coast to coast, with no regard for the public interest," says Bob Edgar of Common Cause. "This is proof positive of the depth and scope of the corporate reach into our democratic processes."

That's not the only proof. After he returned from last fall's ALEC session in Washington, Scott Fitzgerald announced that what really struck him about the gathering was the growing enthusiasm for using the legislative process to attack unions. Fitzgerald said he was "surprised how much momentum there was around that discussion" of enacting anti-labor laws. Barely a month later, he and ALEC alumnus Scott Walker were making headlines with a plan to eliminate collective bargaining rights for Wisconsin's state, county and municipal employees and the state's teachers.

If you want to be duped by these guys, Bob, just remember one thing. They're not thinking of you and your family, or even your particular state. If you somehow think that the whole purpose of this conspiracy is to make your life better, then think again. The past 30 years of flat wages and disappearing jobs should already have taught you that.

But then again, I guess you're not really thinking for yourself, are you?

Either way, Wall Street is going to go bananas on Monday morning. Maybe crash level, maybe not.

__________________________

One can only hope. Any stock market drop will be temporary and an overreaction because the markets will quickly realize that the stupidity in Washinton is only that, stupidity in Washington. Good businesses will still be making money. I'm hoping for at least 10-20% short-term discounts on great stocks like AAPL that have no long term debt and would be unaffected by rising interst rates caused by Washington stupidity. A quick in and out trade for a nice STCG caused by Washington stupidity is almost capitalism welfare. Free money from the dunces in Congress and the WH. I'll be watching Asia Squawk Box on CNBCW tonight at 6:00 EDT and setting my trades at 9:25 AM tomorrow. As Spock said "May you live long and prosper."

bob,

Bernie Sanders identified over $1.2trillion in "collective" corporate loophole savings ANNUALLY.

Republicans LOVE to separate these loopholes, and then defend them individually claiming they "only" save a small amount. "Only a billion or two".

However, notice that democrats don't immediately jump on that, and throw it right into the faces of republicans. As an independent, I certainly noticed it. I watched CSPAN for over 90 minutes that day as Sanders finely detailed just about everything wrong with the whole system.

Make sure you're watching the news after 4pm today. Because you can bet the rhetoric will be flying from BOTH the far left AND far right.

Alan O: Bernie Sanders identified over $1.2trillion in "collective" corporate loophole savings ANNUALLY.

Senator Sanders is a smart man, works hard, and represents his state well. If the Senator has a plan that he feels would solve the debt-ceiling/budget issues, why hasn't Senate Lead Reid brought it to the floor for debate?

Alan O.: However, notice that democrats don't immediately jump on that, and throw it right into the faces of republicans

They Democrats do not do that because they are just as much tied into preserving those corporate loop-holes as are the Republicans.

Joe in Albany,

One thing you can safely bet gobs of money on is this:

No matter how bad it gets for the rest of us, the rich WILL get richer. One way or another. Look at Eric Cantor for instance:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/27/eric_cantor_conflict_of_interest

I don't trust ANY of these bastards.

this is what makes me conservative and you liberal.

No.

I am hoping for an America where ALL Americans can share in this country's promise instead of advantaging a certain class that feels itself ENTITLED to plunder this nation's wealth and its people's prosperity for their own aggrandizement.

I am hoping for an America that invests in its future, and innovative technologies for energy independence.

I am hoping for an America where "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". In that America gays persons can marry, and persons of color and women can share in equal pay for equal work.

I am hoping for an America that "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed" instead of by edicts issued from the Koch Foundation, the Mackinac Center or ALEC.

I am hoping for an America that values books over bombs, learning over killing, rumination over ruination.

I am hoping for an America that values the contributions of Unions as guarantors of workplace Democracy and that safeguards the rights of people to organize same.

I am hoping for an America that returns jobs to our shores, and eschews oppression and the enslavement of foreigners for profit.

I am hoping for a nation of just laws, and a balanced SCOTUS.

I am hoping for a nation that embraces fair, Progressive taxation.

I am hoping for an America that ceases to be the world's policeman, and looks to its own shores.

I am hoping for a nation governed less by an unelected, unseen cabal of right-wing demagogues, and more by persons devoted to Patriotic national fealty.

I am hoping for a nation whose fourth estate functions as an impartial instrument for the public good, and not as a propaganda vehicle advancing a polarized agenda.

IT IS THESE HOPES,....AND MANY MORE,....THAT MAKE ME A PROUD, PROUD LIBERAL.

And as to Anna Molly, Feisty, Ron in Indiana, Independent Redneck, Jody, Clara, Navy, David Walker, Forrest Grump, Savvy Senior and Frank Grimes and other persons (far too numerous to mention) who frequent this board, I am indeed honored to exchange views daily with you all. Due to time constraints I can't research as much, nor expend quite as much effort sculpting posts as eloquent as many of yours, but thanks for listening anyway.

We struggle as one, and I am honored to know you all.

That run it down for ya' Brian B?

We struggle as one, and I am honored to know you all.

***STANDS & APPLAUSE***

You bring far more than you realize to the conversation GOPNI! It's an honor to have you standing for truth, justice & the American way!

@Alan - Thanks for bringing up Eric's conflict on interest. I have written about this extensively the last couple of weeks & it needs repeating...

JoAnnaSmith1,

I certainly don't disagree.

But on that note, I do have to take notice of the obvious. Like:

The President's hardline defense of the middle class in his address Friday evening. And the democrats willingness to push back, even against him, in defense of that same middle class for his willingness to place delicate subjects on the table for consideration. "Regular people" as he called them. The same regular people the republicans like to call "the American people".

Republicans (and I acknowledge the hijacking of the party by "RINO's"), have failed to stand on that merit. One thing independents rely on immensely, is our two party system maintaining at least some semblance of balance. And that's not happening, because the "traditional republicans" are more worried about staying in office than "doing the right thing".

The "fair" thing.

Thanks Feisty.

x

Joe in Albany,

One thing you can safely bet gobs of money on is this:

No matter how bad it gets for the rest of us, the rich WILL get richer. One way or another. Look at Eric Cantor for instance

_______________________________

Alan: I am not yet "rich", but, unlike you, I aspire to be better off financially through my own hard work. I have spent many hours in managing my financial assets amassed by my savings and prudent personal financial decisions. As a lefty liberal that adores Bernie Sander's, you want to take my hard won gains away with higher taxes and give it to the lefty liberal freeloaders that vote Democrat. Excuse me if I oppose that crappola.

Alan O,

Bernie Sanders identified over $1.2trillion in "collective" corporate loophole savings ANNUALLY.

Title 26 of the US Code is 16,845 pages long. I'm almost stunned that it is only $1.2 trillion.

The reality is that politicians wrote the code so they can pick winners and losers. They use it to manipulate activity, to do their social engineering, etc.

Do you honestly think Obama would get rid of this critical tool? Do you you think his "green" stuff would have a snowball's chance competing on its own?

Republicans LOVE to separate these loopholes, and then defend them individually claiming they "only" save a small amount. "Only a billion or two".

Actually I think it is more accurate to suggest Obama has separated these loopholes and the repubs have defended the ones he has separated.

However, notice that democrats don't immediately jump on that, and throw it right into the faces of republicans.

They can't. The repubs will say eliminate all the loopholes for everybody. Actually they talk about this indirectly all the time ....... reform the tax code, eliminate the loopholes and lower the rate to be competitive with other countries.

Note the 2 issues that are constantly talked about, the oil company subsidies and corporate aircraft. Interesting that they happen to be 2 things Obama doesn't like ....... he cites oil subsidies, but says nothing about his massive green subsidies.

That is why the Dems and Obama don't throw it back in the repubs faces ...... he knows what will come back and he will never give up the control afforded by the tax code, so instead Obama just demagogues and fires the class warfare/envy bullets.

But yea, eliminate all of them. Let the free market decide the winners and losers ...... not big government bureaucrats.

Too bad Obama will never allow that, huh?

Thanks for your comments Alan.

Joe in Albany,

Unlike me? LOL.... you say this:

I am not yet "rich"

and then shoot YOURSELF in the face by saying this:

you want to take my hard won gains away with higher taxes

Complete idiocy. NOT ONE proposal has yet been brought forth that would even affect you as "not yet rich". In fact, it was Obama and the democrats who proposed a "payroll holiday", and looking at reforming the tax code for corporations, and those who make $250-500k and above. Leaving the Bush tax rates in place for everyone else. And the republicans, with their band of RINO hijackers, who have staunchly opposed it.

Are you saying you make MORE profit than $250-500k a year? Because THAT'S what the proposed reforms would affect.

If you answered yes to that question, then you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Because ANY company that makes $250-500k or more in profit a year, is certainly NOT a "small business".

If you answered no, then you need to reconsider which side of center you lean toward.

bob-1805084,

I won't completely discount your claim, but I don't see where many loopholes can be protected by referring to "income brackets" as targets for tax reform. Unless you hide them in the language. You also have to keep in mind that corporate America has had a heavy hand in forming the tax code. Personally, I think ALL subsidies and credits (unless they ACTUALLY support and enhance domestic job creation) should be removed.

And yes, I can certainly agree that regulatory measures need to be reigned in a bit, and definitely more streamlined. But they ARE a necessity, or the consumer gets shafted.

NOT ONE proposal has yet been brought forth that would even affect you as "not yet rich". In fact, it was Obama and the democrats who proposed a "payroll holiday", and looking at reforming the tax code for corporations, and those who make $250-500k and above. Leaving the Bush tax rates in place for everyone else

_____________________________________________________

Yeah. A free lunch!!! The BIG lie. If you taxed the "rich" at 100% you wouldn't even come close to closing the deficit. The awful truth is that the middle class, defined as the 40th to the 60th percentile of taxable income is where the vast majority of money resides simply by the overwhelming number of people that are there. Barry has sold them the LIE that they don't have to cough up anything to fund the govt programs they love.

It's the Willy Sutton theory. The sad truth is that Barry is lying to you about the fact that middlle class taxes must go up to fund the middle class wealth tranfers of SS and Medicare.

Just wonderful, GOPx. Made my day. In particular, my applause for this:

I am hoping for a nation governed less by an unelected, unseen cabal of right-wing demagogues, and more by persons devoted to Patriotic national fealty.

Indeed.

Thanks again for the very kind words. It is indeed an honor and a pleasure to fly with you, and with all of you.

an unelected, unseen cabal of right-wing demagogues

________________________________________

So, AM, do you consider me part of that "vast right wing conspiracy" or just somebody that could be your neighbor that believes in the American qualities that made this country once great: independence and self-reliance, not govt reliance??

BTW, if welfare checks don't go out, I'd short BUD, it was up $1.06 on Friday.

GOP - interspersed in your answers to the question I had about your wish to remove the GOP, along with all the liberal accolades you received. Here is my responses to your litany of hopes.

No.

I am hoping for an America where ALL Americans can share in this country's promise instead of advantaging a certain class that feels itself ENTITLED to plunder this nation's wealth and its people's prosperity for their own aggrandizement. Well, from another point of view, I can clearly state that I've seen the democrats do pretty much the same thing as the republicans. While you rail against corporations, as you are intimating in the above, I rail against freebie entitlements. I'm not speaking of Medicare/aid, and SS. I'm talking about the welfare state we've become. A certain class of voters always vote democratic because of these entitlements. What a wonderful base of support... give them money, they vote in a certain direction. So, in essence this trumps what you have to say about corporations.

I am hoping for an America that invests in its future, and innovative technologies for energy independence. Great hope. Like all things, technologies develop over time. It takes energy to develop energy. Currently we have several sources of energy at our disposal. In order to develop into future technologies, we have to be allowed to expend what we currently have. If we push the envelope too fast, we will be shortchanged in the long run. In otherwords, we are in the stage of evolution not quite where we can reduce our dependency on oil, coal and natural gas. Our infrastructure is built on those energy sources. Our transportation is built on them as well. Eventually we will move into more exacting methods and means, but you CAN'T force it. It has to come naturally or it will break in the process.

I am hoping for an America where "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". In that America gays persons can marry, and persons of color and women can share in equal pay for equal work. Everyone is equal. All can marry. Just because you don't like the rules, talk to the higher powers. I haven't met an oppressed person of color anywhere in my travels. I also haven't met a woman that isn't satisfied in her pay, or station. The only ones I ever hear about come from sources that are either illegitimate, or have a slanted viewpoint. I also hear about them through liberal sources, but can't verify them through my own eyes or ears. I discount any slanted press agency when they are forcing an agenda... yes, even Fox News.

I am hoping for an America that "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed" instead of by edicts issued from the Koch Foundation, the Mackinac Center or ALEC. I notice you don't mention Soros... ThinkProgress.com or any liberal side of the equation. You only mention those who you don't agree with politically. I thought you wanted fairness, equality and an even exchange? Contradictory? I think so. You can't tell me you don't listen, acquire, and formulate your opinions from liberal sources. What's the difference? There is none.

I am hoping for an America that values books over bombs, learning over killing, rumination over ruination. When the world becomes a peaceful place and threats to our way of life are totally gone, then you might achieve this hope. Until then, you should be thankful for the bombs because they are keeping your family safe from certain death. We have enough enemies that want our way of life gone. A major deterrent is those bombs you hate so much. Now tell me, when will the world come to grips with your hope? Meaning those that want us dead... how do we convince them to not wanting to kill us? You don't think they want us dead and gone? Read the headlines every day of the week.

I am hoping for an America that values the contributions of Unions as guarantors of workplace Democracy and that safeguards the rights of people to organize same. This is pap. When unions are not corrupted, they provide their services for free (no dues), and remove themselves from politics, I might agree with you. Until then, unions are just as dirty, just as corrupt, and just as bad as any other organization you rail against. I have been a union member twice in my life. I will never join one again.

I am hoping for an America that returns jobs to our shores, and eschews oppression and the enslavement of foreigners for profit. I can agree with you on this point. We should stop buying products from oppressive governments. No argument from me.

I am hoping for a nation of just laws, and a balanced SCOTUS. How about a nation of less laws? How many laws do we need to govern this nation? Everytime someone wins a case, it's added to case law and can contradict another law. This applies to just about every aspect of our lives. Shrewed attorneys are ruining this country. How balanced do you want the Supreme Court? It just about always comes down to a 5 to 4 vote... That's about as balanced as you can get.

I am hoping for a nation that embraces fair, Progressive taxation. Whats not fair about it now? The more you make, the more you pay. That's progressive taxation.

I am hoping for an America that ceases to be the world's policeman, and looks to its own shores. Again, we agree.

I am hoping for a nation governed less by an unelected, unseen cabal of right-wing demagogues, and more by persons devoted to Patriotic national fealty. Hmmm. Interesting. Is this only when a republican president presides? Have you taken a look at how many unelected, unseen left wing demagogues are sitting right next to the president today? Have you seen his communist czars leave because they were exposed for their political leanings? Maybe you don't remember Van Jones... How about all the tax cheats Obama tried to place? Do you consider them persons devoted to Patriotic national fealty?

I am hoping for a nation whose fourth estate functions as an impartial instrument for the public good, and not as a propaganda vehicle advancing a polarized agenda. I can agree with this... just as long as you recognize the flip side of this coin. The liberals are just as guilty.

IT IS THESE HOPES,....AND MANY MORE,....THAT MAKE ME A PROUD, PROUD LIBERAL.

And as to Anna Molly, Feisty, Ron in Indiana, Independent Redneck, Jody, Clara, Navy, David Walker, Forrest Grump, Savvy Senior and Frank Grimes and other persons (far too numerous to mention) who frequent this board, I am indeed honored to exchange views daily with you all. Due to time constraints I can't research as much, nor expend quite as much effort sculpting posts as eloquent as many of yours, but thanks for listening anyway.

We struggle as one, and I am honored to know you all.

That run it down for ya' Brian B? Sure it does... As one sided a hope as you have, you fail to recognize that about 50% of this country don't agree with your liberal ideology... and since that's the case, unless the liberals completely take over this country by force, you're going to find resistance from the 50% opposing force. You struggle as one as the conservatives struggle against your emotional, tempermental, and activist agendas.

Brian B:

Remember.

There is a class of people who, no matter how much government money and benefits you throw at them, no matter how many government programs there are to help them, and no matter how many Socialist programs you put them on; that class of people will never get off their tails and actually work for a living at a real job off the public dole.

We call those people Republicans.

GOPisextinct - I don't care what you call them. Obviously you have a tainted view of the world. You have allowed liberalism to dictate your existance. The void of common sense has left a trail through your personna that extends into irrational and erroneous viewpoints. First is your name. The GOP is not extinct... no matter how much you wish it. In fact, they are there just to annoy you. You choose not to understand who they are, and why they are. I know fully well who they are and their weaknesses. I used to be one. You can call the GOP the spawn from hell for all it matters to me. I don't speak for them, nor will I. I will speak for myself and my beliefs and I do not believe in liberal ways. I could never justify being beholden to my emotions when making decisions. Emotions are too unpredictable... liberals refuse to learn that lesson.

They want their country back? Back to what century?

Getting the black man out of the White House would be enough to satisfy them! ;o)

Boehner fiddles while the country burns...

These soundbites may make a decent conversation starter, but as President Obama put it so eloquently last night, you can't govern based on what this pundit says, or that, or what petition you signed, or what special interest you may think you're beholden to (I waited for him to add this last one, he didn't, so I did).

For once, Washington has to govern by what's best for the people as a whole.

Let's make a deal.

Oh... woe is me... woe is me... the cry from the democrat side. The punk, hardheaded republicans are to blame...

You can't be serious? Oh, I got it!!! The democrats are pure as the wind driven snow... clear as a mountain stream... never do wrong, always get it right... it's them nasty republicans and their no compromise attitude that is the problem with this country. Excuse me while I run to the bathroom to puke. ::gag::

.

.

.

Perspective people. How about some historical perspective when it comes to how the democrats deal with the republicans. They make promises they don't keep. Once the deal is struck, their side of the deal flies out the window. Let's look at a promise made to Reagan. The democratic controlled house and senate both agreed to a $3.00 dollar reduction in spending for every $1.00 increase in taxes back in the 80's... The deal was struck... the democrats kept on spending... The republicans don't want this to happen again so they are calling the democrats on it... and the liberals just think this is terrible. Too bad. It's time for the democrats to come to action and do the right thing. Don't make the American people pay for stupid stuff... like the $1 Billion sent to Argentina for oil exploration because Obama had a whim. It's time for that sort of stuff to come to an end.

I had a horrid thought while gardening.

Norquist stated goal is to drown America in a bathtub. You know like kill dead.

Norquist has almost all the republicans in the house and senate sign a pledge supporting his goal.

Now this debt ceiling crisis due to no republican able to break his pledge to Norquist.

Gotta go, I think I hear Norquist filling the bathtub.

Low taxes does not equal drowning anything in a bath tub.

You are just sick and simplistic.

Americans First-3238795

Grover Norquist never said he was going to drown America in a bathtub. He said he wanted to make government small enough to "drag into the bathroom and drown in a bath tub." Deliberate misquotes like that is why independents and conservatives give you left wing lotus eaters no credibility.

If you take and kill our government, you are telling me America doesn't die with it. Isn't our government the constitution? Isn't our government also the bill of rights? Isn't the government what makes America what she is today? I see America and our government as interlocked if not the same entity. As one goes so does the other.

I did not misquote anything. I just said his true intentions and it is you trying to say that America and its government somehow belong to different countries and do not affect each other.

JUST HOW IS ALL THIS NOT TREASON PLOTTING AGAINST OUR GOVERNMENT?

You think I shouldn't worry because he just said he wanted to kill our government and didn't actually say he was going to yet.

Wanting to do something and going to do something is splitting hairs real close to the same meaning. Are you saying that just because you want to do something you actually have no intention of ever doing it?

And calling me names gives you no credibility.

Same difference Rick #s, make Government ineffective and incapable of protecting the public by depriving it of revenues and you drown America for the benefit of the greedy and the corrupt. A country this size with this population requires a government larger than it needed in the 1950's. If a company grows its business by creating demand for its products or services, it must have the number of employees needed to keep it thriving--the same goes for Government. Reagan and the GOP successfully painted the argument as the "size" of Government rather than what is most important--having a smart government capable of effectively providing for the needs of the country and protecting its citizens. Starve it and the country cannot thrive.

Yep, it is our government! Too bad no air traffic controllers (no funding for FAA) so now what are those people going to do about all those jets? HUM! GROUNDED! NOrquist put that in your bathtub and drown it!

For who JoAnn Moundsville? Cantor the idiot of the congress. I don't think so. Cantor would be even worse, he's to beholden to the tea people.

Cleaning the screen after that one Tom! lol

Hi Fiesty--These Republicans are talking out of every body orifice at the same time and the hole doing the most talking is coming from their rear end.

What absolute insanity! Is this what the Koch brothers really wanted to happen?

Is this what the Koch brothers really wanted to happen?

The amazing thing is, they and the rest of the John Birch Society, actually believe if they crash the global ecomony, the BLAME will not fall squarely where it belongs, on THEIR SHOULDERS!

And liberals don't do their talking out of that end because their heads are so far up there that it is completely plugged up. O wow! I just realized why you liberals are so grouchy. You probably have not had a BM in over a month.

And stupidity lasts forever!

Oh yes, it's all about who is the most popular when the ship goes down.

Anyone who thinks this Republican-Tea Bagger Congress is a good Congress, well, let's say just plain crazy.

Oh yes, it's all about who is the most popular when the ship sinks.

Pay no attention to her Tom, she was a passenger on the SS Minnow... ;o)

With the millionaire and his wife. LOL

The Minnow, a small vessel (Joanna Smith) that sank while on a three hour cruise, with all passengers survivng, and eventually being rescued (we won't go into the movie sequels). The Titanic (the U.S. economy) a ship so large and progressive (for it's day) that no one believed that it could sink. On the Titanic, they re-arranged the deck chairs as the ship sank. In the U.S. economy, those folks that advise the President re-arranged the deck chairs (Christina Roemer resigned, Larry Summers resigned, Austen Goolsby resigning soon). Well, that's okay, we've still got Tim Geitner to save the day.

Personally, I couldn't give a flying rats behind who's popular, but in the end, the gamesmanship has to stop on the part of both sides to this disaster in the making. If there was a deal agreed to in principle (purportedly to include 800B in additional revenue), and that deal was "enriched" late in the game to include another 400B as a result of the Democrat caucus concerns, then it's not Boehner that's holding up the deal, it's the President and the Democrats. You may think that 800B is not enough, just as many didn't think that it was enough of a stimulus program, but in the end, if the President agreed, he should stick with what he agreed to, and sell it for all it's worth to the Democrat's caucus. Obviously, no one on this forum was there, no one therefore, knows what happened. Ring down the curtain on act 6, scene 9, titled One Step Closer to Disaster, and let's watch for act 7, titled "When push comes to shove, Monty Hall says Let's Make A Deal". This episode is airing for the first time on Monday, August 1, 2011 (probably a very late show).

LA, you are mixing your images. Keep with the ship thing.

Next week we will know if we are all on the Ship of Fools.

Minnow and Titanic, they're both ships. I'm hoping that the ship of fools sets sail without the U.S. economy on board.

Nobody cares about the storms at sea, they just want to know, did you bring the ship home.

So get it done, everyone has to give up something.

gingerbread-mamma

I would have to agree that everybody has to give up something but apparently posters like Anna Molly and her public sector friends in Wisconsin all thinks it should be everybody else and not them. Not only did they raise hell about what they had to give up but they had to add insult to injury by pushing through a special election that will cost the state millions in the extra cost instead of waiting until the next election cycle. I wonder why they were afraid to wait. Could it be that maybe the rest of the good people of Wisconsin would discover that Governor Walker actually had the best interest of all the people in mind and not just the select few.

This is one more example of why Obama is, and always was, unfit for the presidency

"I'm sympathetic to your view that this would be easier if I could do this entirely on my own. It would mean all these conversations I've had over the last three weeks, I could have been spending time with Malia and Sasha instead," President Obama said at a town hall.

There is nothing in the Constitution that supports the view that any president can make any policy "on his own". In term of spending, the Constitution is crystal clear that Congress has the power of the purse- not the President, whosoever occupies the Oval Office.

The Obama worshippers do not get it- he is their religious icon, his books of memoirs and speeches their bibles. The rest of the country is another matter.

Is it not strange that the truth about his mother's insurance coverage is lost in this brouhaha? That we are farther from a settlement now than BEFORE Obama finally got involved?

Think I'm nuts for believing he would inflate this crisis to cover his sickening, cynical lies?

Well, folks, I would not put anything at all past someone who would lie about his own dying mother for political advantage.

This is one more example of the danger posed to the country when the media becomes besotted with any political figure.

Well, folks, I would not put anything at all past someone who would lie about his own dying mother for political advantage.

Isn't it about time you start with you 200 billion dollar a day Mumbai trip there babe?

You milked that lie for a couple a weeks even AFTER it was proven to be bullsh!t!

You really are 'reaching', be careful, at your age you might 'pull' something...

I thought that too, but faux is already doing damage control that if you don't get your social security, its President Obama's fault.

There are people on here talking about how its not going to make any difference to us people only the politicians. We will be better off if we default was another high intellectual thought. Propaganda at its best brought to you by faux.

Look at nojo, she would follow her talking points to her death and still be certain she is right. Her right wing corporate masters could tell her to her face how they plan to destroy America and due to her internal programming it will be twisted in her mind that somehow it was Obama's fault.

I hope you are right that there are still some brains left in the republican party.

First a war of choice and now a depression of choice.

It is amazing how stupid these Republican-Tea Bagger followers are. Hardly a one of them can think for themselves. That of course is where Rush and FOX come in.

Why would the Tea Party bother? The President seems to be perfectly able to torpedo his presidency on his own.

Why do you bother coming on here everyday to degrade President Obama any way you can?

You answer that question and you will know the answer to why would the tea party bother.

You obviously did not see what Obama was pushing. It was nowhere close to two thirds cuts to one third tax increases.

Using your logic, would it not be wise for a politician whose every policy has exacerbated problems they were meant to address start to listen to the will of the people?

Should said politician not learn from his or her mistakes, rather than doubling down on them?

Should said politician stop blaming his or her predecessor, and start taking ownership of the outcome of policies hem or she implemented?

Cause, I'm thinking it is past time for Obama to wake up and smell the coffee.

He's the worst president this country has ever suffered under.

Worse than GWB? Are you kidding? Obama has a LONG way to go before he overtakes Bush on that one.

From dictionary.com:

path·o·log·i·cal [path-uh-loj-i-kuhl] –adjective

1. of or pertaining to pathology.

2. caused by or involving disease; morbid.

3. caused by or evidencing a mentally disturbed condition: a pathological liar.

bethie, leave no jo alone, she has a pathological hatred of President Obama, so it matters not what you say to her. I'm going with #3 above as the definition of choice for no jo's form of pathology.

You're right, Matthew. I shouldn't have taken the bait. I just wanted her to know that not everyone feels the same way she does.

Earlier, Brianb posted a video of Obama responding to Boehner's walking out of talks (again). The video was from the "Fox Nation" website, and the title was, "Angry Obama Lashes Out..." Anyway, I watched the video in its entirety. Yes, a viewer could infer that President Obama was frustrated by the lack of progress, but angry? whining? Hardly. He calmly explained the plan that Boehner had rejected and expressed regret that it hadn't been accepted. He also expressed urgency over getting the debt ceiling issue resolved and hope that it could still be done. In my opinion, he has a right to be angry about the willingness on the part of Congress to bring our country to the brink of economic ruin. However, Obama did not come across as angry in that video, even if Fox wants you to believe that.

What I don't get is the absolute refusal on the part of the Republicans to look for ways to raise revenue in addition to cutting spending. When you're in a hole, you have to use all your tools to get out, but some people seem to think that you can do it with one hand tied behind your back.

To your point, Vicky-3788917, Gingerbread Mama posted this earlier today:

An old Cherokee told his grandson, "My son, there's a battle between two wolves inside us all. One is evil. It's anger, greed, resentment, inferiority, lies and ego. The other is good. It's joy, peace, love, hope, humility, kindness, empathy, and truth." The grandson thought about it and asked his grandfather, "Which wolf wins?" The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

Which wolf do you think the Republican/TP Inc. party has been feeding?

grover norquist and the republicans are trying to finish what reagan started 30 years ago, destroying the middle class.

The problem is the Republicans will not let go of Regan, PERIOD.

Isn't it interesting Diane that so many ex-Reaganites are backing away from Reagan too? Dave Stockman, Alan Greenspan, and in his second term even Reagan himself started backing away from supply-side economics.

What he espoused in those times is now widely believed to be pure bunk, even by the people who held office with him and peddled the bunk.

History has chronicled Reagan's failures, and even now, we are living as hostages to his failed method.

We need to expunge it, and him, from our national psyche, and from our mode of beliefs as we go forward.

I watched Reagan destroy California and could never believe someone would vote him President.

It is a sad day when someone with Alzheimer's is attributed as the brains of your party.

Before you jump on your high horse, my family has Alzheimer's and trust me it doesn't make you into a leader. I am sure my aunt could probable read a script such as an actor might be able to do but she remember things from her childhood better than what happened yesterday.

A very popular cartoon of the day showed a doctor with a flashlight looking into Reagan's ear and the light shining out the other side of his head with the doctor declaring "Nothing Here" We all knew something was wrong, but didn't know what it was in those days.

An empty headed icon for the republican party seems perfect to me.

The sheep are being led over the cliff by the black one

Thank you for at least taking off your white sheet & proving my observation...

Getting the black man out of the White House would be enough to satisfy them! ;o)

Just elaborating on your previous post where YOU brought up the subject, race is always the last resort for losers who have nothing else. It really shows your true racist views.

Getting the black man out of the White House would be enough to satisfy them! ;o)

I guess we can't use this old saying anymore.

The sheep are being led over the cliff by the black one

This Republican-Tea-Nazi Party will get the blame. These Racist will stop at nothing in trying to bring down the first Black American President.

It's a shame that they didn't put that effort into bringing down that haft-wit redneck cowboy from Texas, that owns this debt problem.

As stated;

Race is always the last resort for losers who have nothing else. It really shows true racist views of the responders. True Americans don't use color of human skin in judgments of others, any real American is just that American, not black, white, brown, African, Mexican etc;

THANKS for proving it to all.

TAxpayer..LOL you are truly delusional....."True??? Americans don't use color of human skin in judgement of others". How come they are using the color measure on illegal immigrants. Please, no matter what color we may be, we are not stupid or blind.

Taxpayer,

Are you one of the ones that still wear the white hood?

Genger

Race was brought up by the pro- illegal immigrant supporters to cloud the real issue. Illegals come in all colors. Color was never brought up in the law or mentioned by American lawenforcers, it's too bad 95% are Hispanic, but that is a fact, not racist Explane to my why the pro- illegal groups use English or Spanish on their web sites leaving others out portraying they aid immigrants?

"The sheep are being led over the cliff by the black one." Just to be clear, this is from your post, Taxpayer=2935518, correct?

"Race is always the last resort for losers who have nothing else. It really shows true racist views of the responders. True Americans don't use color of human skin in judgments of others, any real American is just that American, not black, white, brown, African, Mexican etc;", said the person who also started this thread with, "The sheep are being led over the cliff by the black one."

Just shows that you can't cure stupid.

I could lose it here and call you liberals a bunch of lying, lotus eating thief. Grover Norquist never said any thing about drowning America in a bath tub. If the democrats are all that much then why do they have to tell so many lies to further their agenda.

Brooksley Born tried to get Clinton to bring regulation of the derivatives market under the regulation of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Not only did he refused but he pushed through a bill that took any responsibility from regulation away from them. The Bush administration tried several times to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but ole Barney successfully fought it tooth and nail. AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE IN THIS MESS.

Tell any story you want, but the real truth why we are here is tax cuts and starting two unfunded wars.

Now Norquist who happens to no interest in killing America has decided that the most important thing in America is never raising taxes on the rich again. Just because the tax breaks in a large part got us where we are today, why should the rich ever pay more when their tax cuts can keep going on the debt? Tax cuts go on the debt and spending get slashed on the poor.

Ah, Norquist wet dreams come true, but let me clarify he has no interest in killing American he only wants to off our government.

If President Obama had said what Norquist said, the republicans would be screaming for impeachment. They wouldn't be mincing words trying to make it not sound as bad as it really does.

You could never get the government small enough to drown if you raised taxes. That couldn't be part of his plan could it?

I think we need more regulations. This by no means the whole reason why we are in this mess. You are trying to forget the 2.7 Trillion dollars the tax cuts cost us and 2.3 Trillion the wars have cost and add the housing debacle and that's how we got here.