It's hard to see any chance of an agreement. The teabaggers will fight to the end for their billionaire sponsors.

@sharkey#2.1: Yep. Them goobers won't do anything unless it adds to the content of their own pokes.

Neither party is for the American people. Each party has its own personal agenda and it does not include the American people. Sick of both parties!

John Bonner came back to kiss his seat GOOD BYE and I'm sure he'll be taking several of Republicans with him over the next two years.

And yet who do the Voters put back in office? Thats right, the SAME people they complain about. Very Intelligent voters for sure.

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work, because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation!

Raising taxes on the so called "wealthy" (whatever that number is) does absolutely nothing, nothing for the spending crisis America faces.

America has a SPENDING PROBLEM, not a revenue problem. After 30 plus years of GREED and IMMEDIATE GRATIFICATION, it is time to pay up for those decisions.

Obama and the Dems have failed to address that SPENDING PROBLEM and continue IGNORING THE NATIONAL DEBT grow.

Middle America just continues to "buy into" the political rhetoric that raising taxes on the wealthy solves something, it does not.

Middle America, your basic costs of living will keep rising under the Obama reign, and your purchasing power with the US Dollar will continue to shrink.

You Reap what you Sow America, and there is no cure for STUPID (feisty!)!

Hold hands, all chip in and lets jump off the Fiscal Cliff. That is the start to a long lasting solution.

John Bonehead, McConnel, Graham - the top of the loser list.
Lock the whole bunch in, with no pay, until they get an agreement.

If we put Americans back to work the rest will follow,and with severe cuts to Military spending.

The article is goofy. Who on earth expected a day of talks would reach a compromise? Whomever would expect such a thing is living in lala land.

What part of divided don't you understand? The word divided means divided.

The only leverage Dems have on the Repubs is the military cuts in the Sequester. When will the Dems wake up?

Victoria you've hit on it. Put people back to work. Jobs will come home by reducing taxes. Raising taxes will send more jobs overseas. An industry with a higher tax rate cannot compete with an industry with a lower tax rate, very simple.

The President's notion to stimulate the economy by giving businesses dollars borrowed from China is folly.

Ready to hear the same complaining about Obamas' leadership and poor negotiating skills from righties that has been going on for 4 years, how the the great leader Boehner could not sell his caucus a deal where he claimed he got 98% of what he wanted, Under his leadership the House has only passed bills that provide the majority continual orgasms (the Ryan budget) and never even have a chance to move through the rest of government. So on this one he just quits, what a leader, pass the buck to turtlehead, he's still trying to make Obama a term Pres. Every repub I hear blames both sides trying to blow the stink all over, thats how you know they are trying to get a little off themselves. Off the Cliff, no deal will be better than a bad one

Victoria, your statement "John Bonner came back to kiss his seat GOOD BYE and I'm sure he'll be taking several of Republicans with him over the next two years" is amusing.

Boehner may narrowly not have the leadership role extended, but he and the other Republicans you mention are good in their seats for at least the next 2 years. If Boehner is ousted from his leadership position, another Republican will be seated in that position. Who do you like?

If these clowns got paid for what they accomplished they would be hocking their underwhere to pay their light bill. Screw politics take care of the countrys people, you know the ones that made the mistake of voting them in.

It's going to be a very long two years........

In the mean time maybe they'll stop worshiping their false GOD Grover Norquist

I not going to let this $hit Show ruin my new years eve good times. If these rodeo clowns can't work out something then were all #*^@ed. Monday will be interesting, but what's more interesting is that if it's really all that serious, then why wait till 11am EST to meet? I guess they want to SLEEP IN. .....lol

I hope they never agree on anything. We need to go off the cliff, cut spending and start paying our loans down, not adding to them.

Tax increases coming, Oblama folks. Oh, I forgot. He was only going to stick the 1%. Guess he forgot to mention about the 2 zeros on the end, 100%.

God, you libs bought this crap from him, with him knowing the entire time that the only way to continue his massive spending and give-aways was to raise everyone's taxes. So, take note of your take-home pay and remember that you voted for the clown.

You deserve what you get;unfortunately, those of us who saw through his preacher rhetoric and lies also have to live with your stupidity.

Obama helping the poor become more poor.

You mean more Christ like?

Too many of you Republicans believe all that crap that your multi-millionaire Romney put out. The Republicans destroy the economy of this country, refuse to help in the recovery, and then call unemployment benefits hand outs. I'm sick you people, you are the most disgusting, mean group this country has ever produced. I'll be glad when demographics finally get you out every office in the land and let people with a conscience have the power, and I guarantee you, you will not be as wealthy as you are today!

Okay so I am Canadian and I try really hard to understand your politics. I followed the election fearing that Mitt Romney was going to win and now I have been trying to follow this "falling off a cliff" thing. But by today what it started to seem to me was this is being drawn out so long because they want the "drama build-up" so either someone is going to come out of this a hero, and someone a bum or maybe both bums. Or they might have some other ridiculous reason for why they are taking this down to the wire - but I believe a deal will be reached by tomorrow night cause I believe there is one in progress now but they want to win over the people by upping the drama even further. Let's face it they certainly have people talking!!! But this is just a gut feeling I have cause I do plead some ignorance to your politics.

The real solution is to place a heavy import tax on items from countries with low wages so those items can no longer compete with items made in the USA. Another is to severely tax corporations that send jobs overseas. But then American tax dollars went to many of these companies in bailouts with the promise from them that they would create jobs in the USA, that and their lower taxes for more than 30 years - what did those companies do with our tax dollars? They built factories in China and other countries! They said, "Screw you, American workers - we only care about getting ourselves wealthier and we will happily do it with your tax money!"

SHar-2704637

But this is just a gut feeling I have cause I do plead some ignorance to your politics.

__________________________________________________________________________________

That's alright as I believe our politicians (from the President down) have that same ignorance. You at least are trying to learn where the politicians (from the President down) don't have that same desire. They just like to keep letting us know how dumb they are and blaming everything on the other party. They ONLY thing they have all really succeeded at is dividing the whole country. I personally don't think they should get paid until they do the job they were sent to Washington to do.

There is no need to worry. Mr. President Obama probably already has an executive order drafted and will sign it before midnight if the legislative bodies fail to come up with anything. Either in that executive order or in another, Mr. President Obama will fix it so he no longer has to ask Congress to extend the national debt limit. In one evening, Mr. President Obama will save the country from the fiscal cliff and save the big money firms on Wall Street, and have the freedom to spend whatever it takes to make the weaker minded liberal individuals believe everything is just hunky-dory and they will have a perpetual government mother to suckle off of forever.

Whatever shall come to pass, the deal has already been made. All this drama is purely for show. Just to make the American people think they are actually earning their new pay raise. What a bunch of crooks.I am so tired of all this B.S.

Obama was on Meet The Press telling the nation that Dems had agreed to chained CPI while his buddy, H Reid is over in the Senate telling Repubs they can not agree to chained CPI. Seems to me that Mr. Obama has no control over H Reid and that has been a problem throughout his entire term. When is Mr. Obama going to grow a pair and tell H Reid to get in line?. Who is the head of the party, H. Reid or Mr. Obama?

!!!!!!!TRAITORS!!!!!!

Can't pass a budget? But can pass the NDAA traitors

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 passed the Senate with a 98-0 vote. The NDAA is a huge federal law that among other things specifies the budget and expenditures for the Department of Defense. The authorization bill determines the agencies responsible for defense, establishes funding levels, and sets the policies under which money will be spent. Policies that are defined under the authorization act include salary and benefit guidelines for all service members, including health care, plus foreign policy items like the economic sanctions against Iran, embassy security and "options for establishing a no-fly zone over civil war-plagued Syria."

The NDAA is a wide-ranging bill that has many controversial sections. For example one section of the act allows governors to request assistance of military reservists to act as first-responders in the event of a hurricane, earthquake, flood, terrorist attack or other disasters. On the service this doesn't appear too controversial, until you think about the subjective definition of "terrorist attack." The NDAA is also an example of where budget needs to be temporarily divorced from policy. No executive worth his MBA would suggest such an action (there is some red meat for you) but there are a number of policy issues contained in the NDAA that need further debate and discussion without impacting the DOD budget and the subsequent appropriations bill.

Given the urgent need to marry national security with responsible fiscal policy, we need to slow down this process so we can fully vet the most controversial elements of the far-reaching bill.

The top 3 are:

1. The Indefinite Detention Clause: The NDAA has become the most controversial element of President Obama's foreign policy. Section 1021 of the NDAA bill of 2012 allowed for the "indefinite detention of American citizens without due process at the discretion of the President." Section 1021 has been challenged as a violation of constitutional principles and the United States Bill of Rights. The indefinite detention clause has been broadly denounced nationally and internationally. It may very well be the only thing that has true bi-partisan support. The Act was strongly opposed by the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, and The Center for Constitutional Rights, the Cato Institute, Reason Magazine and The Council on American-Islamic Relations. It was criticized in editorials published in The New York Times, Al-Jazeera, and The Guardian. The ACLU said, "The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield." This year's bill contains amendments introduced in the Senate and the House to remove the indefinite detention clause. The House included sections 1031 through 1033, which affirms the right of habeas corpus and the Constitutional right of due process for American citizens. Senator Rand Paul (R–Ky.) a leading opponent of the clause pointed out, "the bill this year contained the amendment I supported which sharply limited the detention power, and eliminated it entirely for American citizens in the US."

2. Intrusion Detection and Network Penetration for Defense Contractors: Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has introduced an amendment to require defense contractors to disclose incidents of cyber intrusion. The amendment seeks to turn what is now a voluntary program of disclosure into a mandatory requirement. Politico quoted Levin, "it's so obvious that if a defense contractor with classified information has their networks penetrated and attacked, then the government has to know about that." Mark Jaycox, a policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation told Mother Jones. DoD has been adamant about inserting a clause in contracts that mandates reporting of security breaches. The government can use this information to defend against threats. Cyber intrusion detection and reporting is a legitimate concern. In 2009, Chinese spies hacked the Pentagon's $300 billion F-35 fighter jet project. The Diplomat noted that in 2012 China introduced a stealth fighter that was "essentially an American stealth fighter with Chinese paintwork."

In a complementary measure the Senate is also requesting that vendors submit the source code for their software for security testing and verification or follow a specific set of security verification guidelines. Writing for LawfareBlog.com, Paul Rosenzweig, an expert in homeland security, explained that, according to section 936 of the NDAA, "upon request, contractors would be required to give DoD access to 'equipment or information' to determine if any classified 'information created by or for' the DoD had been 'successfully exfiltrated.'"

3. The Continuing Buildup of the Military-Industrial Complex Vis-à-Vis the Fiscal Cliff: Marine Corps Times reports the $650 billion bill contains "$88.5 billion more for ongoing wars" and "would add $60 billion to the Navy's plans for the F-18 fighter program." The newsletter said, "the bill supports the Pentagon’s plans for the Air Force to spend $3.7 billion on the F-35 fighter program and the Navy to spend $3.2 billion, on what is the biggest weapon program in history." Three billion was approved for the Army to enhance its ground services capabilities and to purchase Blackhawk helicopters. The Navy was approved for an additional $778 million for the "advance procurement for attack submarines." The Marine Corps Times said, "the Armed Services Committee's proposals on major weapon programs were left unscathed." How’s that for the fiscal cliff, the sequestration process and tightening our belts?

Obama is a joke- blaming Republicans for the deal he set into motion! It was his "super committee" that failed when he didn't even try to help with the negotiations, and when the Simpson Bowles tried to come up with a solution- he shot it down, and then he and Harry (horse's @ss) Reid put off all activity until after the election (because their record was so lousy already), and here we are. They should be thrown in jail for not coming up with a legally required annual budget! Obama leg humpers are morons.

Mitch the Bitch and his worthless cohorts could use a good old fashioned anal probe right now. Their good buddy in Virginia can help them out with that.

I guess they are still too busy trying to figure out how to trash the women of this country to get down to business and do what us taxpayers are paying them to do. Mitch needs to go. What a worthless piece of sheep dung.

House members' presence was largely superfluous.

This isn't news!...

They haven't done anything all year. Named post offices (which they want to close), restrict womens right to choose, and of course repeal ObamaCare!

Worthless bunch, living off the taxpayers!

On top of that they are actually proud of the fact that they haven't accomplished a thing, just look at the dopey smirk on McConnell's face. He is just basking in the media attention and so proud of his deliberate obstinance to getting any sort of deal done.

Worthless bunch, living off the taxpayers!

Chilled, sounds like the Oblama voters.

What's sad is that any average American could make the hard decisions and achieve a basic plan/bill with far greater success. When you belong to the 99% and fully understand the consequences of each decision your capable of making balanced, fair and prudent decisions. The majority or 99% of Americans pay the greater burden of their income to support our government. Hence they pay for those so called "entitlement," programs by investing in them with their tax dollars. Programs the GOP is so bent on eliminating ignoring corporate welfare and subsidies. When you eliminate the hand that feeds you does anyone really have a clue to the consequences?

Budget cutting, balanced budgets and surpluses: They aren't what they're cracked up to be!

To the people posting here who have a naive belief that budget cutting and surpluses are always good for the economy.

Many times they are NOT and some times deficits are good for the economy.

In 1946 we had the biggest debt to GDP ratio in our history and then right after that we had the arguably the biggest to decades of economic boom we have ever had. The 1950's and 1960's were the famous post WWII economic expansion with rising wages and living standards for most people...not just rich people!

The politicians (Republican and Democrat) and corporate media play on people's ignorance of economic history in order to scam them into accepting the argument that we just HAVE to cut Social Security, Medicare, etc. because it will make the economy better and create jobs.

In fact, as fairly old and also recent history shows this is not usually the case.

In Europe the EU, IMF and ECB have been forcing governments to cut spending for the last 5-6 years and many countries there are in recession, projected to go into recession soon and for some are in DEPRESSION NOW.

Here's some information about budget surplus history in the U.S.:

DETAILS

U.S. President

Calvin Coolidge

Compare Calvin Coolidge Administration Federal Budget

Year

1928

Total Receipts ($)

3,900,000,000

Total Outlays ($)

2,961,000,000

Total Surplus Or Deficit ($)

939,000,000 [Surplus]

http://federal-budget.findthedata.org/l/30/1928

Wall Street Crash of 1929

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wall Street Crash of 1929, also known as the Great Crash and the Stock Market Crash of 1929, began in late October 1929 and was the most devastating stock market crash in the history of the United States, when taking into consideration the full extent and duration of its fallout.[1] The crash signaled the beginning of the 10-year Great Depression that affected all Western industrialized countries[2] and did not end in the United States until the onset of American mobilization for World War II at the end of 1941…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929

President Clinton announces another record budget surplus

September 27, 2000

President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion."This represents the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Like our American athletes in Sydney, we've been breaking records and have come a long way."In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years.Clinton also announced the federal government paid down the national debt by $223 billion this year, and by more than $360 billion since 1998, the largest debt reduction in U.S. history…

http://articles.cnn.com/2000-09-27/politics/clinton.surplus_1_budget-surplus-national-debt-fiscal-discipline?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

November 26, 2001: 1:58 p.m. ET

Economists call it recession

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The world's largest economy sank into a recession in March, ending 10 years of growth that was the longest expansion on record in the United States, a group of economists that dates U.S. business cycles said Monday…

http://money.cnn.com/2001/11/26/economy/recession/

Article below was written in 1998:

Think big deficits cause recessions?
Think again!

BY

FREDERICK C. THAYER

The chairman of the Republican National Committee predicts that a recession is on the way, blaming the usual suspects - deficits, regulations and taxes. His prediction is probably correct, but his reasoning is not. The culprit is very probably the recent reductions in the federal deficit as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. The record of history is totally at odds with economic principles and textbooks.

The annual deficit (spending minus revenues) has dropped from 4.9 to 2.3 percent of GDP since 1992.

This is the same pattern that immediately preceded the recession of 1990-91 that became a campaign issue in 1992.

The "recovery" that had begun in 1991 was not all that evident by mid-1992. Indeed, the beginning and end of "official" recessions can only be identified long after the fact.

Technically, recession occurs when the economy experiences negative economic growth for two quarters (six months). It then takes some time for the National Bureau of Economic Research to collect data and announce the beginning or end, a process that can take a year or more. If recession begins this year, we will know for sure only well into 1997, but the immediate effects will be quite visible.

I am not an economic forecaster, but I have uncovered unusual relationships that connect reductions in the national debt with major economic depressions, rising annual deficits with economic growth, and reduced annual deficits with economic contraction and recessions.

The record of history is clear and wholly consistent. Increases in the national debt and annual deficits never have harmed the economy, always have helped it. Significant reductions in the debt and the deficits never have helped, always have hurt. The record divides itself into two periods.

From the origins to World War II

In its first 150 years, the government periodically undertook systematic multi-year reductions in the national debt by taking in more revenues than it spent.

Each of six such sustained periods led to one of the six major depressions in our history. The last three of these crashes were the truly significant depressions of the industrial era.

This is the record:

1. 1817-21: In five years, the national debt was reduced by 29 percent, to $90 million. A depression began in 1819.

2. 1823-36: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 99.7 percent, to $38,000. A depression began in 1837.

3. 1852-57: In six years, the debt was reduced by 59 percent, to $28.7 million. A depression began in 1857..

4. 1867-73: In seven years, the debt was reduced by 27 percent, to $2.2 billion. A depression began in 1873.

5. 1880-93: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 57 percent, to $1 billion. A depression began in 1893.

6. 1920-30: In 11 years, the debt was reduced by 36 percent, to $16.2 billion. A depression began in 1929.

There have been no such multiyear budget surpluses and debt reductions since World War II and, significantly, no major new depression. The record suggests that reducing the debt never sustained prosperity, even when the debt was virtually wiped out by 1836. The highest deficits were those of world War II, ranging from 20 to 31 percent of Gross National Product. For a few years following the war, the debt was greater than GNP, the only such case in history. The wartime borrowing and spending actually ended the Great Depression.

Post-World War II

Both political parties pledge to balance the budget by 2002, and all budget-balancers hope ultimately to reduce the national debt. In the meantime, the nine recessions of the depression-free postwar decades have each followed reductions in the annual deficits relative to GDP.

Using data developed by Warren B. Mosler, economic analyst for a Florida investment firm, I suggest how some of the recent recessions have been politically significant:

· Deficit reductions, 1971-74, led to the recession that began at the end of 1973; a slow recovery did not help Gerald Ford in 1976.

· Deficit reductions, 1977-80, gave way to a recession in 1980 that damaged Jimmy Carter's re-election hopes.

· Deficit reductions, 1987-89, were followed by the 1990-91 recession that harmed George Bush.

Meanwhile, the longest period without a recession was from November, 1982 to July, 1990.

The Republicans who now praise that "Reagan boom" never refer to the deficits or blame the Democratic Congress, while Democrats repeatedly attack "Reagan deficits." Neither side seems aware that a steep rise in deficits began in 1981, preceding the "boom" by almost two years.

When deficit reductions finally began in 1987, they paved the way for the next recession. Political irony is everywhere.

When the economy slides downhill, the incumbent president is badly damaged, and it does him little good to proclaim "success" in reducing deficits.

Ronald Reagan suffered no political harm because of the deficits of the 1980s and, even at his advanced age, might have been elected again in 1988 if he had been permitted to run. Whatever citizens say to pollsters, they vote against recessions, not budget deficits.

Driven by what appears to be wholly fallacious economic principles, politicians have put together such monstrosities as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollins deficit-reduction policy and the more recent "zero-sum budgeting" (all new programs must be financed by cuts in existing programs), along with the Clinton administration's "reinvention of government" ("downsizing") to virtually guarantee a new economic disaster, perhaps more serious than any in recent decades.

Extreme danger ahead?

Europe as a whole has been in deep economic trouble for some time, and even Germany now has 11 percent unemployment.

Following the Maastricht criteria the prerequisites for monetary union, European countries are attempting to reduce their annual deficits to the less than 3 percent levels required by the treaty.

There is reason to believe that this effort is hurting European economies which, along with Japan and this country, cannot sell as many consumer goods and services as they need and wish to sell. A spreading recession virus could be very dangerous indeed.

The relationships outlined above deserve serious study, even if they are wholly foreign to widely accepted economic principle that blind even sophisticated analysts to such possibilities. It may be time to question what has been considered unquestionable principle.

http://www.epicoalition.org/docs/thayer.htm

These crack head congressman scheduled the exact time for the cliff to go nuclear and then waited two years to begin talking. These political pinheads are only concerned with saving their hind quarters at the expence of wall street, main street, and the rest of us who voted on these pinheads to represent the people. Nursery school kids could negotiate a better sollution than these do nothing machiavellian dimwits! Congress get your effing act together before the people are forced to rise up with ptch forks and remove you from office!

Well, the dog and pony show is reaching it's finale. The same one they always do. Wait until the nth hour, shove in all the stuff they want so it will be a law with out review, and blame each other afterward. In typical fashion they will do the opposite of what is needed, in this case an unlimited debt ceiling and wipe out SS. And you people let it happen over end over by re electing these clowns. WAY TO GO!

The Republicans already got their deal, at the last debt ceiling increase. Unless the Dems make a better offer, there is nothing else to do except make more spending cuts.

See my post #1.131, go to the link, study the entire FY 2013 Budget Proposal, then list your budget cutting suggestions here. Otherwise STFU up everyone. And I say the same thing to every member of Congress. Until they PUBLISH their individual spending cuts on the Congressional websites, they are ALL do-nothing members of Congress and don't deserve the pay and benefits they receive. Lock them all in the building until they come up with the right combination of taxes and spending cuts (S/B commission would be a good start, even though some of those same Congressional members failed to vote Yes on that commission report, causing it to fail to reach the floor of the two houses of Congress.)

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 passed the Senate with a 98-0 vote. The NDAA is a huge federal law that among other things specifies the budget and expenditures for the Department of Defense. The authorization bill determines the agencies responsible for defense, establishes funding levels, and sets the policies under which money will be spent. Policies that are defined under the authorization act include salary and benefit guidelines for all service members, including health care, plus foreign policy items like the economic sanctions against Iran, embassy security and "options for establishing a no-fly zone over civil war-plagued Syria."

The NDAA is a wide-ranging bill that has many controversial sections. For example one section of the act allows governors to request assistance of military reservists to act as first-responders in the event of a hurricane, earthquake, flood, terrorist attack or other disasters. On the service this doesn't appear too controversial, until you think about the subjective definition of "terrorist attack." The NDAA is also an example of where budget needs to be temporarily divorced from policy. No executive worth his MBA would suggest such an action (there is some red meat for you) but there are a number of policy issues contained in the NDAA that need further debate and discussion without impacting the DOD budget and the subsequent appropriations bill.

Given the urgent need to marry national security with responsible fiscal policy, we need to slow down this process so we can fully vet the most controversial elements of the far-reaching bill.

The top 3 are:

1. The Indefinite Detention Clause: The NDAA has become the most controversial element of President Obama's foreign policy. Section 1021 of the NDAA bill of 2012 allowed for the "indefinite detention of American citizens without due process at the discretion of the President." Section 1021 has been challenged as a violation of constitutional principles and the United States Bill of Rights. The indefinite detention clause has been broadly denounced nationally and internationally. It may very well be the only thing that has true bi-partisan support. The Act was strongly opposed by the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, and The Center for Constitutional Rights, the Cato Institute, Reason Magazine and The Council on American-Islamic Relations. It was criticized in editorials published in The New York Times, Al-Jazeera, and The Guardian. The ACLU said, "The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield." This year's bill contains amendments introduced in the Senate and the House to remove the indefinite detention clause. The House included sections 1031 through 1033, which affirms the right of habeas corpus and the Constitutional right of due process for American citizens. Senator Rand Paul (R–Ky.) a leading opponent of the clause pointed out, "the bill this year contained the amendment I supported which sharply limited the detention power, and eliminated it entirely for American citizens in the US."

2. Intrusion Detection and Network Penetration for Defense Contractors: Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has introduced an amendment to require defense contractors to disclose incidents of cyber intrusion. The amendment seeks to turn what is now a voluntary program of disclosure into a mandatory requirement. Politico quoted Levin, "it's so obvious that if a defense contractor with classified information has their networks penetrated and attacked, then the government has to know about that." Mark Jaycox, a policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation told Mother Jones. DoD has been adamant about inserting a clause in contracts that mandates reporting of security breaches. The government can use this information to defend against threats. Cyber intrusion detection and reporting is a legitimate concern. In 2009, Chinese spies hacked the Pentagon's $300 billion F-35 fighter jet project. The Diplomat noted that in 2012 China introduced a stealth fighter that was "essentially an American stealth fighter with Chinese paintwork."

In a complementary measure the Senate is also requesting that vendors submit the source code for their software for security testing and verification or follow a specific set of security verification guidelines. Writing for LawfareBlog.com, Paul Rosenzweig, an expert in homeland security, explained that, according to section 936 of the NDAA, "upon request, contractors would be required to give DoD access to 'equipment or information' to determine if any classified 'information created by or for' the DoD had been 'successfully exfiltrated.'"

3. The Continuing Buildup of the Military-Industrial Complex Vis-à-Vis the Fiscal Cliff: Marine Corps Times reports the $650 billion bill contains "$88.5 billion more for ongoing wars" and "would add $60 billion to the Navy's plans for the F-18 fighter program." The newsletter said, "the bill supports the Pentagon’s plans for the Air Force to spend $3.7 billion on the F-35 fighter program and the Navy to spend $3.2 billion, on what is the biggest weapon program in history." Three billion was approved for the Army to enhance its ground services capabilities and to purchase Blackhawk helicopters. The Navy was approved for an additional $778 million for the "advance procurement for attack submarines." The Marine Corps Times said, "the Armed Services Committee's proposals on major weapon programs were left unscathed." How’s that for the fiscal cliff, the sequestration process and tightening our belts?

Ignorant remark.

"Perpare to empeach those soggy T-baggers and throw them into the trash where they belong forever!"

The sad thing is after they're elected, a member of Congress is almost impossible to toss out before the next election.

I keep reading comments by Democrats who insist that the tea party has to go, and I'll confess to previously sharing that belief, but the fact is that they're good for our party. In fact, we couldn't have drawn a better spoiler if we had tried.

When fragmented right-wing extremists such as the KKK, the John Birch Society, and various Aryan Nation and white supremacy groups found a welcoming home in the tea party, they coalesced and gained a false legitimacy through their self-imposed affiliation with, and subsequent takeover of, the Republican Party. This 'tail wagging the dog' has created a virtual anarchy in the House, with the rest of the party frantically trying to avoid the biting jaws of their creation gone amuck, while their leaders publicly despair of ever reaching agreements with their own people.

In the past, Democrats have had to contend with Independents like Ross Perot, who acted the spoiler and drained votes from the Democrats. They could do that because their views were sufficiently moderate to sway right-leaning Democrats who would rather choke than ever vote Republican.

Today, however, the tea party controls from the extreme right, alienating the moderate Republicans and forcing them to vote Democrat for lack of a legitimate third party alternative. President Obama wasn't reelected because most people wanted him; he was reelected because most people didn't want the tea party anywhere near their lives.

The best thing that can happen to the Democrats is for the tea party to remain in their marginalized position of power. By extension, this marginalizes the Republican Party in a manner and magnitude that the Democrats could never achieve on their own, as was evident in this past election when the tea party forced the Republicans to field candidates like Bachmann, Palin, Angle and Mourdock.

The real beauty of this fact is that it will take the GOP many, many losing election cycles before they can break the tea party stranglehold and have any chance at returning to their former stature. The reason for this is of their own making – by gerrymandering their districts the way they did, they've all but guaranteed that the tea party can't be defeated without primary challenges, something that never bodes well for the incumbent party.

While the Republicans spend the next several election cycles trying to deal with their internal civil war, the Democrats can take advantage of the lull in serious opposition to regain powerful majorities in Congress, as well as own the White House for at least the next 12 years, and create a legacy that would've been all but impossible without the help of the tea party.

Without the tea party this county would already be Greece. You just can not trust Dumbo with money. He is just to freaking stupid to understand. No new taxes period. Quit spending..easy enough for you lefties.

nvpat,

I understand the sentiment and while the Tea Party might be good for the Democratic Party, it won't be good for America. We need two functional parties for America to thrive, but because of the Tea party, the Republican party is no longer functions properly and as a result we risk going over the fiscal cliff, defaulting on our debt, and generally no getting anything done. While I'm a Democrat, I'm an American first.

You have an interesting theory, but I don't think having the Republican party shattered is good for the country. The Democrats do a better job fiscally, and certainly socailly, but there always needs to be some sort of counterbalance. The problem now is as you said, the Republican Party has been taken over. I could certainly see some red dog dems uniting with the Republican old guard to produce a party that at least was potentially sane.

EXCELLENT REMARK!!!.....and truthful too....

Thank GOD for the Tea Party. They obviously made a difference in stopping the out of control spending and are doing a mighty fine job at it consistently since 2010 and even now.

When you liberals are all huffy and puffy and butthurt, you bring up race etc... Whatever pat.

I am a Conservative Tea Party supporter and I am whatever you say we are. So now what?

The Teabillys are the worst thing that ever happened to the Republican party, they're flat out obstructionists and they have to, need to go and if Republicons are smart at ALL, THEY WILL MAKE IT HAPPEN.

Getit?-1145883

Perpare to empeach.... That's IMPEACH

It was just reported that the fall that Hillary Clinton had, she has a blood clot, and is hospitalized, and the Republicans accused her of deliberately avoiding to testify about Benghazi, once again the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot.

Get well soon Hillary!

Chris, you're correct and I agree with you that being an American comes first. My point was what the future would appear to hold, not what I would like it to be. However, to put America first, we need to protect it from extremists and move towards a more moderate center, and I honestly don't see that happening for a long time. The Republicans are the only ones who can remove the tea party, and thereby contribute to your goal and mine, but it'll take a long time for them to realize it.

Tiberius, yes, we need the balance a second major party brings, and the Republicans used to be that party. If they could throw off the extremists and attract some moderates back into the fold, they'd return to the position they once held. However, we're going to continue to have this imbalance until we decide we won't be hijacked by vocal minorities any more.

@Tiberius Gracchus #4.6: I note your sentiments and somewhat agree. Ignorance and greed are the real problems with the Republicans. Tea party, through mostly ignorance, has exaggerated these to the point of becoming fearfully close to destroying both, the political and economic tenets upon which the ideals of this Republic have been historically expressed, and in fact, are the basis of our particular system.

Tea party republicans are much like owning a herd of horses, all with at least one broken leg. Yes, we might eventually shoot 'em all, but that will do little to fix whatever caused 'em to break their legs to begin with, or to enlighten enough buyer's not to buy such again.

I think you should be reported to DHS for your inflammatory hate speech which may lead to either you or another angry liberal to act on what you are suggesting. Listen to your president and tone down the rhetoric. have you learned nothing from recent events?

The Tea Party/Conservatives or in other words, your opposition are doing a fine job obviously. Just look at how their representation on the matters have you libs in such a hissy fit. As of yet none of you have mentioned a word about irresponsible spending and the massive debt.

Yes, thank you tea party extremists, you have assured many a democrat election win for the foreseeable future. Teabaggers, keep the bat @!$%# crazy going for the good of our great country!

Name 1 incident of "extremism" by a Tea Party member either at a protest, on TV or elsewhere. What about the extreme 7 trillion your man has spent in his first term. Bush was termed by obammy as unpatriotic for racking up 4 trillion in his 8 years. So what does that make your president, treasonous?

AmericanCitizen-1646928 #4.15

Did you even listen to yourself when you wrote that post..

I think you should be reported to DHS

Since when have the American people started to patrol each other and "threaten" to turn them into the Gestapo.

You sound just like one of Hilter's Brown Shirts...

Is this what Our Country has come too?

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 passed the Senate with a 98-0 vote. The NDAA is a huge federal law that among other things specifies the budget and expenditures for the Department of Defense. The authorization bill determines the agencies responsible for defense, establishes funding levels, and sets the policies under which money will be spent. Policies that are defined under the authorization act include salary and benefit guidelines for all service members, including health care, plus foreign policy items like the economic sanctions against Iran, embassy security and "options for establishing a no-fly zone over civil war-plagued Syria."

The NDAA is a wide-ranging bill that has many controversial sections. For example one section of the act allows governors to request assistance of military reservists to act as first-responders in the event of a hurricane, earthquake, flood, terrorist attack or other disasters. On the service this doesn't appear too controversial, until you think about the subjective definition of "terrorist attack." The NDAA is also an example of where budget needs to be temporarily divorced from policy. No executive worth his MBA would suggest such an action (there is some red meat for you) but there are a number of policy issues contained in the NDAA that need further debate and discussion without impacting the DOD budget and the subsequent appropriations bill.

Given the urgent need to marry national security with responsible fiscal policy, we need to slow down this process so we can fully vet the most controversial elements of the far-reaching bill.

The top 3 are:

1. The Indefinite Detention Clause: The NDAA has become the most controversial element of President Obama's foreign policy. Section 1021 of the NDAA bill of 2012 allowed for the "indefinite detention of American citizens without due process at the discretion of the President." Section 1021 has been challenged as a violation of constitutional principles and the United States Bill of Rights. The indefinite detention clause has been broadly denounced nationally and internationally. It may very well be the only thing that has true bi-partisan support. The Act was strongly opposed by the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, and The Center for Constitutional Rights, the Cato Institute, Reason Magazine and The Council on American-Islamic Relations. It was criticized in editorials published in The New York Times, Al-Jazeera, and The Guardian. The ACLU said, "The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield." This year's bill contains amendments introduced in the Senate and the House to remove the indefinite detention clause. The House included sections 1031 through 1033, which affirms the right of habeas corpus and the Constitutional right of due process for American citizens. Senator Rand Paul (R–Ky.) a leading opponent of the clause pointed out, "the bill this year contained the amendment I supported which sharply limited the detention power, and eliminated it entirely for American citizens in the US."

2. Intrusion Detection and Network Penetration for Defense Contractors: Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has introduced an amendment to require defense contractors to disclose incidents of cyber intrusion. The amendment seeks to turn what is now a voluntary program of disclosure into a mandatory requirement. Politico quoted Levin, "it's so obvious that if a defense contractor with classified information has their networks penetrated and attacked, then the government has to know about that." Mark Jaycox, a policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation told Mother Jones. DoD has been adamant about inserting a clause in contracts that mandates reporting of security breaches. The government can use this information to defend against threats. Cyber intrusion detection and reporting is a legitimate concern. In 2009, Chinese spies hacked the Pentagon's $300 billion F-35 fighter jet project. The Diplomat noted that in 2012 China introduced a stealth fighter that was "essentially an American stealth fighter with Chinese paintwork."

In a complementary measure the Senate is also requesting that vendors submit the source code for their software for security testing and verification or follow a specific set of security verification guidelines. Writing for LawfareBlog.com, Paul Rosenzweig, an expert in homeland security, explained that, according to section 936 of the NDAA, "upon request, contractors would be required to give DoD access to 'equipment or information' to determine if any classified 'information created by or for' the DoD had been 'successfully exfiltrated.'"

3. The Continuing Buildup of the Military-Industrial Complex Vis-à-Vis the Fiscal Cliff: Marine Corps Times reports the $650 billion bill contains "$88.5 billion more for ongoing wars" and "would add $60 billion to the Navy's plans for the F-18 fighter program." The newsletter said, "the bill supports the Pentagon’s plans for the Air Force to spend $3.7 billion on the F-35 fighter program and the Navy to spend $3.2 billion, on what is the biggest weapon program in history." Three billion was approved for the Army to enhance its ground services capabilities and to purchase Blackhawk helicopters. The Navy was approved for an additional $778 million for the "advance procurement for attack submarines." The Marine Corps Times said, "the Armed Services Committee's proposals on major weapon programs were left unscathed." How’s that for the fiscal cliff, the sequestration process and tightening our belts?

Oaama didn't win because of the Tea Party, he won because of the unions, latinos, and career system suckers that thought he was going to "bring home the bacon" for them. Greedy, corrupt parasites.

This mess 100% the fault of the voters! 94% of the incuments were returned to office in November and they had an approval rating of 9%! 21 of 22 senators were returned and they had illgally not passed a budget in 3+ years! This is your fault!

Tony

Historically, increases in revenue precedes increases in spending several times higher than the actual amount of new revenue collected.

And Tony, explain why England is experiencing a decrease in revenue when the only change in tax rates was to increase taxes on the rich back in 2010.

"The biggest obstacle we face is that President Obama and Majority Leader Reid continue to insist on new taxes

They are NOT new taxes. When the Republican controlled Bush congress passed these tax cuts, they put a sunset clause on them. That's becaue they know in the out years these cuts bout bust the budget.

"President Obama and Majority Leader Reid continue to insist on new taxes that will be used to fund more new spending,"

Since you probably listen to only Limbaugh the junkie and Fox, you likely don't know that adjusted for inflation, you have to go back to the Eisenhower administration to find a president who has increased spending LESS than President Obama. The increases in spending since we've seen over the last 4 years were due to programs that were on the books long before Preaident Obama took office.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Who knew?

Check out the chart –

So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20^, 2013.

So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?

Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.

However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.

Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. As I understand the argument Heritage is putting forth —and I have provided the link to the Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself—Marketwatch, in using the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.

But then, with the Heritage Foundation being the creator of the individual mandate concept in healthcare only to rebut the same when it was no longer politically convenient, I’m not quite sure why anyone believes much of anything they have to say any longer. With their history of reversing course for convenience, I can’t help but wonder, should they find themselves reviewing the spending record of a President Romney four years from today, whether they might be tempted to use the Obama numbers as the baseline for such a new Administration.

That is nowhere to be found on Marketwatch........you're a liar

To..trouble'''''

Obama spending binge never happened

Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

May 22, 2012|Rex Nutting, MarketWatch

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

Spending increase under George W Bush: 16 percent

Spending increase under Ronald Reagan: 9.6 percent

Spending increase under Barack Obama: 9.9 percent

I don't see the massive spending people complain about..........

And let their be no question to who is behind the rebuttal Rex Nutting got over this

Right-wing think tanks rule DC

ultra-conservative American Enterprise Institute (AIE).

and

Peter J. Ferrara analyst for The Heartland Institute.

last modified on 11 August 2008

Peter Joseph Ferrara heads the Social Security Project of the Free Enterprise Fund, which supports the Bush administration's effort to privatize Social Security.

Peter Ferrara, a "senior policy adviser" at the conservative Institute for Policy Innovation, admitted that he "took money" from Jack Abramoff "to write op-ed pieces boosting the lobbyist's clients. 'I do that all the time,' Ferrara [said]. 'I've done that in the past, and I'll do it in the future'," Eamon Javers reported December 16, 2005, in Business Week. Ferrara said "he doesn't see a conflict of interest in taking undisclosed money to write op-ed pieces because his columns never violated his ideological principles."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peter_J._Ferrara

Peter Ferrara

Senior Fellow, Entitlement and Budget Policy

Peter Ferrara is senior fellow for entitlement and budget policy at The Heartland Institute, a senior fellow at the Social Security Institute, and the general counsel of the American Civil Rights Union.
Recent OpEds

Is President Obama Really A Socialist? Let’s Analyze Obamanomics
December 23, 2012

Fewer Guns, More Crime

December 21, 2012

http://heartland.org/peter-ferrara

The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit "think tank" that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation. A July 2011 Nature editorial points out the group's lack of credibility:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

and the Heritage foundation what more needs to be said

Gotta love it...

From the right wing Heritage Foundation

The North American Free Trade Agreement: Ronald Reagan's Vision Realized

November 23, 1993

Long-Standing Support for Free Trade with Mexico. Ronald Reagan first proposed a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Mexico in his 1980 presidential campaign. Since that time, The Heritage Foundation is proud of the role it has played in articulating President Reagan's vision of free trade in Latin America and around the world. Since the mid-1980s, Heritage analysts have been stressing that a free trade agreement with Mexico not only will stimulate economic growth in the U.S., but will make Mexico a more stable and prosperous country. Heritage has published over three dozen studies stressing the benefits of free trade in North America.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/1993/11/EM371-The-North-American-Free-Trade-Agreement

If you quote Rex Nutting you are truly an idiot

To..trouble """

Your a liar

What a hoot

"I don't see the massive spending people complain about.........."

The only time a Republican opposes spending is when a Democrat is on the White House. Remember -- George W. Bush and his Republican Congress inherited the largest surplus of all times and within 3 years turned that into a deficit.

No one said anything about new spending except Fixed News. Republicans can't even approve their own bills without the tea baggers voting everything down. Boehner and his buddies are a joke.

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 passed the Senate with a 98-0 vote. The NDAA is a huge federal law that among other things specifies the budget and expenditures for the Department of Defense. The authorization bill determines the agencies responsible for defense, establishes funding levels, and sets the policies under which money will be spent. Policies that are defined under the authorization act include salary and benefit guidelines for all service members, including health care, plus foreign policy items like the economic sanctions against Iran, embassy security and "options for establishing a no-fly zone over civil war-plagued Syria."

The NDAA is a wide-ranging bill that has many controversial sections. For example one section of the act allows governors to request assistance of military reservists to act as first-responders in the event of a hurricane, earthquake, flood, terrorist attack or other disasters. On the service this doesn't appear too controversial, until you think about the subjective definition of "terrorist attack." The NDAA is also an example of where budget needs to be temporarily divorced from policy. No executive worth his MBA would suggest such an action (there is some red meat for you) but there are a number of policy issues contained in the NDAA that need further debate and discussion without impacting the DOD budget and the subsequent appropriations bill.

Given the urgent need to marry national security with responsible fiscal policy, we need to slow down this process so we can fully vet the most controversial elements of the far-reaching bill.

The top 3 are:

1. The Indefinite Detention Clause: The NDAA has become the most controversial element of President Obama's foreign policy. Section 1021 of the NDAA bill of 2012 allowed for the "indefinite detention of American citizens without due process at the discretion of the President." Section 1021 has been challenged as a violation of constitutional principles and the United States Bill of Rights. The indefinite detention clause has been broadly denounced nationally and internationally. It may very well be the only thing that has true bi-partisan support. The Act was strongly opposed by the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, and The Center for Constitutional Rights, the Cato Institute, Reason Magazine and The Council on American-Islamic Relations. It was criticized in editorials published in The New York Times, Al-Jazeera, and The Guardian. The ACLU said, "The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield." This year's bill contains amendments introduced in the Senate and the House to remove the indefinite detention clause. The House included sections 1031 through 1033, which affirms the right of habeas corpus and the Constitutional right of due process for American citizens. Senator Rand Paul (R–Ky.) a leading opponent of the clause pointed out, "the bill this year contained the amendment I supported which sharply limited the detention power, and eliminated it entirely for American citizens in the US."

2. Intrusion Detection and Network Penetration for Defense Contractors: Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has introduced an amendment to require defense contractors to disclose incidents of cyber intrusion. The amendment seeks to turn what is now a voluntary program of disclosure into a mandatory requirement. Politico quoted Levin, "it's so obvious that if a defense contractor with classified information has their networks penetrated and attacked, then the government has to know about that." Mark Jaycox, a policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation told Mother Jones. DoD has been adamant about inserting a clause in contracts that mandates reporting of security breaches. The government can use this information to defend against threats. Cyber intrusion detection and reporting is a legitimate concern. In 2009, Chinese spies hacked the Pentagon's $300 billion F-35 fighter jet project. The Diplomat noted that in 2012 China introduced a stealth fighter that was "essentially an American stealth fighter with Chinese paintwork."

In a complementary measure the Senate is also requesting that vendors submit the source code for their software for security testing and verification or follow a specific set of security verification guidelines. Writing for LawfareBlog.com, Paul Rosenzweig, an expert in homeland security, explained that, according to section 936 of the NDAA, "upon request, contractors would be required to give DoD access to 'equipment or information' to determine if any classified 'information created by or for' the DoD had been 'successfully exfiltrated.'"

3. The Continuing Buildup of the Military-Industrial Complex Vis-à-Vis the Fiscal Cliff: Marine Corps Times reports the $650 billion bill contains "$88.5 billion more for ongoing wars" and "would add $60 billion to the Navy's plans for the F-18 fighter program." The newsletter said, "the bill supports the Pentagon’s plans for the Air Force to spend $3.7 billion on the F-35 fighter program and the Navy to spend $3.2 billion, on what is the biggest weapon program in history." Three billion was approved for the Army to enhance its ground services capabilities and to purchase Blackhawk helicopters. The Navy was approved for an additional $778 million for the "advance procurement for attack submarines." The Marine Corps Times said, "the Armed Services Committee's proposals on major weapon programs were left unscathed." How’s that for the fiscal cliff, the sequestration process and tightening our belts?

So violence is the first thought you have to solving a problem?

I want to slap that smirk off of Bitch McConnell's face.

Cute.....and if THE ONE's name was in RTypo's post you get a knock on the door from the Thought Police.

So what's choco-rations down to today? Double plus good your post. Old thinkers use old speak, but you use NEWS SPEAK.

Obama want to tax the proletariat and bourgeoisie. He loves the fiscal cliff. He helped invent it.

He just wants to grow more government-----hey, did anyone catch the executive order to give all these clowns from Boehner to Bidden a pay increase??????

Ever work for a poor person? Big BROTHER does.....US.

Wake up meatball!

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 passed the Senate with a 98-0 vote. The NDAA is a huge federal law that among other things specifies the budget and expenditures for the Department of Defense. The authorization bill determines the agencies responsible for defense, establishes funding levels, and sets the policies under which money will be spent. Policies that are defined under the authorization act include salary and benefit guidelines for all service members, including health care, plus foreign policy items like the economic sanctions against Iran, embassy security and "options for establishing a no-fly zone over civil war-plagued Syria."

The NDAA is a wide-ranging bill that has many controversial sections. For example one section of the act allows governors to request assistance of military reservists to act as first-responders in the event of a hurricane, earthquake, flood, terrorist attack or other disasters. On the service this doesn't appear too controversial, until you think about the subjective definition of "terrorist attack." The NDAA is also an example of where budget needs to be temporarily divorced from policy. No executive worth his MBA would suggest such an action (there is some red meat for you) but there are a number of policy issues contained in the NDAA that need further debate and discussion without impacting the DOD budget and the subsequent appropriations bill.

Given the urgent need to marry national security with responsible fiscal policy, we need to slow down this process so we can fully vet the most controversial elements of the far-reaching bill.

The top 3 are:

1. The Indefinite Detention Clause: The NDAA has become the most controversial element of President Obama's foreign policy. Section 1021 of the NDAA bill of 2012 allowed for the "indefinite detention of American citizens without due process at the discretion of the President." Section 1021 has been challenged as a violation of constitutional principles and the United States Bill of Rights. The indefinite detention clause has been broadly denounced nationally and internationally. It may very well be the only thing that has true bi-partisan support. The Act was strongly opposed by the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, and The Center for Constitutional Rights, the Cato Institute, Reason Magazine and The Council on American-Islamic Relations. It was criticized in editorials published in The New York Times, Al-Jazeera, and The Guardian. The ACLU said, "The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield." This year's bill contains amendments introduced in the Senate and the House to remove the indefinite detention clause. The House included sections 1031 through 1033, which affirms the right of habeas corpus and the Constitutional right of due process for American citizens. Senator Rand Paul (R–Ky.) a leading opponent of the clause pointed out, "the bill this year contained the amendment I supported which sharply limited the detention power, and eliminated it entirely for American citizens in the US."

2. Intrusion Detection and Network Penetration for Defense Contractors: Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has introduced an amendment to require defense contractors to disclose incidents of cyber intrusion. The amendment seeks to turn what is now a voluntary program of disclosure into a mandatory requirement. Politico quoted Levin, "it's so obvious that if a defense contractor with classified information has their networks penetrated and attacked, then the government has to know about that." Mark Jaycox, a policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation told Mother Jones. DoD has been adamant about inserting a clause in contracts that mandates reporting of security breaches. The government can use this information to defend against threats. Cyber intrusion detection and reporting is a legitimate concern. In 2009, Chinese spies hacked the Pentagon's $300 billion F-35 fighter jet project. The Diplomat noted that in 2012 China introduced a stealth fighter that was "essentially an American stealth fighter with Chinese paintwork."

In a complementary measure the Senate is also requesting that vendors submit the source code for their software for security testing and verification or follow a specific set of security verification guidelines. Writing for LawfareBlog.com, Paul Rosenzweig, an expert in homeland security, explained that, according to section 936 of the NDAA, "upon request, contractors would be required to give DoD access to 'equipment or information' to determine if any classified 'information created by or for' the DoD had been 'successfully exfiltrated.'"

3. The Continuing Buildup of the Military-Industrial Complex Vis-à-Vis the Fiscal Cliff: Marine Corps Times reports the $650 billion bill contains "$88.5 billion more for ongoing wars" and "would add $60 billion to the Navy's plans for the F-18 fighter program." The newsletter said, "the bill supports the Pentagon’s plans for the Air Force to spend $3.7 billion on the F-35 fighter program and the Navy to spend $3.2 billion, on what is the biggest weapon program in history." Three billion was approved for the Army to enhance its ground services capabilities and to purchase Blackhawk helicopters. The Navy was approved for an additional $778 million for the "advance procurement for attack submarines." The Marine Corps Times said, "the Armed Services Committee's proposals on major weapon programs were left unscathed." How’s that for the fiscal cliff, the sequestration process and tightening our belts?

Don't count on it- they didn't even vote out Jesse Jackson Jr. who was missing in action for the 6 months before the election because he was being investigated for misappropriation of funds (theft) so he suddenly developed bipolar disease and languishing in the posh section of the mental hospital. Chicago voters are idiots. And that's just one example- the bigger one was Obama who was re elected with a miserable record.

Then who will pay off Bush's two wars? Certainly not the defense contractors that made a fortune off of the blood of our fighting men and women. Oh yea, that's right. I know you rwnj's think you have a lock on the military, but that's far from the truth. Most of the scarred and wounded can't stand the way you chicken hawks act like it's your own private army at your disposal.

@tony,

You will recall that BOTH of "Bush's" wars were approved by a MAJORITY OF BOTH PARTIES in Congress.

Sorry pal, but the Democrats own them as much as the GOP.

And by the way, you cant pay them off by borrowing!

Talk about ignorant comments.

True story - Talking to my father before the election and he asked me a question. do you believe that Barack Obama is going to suspend the Constitution and run for a 3rd term. We were having a serious conversation up to that point. I have to say, I laughed at him. I said Dad, if I believe that then I would have had to believe the FAR LEFT that was saying the same about George Bush 4 years ago. All he could say was, I never heard that before. Of course not, it was a conspiracy theory by the fringe. Unfortunately the RIGHT fringe speaks louder and is followed by the Repuglicons instead of ignored like we on the Left do. Just saying!

@ enuf "And by the way, you cant pay them off by borrowing!"

So why don't we raise some taxes to pay for them? Actually, why did we CUT taxes in the middle of wartime? the first time in our HISTORY!

"the FAR LEFT that was saying the same about George Bush"

I remember it being said more than a few times about Ronnie.

Oh boy enuf, what a simplistic approach to things. Yes, enuf already - of you sadly to say. Enough of you.

Hey, enuf - your name is interesting. "enuf of our elected ones" - Then you only rail against Democrats. So you mean only the Democratic elected ones, right? Schmuk.

The democrats call Iraq and Afgan wars the Bush Wars, Well Obama has not ended them like he said he would, for good reason, which means he must of found a reason to continue them and even expand the Afgan war. I would think by know if the economy were improved he would claim credit, but since his policys for the past 4 years have done nothing to turn things around, (like FDR's plan) He pins the blame on Bush.

You gotta love the right ...bush lied us into a war with Iraq and it's the democrats fault

Some of you really need to check your facts before you make ignorant comments. Especially you " had enuf of our elected ones".

jam -

I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but you can check the Congressional record. The democrats were for the wars before they were against them.

"Unfortunately the RIGHT fringe speaks louder and is followed by the Repuglicons instead of ignored like we on the Left do."

They said at the end of Clinton's second germ he was going to start a race war, declare marshal law and then refuse to leave office. No lie is too big for these clowns to tell.

When will the Democrats and President learn that cutting social Security is BAD for the economy? Social Security checks are spent entirely EVERY month. This creates jobs. Get someone in this administration that has a clue about business.

Mr. President! You refuse to use the new taxes to cut the debt. YOU refuse to cut ANY costs of your administration and the country. WE all have had to cut. Start with your wife's travel budget. We had to start with ours. Get a clue sir.

no sh.t!! dem sum dum mo foz dare runnin oops i meant ruinin dis plaze

loooooooooooooool thats funny!! HAHAHAHAA

4 hours of naming things after Reagan, 4 hours of trying to repeal Obamacare, 4 hours of legislation regarding lady parts, and 1 hour of blaming Obama why things didn't get done.

We had a chance to change things one month ago. Time will not change anything. The People wanted this split government. As long as people have a hand out they will keep getting the same fools elected.

Every single person that voted for OBAMACare without reading the bill should be gone by now. Nevada should NEVER have elected harry Reid again and do that to the rest of the country. Does no one voting in Nevada kown their unemployment rate and debt total and the debt total of the US?

Obama's MTP interview today PROVED that he didn't want a solution.

What kind of fool goes on TV and keeps up with the party line and blame game in the middle of delicate, last-minute negotiations?

Obama is going to end up with a lame duck second term and America is going to end up becoming Greece.

ummm, John Boehner?

Obama wants the fiscal cliff, it will give him the billions of tax dollars to spend, and the cuts to the military he wanted. For him it is a win, win. For the rest of the county it is a lose, lose. More jobs will be lost, higher unemployment, and our credit rating will decline again. You can see even limiting the increases in SS payments is a non starter for Democrats, So you can see they could never actually cut spending, it is an abonination to them. There will be no compromise. Why should Republicans give in on tax hikes, and get nothing in return? Not to mention the tax hikes will not cut the national debt, and the spending ceiling will be reached by Tuesday. So even if the tax hikes went through it would delay the ceiling by one day. Why not cut spending levels back to where they were just 10 years ago, Problem solved.

Blame needs to be put squarely on the shoulders of the party that deserves it. Obama is quite correct in pointing things out that Boehner and the republicans have continually walked away from the last 2 years. They beleived they could kick this can down the road untill now and then really screw the bottom taxpayers but it didn't work. Obama is offering a tax cut to every single taxpayer in the country and the republicans are turning it down. Obama cannot Constitutionally spend a dime, even to upgrade living quarters in White House without approval of congress.

Yes, joker, squarely on Obama and his 'my way or the highway' attitude. It's really sad that you've been so blinded by your worship of him that you can't see what his policies are doing to this country.

Actually, joker get your facts. Obama wants to INCREASE taxes on everyone earning over $250,000.00 a year, you know, the people that employ people. Have you ever been hired by a poor person?

Since the election, there is such a vacuum in GOP leadership (who is in charge?) and the supporters of The Kochs are still wondering why they lost, all we get on the boards from the right wing is tired, tired, disproven talking points. ZZzzzzzzzzz.

There's a reason that Wiki is not considered a good source for any real research as anyone can edit a wiki article, it can hardly be called unbiased OR entirely accurate.

Better yet, don't leave at all until you get it done.

On a regular day or holiday I have to be to work at 6:00 AM what is wrong with these people? Senators! Let's take a look at the 12+ bills Harry Reid has on his desk solving this problem that he never even let you see.

Guess you didn't see the photo the other day of Boehner and friends when they were smiling?

A smile indicates nothing.

Well, maybe it does to those with an agenda.

The house bill should have been delt with, amended if nessarry and sent back to the house, instead Reid sits on it for months, then waits until the last day and does what he has done for the past several month and does nothing. Now we will wait until tomorrow for him to finsh is job, which is still to do nothing. The only thing different between having the senate in session and not in session, is more air is availible for the rest of the planet to live on. If the Senate was not mandated in the Constitution I would say disband it, it would make no differance to the government, and would save millions of taxpayer dollars. It is sad that the House that has been doing thier job, has to be linked with the do nothing Senate, who can't even pass a budget bill. (I wonder how they got paid, if it was not in the budget???). The only reason I know he exsists is because I have seen pictures of him sitting in the senate, but that is the most this 2 demential senator has done for the past 4 years. Time to get a person to do the senators job.

Congress dictates spending. Not the President.

Congress votes on what we spend money on and how much we spend. Not the President.

If the negro as you put it, had control, we wouldn't be at this "fiscal cliff" now would we? He would just be able to set spending as he decides, on what he decides, right?

Don't they teach civics anymore?

had enuf--of bigots. It's the 21st century for crying out loud!

had enuf--of bigots, and drooling tea-bag cretins.

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 passed the Senate with a 98-0 vote. The NDAA is a huge federal law that among other things specifies the budget and expenditures for the Department of Defense. The authorization bill determines the agencies responsible for defense, establishes funding levels, and sets the policies under which money will be spent. Policies that are defined under the authorization act include salary and benefit guidelines for all service members, including health care, plus foreign policy items like the economic sanctions against Iran, embassy security and "options for establishing a no-fly zone over civil war-plagued Syria."

The NDAA is a wide-ranging bill that has many controversial sections. For example one section of the act allows governors to request assistance of military reservists to act as first-responders in the event of a hurricane, earthquake, flood, terrorist attack or other disasters. On the service this doesn't appear too controversial, until you think about the subjective definition of "terrorist attack." The NDAA is also an example of where budget needs to be temporarily divorced from policy. No executive worth his MBA would suggest such an action (there is some red meat for you) but there are a number of policy issues contained in the NDAA that need further debate and discussion without impacting the DOD budget and the subsequent appropriations bill.

Given the urgent need to marry national security with responsible fiscal policy, we need to slow down this process so we can fully vet the most controversial elements of the far-reaching bill.

The top 3 are:

1. The Indefinite Detention Clause: The NDAA has become the most controversial element of President Obama's foreign policy. Section 1021 of the NDAA bill of 2012 allowed for the "indefinite detention of American citizens without due process at the discretion of the President." Section 1021 has been challenged as a violation of constitutional principles and the United States Bill of Rights. The indefinite detention clause has been broadly denounced nationally and internationally. It may very well be the only thing that has true bi-partisan support. The Act was strongly opposed by the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, and The Center for Constitutional Rights, the Cato Institute, Reason Magazine and The Council on American-Islamic Relations. It was criticized in editorials published in The New York Times, Al-Jazeera, and The Guardian. The ACLU said, "The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield." This year's bill contains amendments introduced in the Senate and the House to remove the indefinite detention clause. The House included sections 1031 through 1033, which affirms the right of habeas corpus and the Constitutional right of due process for American citizens. Senator Rand Paul (R–Ky.) a leading opponent of the clause pointed out, "the bill this year contained the amendment I supported which sharply limited the detention power, and eliminated it entirely for American citizens in the US."

2. Intrusion Detection and Network Penetration for Defense Contractors: Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has introduced an amendment to require defense contractors to disclose incidents of cyber intrusion. The amendment seeks to turn what is now a voluntary program of disclosure into a mandatory requirement. Politico quoted Levin, "it's so obvious that if a defense contractor with classified information has their networks penetrated and attacked, then the government has to know about that." Mark Jaycox, a policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation told Mother Jones. DoD has been adamant about inserting a clause in contracts that mandates reporting of security breaches. The government can use this information to defend against threats. Cyber intrusion detection and reporting is a legitimate concern. In 2009, Chinese spies hacked the Pentagon's $300 billion F-35 fighter jet project. The Diplomat noted that in 2012 China introduced a stealth fighter that was "essentially an American stealth fighter with Chinese paintwork."

In a complementary measure the Senate is also requesting that vendors submit the source code for their software for security testing and verification or follow a specific set of security verification guidelines. Writing for LawfareBlog.com, Paul Rosenzweig, an expert in homeland security, explained that, according to section 936 of the NDAA, "upon request, contractors would be required to give DoD access to 'equipment or information' to determine if any classified 'information created by or for' the DoD had been 'successfully exfiltrated.'"

3. The Continuing Buildup of the Military-Industrial Complex Vis-à-Vis the Fiscal Cliff: Marine Corps Times reports the $650 billion bill contains "$88.5 billion more for ongoing wars" and "would add $60 billion to the Navy's plans for the F-18 fighter program." The newsletter said, "the bill supports the Pentagon’s plans for the Air Force to spend $3.7 billion on the F-35 fighter program and the Navy to spend $3.2 billion, on what is the biggest weapon program in history." Three billion was approved for the Army to enhance its ground services capabilities and to purchase Blackhawk helicopters. The Navy was approved for an additional $778 million for the "advance procurement for attack submarines." The Marine Corps Times said, "the Armed Services Committee's proposals on major weapon programs were left unscathed." How’s that for the fiscal cliff, the sequestration process and tightening our belts?

he sends the president of the senate into the senate to help negotiate.....the fiend!

Apparently the first thing you put into a blind trust when you're elected to public office is your conscience.

Sweet dreams Senate and House.

By your messiah.

has apparently been purchasing wars on his credit card during his short 31 years on this planet? "Must have been during a blackout. My Official statement is that I'm not asking you to fix my credit. This entire pit was dug behind my back. Blame the 'illuminated' masons, the leadership of your favorite religions and hire competent representatives that won't sell their souls to the scarlet beast."

That doesnt mean its a good idea just because it was planned.

They will only if they were instructed to do so from the bully pulpit this morning in church by their white pastors, the Feurhs.

And Senators and President don't forget to bring George Soros and Valerie jarrett who really call the shots!