I think the Weasel would run home crying to mommy at the first slap.

If you tag me in, I will take on orange man. I will hide his crying towel from him!

FYI, will be getting the latest from the "senior gang" tomorrow. Will let everyone know what they are up to.

FYI, will be getting the latest from the "senior gang" tomorrow

Can't wait - hey sister - go sister... go sister... lol

Woo Hoo!

Time for Irish coffee and bed. Mom calls about 6:30am every Thursday. Have a great evening!

This 'super committee' is a joke and would not have been formed if we had a president with backbone! But we don't!

Unfortunately Obama passed on this issue (again) and created a mix of politicians that cannot agree on anything! What he should have done a few months ago is put both sides into a room and not let them out until a 'deficit' deal was made....! All the more reason to get him out and put someone else in the position that will step up and be that leader.....!

Boner is a limp, wimp, republican pimp a mere woos to us.

Cry baby cry; tax the wealthy, not I, said he.

Cry baby cry; decry the middle class, just try and see said I.

Time for Irish coffee and bed. Mom calls about 6:30am every Thursday. Have a great evening!

Yeah fuzzy.... the left can complain, but the left can't solve!

I would LOVE to take Eric on... little twerp would be wearing his balls for earrings & picking up Hi Def off them! ;o)

carrot top, I don't think Eric hangs out at truck stops....so good luck on that one babe! haha!

Amazing.....

The Super 12 Ring Circus continues, with the Left continually bashing the Right. Wake up folks, this is BOTH PARTIES.

And to top off the "behind closed door" meetings, NOT ONE SINGLE MEETING has included all 12 members in the past TWO WEEKS. Goes to show everyone where the Left Liberal moderator, Congresswoman Murray, is standing on doing anything constructive. She must have her "marching orders" down pat.

The Republican Party should change its motto from "free labor, free land, free men"; to cry baby cry.

Of course there's no sign of a deal, Republicans aren't done playing chicken with the economy. They're still promising their followers there will be no revenue increases and no decrease in military spending, yet somehow the targets will be met...the math simply doesn't work.

Thelma and Louise for 2012!

It's been about 3 months since this super committee started to meet. During that time, we have added 400 BILLION to our national debt. They can't agree to cut that amount let alone cut enough to make a difference. Even taking ALL of the money the rich has wouldn't pay for the three months this useless committee has convened.

If these bought and paid for members of the Super Duper Committee can not agree on anything. The best thing for America is Mr. President just send Congress Home until the Leaders can stop this foolishness or RESIGN.

Obama initiated the Simpson-Bowles committee who provided an interesting report for reducing government spending and he did what with the finding?

Wasn't there a second group that also provided similar information confirming the findings of Simpson-Bowles? Nothing there for it didn't fit into the Obama spending game plan.

Now the latest group of equal Democratic-Republican legislators, and they also seem to be typical dysfunctional group of politicians. What will be presented from them - nothing and the defense budgets will be cut.

So, during all of this committee making and resolution, where is the big guy's involvement? By avoiding a commitment, he can now blame someone other than him.

Can't wait to hear him run on his record, or will he and the DNC go on the negative personal attacks to avoid the achievement issue?

The super committee kind of reminds me of the Union bosses during a strike. The guys who are out on the picket lines are hurting, because they aren't getting their normal salary. The business owners are hurting, because business isn't producing a product that can go to market. If it goes along far enough and long enough, nobody can afford the product once everyone agrees and gets back to working again. But the union bosses, they receive their pay regardless of how long the nonsense continues.....anybody else ever notice that?

Good Conservative talking point, winemaker. Some individual members of the Simpson-Bowles committee threw up a trial balloon, but the committee itself failed to reach a consensus report. THAT is why nothing was sent to Congress for action.

More like the PARTY OF HELL NO!!!

I agree. I wouldn't agree with additional taxes of any kind until the Democrats agree to cut government size. After all, even the CBO says we need to make significant cuts since raising taxes on the rich won't dent the brutal debt we are about to have this afternoon... 15 TRILLION!

Let's face it. The Democrats want to continue spending and the Republicans don't. If that makes them the party of NO, then so be it.

Problem is the Dems are the party of yes, yes, yes--no matter what the cost--lets create another give away program--the Chinese have deep pockets!---what would you do with your family finances if you ran out of money---STOP THE SPENDING!!--oh I forgot--you're a Dem, so you would be at government door with your hand out--so you could continue to spend spend spend!

so, kitchen....because people are sometimes hurt and die in autos, should we therefore have no autos? It would stop all car accidents.

In that same vein, I think you're suggesting that we have no spending; in other words, no police, no teachers, no congress, no garbage collection, no roads, no national defense, no, no, no. It's people like you and dude, that reinforce PARTY OF NOOOO as the repub's/TP'ers lol.

@Hey, Its MEEEE

theres no need to take it to the extreme saying that we should be doing no spending what so ever.. Whats wrong with only spending what you take in? Your acting like deficit spending is 100% needed, why?

Your also confusing state expenses with federal expenses. since when did the federal government come and pick up your garbage? since when did the federal government stop that domestic disturbance in your neighborhood? since when did the federal government sign the paycheck for that teacher?

sorry, but the left's argument is garbage. federal govt should not be funding half of what you think it should.

DUDE-875416...the stats you refer to also say that taxes have to increase to cut into the US debt..cuts alone will not do it. I really would little problem with cuts..as long as there are equal cuts across the board..starting with the pay congress receives..along with added cuts to their insurances....if we citizens are being told that 3% or more in cuts are needed then those same cuts must begin in washington with all members of congress..however,,,bet on the fact that your elected consider themselves above us all. And therefore not to be included in any cuts of any kind. As for tax increases..they also have to be across the board..with no exceptions...and so far...all politicans are setting the wealthy which includes themselves, as exceptions to any rules they come up with..

Here is one example of duplication of spending....We currently have programs in place to offer foods stamps, and government purchased food commodities to those who are unable to afford their own groceries, which we compound by giving free breakfasts and lunches to the children of these same said families (and based upon recent news reports, now they want to give dinner too through the schools)....Why can't these families feed their children the same oatmeal, peanut butter and jelly, etc that working folks feed their children outside of school???? How is it that childhood obesity is higher among those families who receive assistance????? I thought that there was no money for food, hence the assistance. If these kids aren't eating nutritionally, feeding them at school doesn't change that. A recent article about school meal programs indicated that fully half of what is offered to these children winds up in the trash....a comment was made that the breakfast buffet in most public schools would do a Holiday Inn Express proud, yet the kids throw the nutritious stuff in the trash, because neither parents nor school are teaching them about nutritious choices....And, if you expound that further, we will pay the cost again with all the medical problems that our universal healthcare will pay for when these kids have heart problems, cholesterol problems, diabetes problems.....and that is after we give their families food, and turn around and feed these kids on a school program.

sorry brendan-4 my bad. We'll keep police, garbage and teachers. Just stop paying for highways, the armed services/veterans welfare, railroads, boarder patrols, space exploration, and the three branches of the federal government. Got it.

To me, that would mean a hell of allot of more people out of work and not a smart way to grow the economy. But to you...we've cut spending. Makes sense....for the party of NOOO, I suppose.

Absolutely correct HIM, and to top it off cutting these programs while the economy is slow would probably drop us into another recession.

Democrats wish to continue to spend to support their Corporate cronyism they have enjoyed for so many years. Until they understand such wasteful spending is no longer sustainable, they will continue to demand America to continue spending. There are so many areas that spending can be cut without the necessity of cutting public jobs but the Democrats simply refuse to entertain the very notion of ANY spending cuts.

That's a broad and crude concept of democrats, dude. Personally, I would get rid of waste in government. I'd also like to see the tax system overhauled (unfortunately I wouldn't trust whoever actually does it). I'm not even opposed to a slightly smaller work force. Those things make some sense to me; I wouldn't trust most politicians to do it, and definitely no repub's. (And although it's a state issue) I'd even suggest no more than six months of unemployment compensation; however anyone can sign up for an additional 18 months BUT ONLY IF THEY PAY IT BACK.

The sad truth is that even when those things are done and done right....they have absolutely has no impact on creating more jobs. Much the same as when repub's say 'give more money/tax breaks to the millionaires because they create jobs'. It just doesn't happen.

We need jobs. We need America working. Stopping social services wont get more jobs; and nooo the underprivileged will still remain the under paid and out of work. It's the fallacy of the repubs....give us millionaires money and we'll give it to the 99%'ers. It doesn't work.

And eliminating government regulation wont create those jobs either. Another falsehood. Less regulation wont translate into more demand which would create a need for more employees. If people don't have money, THEY CAN'T BUY MORE GOODS AND SERVICES. We need people working.

Please party of noo....get out of the way, PLEASE! USA is dying here because of your 'NOOO NOO NOO' attitude. The 'everything is off the table, except what we want to talk about' mentality.

Hey, It's MEEEEE

That's a broad and crude concept of democrats, dude.

Not really. It's spot on. The only thing I would change is to refer to the "elite" Democrats in office which the Democrats put there are the ones that wish to spend, spend, spend.

One other thing MEEEEE.

Republican controlled Congresses have out performed Democratic controlled Congresses for the past 30 years. I believe it's time for the Democrats to step aside and let the ones with the better track record take over.

No Dude, the economy performs better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents, and better under Democratic Congresses than Republican Congresses.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/1021/p09s01-coop.html

http://www.business.unr.edu/econ/wp/papers/UNRECONWP06008.pdf

http://survivalandprosperity.com/2011/04/13/democrats-or-republicans-better-for-economy/

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/

So much for the Conservative myth that Republicans are better stewards of the economy.

Incorrect John B. It is NOT the President's job to write legislation. In fact, to compare Congresses during Presidential terms is truly misleading. You should compare Congresses. Note EVERY source is from our own government including the White House. Go figure.

Since it's Congress that sets the spending Budgets, sets the Deficits, and passes legislation affecting jobs and the economy (The President cannot spend one penny that has not been authorized by Congress), let's look at the record of Congresses over the last 30 years (Through 2010);

JOBS (39,761,000 Net New Jobs)

Jobs created when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = 8,100,000 net new jobs.
Jobs created when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = 21,773,000 net new jobs.
Jobs created when Congress was split (8 years) = 9,888,000 net new jobs.

DEFICITS (a) ($7.304 Trillion)

Total Deficits when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $5.022 Trillion.
Total Deficits when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $1.219 Trillion.
Total Deficits when Congress was split (8 years) = $1.063 Trillion.

NATIONAL DEBT ($12.878 Trillion = 93.4% of all the Debt in our History)

Total New Debt when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $7.859 Trillion.
Total New Debt when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $3.238 Trillion.
Total New Debt when Congress was split (8 years) = $1.781 Trillion.

ECONOMIC GROWTH ($11.873 Trillion of GDP growth)

Total Growth (GDP) when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $3.887 Trillion.
Total Growth (GDP) when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $5.623 Trillion.
Total Growth (GDP) when Congress was split (8 years) = $2.363 Trillion.

Draw your own conclusions, but these are undisputed facts from government sources.

(a) Deficits do not equal the increase in the Debt because of the government's 'funny accounting'.

Sources - Democrats controlled Congress from 1987 – 1994, and from 2007 – 2010. Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 – 2000, and from 2003 – 2006. There was a split Congress from 1980 – 1986 and for 2001 & 2002. Links to government data sites are as follows;

Jobs - http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

Deficits - See Table 1.1http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

National Debt - http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

@dude, I've seen that copy/paste post before, and I know it's been proved one-sided in the past posts. It's got a lot of information in the jobs sheet for example. The percentage of population goes from 55% to 64% so I'm not sure where you're getting you're wild swings from. Also see the footnote at the bottom of your resource: The numbers between 1997-2010 cannot be compared with prior years numbers.

Anyway, I appriciate that you're using a reference, it's just this one doesn't apply here. John's references seem more accurate, on the whole.

Anyone reading this should ask themselves why he's so determined to limit this discussion to the last 30 years. It isn't hard to figure out why--he gets to skew the numbers by making sure years when Democrats were in power are heavily impacted by the Great Recession. Remember, figures don't lie, but liars figure. The longer view is more accurate as well as significantly favoring Democrats.

What IS significant about the last 30 years, however, is the massive failure of Supply Side Economics. Prior to that time both Democrats and Republicans consistently improved the national debt picture for the nation. Since that time, well...

This graph shows what happened since Oct. 1, 1981, the day Reagan started his first budget. First Reagan increased the debt by $1.9 Trillion (see for yourself). Then Bush brought that to $3.4 Trillion. Then all that started collected interest for the next 17 years, and with compounding that grew to $8.2 Trillion by Sept. 30, 2010. Clinton, Bush II and Obama are not to blame for that interest, and without it, Clinton would have paid off most of the $1 Trillion WWII debt that Reagan scared us with to get elected. And Bush II (and his supply siders) would have run up only $3.8 Trillion — not $6.1T, which is what actually happened under Bush II. (A clear proof of this with document links.)
Before the supply siders, Dems and Repubs brought the debt down relative to our income in 27 out of 35 years. The supply siders (with Reagan and the Bushes) raised it 20 out of 20 years. That's no accident.

The Supply-Sider's Hoax: Bush-I called it voodoo economics (but he got stuck with it). Their "theory" is that cutting taxes for the super rich will encourage them to work so much harder and make so much more money that they will pay more taxes, even though their tax rate went down. Well the voodoo didn't work in 20 out of 20 years. And now they want to try it again. And they've scared America again about the debt. It's easier now that they've run it through the roof.

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

The takeover of the GOP by the radical Conservatives from the John Birch Society mold had been a fiscal disaster for the United States. In addition to destroying sound budgetary policy it's also let to an unprecedented concentration of wealth through a combination of tax giveaways to the wealthy elites and reward efforts to sink the middle class to a position barely above the poverty line.

http://www.epi.org/publication/bp195/

Over most of the last 100 years median wages increased at almost exactly the same rate as productivity...until 30 years ago. Had that pattern continued the median wage would now be over $90,000. Ask yourself how much better the economy would be RIGHT NOW if MILLIONS of families had that much additional income. Same is true for the government's fiscal position.

John B, Des Moines, IA

Anyone reading this should ask themselves why he's so determined to limit this discussion to the last 30 years.

True, it is only for the past 30 MOST RECENT YEARS!

Once again you try to pollute the facts with comparing Congresses based on Presidential terms, not Congressional terms. You obviously don't see the obvious. If you want to compare Congresses and their political ties, you MUST compare Congressional terms then. If you wish to compare Presidents, then you must compare Presidential terms. Even my youngest understands that and she isn't in 8th grade yet.

Then you spew the median wage would be at 90,000 per year but didn't explain how Americans would pay for such a hike in the median wage. Frankly, America would have been broke long before now with that attitude. Funny stuff.

Hey, It's MEEEEE

@dude, I've seen that copy/paste post before, and I know it's been proved one-sided in the past posts. It's got a lot of information in the jobs sheet for example. The percentage of population goes from 55% to 64% so I'm not sure where you're getting you're wild swings from.

To answer your question, from my government sources which you have yet to dispute. Yes, I have copied and pasted this before but NOBODY has proved my government sources to be incorrect yet. Feel free to post where they did even though I already know you can't.

Also see the footnote at the bottom of your resource: The numbers between 1997-2010 cannot be compared with prior years numbers.

The footnote stated, (a) Deficits do not equal the increase in the Debt because of the government's 'funny accounting'. This is because our deficits don't include spending on various wars but our total national debt does. Bush played this game, as did Obama. That's the 'funny accounting' the footnote clearly defined. I'm not sure how you could misunderstand that, but then again, I'm not surprised.

Anyway, I appriciate that you're using a reference, it's just this one doesn't apply here. John's references seem more accurate, on the whole.

That is what I would expect from someone that is in a state of denial for no other reason than to support their party. You support my statement by stating, "John's references SEEM more accurate.." Remember, denial is easily embraced by those who can't swim in the river of truth.

Dude, 1. feel free to go back to all your post's (it's easier for you to look though your profile page, than me). 2. I think you're not looking at the right page regarding the footnote. It actually says "Not strictly comparable with data for prior years..." and it's marked basically by years 1994 to 2010 (and a few previous years). 3. I'll throw ya a life preserver, when I see you coming down stream.

Happy voting.

Palin 2012

Trump 2012

Bachman 2012

Christie 2012

Paul 2012

Perry 2012

Cain 2012

newt 2012

anybody but romney 2012

Then you spew the median wage would be at 90,000 per year but didn't explain how Americans would pay for such a hike in the median wage.

How very disingenuous of you. That's all income and wealth that's been transferred to the top 1%...and in particular the top 0.1%.

That's the genesis of Occupy Wall Street, and why the movement is becoming a force to be reckoned with.

Hey, It's MEEEEE

Dude, 1. feel free to go back to all your post's (it's easier for you to look though your profile page, than me).

Complete, and again found NOTHING that would conclude the sources I posted are false. Indulge me since you claim differently.

2. I think you're not looking at the right page regarding the footnote. It actually says "Not strictly comparable with data for prior years..." and it's marked basically by years 1994 to 2010 (and a few previous years).

The footnote actually states, "Not strictly comparable with data for prior years. For an explanation, see "Historical Comparability" under the Household Data section of the Explanatory Notes and Estimates of Error at www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf"

If you took the time to read the " Estimates of Error portion found at www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf" you would find the following explanation.

For an approximate 95-percent confidence interval,compute 1.96 * 1.24 percent, and round the result to 2.4percent. Subtract this from and add this to the 2-percent estimate of change to obtain an interval of -0.4 percent to4.4 percent. Because this interval includes zero, it can be concluded at a 95-percent confidence level that the change is not significant.

Again, you can't throw out the totals I posted. Try reading the explanations before you try to dispute my post by quoting footnotes you obviously don't understand. It will help keep you from being viewed as someone that doesn't know what they are talking about.

3. I'll throw ya a life preserver, when I see you coming down stream.

Your comment suggests you are not in the river. Your understanding of the footnote you posted suggests the same.

John B, Des Moines, IA

How very disingenuous of you. That's all income and wealth that's been transferred to the top 1%...and in particular the top 0.1%.

Let's look at your claim a little closer. There were 139,877,000 people employed in 2009. If their average income should have been $90,000 rather than $44,872 in 2009 then the difference is $45,128 per person. That would mean there was $6.3 Trillion that ended up in the hands of the top 0.1% minimum ANNUALLY. Heck, the total net worth of the top 20 wealthiest Americans only total $407 Billion. I'd say your numbers are a bit skewed. Also, I find it interesting that 60% of those filthy rich people in America are DEMOCRATS! Perhaps you should try changing your own party before you blame others for your own parties short falls.

I find it interesting that 60% of those filthy rich people in America are DEMOCRATS!

More deceptive statistics. The tendency to vote Republican increases as income rises. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html That's been the case consistently over time. http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20041107_px_ELECTORATE.xls

It's not that you're wrong, you just know so much that isn't so.

John B, Des Moines, IA

More deceptive statistics.

No deception here, simply pointing out the facts is all. I was surprised to learn them as well.

In 2004 people over $200,000 income voted 63% Republican, 35% Democratic.

In 2006 people over $200,000 income voted 53% Republican, 45% Democratic.

There's your facts.

I do notice one significant thing about your list, though. Those who are real innovators, people who created things in their lives are overwhelmingly Democrats. Those who inherited their wealth (WalMart heirs, the Koch brothers) are overwhelmingly Republicans.

John B, Des Moines, IA

In 2004 people over $200,000 income voted 63% Republican, 35% Democratic.

In 2006 people over $200,000 income voted 53% Republican, 45% Democratic.

There's your facts.

What portion of your "facts" were Independents, Libertarians, or any other political group other then Republicans or Democrats? Just because someone voted for Republicans more than Democrats doesn't mean they are in fact Republicans. They just agree with them more than they did the Democrats. Again, your facts are incomplete.

Why, are Congressional seats apportioned by party of registration?

No. They're apportioned by percentage of vote...50% +1 wins.

Your argument was a good attempt at diverting from the disaster Conservative economics has proved to be for the nation, unfortunately the evidence still surrounds us.

Supply Side is a failure...regardless whether everyone who votes for a Republican is a registered Republican or not.

John, since the Independent vote typically determines who gets elected, you must agree that they make up a good portion of both the Republican and Democrat vote. That's all I'm saying. Besides, that has nothing to do with the list I provided of the top 20 most rich Americans and their registered party affiliation.

I guess I'm missing something. Cutting entitlements under condition of eliminating the Bush tax cut is a compromise as far as rank-and-file Democrats are concerned.

Citizen - Check again - Last I heard it was not Eliminating Bush Tax Cuts but making them Permanente for a few other Tax Increases..... The amount being offered did not equal the tax deductions.....

Dem's - Yes we to cut money going out..... Lest start with getting rid of the Worthless TSA, next we can quit giving out worthless GRANTS.

Rep's - Yes we need to increase TAXES to get a surplus going to pay down the DEBT. Bush never should have cut taxes to anyone when we were still in DEBT - put them back and look for somemore.....

It also forced the GOP into doing some work instead of just saying NO; they can't whine about the deficit and debt all day and do nothing about it because now the ball is in their park. The right's holy grail of Military Spending is on the chopping block just is discretionary spending. It was a smart move by President Obama. One would think the right would realize by now that President Obama out smarts and out maneuvers them every time.

He really does. And the left is just as guilty as the right: The left-wing punditocracy does not recognize a long game when it is right in front of them.

I think the democrats these days are just like phinephancy:

Time for Irish coffee and bed. Mom calls about 6:30am every Thursday. Have a great evening!

Unfortunately, that's not what we all need right now..... wouldn't you agree?

Newt Gingrich 2012! We need him!

Sam, don't pick on Phine...., she's just like most of the liberals on this blog who just don't get it... just another 'one of the sheep lost in the storm'.

I too like how Newt has presented himself during the debates... especially the later ones. Hurry up 2012, I'm getting tired of reading the sorry comments from those who expect others to do their work and pay their way..... "raise taxes, bring the top 1% down a few notches, spend more money on social programs, kowtow to Iran....". They're all starting to sound like Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter... and we know how that turned out! At least some of us do!

Us on the left can be drunk or stoned and we still win because we are correct..You are involved in a cult ( Fox nation ) and are not responsible for your actions..Subliminal messages not included fox has taken over your thought process..How come I didn't hear all this Newt talk until after the news reported that he moved up in the polls ? Shouldn't have been the other way around since the polls were taken awhile ago then scientifically tabulated ? Of course you guys don't believe in science anyways..

I can imagine the conversation among the political team in the White House:

"Do you think that the Republicans could possibly be stupid enough to nominate Newtie?"

"I mean, throw me into that briar patch."

"Tell me about it. How many times has he been married? I can just see the ads with Barack, Michelle, and the girls contrasted against a guy who has no regard for family whatsoever."

"And the way he's incapable of playing to anything but the extreme right."

"I'm going to say a few extra prayers tonight. Maybe his numbers among Republicans will keep going up."

Newt has not risen in the polls. Perry, Cain and Bachman have fallen which creates that illusion. The GOP has two choices left (plus Sarah Palin), Romney who is too left for the conservatives and Newt who has never and will never survice the scrutiny of the media. Cain & Perry were the best the GOP could come up with and they were rediculously flawed. Now they're into their second tier choices and it's down hill from here. They just have nobody viable.

Obama caved on every budget showdown. On the last he finally stood up a bit so the GOP pulled out their big guns, and threatened the solvency of the U.S. This time as Obama caved though he was smooth enough to drop in a joker into the deck for the GOP. The GOP got so full of themselves that they never thought the administration would have the B's to play it. We're still waiting to see if they do.

The administration has the card. They need to now play it. They must now take a lesson from the GOP playbook and become the new party of NO. Unless the Bush Tax Cut is recinded, and unless there is a tax on the wealthy put into place there is nothing to discuss at all. Just let the joker play out. The GOP got too cocky this time....If the Dems have any B's at all, which is very questionable.

Which budget showdowns did Obama cave on? What would you have done differently? What would have been the consequences of your decision?

I never know whether to be frustrated or amused by the political naivete of the left. Last Christmas, I wanted a deal that eliminated the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and that extended unemployment benefits. I also wanted world peace. In neither case, could I figure a way to get from here to there.

Nor, despite the endless carping from the left, could anyone else. Sherrod Brown, an actual United Senator, appeared to really believe it when he said that the Republicans would cave once they realized that they were "on the wrong side of history." Since when did that give even one conservative pause for thought? Other than that, no one even attempted to suggest a viable political roadmap to a purely progressive resolution. But they were sure that the president had caved.

Obama could have held out and rescinded the tax cuts. The cost would have been paid by the long-term unemployed who would have lost their benefits. The president thought it too high a price. You may disagree, but please don't be so naive as to believe that the tax cuts would have come for free.

With the debt extension, the president could have called the teabaggers' bluff. The risk was a collapse of the world economy. Since there was a madman in a crowded room threatening to pull the pin on a grenade, the president sensibly moved to disarm him. And he exacted an agreement that the Republicans crowed about at the time but now clearly don't want to face up to. Again, you may disagree, but then you wouldn't have had to own the consequences of a default.

makes me want a massive and complete recall of both houses, if this committee fails. I'm tired of being the loser, in their games. reminds me of Trading Places with Eddie Murphy lol

@carpenter: I saw those words tonight on a WWII documentary. "Work Will Make You Free." (english translation)

I guess J. Joplin was right. "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose."

"ARBEIT MACHT FREI." Was on the gate of Dachau. Very strange. In the 1933 elections, the people of the region of Dachau voted NO to the Nazis. Looks like the Nazis got even with those people in the end.

And yes, the republicans are like a wax 33 1/3 record with a few skips.

"ARBEIT MACHT FREI" was also on the gates of Auschwitz, Birkenau and Sachenhausen. I visited all three this past summer and that is something that you do not forget.

He's going to wear some brown to go with the orange for Thanksgiving. Hope no one mistakes him for the turkey!

That would make sense to us little people and help us...So it never will happen unless we change our constitution to represent the people again not" we the corporations of the world who have the most money, or can ban together like the National restaurant association.." And these fools think we want any of them in there.. " We the people" just haven't figured out a way to agree yet..But we will especialy as the old farts and fogies die off....You know the ones who can't work their I-phones

serious question folks

There was a question in there somewhere?

Well, at least you gave your governor a slap in the face with Issue 2. Keep the faith!

@Clem: If this worthless Congress would audit "The War Machine," the War Machine would gut itself.

Those two numb nuts are history at election time.

The two senators care nothing for the rest of the country. Just war. I believe in supporting our troops. I'm the wife of a Navy vet. But, seriously, there is so much waste in the Pentagon that has nothing to do with the service people.

Maybe you should blame your president. He hasn't a clue what a budget looks like, let alone a defense budget.

Brian stick both your fingers in your ears and close your eyes you will be free from fox nation..Do it before Murdoch your leader buys that land in australia....Its ( fox news ) been linked to the occult...You are not responsible for past comments...You can go ahead and vote for Obama he is right-center anyway...Then maybe us liberals can run a true liberal against him...Because a true far right lib will not vote for this guy...Are you far right enough without fox to reall yvote for Cain,Bachmann,Gingrich,perry, or even mister I am with the ryan plan Huntsman?

sw philly;

Always about the fox, I never watch fox, however I still don't agree with anything liberals hold dear.

Blame it on FOX
Blame it on Bush
Blame it on Obstruction
Blame it on the Tea Party
Blame it on the Rich
Blame it on the Chinese

Hum??? did I forget anything sw philly?

I am sure you will let me know...

I wasn't talking to you or blaming fox for anything but brainwashing people..your screen name looks like you are trying to blame something on LA and read all my posts and see how many times I blamed any thing on any of the things on your list...I very rarely " blame things" on anybody I just state my opinion......So save your Copy paste list for somebody else....It is clever though but alot of you Teabaggers use it or something like it....Dare I say Talking Points,,,,that's what it looks like to me.......

I know exactly what the Occupy Wall Street Movement is all about. If you can't agree with the following, your brain is cooked.

"The current Occupy Wall Street movement is the best illustration... to date of what President Barack Obama's America looks like. It is an America where the lawless, unaccomplished, ignorant and incompetent rule. It is an America where those who have sacrificed nothing pillage and destroy the lives of those who have sacrificed greatly.

It is an America where history is rewritten to honor dictators, murderers and thieves. It is an America where violence, racism, hatred, class warfare and murder are all promoted as acceptable means of overturning the American civil society. It is an America where humans have been degraded to the level of animals: defecating in public, having sex in public, devoid of basic hygiene. It is an America where the basic tenets of a civil society, including faith, family, a free press and individual rights, have been rejected.

It is an America where our founding documents have been shredded and, with them, every person's guaranteed liberties. It is an America where, ultimately, great suffering will come to the American people, but the rulers like Obama, Michelle Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, liberal college professors, union bosses and other loyal liberal/Communist Party members will live in opulent splendor." - Thomas Sowell.

You sure that wasn't that Nazi propaganda guy I read a sign that he had tacked to polls and taped to walls in 1937?

That tirade was so divorced from reality......this guy must be a Bachmann supporter....looney tunes!!

I don't think it is that crazy. So many people are being "promised" perks for their undying support, but how many have actually gotten any of the promised things? Even those things that have been railroaded through the legislative process don't actually benefit anybody for many years to come, and in the meantime, the unemployment rates are still going up, the wages are still stagnant or going down, benefits are being cut for working people....groceries, gasoline, everything is more expensive, local municipalities are taxing everything in sight to make up their deficits....And those in Washington, who feel themselves so much better than the working folks, so paternal. They know what is best and are going to cram it down our throats and tell us that we should give up opportunity and freedom for the good of all, but it isn't really the good of all, as it is their good and keeping them in power.

So those are the only people living in splendor? Those damn darkies and blackie lovers ? That is the most racist rant I have ever read....It is just in code....Imagine its all because of Farakan and Jesse Jackson and their friends......Please...

I agree carpenter, but the fix was already in. The GOP had no intention of honoring what the super committee came up with.

you'ld think a 9% approval rating would....if it's there next november bye bye guys.....you realize that under pelosi it was 40% damn boehner you're getting your ass kicked by a girl...hope he doesn't cry..

The reason he cries so much is that he own stock in Kleenex. :)

@Marc huff: In spite of Pelosi's oddities on occasion, I have to admit that the lady had real "balls," which is something Boehner never had.

In fact. I miss Pelosi as Speaker. When she was running the show at least I felt that the congess wouldn't hurt me so bad.

Great post! LMAO

Yep, the republicans always re elect their own, no matter what. I'll vote out all of mine if you vote out all of yours. Red or blue, they all gotta go or we all will be outa dough.

Yeah GOPERS. Where's them jobs you clowns said you'd deliver.

I propose a committee to look into the committee that looks into your sarcasm :)

phinephancy: How about congress doing what they're paid to do? Why another committee? :D)

Nay, too easy. Someone might get the wrong impression that common sense broke out. Couldn't have that! LOL

lol so you have NO answer ? tp is for the bathroom here tp 'er let me take a crap on ya ...op[en yout mputh ....go ahead.

I like using tp to remove my nail polish.

Asking Congress to do the right thing is like asking a robber to return his stolen goods and turn himself in. Never happen. The nasty dirty old fox wants all the chickens and eggs too. Look at Boner orange and mary kay pelosi responses when 60 minutes asked about insider trading knowledge. they looked like wiley coyote swallowing the little chickadee. The creepy congress people have no honor or pride.

Its all that democrat machines fault Boner told Cain...I wonder if that is what the right calls the I-pad ? Did Jobs do a good job annoucing it ?