Jerry Springer Libs

I have to confess I’ve only seen the show 3-4 times and while a cumulative total watch time of 50-56 seconds doesn’t make me an expert, I think I get the general gist. You have a couple and a third party skank …. Then a baby daddy issue …. Followed by wig yanking, a bunch of bleeping and silly slap fighting.

It has always amazed how the aggrieved party not only doesn’t yank the hair and put the beat-on their cheating worthless partner, but always seems to go after the other party while actually defending their cheating worthless partner….. just like libs.

Take the OWS morons and the libs that support them. They are peeing in their tents, crapping on cop cars, raping each other, etc. because …. Wall Street has too much control over D.C.?

Isn’t that like flying at the skank for having “too much control over” your cheating worthless partner? The skank has no power or control over their partner, other than the power and control their partner grants the skank.

This is different from D.C. / Wall Street? Does Wall Street have the power and control to write/pass laws, to tax, to regulate or is it the power and control D.C. grants it? Obama was in NYC yesterday – 3 fund raisers …. Wall Street make him come take all that money?

So the guy who took 4 times the amount of big bank money in 2008 as his opponent, the only guy in history to brag about raising a billion for his re-election – the $38,000 a plate / $10,000 a pic guy worth $10 million …. Hands a few bags of carrots out to the needy at a food bank on Thanksgiving ….”Hey baby, see what I did - you know I Luv only you” …. And the libs fall for it…. Go get those rich corporate skanks. ($38,000 a plate from his rich buds and he hands out bags of carrots to the needy?)

Libs are always crying about the rich and income inequality. Where are the rich? Where is the income inequality …..The New York Metro Area …. San Francisco Bay Area …. Silicon Valley …. Hollywood ……?

Nope. Four of the five counties with highest median household income are not the Wall Street suburbs, they are the D.C. suburbs. The District of Columbia has 18% living below the poverty level, yet the people who work in D.C., the politicians, the staffs, the bureaucrats, their lobbyist, etc. that live in the City of Falls Church, Virginia have a median household $113,313. Loudoun County, Virginia is at $112,021. Fairfax County, Virginia is at $104,259 and Howard County, Maryland is at $101,003.

The richest metro area in the United States is literally D.C.

America has lost 7-8 million jobs. But big government, working for the feds … employment is up 11%! (The black unemployment rate in the Anacostia area of D.C. is over 20%.)

The average federal employee compensation averages more than $126,000! A man and wife with the average would qualify as 2%ers / an Obama “millionaire” family.

So who are the rich, the privileged that are not affected?

“Hey baby doll lib, don’t worry …. Obama in 2012 - You know I Luv only you.”

We are facing almost a full year of election campaigning. Had Dante Alighieri lived in our time, he would have surely defined this insane "campaign season" as the tenth circle of hell. In this circle, we are bombarded with hateful commercials, our mailboxes are stuffed with drivel, and horrid creatures hammer us with polls. Those creatures are called "pollsters". Pollsters tell us in the last Presidential election, President Obama won in a landslide. He took 53% of the vote.

Such is the crazy world of politics. Fifty-three per-cent? A landslide? In football, that's calling a 17-16 score a rout. In baseball, that's calling a 1-0 shutout a wipeout. Outside the circles of hell, mathematicians know that 53% is NOT a landslide. The 2008 Presidential election was actually close, and President Obama's victory was in truth decided by a relatively small group of voters. Those voters did not come from extremes of the political spectrum.

Most voters are wedded to their identities as Republicans or Democrats. Republicans, in the main, have no idea that today's G.O.P. leaders embrace fascism, and Democrats, in the main, are unaware of the party's shift to the right. The "party regulars" will vote "D" or they will vote "R" simply because that's what they have always done. There is a group that pretends to be "independent". They too will vote "R" or "D", because they always did.

However, there really is a group of genuine independent voters. They are at the center of the right-left demarcation. Only a slight movement to the right or to the left will make the difference in who will take the reins of Presidential power in 2012. These are the deciders. These are the movers and the shakers. They will determine the direction we take.

These are the people who understand that the far left and far right define serious issues as problems that cannot be accommodated or solved with compromise. The independents at the center know that there is no perfect answer. They know that we live in a complex world. They know that there are no simple solutions.

For the far right, abortion must be ended - no exceptions. For the far left, abortion must be unrestricted - no exceptions. There is no middle ground for these zealots. Yet, the reality is that abortion has always been with us. Women were getting abortions before Roe vs. Wade, and even if that decision is struck down, abortions will continue. However, we could dramatically decrease abortions through a serious education program and by making birth control methods cheap and easily accessible. A reduction is realistic, a ban is not.

So it is with gunners. There can be no restrictions on firearms. Others disagree. The "fundamental right" of firearms ownership is not violated by limiting the size of a clip. It is utterly ridiculous to argue that everyone should have access to weapons - particularly firearms.

Example after example arises where competing interests refuse to compromise. Meantime, the nation continues to decline, while a bought and paid for legislature accepts bribes. Stop pretending. Congress is for sale. Does anyone imagine that the Presidency isn't similarly disposed? Billions upon billions of dollars speak to the truth. Government is for sale.

There is a huge difference between "being compromised" and compromising on issues. We need an end to the former and we must welcome the latter. That is the only way we can survive.

I know I asked this one other time, but don’t remember if I ever got a response (besides No Jo or JAS1 saying “But Obama…..But Obama…”):

IF Newt is as great as those on the right are now trying to portray him, how come he didn’t shoot to the top of the pack when all this jockeying for position begin?? How come Bachmann, Perry, Cain, (Trump?), et.al. have to crash and burn first??

Face it- the guy’s a complete and total bean bag and a king-sized phony.

Then there’s Mitt (Willard??). Interviews on Fox, of all places, then whines because they asked him some pretty direct questions about some pretty relative and straight forward issues. What is this guy’s first name, really? Mitt? Willard?? Sarah???

Bob numbers- don't be a dick.

I was in a meeting, I'll get you one day.

One of the FR lefty liberals asked me yesterday why I watch MSDNC if I hate it so much. My response was that I don’t hate it and watch it because it has some of the best prime time comedy on TV. Especially because they think they are being serious, and don’t have a clue how funny they are.

For example, Shemp Mathews had a Hillaryous bit with Barney Frank on Wiffleball last night. Shemp set up the bit with the tease that Barney Frank could speak his mind now without worrying about what voters or the public would think. After the commercial, Shemp tried to bait Frank into calling Newt Gingrich “evil”. Frank, to his credit, wouldn’t take the bait and went on to say that, while he disagreed with him on almost everything, Gingrich wasn’t “evil”. He further explained that people like Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein were “evil” because of the serious physical harm they do to their own people. They didn’t show Shemp’s face, but, I was still LMAO picturing the look of disappointment on it.

And don’t even get me started on da Rev. Al’s Hillaryous lying blueberry pie Lean Leftward commercial.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW, AM: I would have a bloody (?) hard time choosing between a late September picture of a snow covered Mt. McKinley in Denali National Park, and a tee shirt picture on an “evil” conservative tee shirt site that shows Barry wearing a set of Mickey Mouse ears (just google “those shirts” LOL!!!).

Good morning FR fans. Great, great news from the Ohio senior gang. Uncle Bob is going to be ok. He had a quiet night and the doc saw him this morning at 7. The dr. told him he needs to start taking his meds the right way (can we say, take them even when you are on gambling junkets). Eat a little better (Uncle Bob is the original junk food junkie). And try to remember he is 84. (Uncle Bob thinks he is 20 to 30 years younger than that!) He should be released back to the center on Monday. However, the nurses will be checking on him all the time, and he will wear a heart monitor. Since he will be "confined" to quarters for a while, Aunt Louise with her ankle will be his companion. More news as I get it, but for now, things looking good.

Now that the update on the senior gang is out of the way, my first thoughts of the morning was hearing that Mittens is going up with attack ads on Newt for, wait for it, FLIP FLOPPING! Hmmm, isn't that like pot and kettle?

No information from First Read on Obama's $28,000 per plate fund raising dinners in NY with the Wall Street types? What was the take last night for Barry, $10 million? $20 million? Not a bad nights work for Obama. One wonders what kind of influence that money buys for the Wall Streeters? I'm sure the Occupy crowd was impressed.

Excellent news on Uncle Bob!

Thanks for the update!

I'll get you one day.

I know you will... ;o)

Bob numbers- don't be a dick.

He can't help himself Buzz, it's in his DNA!

No information from First Read on Obama's $28,000 per plate fund raising dinners in NY with the Wall Street types?

Sorry Sniffy, are you telling us that President Obama is the ONLY President in history to *gasp* fund raise?

OH the HORROR!

Laminitis is setting in honey, you might want to get yourself to a vet *stat*

Hey Drive By- Are you the Dick Police here now?

I thought Feisty had that one covered. I see she couldn't help but jump on board with you...

It's really getting ugly within the Republican Party. Now they want to fire 200,000 Government employees. So, Where's The Jobs? Instead of looking for ways to create jobs (as they promised in 2012) they've decided to find ways to DESTROY jobs.

Hard to love these guys.

Obama in 2012.

williards running mate will be Gov. Over T. Cliff(r)...................Obama/Biden 2012

Obama has been pouting ever since his party lost the House a year ago. So what's he done since then? Lets see, he's started this class warfare diversion and managed to divide the country. He started right in on campaigning for re-election, and he targeted Congress as who he would run against, even though his party controls half of Congress. He fund raises, He campaigns. He goes on vacations. He rides around in a bus. He says he's going to clean up Wall Street, but at the same time collects millions of dollars in campaign money from them.

He doesn't lead. His FY2012 budget was defeated in his own Senate 97-0. He was AWOL on the Debt Ceiling debate. Debt reduction committees are ignored by Obama. The economy continues to drag, and Obama is totally disconnected from doing anything about it, except complain, whine, and point fingers.

It's almost like Obama doesn't want the job.

DBO: IF Newt is as great as those on the right are now trying to portray him, how come he didn’t shoot to the top of the pack when all this jockeying for position begin??

McCain was 5th in the polls this time 4 years ago.

The problem with you DBO (one of many) is you get too enamored with the early polls and act like they actually mean something. You also believe the leftist crap FR keeps pumping out in their articles (recall Newts campaign was declared dead months ago).

Lets worry less about polls and let the voters decide, mm-kay?

It looks like Bob numbers is on drugs or drinking the radical right kool aid.

Bob: those Republican talking points on federal salaries have LONG since been debunked. The average federal worker makes less in SALARY than the average private sector worker, but is paid more in retirement benefits since many in the private sector have NO retirement benefits whatsoever. It's absurd to compare the two since the average federal worker is a white collar worker (only 17% are blue collar) with a minimum of a four year degree. That's almost exactly the opposite of the private sector, where only 20% of workers hold any degree and only 40% have any kind of a retirement plan. Next time you get your talking points from Fox News (via the conservative CATO institute), do your own homework before swallowing it hook line and sinker. Right wingers are always complaining about "earning" your way...you want to earn more? Get an education.

hay jas "fraulein",where were you when your hero was running this country into the ground?...Oh I know you where at the "Western White House" sniffing w's urinal............the gop-teabag talking points are getting so lame,old,worn out.....like yourself. Obama/Biden 2012

JAS1 Cabal: It's almost like Obama doesn't want the job.

Interesting you say that, JAS1 cabal... yet we are seeing the GOP gift-wrapping and HANDING the Presidency to President Obama.

That kinda sets a new perspective, doesn't it?

Remember what your BFF Ann Coulter has said - "If [New Jersey Governor Chris] Christie doesn't run, we will put up Romney and WE WILL LOSE."

Lets worry less about polls and let the voters decide, mm-kay?

Sniffy, you might want to pass that memo onto your own side...

You know the RWNJ's who pound their chests & crow about President Obama's current approval ratings..?

Reducing the Federal Workforce by 10% is nothing but a shell game!

Some reduction (if at all) will occur because of attrition or other means not directly affecting the workforce.....but

Then enter the DOD Contractors who will suck up the Federal money and hire folks to do the jobs that previous Federal Employees did but at a much lower salary and fewer benefits!

Shell game......needs to start with Congress, regardless of seats gained by the census......Don't fill those seats!

Pietro: Remember what your BFF Ann Coulter has said - "If [New Jersey Governor Chris] Christie doesn't run, we will put up Romney and WE WILL LOSE."

Good to see you're so trusting about what Ann says Pietro. That's a bit of progress on your part, not much, but a start.

But you forget what your hero said nearly 3 years ago:

While being interviewed on the February 2nd 2009 "Today" Show on President Obama said that if he can't turn the economy around after three years "then there is going to be a one term proposition".

Source: http://mrctv.org/blog/obama-2009-if-economy-isnt-fixed-three-years-there-will-be-one-term-proposition

So Pietro, as always, it is all about the economy, stupid.

The best part of the GOP primaries? All the free political ads for President Obama. The general public look at these yoyo's (and I do mean yoyo's) and realize that the President is a much better choice.

It's a Newt Newt Newt Newt Newt World...

• November 30, 2011 at 2:40PM by Charles P. Pierce The Politics Blog

It is gradually dawning on people that Newt Gingrich is not the flavor-of-the-month/week/day/hour, and is very likely going to be the Other Guy for as long as there is a contest for the Republican nomination. It's certainly becoming clear to Willard Romney, who yesterday got pissy with a Fox News anchor and lapsed into that unattractive part of his personality that can best be described as his Flog-the-Scrimey-Help mode. (And his now-I'm-happy new ad isn't helping.) It's even becoming clear to Gingrich who, I don't believe, as recently as last September, saw his campaign lasting much past Five Lords A'Leaping this holiday season.

(Herman Cain, of course, has run aground in the regions between the six geese a'laying and the eight maids a'milking, but we digress...)

Willard, you've got a problem.

If Newt Gingrich really thinks he can win, then Newt Gingrich will do absolutely anything to accomplish that. He has no conscience in these matters, and he has no soul to speak of. He believes that the rules governing ordinary mortals in matters like public prevarication and gross public deceit do not apply to him, because he was blessed at birth to be the "definer of the rules of civilization." (There is actual court testimony to this effect, by the way.) If he really is ahead of you in Iowa, Willard, and if he's running even in New Hampshire, then where exactly do you go thereafter? Newt could have been elected in South Carolina in 1863, when it wasn't even really a part of the country. Now, the GOP in that state is the last remaining redoubt of all the changes he rang in nice polite Republicanism in the 1990's. That's the home office. You going to beat him in a state that thinks Jim DeMint is a giant of American politics? That leaves Florida, which is a demographic mess, and where Newt is now beating you in the polls. You might squeak one out down there, but you're going to be bloodied up going forward.

This is no longer a campaign. It is Newt Gingrich's last chance to define himself in history as the grandiose figure he sees when he looks in the mirror. It's not a book tour any more, or an elaborate form of negotiation aimed at jacking up his lecture fees. If he thinks he can win, Newt Gingrich is going to look at this campaign now as a grand opportunity to justify himself as a man of historical moment, a kind of supra-national figure whose like we will not see again. If anyone thinks he's likely to abandon that great quest just because he's fundamentally unprincipled, and because the image itself is a tinpot fraud, they're fooling themselves. To paraphrase Groucho Marx, Newt is fighting for his honor, which is probably more than anyone else has ever done for it

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/newt-gingrich-vs-mitt-romney-6604314#ixzz1fFtQ8TmK

This sort of sums up the state of the GOP/TP primary, who knew politics would be this entertaining almost a full year before the actual election. It would appear that the varnish is coming off the Romney veneer and ol' Newt in all his delusions of grandeur is just the fellow to put a few nicks in the carefully groomed Romney persona. Love it.

Good to see you're so trusting about what Ann says Pietro. That's a bit of progress on your part, not much, but a start.

But you forget what your hero said nearly 3 years ago:

While being interviewed on the February 2nd 2009 "Today" Show on President Obama said that if he can't turn the economy around after three years "then there is going to be a one term proposition".

Source: http://mrctv.org/blog/obama-2009-if-economy-isnt-fixed-three-years-there-will-be-one-term-proposition

So Pietro, as always, it is all about the economy, stupid.

I gotta admit, JAS1 Cabal - whomever is doing the writing today is VERY deft at deflection.

We were talking about the GOP Primaries (and how the GOP is gift-wrapping the Presidency for President Obama), and yet you end your post on 'the economy, stupid'.

My hat is off to whomever is writing today. You are definitely skilled in redirecting the conversation when you are BEATEN - again.

Now that I clued everyone in, let the games begin!!

Hey Job1, if you have something to add here (which I doubt) then go ahead.

Accusing someone of being on drugs is pretty vile.

I have yet to see you do anything but throw one liner insults at either people here or the GOP in general.

Do you have anything substantive to say?

You have been outed as the child of one of the regulars here. Why don't you get them to coach you a bit so you don't continue to sound so juvenile?

Superb post by my fellow "Bob numbers"!

The best evidence of a on-point factual post is the moonbat crew ganging up and trying lame humor about "Uncle Bob".

All "Bob numbers' should work in shifts and zing these lefties on here all day .

AP,

Bend it and twist it and spin it however you want - it is what is.

$176,000 average compensation for federal employees is what it is. BTW - Do understand the meaning of AVERAGE?

My central point was that D.C. is the richest metro area in the country - NOT Wall Street.

And do you really think D.C. is better educated than Wall Street?

Surely you realize the median household income of the 4 counties listed doesn't reflect their fat pensions .... how do you reconcile that.

And btw - the source is NRO / John Lott, Jr. / "Is the Public Sector Hurting?". Why do you "dumb fux" think we get our info from Fox?

"Lets worry less about polls and let the voters decide, mm-kay?"

Would you be a sweetie, and remind me about this in, say, 11 months?

Thanks, Punkin.

Bob 180:

I understand the meaning of averages. I understand arithmetic. I know that there are three different averages - the mean, the median, and the mode.

Place the $176,000 compensation in context, please. Show me a source.

s

While you all banter back and forth about the candidate of the day a bill is making it's way through congress that will allow American citizens to be arrested, denied due process, and detained indefinitely by the military. The senate passed the bill yesterday, they were also given the chance to vote on an amendment that would have allowed American citizens their rights, they rejected it. Folks the people who stole this countries money, the same people that tell government what to do see problems with the populace ahead, and they intend to us our military against us to protect their stolen money. So as you enjoy your meaningless jousting about the rep/dem farce called our political system keep in mind the government that you think you have, the one the media says you have, is not yours at all, and instead of thinking about how to do what is best for you and this country it is devising plans on how to control you when you finally see the truth.

JoAnna.

Were you able to put together that list of policies, and their costs, that make up the "massive spending" that you continually attribute to this administration?

Any luck on backing up your delusion?

LOL!!! Didn't think so.

Keep running from your ignorance.

Superb post by my fellow "Bob numbers"!

Of course you would think that. You two were programmed at the same time and in the same factory, the Bob One Million Series clones.

Unfortunately, there's something wrong with the wiring in that edition. They'll be fixing it in the Bob Two Million Series.

Can't wait for them to retire the old and come out with the new! They say it will be programmed to think rationally. What a concept!

Hey Drive By- Are you the Dick Police here now?

Uh oh...

Hey, WCA, sounds like someone should take their own advice...

Hey Job1, if you have something to add here (which I doubt) then go ahead

I didn't realize you were promoted to moderator! lmao

BTW,

Since I couldn't get it answered yesterday by those who believe in taxes for millionaires, What percentage should we tax a person's income? You all are for raising taxes, so how much do they need to be to redistribute the income in this country. Anybody got a number?

David,

Sorry, I didn't proof read my reply to AP. The number is $126,000 as stated in my first comment - not $176,000 stated to AP.

The source / article is referenced above.

While you all banter back and forth about the candidate of the day a bill is making it's way through congress that will allow American citizens to be arrested, denied due process, and detained indefinitely by the military. The senate passed the bill yesterday, they were also given the chance to vote on an amendment that would have allowed American citizens their rights, they rejected it.

wbush - we are on the same page here. We had this argument yesterday, where i vehemently disagreed with Bill, Fairfax, VA whou thought this bill was a good idea.

See Bill's post here: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/30/9114880-first-thoughts-romney-vs-gingrich#c60328369

See my objection here: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/30/9114880-first-thoughts-romney-vs-gingrich#c60328939

What most Americans that support this power play do not realize is that if THEY are labeled 'enemy combatants' by ANYONE there is no recourse for them, no matter if they are American citizens or not.

I agree this is a DANGEROUS road to go down, and I am even more surprised that Sen Levin is spearheading the effort.

Feisty, I really wish you would stop stalking me.

It's creepy.

Feisty, I really wish you would stop stalking me.

Not a chance!

It is waaay too much fun pointing out to the 'audience' what a self-absorbed, ignorant, hypocritical clown you are! ;o)

*popcorn*?

wbush - I had this same conversation with Yellowdog-Mark D concerning the bill sponsored by Sen. Levin.

Here is my response to Mark D, even though I agreed with some of his points: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/30/9114880-first-thoughts-romney-vs-gingrich#c60330406

This is a SERIOUS issue that we must THINK about. The problem with the electorate is that we are distracted by what is going on with Kim Kardashian and the GOP Presidential Nomination Process (circus) while this bill is quietly passed below the radar. Then when the bill is enacted, everyone is surprised.

Cuccinelli could win, especially if the president wins re-election. Whichever way 2012 goes, 2013 may well be a pendulum swing to the other side.

Crap. He might just be nuts. And smart, too, which is a dangerous combination. I don't know much about Bolling, but if he's got McDonnell's endorsement he probably is at least a little sane.

Bob 180 and 188:

188 - You did note that bob 180 admitted to an error in his numbers, didn't you? Don't you think it's time you started taking a look at the complete truth, not just that which supports your empty dogma? Bob 180 had the guts to own up to his error. You might try that some time.

Bob 180: What you have noted in the incredible annual incomes of the areas surrounding Washington, D.C. is absolutely correct. More money flows into that area than anywhere else in the United States. That is corporate money and it is there to buy government.

Government has always been for sale. Corruption is nothing new. However, the fantastic amounts of money going to legislators began to accelerate under the Reagan Administration when government became the enemy. Since his election, the government has been under virtually non-stop attack.

Vast amounts of tax money have been transferred from government to private enterprise. Our military is shrinking even as the defense budget skyrockets to accommodate a growing mercenary force.

Pollution of our air, water, and soil is sacrificed to increase profits of mega-corporations. Do regulations add costs to our budgets? Hell, yes. That's not the important question, though? The important question is whether we should continue to transfer wealth to the filthy rich so they can make our water, air, and soil filthy.

The financial crash that continues to this moment began long before President Obama took office. Indeed, the table was set for this when President Clinton didn't have the courage to veto Gramm-Leach-Bliley. A healthy and vibrant regulatory agency would have caught stopped the incredible abuses of Wall Street. Don't take that as a pardon for Fannie and Freddie. They should have been hammered right along with the other bastards who caused this mess.

Stop attacking government. Read the Declaration of Independence to understand why we have a government. Read our Constitution to understand how well government can and should work. THEN, demand that it work - for all of us, not just those who can afford to buy special treatment.

@ Albany Joe --

The mouse ears would seem to suit, but go with Denali.

Can't dislike a guy who likes big mountains. ;-)

Our military is shrinking even as the defense budget skyrockets to accommodate a growing mercenary force.

Great posts today, David. There was a time when the mess halls (and motor pools and construction of housing and various other work) were run by military personnel. In the mid-50's there was a draft, even though we were not fighting a war (remember Elvis being inducted in the Army?). Not only did we transition into a professional fighting force, but virtually all those tasks were outsourced to private contractors on the grounds that it was "cost effective". Horse s***t! You can make numbers tell any kind of lie. Privates and PFCs and Lance Corporals pulled "mess duty" in my day, at pay rates equaling less than $150/month. Wonder what Haliburton charges for those same duties today?

And in the meantime, because we have a professional army, no one has to make personal sacrifices any more! Ain't it a wonderful world? My high school graduating class numbered 75, fourteen of whom served (and some died) in Viet Nam. That's 19% of the class. Back then everyone knew someone who was fighting overseas. Today? Not so much. I don't personally know anyone who fought in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

drive-by-observer

Bob numbers- don't be a dick.

What's that they always say? Oh yeah...

It takes one to know one.

Personally, DBO... I believe that you are what you eat!

-------------------------------------------------------

BTW, Feisty...

I just LOVE your little avatar (pic)... it is SO CLASSY and tells us EVERYTHING we need to know about YOU!

Well done!

(show me the clown nose, fisty!)

Bob: You don't understand your own numbers..Spin away but even CATO has said that original $175,000 annual compensation you keep posting and that THEY were quoted on originally is way too high an estimate. And yes, as a group, public sector employees are more highly educated...the private sector obviously includes far more workers than those working on wall street. go on ANY federal job site and check out the criteria. See how many you find that do not require, at minimum a four year degree. By definition, that leaves out over 80% of the private sector.

Uh....did I miss something?

Did I understand Wbush to say there is a bill before congress that would allow military intervention in civil affairs without a declaration of martial law or presidential approval?

Is that for real?

Why in the holy hell is the news media not all over this thing?

That's a constitutional violation.

What is that Posse Comitatus act? Doesn't it violate that?

Holeeee K-rap!

If it's not one it thing it ten others. What a year.

Republicans holding us all hostage and getting away with it. A GOP presidential field full of lunatics. The rich and powerful getting richer and more powerful every day (average income of the top 1% $345 million annually and growing) while children starve, people live on the streets and the elderly cannot afford both medication and food.

And how this?

What the hell is going on in this country?

Have we all lost our minds?

And another day goes by, without the left answering how much someone should be taxed on their income. Maybe tomorrow they will. As much complaining that goes on that the rich should pay their fair share, no one can tell us what their fair share is. It is wonderful that they want to spread the wealth, but they can't answer how much to spread.

SSDD

"have we all lost our minds"? It appears so.

So, short the Social Security Trust Fund- and raise taxes that go into the General Fund.

Sounds like democratic math to me.

The reality is that Obama, with the help of democrats AND republicans, is giving people a little extra in their pockets today- but they will pay for it by taking a big hit in their social security benefits tomorrow.

Of course, Obama doesn't care- he won't be in office, and has got plenty of money on which to retire.

The poor schmoos who have no idea what this payroll tax cut really represent, however, are in for a rude surprise.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had something like a Fourth Estate to inform them? Then, at least, people could decide for themselves if they REALLY wanted to spend today- and starve tomorrow.

njnbnj: So, short the Social Security Trust Fund- and raise taxes that go into the General Fund

Obama is playing a little game of Three-card Monte. In its rawest form, Obama is stealing from one of the most sacred Liberal programs today, and not worrying about the ramifications of doing so for the future. The stupid Libs love this, it makes Obama look like a tax cutter, when in fact he's just stealing the money from the SS funds. Obama has essentially found another way to buy votes while loading up future generations with more debt. Same-old, same-old with Obama.

Chilling.

I have written about the Republican Party's attempt to rush backwards into the last century, seeing that as a safe time when people knew their place, and the white males of that era had to little to fear from minorities, and could keep what they see as their God given rights. They had the best education, the best jobs, and protected status.

Gingrinch, who is probably the WORST about the rush backwards made it graphic:

In Newberry, SC, Gringrinch said: "We're drafting a bill waiving all Federal Regulations returning to the world of 1941. I predict to get it done in 12 months."

What was that world? Segregation, women being force to quit jobs when they became pregnant, and being allowed to aspire to very few jobs at that. Little protections for workers, and none for the environment. I could go on, but you know yourselves what this means.

It is clear. The Republican Party, in its zeal to promote class warfare, wants to codify the same.

Have a care, those of you who vote Republican. They are out after YOU, your family and the safety of this world.

The stupid Libs love this

Smiff

It sounds as though things have changed a lot at your “hospital” over the decades.

I imagine that years ago you would have spent the entire day in a large dayroom waving your arms and shouting and making nonsensical noises—unless you got out of hand, and then they would have put you in a funny coat.

But apparently nowadays, after they’ve unstrapped you from bed and given you your morning medication, they sit you down in front of a computer and let you type whatever comes into your head, free association, stream of consciousness—doesn’t matter whether it’s true or false, just something to keep you occupied for the day.

Bet they don’t let you anywhere near a credit card though, huh?

(Note to nurses and orderlies: Do you think you could change her Prompt back to Fox? Maybe even plug her into the Sports section. She might like it there.)

newday, I so agree with you. I just think they want to take the country farther back in time, say the 19th century. They want to abolish unions and worker protection laws and now we hear Newt wants to get rid of child labor laws. This takes us back to the times of the great Robber Barons of the 19th century. Next it will be voting rights for only white, male property owners and the end any advances women have made. It is, all kidding asides, a very frightening prospect.

It must be nice to live in a world as divorced from reality as Smiffy and No Jo. Don’t make me get out the rolled up newspaper this morning. I’ve got a cold and ain’t in the mood for your foolishness

It is that phinephancy.

So glad the news is good about Uncle Bob. Best wishes to him.

Jack

That there is some funny stuff! And spot on accurate to boot! Get 'em, Tiger!

Feel better, IR!

Way to address the facts, guys.

I will send you wishes to Uncle Bob, thanks.

Jack, just love your post. Don't think the old nag would last at the center - they would chew her up and spit her out! Keep up the good work!!

Way to address the facts

Did I miss something?

WHAT facts??

@Jack - you really need to give us a 'heads up' - I spent the last 10 minutes cleaning off my keyboard! lmao!

@Floyd - I'm sending you some chicken soup! {{{hugs}}}

Oh, and, I told you before those two need a shock-collar, a newspaper just ain't gonna cut it... ;o)

nojonobo:

The reality is that Obama, with the help of democrats AND republicans, is giving people a little extra in their pockets today- but they will pay for it by taking a big hit in their social security benefits tomorrow.

Of course, nojonobo is pretending she doesn't know that the Democrats intend to pay for the payroll tax cut with a small increase in the marginal tax rate for incomes over a million dollars. I'm not even sure that the payroll tax cut if unpaid for immediately would have any direct impact on Social Security. But even if it does, it's clear that the reason for it would be that the extremist Republicans are quite ready to damage it in order to protect the wealthy, who are enjoying the LOWEST tax rates in 60 years. And Republicans hate Social Security because it denies their corporate paymasters the profit stream they would have if people had to gamble all of their retirement money in the Wall Street Casino where, as the saying goes, "the house always wins".

@Feisty

A shock-collar? More like a cattle prod!! :)

Hello Indy Red

Democrats are not winning the message. Again they are foolish to extend the pay roll tax cuts that help fund SS.

Democrats pushing for tax cuts again! They should do nothing, let them expire on the 1% let them expire on all of the 99%. That little extra money a paycheck is not worth it. This tax cut will not stimulate job growth just as the Bush/Obama tax cuts didn't stimulate job growth. Let those expire as well.

The GOP will not accept a surcharge on the millionaires, therefore the only way this unneccessary tax cut will pass is if it is by cutting government workers. If the democrats and Obama help pass this tax cut, by cutting the government work force by 10% they will call it a victory. Ludicrous. Shameful to see the democrats refuse to do the tough things, instead they act like republicans.

We need to be consistent if we agree that tax cuts don't create jobs or stimulate spending when we talk about tax cuts placed on the wealthy what is the difference when we talk about this pay roll tax cut.

Don't know about you but every tax cut I ever got, including my $600 from W Bush went straight to the bank or to pay down debt. I didn't waste it on the latest I phone or rush out for Black Friday splurging. I buy when I need something not just because I received an extra $25 to $50 in my check that I don't realize. These small pay check "extras" are not going to increase jobs, they will not increase personal spending to boost the economy to any great degree.

If Congress absolutely must pretend to do something only keep these payroll tax cuts for those below the poverty line. The rest of us don't need the extra $25 a month.

By the way to those I know on this particular thread, hope you had a good holiday and all is well with yours - IR, Clara, New Day, Houston, No Jo and JAS1.

Fiesty,

Just returning the favor. You wrote something so outrageously funny last night that I lay there giggling in bed for a while, unable to get to sleep!

No, Houston- but you obviously don't understand where the money would go.

The surcharge the democrats are proposing will go into the General Fund- NOT the Social Security Trust Fund.

I cannot spell it out any more clearly. They are shorting the Trust Fund, and proposing to beef up the General Fund.

Get it now?

Yd-Mark:If Congress absolutely must pretend to do something only keep these payroll tax cuts for those below the poverty line. The rest of us don't need the extra $25 a month.

Agreed. The message just isn't getting through to any one in Washington that they can't keep stealing money from programs, and expect those programs to continue to function. SS is an absolute mess, it is a pay as you go system (and not a trust fund) and to take 17% of that funding away from it, just where does the money come from to back-fill it?

And lets not do the "below the poverty line" thing, the tax code is complex enough without making it more complex.

Yd-Mark: By the way to those I know on this particular thread, hope you had a good holiday and all is well with yours - IR, Clara, New Day, Houston, No Jo and JAS1.

Same to you Mark.

njnbnj: The surcharge the democrats are proposing will go into the General Fund- NOT the Social Security Trust Fund.

Does it really matter? Doing it this way just by-passes them writing phony bonds and stealing it from the SS fund.

Mark I'm going to partially agree with you. Some of the folks that are getting the tax breaks are going to save it for education of thier kids for instance. So since there is no other way to move forward I can go along with these tax cuts as long as they are temporary and paid for.And not by reducing more jobs. If it comes to that we need to let it go and wait for next year and see if enough folks get the message and change the political climate for the better or worse.

no joe, no bo, nj

No, Houston- but you obviously don't understand where the money would go.

The surcharge the democrats are proposing will go into the General Fund- NOT the Social Security Trust Fund.

What are your sources for that claim? If there's no way to pay for Social Security other than payroll taxes, then why did the Republicans put forward their absurd proposal to pay for the payroll tax cuts by cutting food stamps for millionaires and a 10% reduction in the federal workforce? Not even Mitch McConnell has made the claim that you're making.

By the way: the Repubs like to tack the words "job-killing" on any Democratic proposal that would cause the wealthy some minor discomfort. Cutting the federal workforce is just plain job killing, PERIOD.

And hoping you had a good holiday too. Always glad to see you.

For the same reason the democrats proposed their surcharge- to look like they're doing something.

And, much to my chagrin- millionaires CAN get food stamps, in at least 35 states. Seems assets are no longer part of the calculation- only income. So, if you've lost your job, despite how much money you have in the bank, you collect your unemployment check, and then conveniently sign up for food stamps, too.

Seems to me even liberals would be on board with that particular republican proposal.

Do you understand the concept of a statute? See, if you cut the FICA taxes, but raise the income taxes- the income taxes, by law, have to go into the General Fund. In all fairness, the same holds for the republican proposal to cut spending by the same amount- it will beef up the General Fund, not the Trust Fund.

What BOTH sides should do, if they are serious, is let the FICA taxes go back where they should be- then cut the income taxes by the same amount, and cut federal spending by that same amount.

If they can't cut two cents on the dollar, we're in worse shape than anyone thought.

Houston:What are your sources for that claim?

That's a good question Houston. The Democrats don't really have that little detail worked out though.

Here is what Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) is proposing:

Sen. Charles Schumer spoke to reporters Wednesday to promote the Senate Democrats' plan to continue and expand a payroll tax break that's set to expire in one month.

Their proposal would cut the amount withheld from workers' paychecks to fund Social Security by 3.1 percentage points in 2012, rather than the 2-point reduction they had this year. The bigger cut would save the average New York household almost $1,700 next year, Schumer said.

Senate Democrats also want to offer employers that same break on their payroll taxes for the first $5 million of employee earnings. In addition, employers would pay no payroll tax at all for new employees hired since Sept. 1 and until the end of 2012.

Democrats are proposing a 3.25 percent surcharge on annual income over $1 million to cover the estimated $264 million cost of the proposal.

No mention of if that surcharge goes to the SS fund, or the general fund. Whats odd about it is that Obama and the Democrats are taxing the rich with a surcharge to pay off their SS cuts. That surcharged money should go in the SS and the people that pay that surcharge should have an added benefit when they retire. But that's not how this is structured in that it is a direct tax that looks to go into the general fund, and if that's the case, SS will run a huge deficit and fail that much quicker.

Essentially the Democrats are starving SS for their political benefit.

no joe, no bo, nj

For the same reason the democrats proposed their surcharge- to look like they're doing something.

I asked you for your source of information for the claim that Social Security cannot be paid for by anything other than payroll taxes. Apparently, you don't have one. Did it come to you in a dream?

And, much to my chagrin- millionaires CAN get food stamps, in at least 35 states.

Andhow many millionaires do you suppose send their chauffeurs into the supermarket to buy stuff with food stamps? I don't have any numbers, but my guess is ZERO. The super rich get their handouts directly from Congress. They wouldn't stoop to getting an extra pittance of the sort that the undeserving poor are forced to rely upon.

JAS1

That surcharged money should go in the SS and the people that pay that surcharge should have an added benefit when they retire.

Ever heard of the Social Security "lock box" -- or the lack thereof? For decades, Social Security funds have been "borrowed" by the US government to make the deficit appear smaller than it really is. If nothing else, the small marginal tax increase on the wealthy that you're having a hissy fit about would reduce the amount of this "borrowing" by the same amount as the reduction in the Social Security funds due to the payroll tax cut.

So what are you advocating Houston? It appears that the lines around where tax dollars are allocated is getting a little blurred. So say this surcharge tax money the Democrats want goes into the SS fund. Don't the people that contributed that tax money now have an added SS benefit when they retire, it is their money, correct? But if that money goes into the general fund, just what type of mess have we created here in that SS is on it's last legs, and we resolve that problem by de-funding it, and make up the difference with a income tax increase, which goes into the general fund.

So essentially what the Democrats are proposing is to de-fund SS, tax the "rich" and put the money in the general fund. A win-win, for the spenders in Washington. It's a loser for everyone else.

Can you explain how exactly this plan benefits the country Houston?

If Congress absolutely must pretend to do something only keep these payroll tax cuts for those below the poverty line. The rest of us don't need the extra $25 a month.

Yellowdog - Mark D - I do not totally agree with your line of thinking, but I believe that all of this wrangling payroll taxes has another side to it that no one is talking about.

I believe that this fight is now more political than anything else.

The Payroll tax cut is set to expire at the end of this month, correct? The GOPers and the Tea Partyers have never met a tax cut that they don't like, correct?

I believe that President Obama has painted the Republicans into a corner.

We see this is the case with Sen. Collins from Maine breaking ranks publicly. What this very simple tax cit legislation has turned into is US v. THEM - where US are the person(s) that will be the beneficiary of these cuts and THEM being the 1% this is being asked to contribute more.

I am not going to get into the nitpicky 'where the money should be' argument(s) that many are mired in here. However, I think the GOPers are starting to sweat a little when they have to make a STARK choice that highlights what they have been doing all along.

Now, if the GOP doesn't play ball with the President, then it will be blatantly obvious that the GOPers are in the pockets of the rich and are doing their bidding. Although the election is a year away, the American electorate's memory is short, but not THAT short.

While both sides are playing chicken with the taxes of the American electorate (yes, I am being very cynical), people are PAYING ATTENTION now because this DIRECTLY affects their pocketbooks. Hence, this is the genius of what President Obama has done.

When you see Sen. McConnell getting on the news saying that he will consider these tax cuts, then you know that his short curlies are in a vice. What the GOPers are desperately trying to do right now is find a way to keep the 1%ers from having to foot the bill. They don't want to set any precedents of capitulation to the Dems over taxes.

We will see who blinks.

Is this whole situation foolish, like you are espousing? Well, I guess it depends on which side of the fence you are sitting on. Remember - the President does NOT want the economy to falter, and this payroll tax cut is actually working, keeping the economy on a 1-2% growth rate. We have also seen 200,000 new jobs created in the last few months (not counting seasonal employment, which will show up in NEXT month's numbers).

Pietro, I take your points but I respectfully disagree. I don't think that the pay roll tax cuts do much for what they are costing Social security. Although I am not one to forcast that SS will go bankrupt in 10 years or whatever the latest GOP talking point espouses, but the deductions from everyone's FICA for another year can not help it.

You say Obama is being a political genius; perhaps, his stance may win over some more people in the short run and more votes in 2012. However, I'm talking long run Pietro. As you stated the GOP never saw a tax cut they didn't like. These reduced revenues will bleed us red. Every year the same tax cuts keep getting renewed. Less is stored away for SS. On another big tax issue the reduced rates we all pay will cost us trillions over the next decade.

The reality is that surcharging the wealthy even though I would be for it will never pass the House much less the Senate. If this goes through it appears it will be on the backs of government workers. From the side I'm sitting to shore up SS, I would favor pulling the caps for the wealthy to pay their percentage for all of their money earned and not just the first +/- $106,000.

We've got to as a country start to think over the long run.

I like the avatar icon by the way.

Pietro, How are you today, good I hope. I believe the payroll tax cut, and the Bush/Obama tax cut should both be allowed to end. Everyone should contribute something to the current fiscal problem of the country. I am not sure of this but I think I saw something from the CBO that the payroll tax cut really hasn't and won't effect the unemployment or increase spending to make it worthwhile. I believe they did say that extending unemployment benefits does more for the economy than the payroll tax cuts.

The approximately $100 per month is being used to pay bills, or is being put into savings accounts, because most working people have already budgeted their expenses prior to the payroll tax cuts and know that eventually they will go back up. Decreasing payroll taxes does more harm than good, since those receiving them will feel the pinch when they do go back up eventually.

The President and congress should be insisting on revising the tax codes and doing away with loopholes.

I believe the payroll tax will be extended mainly because the politicians don't have the guts to make a tough decision in an election year.

BTW, I believe there was something out yesterday that said the so called 1%ers are those making around $383,000 plus.

Pietro, I take your points but I respectfully disagree. I don't think that the pay roll tax cuts do much for what they are costing Social security. Although I am not one to forcast that SS will go bankrupt in 10 years or whatever the latest GOP talking point espouses, but the deductions from everyone's FICA for another year can not help it.

You say Obama is being a political genius; perhaps, his stance may win over some more people in the short run and more votes in 2012. However, I'm talking long run Pietro. As you stated the GOP never saw a tax cut they didn't like. These reduced revenues will bleed us red. Every year the same tax cuts keep getting renewed. Less is stored away for SS.

Yellowdog - we can disagree. This whole situation is NOT a long term solution; it was never intended to be. This is a way to keep the economy going, plain and simple, and to humiliate the Republicans at the same time.

I think the President has accomplished half of his goal.

The long term solution(s) to the problems of Social Security's solvency was the Supercommittee's job to flesh out. As you can see, the Supercommittee has failed, so there is no long term plan until 2013, where $600 BILLION will be cut from Defense and from Medicare, barring any agreement(s) between the President and the current crop of legislators.

I believe that the Obama Administration is betting on the following:

1. The President achieves re-election. With the current crop of GOP Presidential nominees, it will take a MIRACLE for the Republicans to get the Presidency, especially since they are handing the Presidency to President Obama with a bow on it.

2. The House is controlled by the Democrats. With this current payroll tax cut fight going on, people are going to remember that their GOP representative didn't care about them (especially before Christmas).

Advantage: Democrats

3.The Senate will stay in Democratic hands. The Republicans only need 4 seats to flip the Senate, and there are 33 seats that will be contested.

Advantage: Republicans

With this being a calculation, MODERATE Republicans will be easier to work with if the Senate goes Republican, and NOT the rabid Tea-Party types.

4. The House and the Senate will be more amenable to producing a budget that can be signed into law. There is no hope that we will have any sort of legislation with this Congress, so the White House is looking towards the NEXT Congress.

Although we disagree on this tax cut deal Mark D, your point about the LONG TERM is well taken and if you look at the big picture, you can see that the White House is taking baby steps to get to their goal(s). Do not think for one minute that this whole strategy hasn't been thought out for the best political advantage by BOTH sides.

The truth of the matter is that until there is a Congress that is willing to look at and act upon a Long-term strategy for the Budget, there is no sense is trying to force the issue as you want them to.

Pietro, How are you today, good I hope. I believe the payroll tax cut, and the Bush/Obama tax cut should both be allowed to end. Everyone should contribute something to the current fiscal problem of the country. I am not sure of this but I think I saw something from the CBO that the payroll tax cut really hasn't and won't effect the unemployment or increase spending to make it worthwhile. I believe they did say that extending unemployment benefits does more for the economy than the payroll tax cuts.

Hey sfcret, good to see you as well.

To be frank and honest, I think that most Americans that get a paycheck would GLADLY give up their tax break if they knew - for SURE - that the monies from the tax break would go DIRECTLY to pay down the deficit. However, as I was saying to Yellowdog- Mark D, this is a SHORT TERM political fight because there is nothing that will be passed with THIS Congress that benefits America anytime soon.

The approximately $100 per month is being used to pay bills, or is being put into savings accounts, because most working people have already budgeted their expenses prior to the payroll tax cuts and know that eventually they will go back up. Decreasing payroll taxes does more harm than good, since those receiving them will feel the pinch when they do go back up eventually.

sfcret, I hope you are right here, but I am afraid that many do NOT budget their monies as you have stated. These are the ones that are living 'paycheck to paycheck', and are just hanging on for dear life. With food and fuel prices going up, they will need that extra $100/check just to make ends meet.

Here is an example:

My wife does a LOT of driving, and we normally budget about $100.00 week for her driving costs, and she could drive between 150-250 miles A DAY for her job. That was OK when gas was $2.50/gallon, but at $3.00+ a gallon, and her car gets about 35 miles to the gallon, she is filling up 3-4 times a week at $35 a pop. 3 fill-ups is $105/week; 4 fill-ups is $140/week.

Now that is just MY household. I am sure that others are similar. That extra $100 could be necessary for a lot of households. In my case, we are able to absorb much of the increase, but if gas goes to $4.00/gallon, we will have an issue.

The President and congress should be insisting on revising the tax codes and doing away with loopholes.

Here I ABSOLUTELY agree with you. However, with THIS Congress, that will NEVER be done. It may never be done in the NEXT Congress either UNLESS the electorate votes in legislators who are making revising the tax code a priority.

So, sfcret, we do not totally disagree, but I think that your assumptions and my assumptions are a little different, but not so different we could not find middle ground.

True.

But, coming from a guy who admittedly doesn't know what he's talking about, can you trust it?

And nice avatar.

Guess it depends on whether old Newt is in our reality today or in one of those alternates that he creates for himself Anna.

Thanks yours is pretty cool yourself there Lady

IR, AM, the best part of all this is waiting, knowing, at some point the old Newt will emerge and explode. Think Feisty will make some *popcorn* so we can sit back and watch the fireworks?

I certainly hope so. The popcorn is really the best part.

Wait a minute, wait a minute... Newt Gingrich?

Washington Post, 1997: The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.

Yeah, I wanna from this @55hole

Pawlenty insisted the same, Anna Molly, and our rural schools are having to go to four day weeks. Can't afford transportation and heating. The local right wing rag just woke up to how the Republican party in this state has destroyed outstate, including rising property taxes and the schools going downhill. This, after pumping the election of any and all Republican candidates for office.

Dennis, it is downright mean to confuse the right with facts! LOL :)

Dennis, How are you today, fine I hope. Your numbers are interesting but I believe when you look at the number of federal employees over the past 30 years it goes up and down. I did note in the chart you linked the executive branch grew by around 84,000 employees.

But the numbers really don't address the problem of big government. In my opinion the term "big government" does not mean number of employees, but the fact that the government gets more and more involved in peoples daily lives with federal agencies putting out more regulations, rules, laws, etc. People in these federal agencies feel they have to keep putting out federal guidelines, laws, rules etc., to justify their existence, you know "job security." I am sure we could cut the federal work force and still be functional.

Unless my math is wrong, which it might be, I noted in your link the executive branch grew by 84,000 people since 2008.

matt, have you ever noticed how testy Mittens gets when asked a direct question? What does he think will happen in the general election if he gets so upset now in the primaries? And while I think Newt is a kook, Newt is also known for going for the jugular in political fights. I don't think Mittens will be happy with that.

Actually, i think there's no doubt about what Mitt believes. Now what he says he believes to any particular person at any particular time is another question. Who doesn't know where they stand on abortion still..in their 50's...and has 'a change of heart'. (conveniently, after leaving office as governor in the most pro choice state in the nation...after repeatedly saying his personal beliefs do not allow him to make policcy for all women). Of course no one believes him on this, or immigration, or any of the dozens of other issues he flip flops over. it won't cost him the nomination though, because he will be the last Republican standing.

Okay, smarty...what SHOULD we have done in Egypt?

Followed the advice given by the U.N. that war and weather had combined to cause food shortages in the region, and shipped grain, corn, and soy products from our reserves to offset the shortages, bringing prices for food down.

The young liberals who took advantage of sky high food inflation are licking their wounds today- they never saw an Islamist Revolution coming- mostly due to youth and inexperience.

Don't take my word for it- read the NY Times article.

You know, Carter faced a pretty similar situation when he was president- only it was strictly weather related, and the food shortages were in the U.S.S.R. Sure, it could have topped the Communist hold on that country- but at the cost of starving people.

Carter shipped massive amounts of grain there- too much, actually, because it caused shortages in this country, exacerbating inflation.

I, however, could not disagree with his policy. Starving people is no way to win a victory.

Obama is a lot like the young liberals in Egypt- never thinks outside the box. So, we have a wonderful new world to deal with- thanks to naive thinking that leads to poor decision making.

And you want to reelect him?

Good, no jo, our purveyor of doom and gloom. Which means, of course, that Hamas winning in Palestine was George Bush's fault.

Right?

Interesting concept. I do not personally know of the Carter details you listed, but did the Congress have anything authority wise in that process or was it all the Carter Administration?

I only ask, because what I think you are saying would have been more money needing to be "spent" and if the Congress would have had anything to do with it, I don't see that approval happening.

Its money that has, already, been spent.

Those "farm subsidies" so many of you decry- despite not understanding them- are used to purchase surplus crops, which are then stored. Every year, this food is destroyed as it is no longer edible.

Carter sold the grain to the U.S.S.R.- at a loss, to be sure, there there were, in fact, payments made.

Obama could have donated the grain, or sold it, through the auspices of the Department of Agriculture.

Your question about congressional involvement is moot, however- since he never even considered taking any action.

The world now lives with the result.

I'm not certain why the question was moot. If the Congress had any influence/authority (which is why I thought they existed) why did not the GOP currently within the House and/or Senate propose something in the order of what you laid out?

Say the President didn't act as you claim, how/why would/should that stop anyone in the Congress from doing so?

...but would that decision have ultimately and without question have changed the result of the election?

You can "Thursday Morining Quarterback" this thing to death but you have to keep in mind that it is ultimately the will of the people of Egypt in determining their course that must be respected.

Should we only be in favor of democracy when we approve of the result?

Adolf Hitler was democratically elected. Hamas was democratically elected. Now we see Egypt.

It is always wise to remember that our government has acted in the past when we did not approve of a duly elected government. How'd that work for us in Iran?

There are three branches of government.

The Department of Agriculture falls under the Executive Branch.

An Executive Order is all that was needed.

Noid, you're equating sending food to starving people with Iran? I'll let you decide if you really want to stretch an analogy that far.

Face it- Obama dropped the ball- and the consequences of that are enormous for the entire world. He should have acted to stem the famine- which was the catalyst for the uprisings- then, had he chosen to do so, have used continued food aid as a bargaining chip to get Mubarak, et als, to ease up on whatever policies he found repressive on their citizenry.

He didn't- because he seems to have fallen into the same starry eyed trap as the young liberals in those countries.

So, now what?

Ah, I see...so you're suggesting that we should have done something to prop up Mubarak as leader of Egypt?

If that's the case, then, yes, I believe my reference to Iran still applies. We propped up the Shah...so, again, I ask how that worked out for us?

Dunno, Noid.

Why don't you ask the protesters in Iran how much they appreciated Obama's help last year?

While you're at it, ask the Copts how much they appreciate living in Egypt without Mubarak to protect them.

I'm sure the women in Libya are going to just,LOVE living in a country run by al Queda.

You may not want to face it, but the fact remains that this is another Obama failure- this time on a world altering scale.

And, it ain't in a good way.

Wait, so I was really voting for "President of the World" 3 years ago and not just "President of the United States"?

In the "No Joe"-verse is everything that happens in the world all the fault of the President of the United States?

So, if Vladimir Putin wins the March elections for President of Russia that's going to be President Obama's fault also?

In fairness Obama can not be given credit or take blame for Tunisia and Egypt. In most respects he and the administration were trailing behind, playing catchup with the events on the ground. Again the attempt to pin all of the uprising's catalysist on food shortages do not begin to address all of the ills and injustices that the populace could have been facing.

Libya, yes Obama had quite a deal in determining US and NATO action that resulted in Khadaffi's overthrow and uncertain new leadership.

All that said, you never know what will happen in revolutions. Another reason for the US to step cautiously in its future Mid east policy. A reason to limit further engagament in active coercion and attempts at warmongering toward Iran and even Syria.

With the exception of Paul and maybe Hunstman the GOP candidates seem erstwhile to bang the drums for war with Iran. This scares me.

The discussion was about the Middle East and North Africa, and Obama's role, or lack thereof, in protecting the interests of this country and world peace.

I will admit that even I thought he knew who we were helping in Libya. It's mind boggling that he did not- and, I truly believe he did not. I think he's inept, not evil.

You seek to defend him. Good luck with that.

Yeah, because Gaddafi was such a nice guy.

The discussion was about the Middle East and North Africa, and Obama's role, or lack thereof, in protecting the interests of this country and world peace.

I would argue a discussion of Putin running for President of Russia is relevant to that discussion. Just yesterday Michele Bachmann referred to a new Axis of Evil and that Russia is part of it.

No, Noid- you offered to change the subject. What Michelle Bachmann has to do with this ill never know.

On the subject of Russia- well, let's leave that for next week, shall we? Then we can have a nice, long discussion of the START Treaty- and how right those of us who warned that it meant dismantling our missile defenses were.

Right now, I have a Christmas Tree that needs decorating.

no joe, no bo, nj,

What do you know about the Muslim Brotherhood, other than what you get from FOX NOISE & its ECHO CHAMBER i.e. RWNJ media?

For that matter what do you know about the Egyptian Coptics?

“Egypt is running out of food and, more gradually, running out of money with
which to buy it. .

...But the idea of a ‘mini-Marshall Plan’ for Egypt is still a bad one

Theodore Bromund with the Heritage Foundation

No, Noid- you offered to change the subject.

How so?

No, I am merely challenging what I see as a narrow and short-sighted world view that seems to believe that the President can and must directly influence all world events to provide what is, in your opinion, a favorable outcome.

A child believes that all things can and must be controlled to cater to his or her desires. An adult understands that not everything can be controlled and the greater the number of variables the less that can actually be controlled.

NoJoe...

You do realize that you are fighting a losing battle with these nit-wits don't you?

You make too much sense for them. You present too many facts for them. So they twist and turn the conversation and try to make YOU look bad rather than stay on topic or concede your point.

I do, however salute your diligence.

BTW everyone...

(show me the clown nose, fisty!)

You do realize that you are fighting a losing battle with these nit-wits don't you?

You make too much sense for them. You present too many facts for them. So they twist and turn the conversation and try to make YOU look bad rather than stay on topic or concede your point.

So, then, I'll ask the question of you...

Does giving all that food to Egypt absolutely guarantee that the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't appear to take a majority in elections in Egypt yesterday?

Da Noid

Obviously if it were simply a matter of a food program where we could influence foreign policy we would do it.

The right wing nut jobs are just taking a "talking point ie food=they do what we want" and trying to hammer Obama with it.

You'll notice that at no point have I ever said that the idea of sending food to Egypt was bad. I am merely questioning the idea that doing so would have achieved what "No Joe" says it would have.

NoJoe: so let's get this straight...President Obama should have done everything possible to STOP the Arab Spring from setting up elections in Egypt because we couldn't prevent people from voting for moderate Islamists? Beyond naive......

Da Noid

I totally agree with you.

Ok, I had to skip the last 10 or so comments to ask...

You do realize that the US only made a statement with regards to the egyptian uprising, right?

We did nothing in egypt, we were involved with LIBYA!!!

I think Herman Cain is taking a break from campaigning to comment on NewsVine. Nice!!!

As little of a fan of Michelle Bachmann that I am, I do think this is a case of the media misinterpreting what she said, possibly deliberately, rather than Michelle showing ignorance about US relations with Iran.

Bachmann needs to keep on speakin, she is so dam smart! SHE IS SMARTER THEN CRISTINE O' DONNEL,SARAH PALIN......& PHYLLIS DILLER!..Hahahaha! Obama/Biden 2012

Michael L-2295838

As little of a fan of Michelle Bachmann that I am, I do think this is a case of the media misinterpreting what she said, possibly deliberately, rather than Michelle showing ignorance about US relations with Iran.

========

Yet you don't provide any clue as to what was said by her, then re-said by the media and where exactly the misinterpreting could have been or did I miss something?

Just break down for a minute the initial part of the statement, "If I were President..." implying that the current President is doing something and/or not doing something related to an alleged US Embassy in Iran.

Tell her to state clearly what is her claim against the current Administration and the alleged US Embassy in Iran and I suspect you will see that she clearly the one messing with the marbles in her head.

Even if, as the Congresswoman's campaign suggests, she made a hypothetical statement...that if she were President she would not open a US Embassy in Iran...it's a feeble attempt to demonstrate that she would have some kind of teeth when it comes to foreign policy.

It amounts to her saying, "I promise not to do something that we're probably not going to do anyway!"

Iowa and New Hampshire don't have much in the way of track records in terms of picking the nominee (does the name Huckabee ring a bell?) They may reject Romney in those first two, but he will be the nominee.

These guys are hoping for short term memory loss from the electorate.

The very same folks who don't care about how Cain treats women are the folks who don't care how many exes Gingrich has and when he cheated on whom. They're just scrapping the bottom of the barrell...but neither can win their party's nomination for different reasons...These early polls are pretty meaningless since it's the most extreme of right wingers who are active right now and treatment of women isn't exactly a litmus test for anything in the Republican party.

The TeaPeople voyeurs only care about and damn the sexuality/lives (or mis-steps) of Democrats and Gays........

Other peoples bedroom is more interesting for the missionaries!

I think the "Anyone but Romney" crowd is looking for that guts & glory person who plants their feet solidly, refuses to change or compromise, and drapes themselves in ersatz patriotism.

Any two year old can plant their feet and refuse to compromise.

I do not excuse the behavior from anyone but be real this is been going on with politicians on both sides of the aisle for years. Kennedy brothers including the President comes to mind. If you are going to condemn then at least be fair about it.

Liberals condemn the hypocrisy of the far right. The far right conservatives are always judging others for disagreeing with their religious principles. These same conservative moralists are then found to be cheating on their spouses. They are hypocrites and for that deserve the criticism.

Well, she IS the self annointed HEAD of the Tea Party Caucus,...same difference, right?

Yes, the Tea Party Caucus is the Stupidity Committee by another name.

Bachmann is the 'point of reference' concerning the intelligence level of the TeaPeople.....Low bar!

lmao terrific

Very good, you nailed him.

Kurt's comments - NA

By November 2012 it would be nice if the GOP teabaggers decided which wingnut they want to nominate. They realy need to pick one instead of changing their minds every other week.

Hi Houstain,

May I add Kurt's comments to the list of nutiz for this group, needing serious help?

Job1 and Houston!, just because one happens to disagree with you does not make that person "Nutiz". If you want only one opinion, there is a place called North Korea that might be for you

So this is your first campaign Houston? I thought so. Your other posts clued me into the fact that you are a 9th grader. You probably don't remember in 2008 when the Clintons and Obama were battling it out. The Clintons could say virtually NOTHING about Obama without being called racists. It was VERY nasty.

However, you don't have your facts. Your opinion is not a fact. Do the research on your own and don't listen to the radical right nut jobs.