Why do I find this wrong on SO MANY levels?

Justice Antonin Scalia will speak today to a group of Tea Party Members of Congress organized by ultra-conservative Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), an arrangement that even President George W. Bush’s former ethics attorney finds questionable:

[T]he decision of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to speak at the first class on Monday has raised legal hackles about his participation in what turns out to be a closed-door event in conjunction with Bachmann’s Tea Party Caucus.

One of the most outspoken critics is University of Minnesota law professor Richard Painter, chief White House ethics lawyer under former President George W. Bush. Painter notes that Bachmann is among 63 House members who filed a brief in support of a lawsuit by more than two dozen states challenging President Obama’s health care overhaul. The case could easily end up before the Supreme Court.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/24/scalia-bachmann/

First SCOTUS authorized the purchase of OUR elections by foreign & anonymous donors, and now they hiding out behind closed doors speaking to a bunch of Congressional members who are ‘certifiable’!

Interesting that Bush’s former ‘ethic’s attorney finds this questionable…

I wasn’t aware that Bush HAD any ethics!

FR: Many of the themes that President Obama is expected to discuss tonight in his State of the Union address -- the future and competitiveness, job creation, deficit reduction, investments in infrastructure, civility in politics -- aren’t new.

One old theme Obama will probably not mention is: "The era of big government is over!"

Feisty:

The next big scandal will be the corruption of SCOTUS.

@Louis

STALWARTS (Ryan and Bachmann) giving hater speeches to counter.

I presume you mean Paul Ryan. Please post examples of Paul Ryan hater speeches.

I presume you have a computer Alan, the world is at your fingertips.

Guess you don't have any examples. Didn't think so. Instead you try and conflate a conservative congressman with a serious set of policy proposal that can be debated (I for one do not agree with them) with a bomb thrower. Your tactic of trying to discredit the proposals by discrediting the messenger instead of offer reasoned arguments is patently transparent.

Feisty and USN Good Morning. I agree on the state of the SCOTUS. While all attention is being paid to the SOTU, this questionable behaviour of Scalia and Thomas, is gliding by under the radar.

As the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutional interpretations/disagreements, I find it troubling that two of the most conservative justices are involved in extra curricular events involving Conservative/TP activists........making them activist judges? At the very least, it removes the suggestion that SCOTUS are impartial and that is not good for the country.

These are two of the longest serving judges who over time have become a little bolder in showing their true colors, and maybe it is time for them to retire.

Why does Obama have to waste everyone's time on this address? From what I hear on the "liberal" radio and TV shows, it's all lies, smoke and mirrors. Somehow, THEY already know what's in the address, and have formulated the opinions we all should hold already.

BUT- if he DOES go through with it, I hope he mentions how far and how fast the US is falling behind China and others. Maybe it will spur the Republicans to clammor for cuts in educaiton and technological research, and infrastructure. Not sure what it will leave them to make other cust from, but that's their problem, I guess. I mean, NOvember was a MANDATE, remember?

(BTW- anyone seen the latest poll numbers on Obama yet? Be prepared to take heap-much nonsense from the usual suspects today! Wouldn't surprise me to see 'teleprompter' show up somewhere....)

I guess everyone on your side needs a diversion, Navy. May as well try that.

By all accounts, tonight's speech is going to be reminiscent of the campaign speeches- long on rhetoric, short on definition. Obama is reverting to Zelig- read into it what you will.

The language is what is important, so pay attention. When he says "investment", remember that it is code for " spending",

More importantly, when he gives high- minded mention of investing in research that the markets have ignored, hear " central planning", or, in other words, command economy.

Like his last failed economic plans, this does not work. The Soviets found out- even China realized it. So, what gives with Obama?

He is still in that ivory-tower, dreaming of perfect world solutions that go belly up in the face of reality.

Investment dollars flow to projects that show promise of return. Therefore, if "green" technology showed any promise, the government would not need to be throwing taxpayer dollars at these projects. Yesterday, the House shut down Pelosi's green initiative- it cost almost half a million dollars, cut carbon by the equivalent of ONE car PER YEAR, oh, and used MORE energy than it saved.

Great plan, no?

When someone comes up with an alternative energy plan that has some promise of payoff, it will attract the private investment it deserves. Until then, why should our tax dollars go to bottomless pits of failed technology?

Most of these plans are based on flawed assumptions, and downright idiocy. Take just one example: since the government now owns 60% of GM, has anyone found that carburetor that gets 100mpg?

Other alternatives are dismissed by the perfect world bunch: methane generators are functional, efficient, reduce landfill, and cheap. The horror they instill in the hearts of the extreme environmentalists is phobic in its manifestations. Same with nuclear energy, hydropower, and, in any place they are installed, windmills.

The do like solar. I will have to live to be a thousand to have the solar panels on my house pay off, however, and the charming leaks from the melting snow I suppose add character to my living room.

I have no problem with R and D tax breaks, but I have a real problem with borrowing money and using tax dollars to fund businesses that have no viability. That not only includes I'll conceived "green" technology, it also includes propping businesses which should not exist or should be scaled back. Think Amtrack, for one. They run lines all over the continent with no hope of breaking even, simply because they use tax dollars to keep afloat. Absent those subsidies, they would run only the lines that are profitable- namely, the Acela lines to Boston and D.C., from New York.

The republicans have introduced a plan to cut two and a half trillion from the debt in ten years. It is a good start. We need to get the government OUT of businesses, and let the markets dictate what wins, and what fails.

Remember that when you listen to Obama tonight.

The SCOTUS makes their own individual rules. Each has his/her own set of ethical standards that they place upon themselves. No one rides shotgun over the SCOTUS. It is designed this way and there will not be any scandals except in Liberal circles. This is the very reason they are not elected officials. They are not beholden to the American electorate.

These people are human beings just like everyone else. I think it is a conflict to have sitting members of Congress writing Op-ed pieces disrespecting other members of Congress on blogs...ie Huff Post, etc....that goes for both sides.

While all attention is being paid to the SOTU, this questionable behaviour of Scalia and Thomas, is gliding by under the radar

Precisely Gingerbread Mamma!

Pay absolutely NO attention to what's going on behind CLOSED door #1... and keep staring at the 'shiney' object the SOTU!

@ DBO - Why yes... I did see President Obama's latest poll numbers this morning! 53% ought to set their hair on fire! lol

If you think they're p!ssy today... just WAIT for tomorrow! ;o))

JoAnna ~

One old theme Obama will probably not mention is: "The era of big government is over!"

Such a pessimist. Don't sell him short. After all, Ben Stein doesn't.



Louis.

Obviously you feel that “bringing the country together is the sole responsibility and culpability of the Reps. No sense in grading the Dems,…aahhh? As always, they are never responsible for anything, always an excuse, always someone else’s fault and always graded on the hypocritical scale. The “F” you gave to the Reps is deserved. If you were capable of honesty and held the Dems to the same bar, you would find the divider-in-chief, his side kicks Harry and Nancy and their friends equally culpable and certainly failures in “bringing the country together” as well. Let the excuses and extenuating circumstances begin.

superlogi ~

... the unholy alliance between Barry and the Unions (Barry's largest contributors) will not only serve to damage the economy with pension bailouts, but the education of our children.

I take it you're a victim yourself of teachers' unions. What else explains the twisted way you think?

More crap with no facts from the usual suspects. We do need spending cuts. Nobody with a brain denies that. The question is what to cut. The current GOP proposal plans to cut.

Health Care for Veterans, K-12 Education, protecting the environment, the FBI, Drug Enforcement and Boarder Security, National Institute of Health and the Center for Disease Control and so on.

In effect, the GOP proposal will gut those vital services and benefits that improve our living standards, our quality of life, our protection, our educational system; it would hamper or destroy our medical research in finding cures for cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. This proposal will increase unemployment as many jobs will be lost do to these cuts and any economic benefit from R&D etc will also be lost.

The GOP proposal puts the majority of the sacrifice on the backs of the middle class again. What about Defense Cuts, what about cuts in the fraud and waste of Medicare, what about shutting down Corporate Welfare and subsidies, what about closing the tax loopholes that farm jobs overseas, what about the richest 2% start paying their fair share of the sacrifices, they get the benefits also but have none of the pain. Only the middle class gets to suffer the pain.

Paul (MI) - Mirror of Truth

Let the excuses and extenuating circumstances begin.

Oh, sorry, too late. I think they began with George W. Bush, for whom everything was Bill Clinton's fault.

@ US Navy ~

Don't be fooled by the shiny objects. They just pick those things so that there will be a violent reaction from the left, diverting attention from all the non-vital things that COULD be cut, like Chamber of Commerce subsidies. That way, the debate will focus only on things no one want to lose, as if there were no others, and in the end, nothing will actually be cut, but they'll be able to say, "we tried."

Pretty slick, huh?

LouisJ, once again you led off the discussion with a thoughtful, insightful post. thanks, again, for your fine work. I have some thoughts to add, but first allow me a small digression.

Joe in Albany, surely you're aware that your city has one of the worst reputations for foul, corrupt politics in all of American history. It's surprising that you choose to brag on that connection in your screen name. As for Kieth Olbermann, he actually revolutionized American political commentary on the air waves. He presented powerful, no-holds-barred dissection of the lies, manipulations, and scandalous statements from Faux News, a first in American television. He delivered insightful commentary on politics, and his courageous stand yeas ago to call out President Bush as a liar about the Iraq War was a landmark moment. He practically built MSNBC into a network worth watching. He is already sorely missed, and many of us look eagerly for his next appearance.

Now, Louis - about tonight's addrss. We are now seeing the first outlines of the point - counterpoint discourse expected between the President and the mainstream Republicans this evening. Expect the President to somberly but optimisitcally present a vision and a plan for the country that addesses both immediate issues as well as continuing the longer-term development program he started in 2009. Within that context, his use of the word "investment" will make perfect sense.

Expect the Republicans - and the Tea Party, too - to come back with a short-sighted, do-it-now proposal to almost shut the country down, scornfully rebuffing the idea of "investment" as a simple-minded cover for "spending."

Yet we are now reaping the benefits of the President's vision of two years in creating initiatives to generate long-term growth, revitalize American manufacturing - the first president since 1980 to do so - and support the expansion of small business in the country. That was, and is, "investment" in a stronger economy and brighter future.

The slash-and-burn conservatives recognize they have a very, very brief opportunity to continue their assault on a system of American institutions that took shape beginning in the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration. The right hated the way American government evolved at the time, and has never, never quit trying to undo the great progress of decades. They will pursue a divisive, obstructionist course now in hopes of achieving at least some of their goals - not recognizing that they drive the majority of the people away from them with such efforts.

The vision the President may present will be one of a whole country moving forward from the shadow of crisis. The vision we apparently will see on the right is one of a fractured collection of states or regions, each dividing from the whole, shrinking from golbal challenges as well as complex problems at home, and throwing off the responsibility to govern effectively in favor of selfish contraction.

@USNVD

I have problems with whats on the table but any serious discussion of spending cuts has to include the DOD.

On education I want to know where the money is going. There was a report in the Newark Star Ledger at the weekend on charter schools. The article claimed that some areas in NJ were spending $17,000 to $21,000 per student. If these kids aren't succeeding with this level of spending then something is badly wrong and more money is not the answer.

no joe ~

The language is what is important, so pay attention. When he says "investment", remember that it is code for " spending" ....

When you invest in stocks, as I assume you probably do, how do YOU do it, without spending something?

Those words are more-or-less synonymous. So what's your point? We should never invest?

Or we should never invest in children?

Or we should never invest in technology?

Or we should never invest in infrastructure?

Or we should never invest in security?

Or we should never invest in defense?

Or we should never invest in _____________________?

You fill in the blank, no joe. I'm waiting.

What I do with MY money is MY decision.

When I make an investment, I look for the payoff. When I was younger, I took chances on new technology, knowing that the risk was great, but the hope of return was greater.

I lost on all of those investments.

It did not break me, because I always invested surplus funds. I also cut my losses when it became clear that the company was badly managed, or the research was not paying off.

What happens in government? Why are we running a railroad to Montreal, or Florida? Anybody you know take those trains?

Even if you do, it is a failed business model. It is faster and more convenient by plane, or even by car, for those who will not fly. Minus government subsidies, those lines would not exist.

The problem with central planning is that it never recognizes failure, and chooses winners and losers. Therefore, failed ideas keep draining taxpayer dollars, while other ideas wither on the vine due to lack of available investment dollars.

Increasing taxes only reduces private investment dollars, so more winning ideas die before they have a chance to bear fruit. Meanwhile, more bureaucrats are added to departments like education which have failed their mission by any measure.

Let's have the private sector do the investing, stop using weasel words to convince people that government is not spending, and, moreover, get the government out of programs that do not work.

SuperLogi "the unholy alliance between Barry and the Unions (Barry's largest contributors)"

Don't you mean the alliance between President Obama and the American middleclass? You know, that group of people who work for a living instead of resting on their stock investments?

Alan NJ:

On post 1.21 I am in agreement, especially on education on the DOD. Throwing money at the problem does not solve the issue that we were once the number one Nation in math and science. I think we have slipped down into the 20's now. That is unacceptable as you seem to indicate as well.

Our educaton system does need a major overhaul for sure. I am not sure what the ultimate solution will or should be, but we do need to do something and fast. Maybe a better designed basic course for K-12 with an emphasis on those skills needed today like math and science and a little economics may be appropriate as well. Maybe a longer school year, most countries that are licking our A$$ have longer school years and longer days as well. I think some method of evaluating teachers is also needed, but how do we implement that, and get rid of that dam# tenure crap where bad teachers get to hang around in the rubber room collecting a paycheck and benefits for nothing. That has to stop. With the amount of money we pay per student I would think we could do better than we are.

On a personal note, I was fortunate enough to send my daughter to Catholic Schools because the public school in my town was on the sub-standard list, and it saddens me that her education was above most of her classmates from public schools. This should not be, period. Our young folks are entitled to the best education possible whether they go to a private school or public. She graduated from a major University cum-laude and is an officer in the US Navy. I would like to see everybody have the opportunity that my daughter had. I know it will not happen, there will always be those that fall throughthe cracks but what I am saying is we can do better. We need to stop the crap and just do it. We can, I know we can.

Your thoughts??

Good points, Anna Molly. The visceral reaction to the word "investment" is a Conservative attempt to further their agenda of defining all spending by government as being bad. That isn't the case, it's never been the case.

Did we waste the people's money on the Louisiana Purchase?

Did we waste the people's money on the transcontinental railroad?

Did we waste the people's money on the Interstate system?

Yes, there's waste in the budget, obsolete programs, things that don't work and never will. SDI certainly falls in that category but you won't find Republican backing for a cut in that program.

Who wants to have the real conversation--what should the government fund, and how will the funds for those programs be gathered? If you aren't talking about both you aren't being honest. Conservatives certainly aren't being honest with their new "Cut-Go" rules.

I have always considered it a badge of honor when the FR lefty liberals collapse one of my posts. It means I have nailed the point in my post.

Thank you.

@Anna Molly,

When you invest, don't you expect something in return? Throwing money away doesn't seem like too wise an investment.

Invest in technology, the result is innovation.

Throwing good money after bad results in resentment.

Anna Molly, me thinks you will be waiting for an answer on that question to nojo, I doubt she made much investment in writing her rant.....it is like all her posts, full of fantasies regarding how the world is according to her.

I shouldn't have singled out the questionable actons of Justice Scalia the way I did... When at the same time Justice Thomas has been busily forging some documents of his own:

Federal judges and justices are required by law to disclose their spouse's income — thus preventing persons who wish to influence the judge or justice from funneling money to them through their husband or wife. Yet, as the Los Angeles Times reports, Justice Clarence Thomas has not complied with this requirement for years:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife's income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday.

Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation's IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled "none" where "spousal noninvestment income" would be disclosed. [...]

Virginia Thomas also has been active in the group Liberty Central, an organization she founded to restore the "founding principles" of limited government and individual liberty.

In his 2009 disclosure, Justice Thomas also reported spousal income as "none." Common Cause contends that Liberty Central paid Virginia Thomas an unknown salary that year.

This revelation that Justice Thomas failed to comply with his disclosure obligations comes as he is caught up in another ethics scandal regarding his participation in fundraisers for far-right political groups. Thomas once attended a gathering of wealthy corporate activists convened by billionaire Charles Koch to raise money for right-wing political causes, and he also attended at least one fundraiser hosted by the far-right think tank that used to employ his wife.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/22/thomas-disclosure/

I generally don't favor namecalling in political discourse, but Bachmann is scum. Read up about her if you haven't already.

Louis,

I thought you were taking the advice of the President and starting to be more civil, but then again it must be hard not to call all those who oppose your line of thinking haters. It's freakin' politics. They are allowed to say anything they want, even use half a quote to make a point. Heck, some might refer to others as Nazis. You just never know.

I see we are talking about investment in America again.

To Chef Darrell - yes, everyone who makes an investment expects some sort of return, but the question we should ask is this - what KIND of return are you looking for and WHEN do you expect this investment?

President Eisenhower made an investment in AMERICA by providing the interstate system. Luckily for all of us, President Eisenhower wasn't expecting an IMMEDIATE return. The investment made to build the interstate system is now an integral part of American Society.

Was the interstate system a BAD investment because it did not give an IMMEDIATE return?

Fortunately for all of us, President Eisenhower was a lot smarter than a lot of his opposition at the time when he commissioned the interstate system. He knew that the investment will pay off BIG time long after he was gone.

So I have to ask - is the lack of IMMEDIATE RETURN the reason why we don't want to invest in AMERICA?

AM: When you invest in stocks, as I assume you probably do, how do YOU do it, without spending something?

When you invest in a company, say with a stock purchase, you are taking excess funds that you have, researching an investment you'd like to make, and having expectations that you will gain a profit over a certain period of time from that investment. You also have the ability to cut your loses if it doesn't work out and sell that investment. And one thing you do not do when making an investment is borrow the money for that investment. If you can't afford it, you do not add to your own personal debt to make that investment. No bank in their right might would ever make you that kind of a loan, at least not without collaterial, like your house.

Now we've been told for 50 years to "invest" in our education system. Where's that got us? Every year it's the same thing, it needs more and more money. Anyone that expected some kind of return for that "investment" would sell that stock if they had the option to do so.

And as we are told by pols to make these "investments", we are piling up the debt to fund these investments and even though our children may/may-not benefit from the so called investment today, they will have their part in those investments tomorrow, ie., they will paying for them.

"Joe in Albany, surely you're aware that your city has one of the worst reputations for foul, corrupt politics in all of American history. It's surprising that you choose to brag on that connection in your screen name."

_________________________________________________

John A -400474, apparently you are so ashamed of where you live you don't want anyone to know. May I also remind you that your beloved Barry Obama comes from a far worse city, one that is easily characterized as the WORST in the nation for " foul, corrupt politics in all of American history."

BTW, do you not want people to know where you are from because 400474 your inmate ID number??

JohnB/Anna Molly

NoJo is merely parrot-ing without any critical thought.
Last night I heard the phrase "investement is just another term for spending" by Wolf Blitzer, Kathleen Parker and some guy on Fox in no less than 60 minutes. It's the new scary phrase.

I'm just thankful that folks like Dwight Eisenhower understood the big picture AND the importance of government investment in our country. Otherwise, NoJo would driving on a dirt road and fruits and veggies would never make it to their destination.

Pietro,

When people make investments they do want to see results.

Our society today expects those returns in a very fast manner, everything today is designed for instant gratification. Our interstate highway system has taken years to develop, people can't wait that long these days. That is our society's biggest problem. Everything is at the touch of a screen.

High speed rail lines/monorails are time consuming, people can't wait for them. I don't have a problem with rebuilding America, I want the money to be earmarked from a tax, such as gasoline, not money from a borrowed from China.

Big Bear - 'earmarked' from a tax, such as gasoline?

I don't disagree with you, but maybe not an earmark. I would like to see targeted legislation that would do the same sort of thing.

I have had an argument on here concerning the impact of high-speed rail (specifically in Ohio) with some others on here. I see the whole picture that high-speed rail is an INVESTMENT in America, and specifically in the state(s) the rail is built in. I also said that it would create MILLIONS of jobs (in this specific case, Ohio) and I still stand by that.

The return on the investment of building high-speed rail will not be immediate, but in the long run it will be extremely beneficial to America (we are seeing the benefit of high-speed rail in Europe and China right now).

So the question remains - why is an investment inAMERICA - long or short term - such a BAD thing?

We can see the result(s) of the BAD investment that America has made in the past 30 years - crumbling infrastructure, roads that need to be paved, and a LACK OF GOOD PAYING JOBS. This is because the groundwork - our INVESTMENT - in America has been lacking, as we have 'invested' in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and chasing the Taliban around in Afghanistan.

So are we surprised that we are in the dire straits we are in?

I am not.

Joe in albany, I've mentioned my city of residence many times in various posts, and you were on those blogs at times. I also value my privacy enough not to wave some information in these areas. I notice, however, you really never have anything really constructive to say. So I'll fix that by putting you and your screed on ignore.

@USNV

I understand the arguments against vouchers being used to support parochial education, and I can definitely see how this can be abused in supporting religious education (which as an atheist is disturbing to me), but I am coming around to a voucher system. It's up to parents to get their kids out of failing schools and what has happened in DC, and the movie "Waiting for Superman" seems to support the contention that vouchers help poor families more than middle class. I also like what Governor Christie has proposed in NJ. Teachers no longer get tenure but will be offered 5 year contracts and their performance reviewed before renewal. However, I am not so sure that our ass is being kicked by overseas competition. For a start there is a great homogeneity in these countries and our scores are pulled down by trying to teach math to students who do not speak English as their first language. I also think that scores measure a lot of rote learning that does not help the creative side of kids. I think because of this we have an advantage in entrepreneurial skills that is unmatched anywhere. This is an attitude that we don't need government to direct us which if you have lived in Europe they expect more form their government (don't know about Asia). So, although I think we have room to improve we should play to our strengths and not be so pessimistic.

Pietro,

Not sure what you're trying to say. I said that when one invests, they expect a return on that investment. For example, my 401K will be tapped in 30 or so years, when I decide to retire. That's not very IMMEDIATE.

But to answer your question, I am expecting a positive return. No child left behind was an alleged investment in education, and is complete crap. Ergo, I think it should be scrapped in favor of something that works (even if that something is nothing at all).

When Eisenhower gave the green light to the interstate highway system, cars got much less miles per gallon of fuel than they do now. Innovation, albeit in another field, bred by the investment helped to increase the amount of over the road transport, shipping, etc.?

Why are you so fixated on creating an argument where none exists?

@ JoAnna ~ Are YOU a product of the failed educational system? Be careful how you answer that question.

But if you REALLY studied the issue, I think you'd find that school are failing -- if they are; around here, they're still pretty good because we "invest" in them -- not because of spending but because of lack thereof. We have squeezed every dime out of the education system, jammed down teacher salaries so that the best and the brightest don't go there any more, and we now run our schools with bake sales.

By the way, my PRIVATE-SECTOR investments haven't exactly shown stellar returns of late, primarily because of REALLY BAD PRIVATE SECTOR GREED. How is that any better? A bad investment is a bad investment, whether it is public or private. Look to your own house, JoAnna.

@ no joe ~ You mean you've never taken the Empire Builder? If you had, you'd get the point. And to say that air travel is somehow more efficient than rail is just plain near-sighted. But okay, let's try this. No more "investment" in highways. They're antiquated anyway. Let's just let them go. We can all fly from now on because we can all afford that and because airline travel is so convenient. Just bring your own lunch and expect delays. Not to mention those cozy pat-downs.

Chef Durell ~

Throwing good money after bad results in resentment.

Oh, like that somehow only happens in the public sector. In fact, I think of that every time I look at my 401(k) statement.

Thanks AIG and Lehman Bros.

"I think we all agree that we have to change the way the government works. Let's make it smaller, less costly, and smarter; leaner, not meaner." Also: "Our job here is to expand opportunity, not bureaucracy, to empower people to make the most of their own lives, and to enhance our security here at home and abroad." Bill Clinton

And then he worked with the new Republican Congress to do just that - Cut spending and the size of government and unnecessary regulations, and we ended up with welfare reform, Clinton got re-elected, and we had several years of budget SURPLUSES and a thriving economy (until the dot.com bubble burst at least, leaving Bush to deal with a recession as well as 9/11).

Somehow, I just can't picture Obama wanting to cut the size of government to stimulate the economy. His whole life has centered around EXPANDING the role of government and stifling business activity.

Chef Durell ~

No child left behind was an alleged investment in education, and is complete crap. Ergo, I think it should be scrapped in favor of something that works (even if that something is nothing at all).

Now, there you go. Maybe just let teachers teach, give them the resources and the support (that's the REAL "investment" part), make schools safe, and stop letting people who know nothing about it (e.g., state legislatures and a lot of school board members, not to mention school administrators) but happen to own interests in computer software companies (e.g., Neil Bush) drive our educational system.

Investing emotional and intellectual energy in electoral politics is a waste of time. Resistance means a radical break with the formal structures of American society. We must cut as many ties with consumer society and corporations as possible. We must build a new political and economic consciousness centered on the tangible issues of sustainable agriculture, self-sufficiency and radical environmental reform. The democratic system, and the liberal institutions that once made piecemeal reform possible, is dead. It exists only in name. It is no longer a viable mechanism for change. And the longer we play our scripted and absurd role in this charade the worse it will get. Do not pity Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. They will get what they deserve. They sold the citizens out for cash and power. They lied. They manipulated and deceived the public, from the bailouts to the abandonment of universal health care, to serve corporate interests. They refused to halt the wanton corporate destruction of the ecosystem on which all life depends. They betrayed the most basic ideals of democracy. And they, as much as the Republicans, are the problem.

John B,

Let's talk about some of your comments

Did we waste the people's money on the Louisiana Purchase?

Where in the Constitution of the United States does it allow for the purchasing of the Louisiana Territory? Was Jefferson correct in his purchase--well if you exclude New Orleans--it was well worth it. (if you live below sea level, expect a few floods). But was it allowed in our Constitution. And wasn't it his chief political opponent & friend, John Adams that finally convinced him that he would be spreading Democracy to another part of the world? Was it wrong--no, was it legal? But it did set precedent for other purchases, such as the Gadsen Purchase in 1853, and Alaska in 1867. I would think that started the President's taking power from the Congress:)

Did we waste the people's money on the transcontinental railroad?

Well, the government did issue bonds, but the owners of the Railroads they made a lot of their money by using federal land grants. They sold those land grants to settlers, used the natural materials from some to build the lines. And of course the biggest thing was that they barely paid their workers and used foreign immigrants to build most of the lines. And a lot like TARP, they paid back the government with interest. That would qualify as an investment that paid off for the United States Government.

Did we waste the people's money on the Interstate system?

Well, as they build some interstates today, I am sure that we are wasting some federal tax dollars. I was in Dallas as they were building the "High 5". A project that was suppose almost 5 years to complete was finished in 3 because of all the bonuses that construction companies could earn. Almost $11 million dollars in bonuses, but completed a year and half early. But in today's world as stated above, people want instant gratification for things, therefore long term investments are down, just like in the stock market, people try to make a quick killing and get out.

But all in all, these investments might have paid off, but a lot of our federal programs don't pay off. Like the Great Society, is everyone off welfare yet? How is our standing in the Middle East with all of our investments in those countries, yet they still hate us. It's been that way since the 70s--because that is how long I have personally witnessed it.

Oh, like that somehow only happens in the public sector. In fact, I think of that every time I look at my 401(k) statement.

The economy has been on an upswing hasn't it? If you didn't make money in your 401k in the last 14 months, you haven't been trying.

Chef Darrell - I am not making an argument where there is none.

However, some investments take more time than YOU deem as 'reasonable'. As an example - if you buy 20-year old scotch, did the person who made the scotch 20 years ago get the DIRECT benefit of that scotch?

The answer is NO, they didn't.

However, because of that reputation that 20-year old scotch is EXTREMELY good, the company that SELLS the scotch gets the benefit. The person who made the scotch may have gotten something for their trouble from the company if they were employed.

SO can we say that the company INVESTED in that scotch when they made it?

We can.

Unlike others who make investments, Americans are too quick to throw out a good investment because they do not recognise it is a good investment.

Your parents, my parents - they invested HEAVILY in education when we were younger. They did what they could, even if they did not have a lot of money.

Their payoff?

We are able to debate this issue about investment intelligently and lucidly, making our parents proud that their investment FINALLY paid off.

Now what would have happened if your parents had your attitude and decided that you were not 'learning fast enough' and discontinued your education because they deemed the investment in your education not a 'good investment'?

I'll leave that point for you to ponder for a while.

NoJo......Your post about energy was total nonsense. We have a methane gen at our local landfill and I have NEVER heard any opposition to it from enviromentalists. You would have to live to be 1000 years old to recoup your investment in solar panels? Why do you LIE about such things? With the new tech which came from R&D funded in part by the US gov't new solar systems can pay off in as little as EIGHT YEARS!!! If I had the money I would have solar panels on my house in a SECOND.

As for Amtrack maybe if we had HIGH SPEED RAIL like the rest of the developed world we could get that east coast coridor to make a profit. Imagine going from Ney York to SC in a couple of hours then on to Miami in a couple more. Why is it CHINA can have the world's fastest train and we have CRAP? Are they smarter than us? Are they harder workers? Or do they have better VISION than we do? Do you think they expect an investment to pay off in the next 5 years or even the next 100? No they are making the neccessary investment to be the WORLD LEADER for the next 300 YEARS. Yes see their whole culure is one built on VISION and PATIENCE. People will spend their whole lives perfecting a TEA ceremony we use CHEET codes to beat a VIDEO GAME! So be short sighted and ignorant and IGNORE the benefits of investing in techs that will pay off for CENTURIES but don't whine and cry when we get left behind by the countries that understand the BIG PICTURE.

One thing I definately fault the liberal enviros with is their opposition to nuke power. Trying to compare the latest nuke plant to Three Mile and Chernobyl is outrageous and totally misleading. Now you should call out your side for their "Drill baby drill" BS. We could drill EVERYWHERE and it would not make one cent diff in gas prices nor would it add to our energy independance. The FACT is the oil cos REDUCED refinery capacity in the 80's so the could have a choke hold and control gas prices whenever they wanted to. You should also be honest about which side is fighting against Wind power. It's the "conservatives" who are fighting tooth and nail against renewable energy like wind. Is wind power perfect? Not yet but if we continue to invest in R&D we can improve both wind and tidal power generation to the point that it can and WILL one day be a major part of our contry's power generation capacity. Sadly it is YOUR side who continues to tie our country to technologies of the 19th century and keep us reliant on a power source (fossil fuels) that WILL one day be exhausted. Unless those of us with VISION can put our country on a different path then when the day comes when we have exhausted the last of those fuels we will be THROWN back into the middle ages and our country will crumble to the ground. I hope you are PROUD of your ignorance to the value of investing in R&D.

LouisJ "Hello. My name is Louis and I have a public announcement to make:"

Thanks for the laugh. You say "United we stand, divided we fall", and yet your 'public announcement' is nothing more than a pro-Obama and anti-Republican rant which is hardly designed to bring us together.

Bear, I have been civil. Just because I point out the obvious, which is Republicans only want what's best for party, not what's best for the country and obviously not lined up with anything the president has to offer doesn't mean I'm for violence. I'm all about peace brother.

The civility you refer to was concerning rhetoric and the absurd call to arms from the flame throwers on the Right. But feel free to support those causes if that is what provides you with comfort.

Roy, if the Republicans weren't so anti-American but more pro-democracy, then I would assuredly note it as such. I call it like I see it.

The "investment" discussion here has been rather interesting. In re "instant gratification" vs. long-term projects, there are really two aspects to consider:

1. Projects that restore or replace agging and sometimes completely broken public infrastructure - such as bridges - that if not exactly "shovel ready" are already on a targeted list and could be started soon, usually to the great relief of those who use the facilities

2. Long-term projects that enhance the well-being of the nation by improving commerce (high speed rail has a major contribution to make that few consider; it's not ALL passengers, y'know), communications, environment, and more

Now, in fact, both kinds of efforts began two years ago, and are continuing.

Big Bear was right when he commented that many people don't support such things as rail or urban transportation projects because they want results NOW. I worked on public affairs for the Los Angeles Metro and rail programs which have taken close to 20 years to build. There were three elections conducted, in a space of 30 years, trying to win a one-cent sales tax levy to finance that project. The first two elections failed both because the roads were still being built at a rapid rate so that congestion was limited, and because the original plans didn't seem to offer any return to the public for too long a time. The third election succeeded when an immediate effort was made to offer heavy rail commuter service right away, and average highway commute speeds dropped to 17 mph.

In November, in Tampa, FL, voters similarly rejected a levy to fund transportation. They did so for almost the same reason.

And frankly, that vote was very, very short-sighted. By the time anyone starts on urban rail in that city, the costs will have quadrupled, simply due to rapid development and land prices. Congestion there is aleady a nightmare. But local planners failed to understand that SOME kind of early "return" on the "investment" would be essential to winning public support.

People without jobs want work NOW. "Investment" activities, which in fact are now beginning to generate jobs, don't answer the citizen who says, "Show me the jobs!" But these are essential programs, too, that are not onlyaimed at extended economic growth and stability, but also at improving the individual lives of Americans.

Oh, and by the way - one of the wisest things done to build support for Los Angeles' system was the insistence by then-Mayor Tom Bradley that light rail cars be made in Los Angeles. Siemns duilt an assembly plant, sourced considerable content locally, and put a large number of men and women from blighted south-central LA to work. The plant was later moved to Northern California, where Siemens continues to manufacture light rail equipment.

That is another feature of the Tampa proposal that should have been included, and wasn't.

AM: By the way, my PRIVATE-SECTOR investments haven't exactly shown stellar returns of late, primarily because of REALLY BAD PRIVATE SECTOR GREED. How is that any better?

Well, maybe you should pick some other investments, maybe diversify into something like the S&P for example, which is up quite a bit over the past year.

If you think you're not getting the return you expect from an investment, why don't you sell your current investments and purhcase others? That's how captialism works AM, people that invest have a high expectation that who/what ever they invest in will provide them with a return. If that return is not adequate, they go somewhere else. The better performing companies go up in value, the poorer performing ones go down in value, and in a worst case scenario, they go out of business. That is the incentive that drives capitalism.

Now, we don't really invest in schools now do we AM? What we really do is fund them. And for the most part they perform at a certain rate, not getting that much better or that much worse than other schools. We really don't get much innovation out of them because unlike with companies we that we really invest in, the schools have no one that they compete against. So this idea that we can "invest" in schools, and invest in them on some sort of national level, is an investment that is not really that realistic.

Pietro,

I understand that my use of the word "earmark" was not correct. But the money that comes in from the federal gas tax, should be used to rebuild the infrastructure of this country. Not placed in the general fund.

In 2009, the United States used 137 billion gallons of gasoline, the federal taxes on that were 18.4 cents per gallon, giving our federal government around $25.38 billion dollars. Just in federal taxes on gasoline, that doesn't include diesel, or gasohol. Then each state has their own tax rate also.

Highest--Washington State--37.5 cents per gallon

Lowest--Georgia--7.5 cents per gallon

In Ohio--you pay 28 cents per gallon in state taxes.

In my opinion, all of this money should be used to rebuild infrastructure such as roads, bridges, & rail lines. At the state level & federal level.

Federal gasoline tax dollars should be divided by the amount of gasoline sold in each state. So if, simple math, Ohio sold 100 gallons of gas, then Ohio would receive $18.40 to use on their infrastructure.

"Now, we don't really invest in schools now do we AM?"

Wow, Joanna, I can see that you only look at the world through only one eye.

The truth of the matter is that we DO invest in our schools because it is the only way we can compete in the future. We use MONEY to fund the schools, yes, but don't we use money to fund other investments (like your 401K)?

Education is an asset that stays with you for the rest of your life. The reason why we are starting to get our asses kicked in the global economy is because Americans don't know enough about anything.

Here is an example - How many languages does the average American speak (and Ebonics and Bad English DON'T count)? The average number in Europe is FIVE. In some African countries it is a much as 10, depending on the dialect.

IN a global economy, knowledge is power. You are paid/will be paid handsomely for what you KNOW.

So explain to me why education - the currency of the future - is so neglected in America?

If you just look at education as 'something that we have to do' like an adolescent, Joanna, then yes, your conclusions would be just what you have posted. But if you see education as something worth investing in, then you will see why many of us advocate MORE education even if it cost more to fund.

Alan;
You make some good points. I do not have much time now but would to continue this discussion moving forward.

Joe in albany, I've mentioned my city of residence many times in various posts, and you were on those blogs at times. I also value my privacy enough not to wave some information in these areas. I notice, however, you really never have anything really constructive to say. So I'll fix that by putting you and your screed on ignore.

________________________________________________

John A, I missed your mentioning your city of residence "many times" because it only took me reading your poasts a "few times" to realize they were generally worthless and I just scroll right past them.

BTW, do you think you could talk the Nasty Redhead into putting me on "ignore" too??.

Please??

BTW2, do you REALLY think Darth Cheney and his crowd DON'T know who you are and where you live and a couple of thousand other details in their files on you and everyone you associate with??

Bachmann's speech after the SOTU is going to be just like one of those B-grade sci-fi flicks that's so funny you can't stop laughing at all the fake monsters.

"Cave Women from Mars - starring Michelle Bachmann"!

(saw this on another post last night - sorry for stealing it, but it was too funny)

Bah Bah Bachman is an idiot. I was very surprised to not see the TP drop her like a hnadful of radioactive waste when she said Obama should have COMENDERED private boats to combat the BP oil spill. How many of you conservatives would have opened fire if a gov't official would have shown up to TAKE YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY? She is a raving LUNATIC and anyone with half a brain would recognize that FACT. If the TP wants to hitch their cart to such a hateful and ignorant person then I say more power to them but when she makes yet another OUTRAGEOUS statement then I won't feel bad for you when REAL Americans leave your little "grass roots" org and get some REAL work done.

Now what would have happened if your parents had your attitude and decided that you were not 'learning fast enough' and discontinued your education because they deemed the investment in your education not a 'good investment'?

I'll leave that point for you to ponder for a while.

Once again, you're creating an argument where none exists. When did I ever make any mention of not learning fast enough?

I'll leave you to ponder that your educatin may not have been sufficient enough.

I think the parents should fund the education of their children...leave the government out of it! Some people choose not to have children why should they have to pay their entire life for someone else's kids.

Well FNW, perhaps because a well-educated citizenry is key to a functioning democracy. Maybe because having an outstanding education system made us the world's largest economy and only superpower. Could be because it was done for your, and your parents, and their parents, and "pass it on" is more then just a slogan, it's good policy.

Then again if none of that cuts any ice with you how about the fact that letting large numbers of people around you go virtually uneducated is like running our raw sewage out on the ground...at first it's cheap but eventually it produces an environment that's totally unlivable for everyone...including you.

I don't have any children nor do I have any problem with paying to have other people's children educated. Education is a common good that ALL Americans benefit from. If we all only paid taxes to fund the things WE think are important our country would be in REALLY bad shape. Unfortunately far too many Americans are SELFISH and don't care about anything that doesn't directly affect them and that is why our country is going downhill FAST.

Bev;

Nice post. Ryan's road map should be retitled to "The GOP Road-Map for the Destruction of the Middle Class". His agenda will raise the taxes on the middle class and reduce the taxes on the richest 2% to a record low. About 98% of the people will pay a rate higher that is higher than the elite 2%. The break even point, if it even exists which most economist say no, is not until 2080. Most of us will be long gone by then.

The concept that the top 2% should pay a tax rate LOWER than everyone else should offend everyone. It's bad enough that the progressive income tax, a concept that's worked well throughout the industrialized world for over 100 years, has been flattened to a point of absurdity. It's worse that already the "investor class" pays taxes lower than people who receive their income through wages. Now Paul Ryan wants to elevate them to a status of true aristocrats by giving them an even bigger break.

The Conservative PR campaign has been flawless and relentless. Large numbers of people see that outcome as "fairness."

I find this funny Bev and USNDV. You call people who repeat Fox talking points idiots and unable to think for themselves but then all you do is post talking points from thinkprogress.org. You do understand that it's an opinion web site? Tell me, apart from the different points of view how are you different from posters who regurgitate Fox News talking points?

I think the Supreme Court members should just STAY HOME, as they obviously have no respect for the political process unless it results in a Republican President. Oh, with a Republican President in office, they are there with bells on. Such hypocrites.

How do 2% pay a lower rate than the other 98% exactly? (Especially when 47% pay nothing). I don't read the libbie talking point sites so I'm not exactly up to speed on the rhetoric.

Domenico Montanaro

What has changed since Obama’s last State of the Union:

Well for one thing the President's numbers have increased. The tone will be less partisan in wake of the Tucson speech.

Also, the President's birth certificate has been found; so in case there's any heckling it should be applause instead.

Record of President Obama's birth in 1961 is 'in the archives': Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie Found It.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/01/19/2011-01-19_record_of_obamas_birth_is_in_the_archives_hawaii_gov.html#ixzz1C3OaXKO9

I love it when lefty liberals like Bev rail against the Citizens United decision which was based on the following text written in the actual document:

Congress shall make no law…. abridging the freedom of speech,

It does NOT say “Congress shall make no law…. abridging the freedom of speech, except for corporations and anyone else the lefty liberals would like to muzzle.”

And yet Bev has no problem at all with championing a Supreme Court made up right that has no text in the actual document to support it, like Roe v Wade. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying there should not be a Constitutional right to abortion. I’m just saying that Justice Blackmun’s decision had to go through a long and tortured process to “find” it, including “penumbras” of the Bill of Rights. As opposed to the simplicity of the clear right above used to decide Citizens United. From the Roe v Wade decision:

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 [p153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

Since you mentioned ThinkProgress, here is a snapshot of the article:

– The Roadmap would lead to the wealthiest Americans paying a lower average tax rate than most Americans. Eliminating taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest, as the Roadmap proposes, would overwhelmingly help taxpayers at the top of the income distribution, who receive most or all of their income from capital. For example, Wall Street financiers could shelter all of their income as tax-free stock options or carried interest.

– Middle-class families earning between $50,000 and $75,000 a year would see their average tax rate jump to 19.1% (from 17.7%) under this plan—an increase of $900 on average [...]

– Millionaires would see their average tax rate drop to 12.8%, less than half of what they would pay relative to current policy

The republicans/tp must feel they dont have much of a chance in 2012 as they bring up their wedge issues again:

Abortion, Gun Control, and of course their Crown Jewel: Family Values.

Where are the JOBS, Mr. Boehner and Mr. Cantor? You promised you would work on that.

"Congress shall make no law…. abridging the freedom of speech,

It does NOT say “Congress shall make no law…. abridging the freedom of speech, except for corporations and anyone else the lefty liberals would like to muzzle.”

Good. So we can put away this SEUI and Soros nonsense behind us once and for all?

The break even point, if it even exists which most economist say no, is not until 2080. Most of us will be long gone by then.

You're right, we should just scrap any idea of reform since the hole we are in cannot possibly be filled in our lifetimes.

At any rate, this is why I favor the fair tax.

www.fairtax.org

Joe, how does the anonymous funding of political contributions differ from bribery?

Do we have a constitutional right to bribery?

The Citizens United ruling was wrong and driven by politics. It constitutes the worst sort of political corruption.

What makes you think it cannot be solved in less than 70 years? You also imply then that President Obama should not be able to correct the mess of the previous administraton(s) during his terms.

I think we can if we want to. Question is do both parties want to. One alone cannot do it, both need to put their heads together and take the best ideas are run with it. Most Americans would support a unified fight to make this country better. We have not move that far away - YET.

What makes you think it cannot be solved in less than 70 years?

It can be solved in less than 10 years, all of it, not just the current fiasco. I've said it before (but I guess you don't like non-libbies coming up with solutions). The latest number I've seen on the derivatives market is $1.2 Quadrillion, and even that is about 6 months old. So, let's impose a 1% surcharge on those contracts, that equals $12 Trillion. Now, over the next decade we impose this surcharge to bolster the rainy day fund, SS, Medicare, and everything else we can. During that time we will decrement the rate by 0.1% per annum, so that by the end of the decade we have (at the current market of $1.2 Quadrillion), $66 Trillion dollars. Problem solved.

You also imply then that President Obama should not be able to correct the mess of the previous administraton(s) during his terms.

Slow down there buckaroo. The president has been doing his fair share of adding to the problem just fine. Don't heap the crisis on his predecessors when he ponies up trillion dollar deficits on his own. Maybe that's what he meant by, "Elections have consequences, and I won."

"Good. So we can put away this SEUI (sic) and Soros nonsense behind us once and for all?"

__________________________________

SEIU, yes. Citizens United applies equally to unions as long as the money is coming from the US and not the "International" part of the union.. Soros, no. He is a citizen of a foreign country and Citizens United does not apply to him.

From Politifact.com (a FR lefty liberal's source cited here by them many times) analysis of Obama's claim in last year's SOTU: "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections."

The concluding paragraph:

So, if anything, uncertainties about how foreign-owned U.S. subsidiaries would be treated only further muddies the question. Based on our reading of the court's opinion and interviews with campaign law experts, we find that Obama has overstated the ruling's immediate impact on foreign companies' ability to spend unlimited money in U.S. political campaigns. While such an outcome may be possible, the majority opinion specifically said it wasn't addressing that point, and only further litigation would settle the matter once and for all. So we find Obama's claim to be Barely True.

Man....Bev & Feisty...
You guys are like zombies......ugh think progress.........ugh think progress........ugh think progress.......

Here, I'll throw you a bone.......Tell me all about how Cenk Uygur is going to be the next big thing, how he's going to take Fox down, how he's going to..............

I though for sure mark & domenico would have filled you in by now.

3, 2, 1, ..... GO!

CD;
You have a great day, for a minute I thought you maybe wanted a civil discussion, I guess I was wrong again.

Be Well
The Buckaroo

So by reminding you that the president has been spending money like a drunken sailor, the discourse is not civil? Or does "buckaroo" bother you? If so, you need to turn in your sailor card. When I was a sailor, we made up far worse words.

I notice you made no mention of my proposal. Is it because it doesn't fit into your liberal agenda?

Chef Darrell,

I like your proposal. though, I do not understand the derivitive market. You propose putting a 1% charge on "contracts" does that indicate that the percentage would be paid even if the investment fails? Or, would the 1% be on profit....

Again, I know zero about derivitives. But, I like your numbers....

Ted - I like Chef Darrell's proposal as well. It would definitely take care of a lot of things pretty quickly.

The question is this - how can we make something like that possible?

George Soros is a citizen of the United States.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/10/07billionaires_George-Soros_L9II.html

Don't you just hate it when your bogeyman has as much right to a say in society as you?

I resent being called buckaroo, your ideas have merit but I do not have time to talk with people who wish to call me names, That is my point. Calling me names is not civil in my opinion.

George Soros is a citizen of the United States.

Don't you just hate it when your bogeyman has as much right to a say in society as you?

_____________________________________________________

Were you aware that most of his wealth is kept in offshore tax havens like the Cayman Islands in order to evade US taxes? As long as he isn't using this foreign money, Citizens United applies to his corporations just as much as it does to the USCOC.

That isn't evidence in favor of an argument criticizing George Soros. It's an argument in favor of criticizing a tax code that gives inordinate advantages to the very wealthy.

And yes, Citizens United applies to his corporations as well. That doesn't change the fact that it's legalized bribery and should be overturned.

Leading to the question...why exactly did Conservatives work so hard to block the DISCLOSE Act in the last Congress?

You do realize Rupert Murdoch only became a US citizen in 1985 to avoid losing his American media licenses, right?

Joe in Albany-1902257

I love it when lefty liberals like

Bevrail against the Citizens United decision which was based on the following text written in the actual document:

SEIU, yes. Citizens United applies equally to unions as long as the money is coming from the US and not the "International" part of the union..Soros

, no. He is a citizen of a foreign country and Citizens United does not apply to him/

I resent being called buckaroo, your ideas have merit but I do not have time to talk with people who wish to call me names, That is my point. Calling me names is not civil in my opinion.

Wow. Then I apologize if I hurt your feelings.

However, I resent being told that I implied (or inferred, rather) something about the president when I made no mention of the president.

Nicely said, USN.

Funny comparing the federal government to a business.

How many companies would keep a CEO that "invested" almost a trillion dollars and the end result was worse than the CEO's worst case scenario if they had not spent the trillion.

Stockholders would be asking if this guy had ever run a business, or was just some clueless community organizer.

Either way - No choice, he would be gone.

Well done, US Navy. Excellent examples of the success or failure of businesses which focus on the bottom line or choose the future.

Bob, you missed the point entirely. NASA, space travel funded by the government provided the opportunity for private businesses to expand what was developed for the military or space travel into the private sector world for everyday consumers.

Excellent post, US NAVY. Your post illustrates the point(s) I was making yesterday about the budget - if you just cut expenses WITHOUT raising revenues, you are going to fail every time.

I find it interesting that all of the proponents of cost cutting don't even bother to balance the equation.

Maybe they don't want to.

There needs to be BALANCE in what we do if we are to 'reign in the spending'. Part of the problem is that no one will analyse the budget to see where there are any discrepancies. SOMETIMES it is not smart to just cut a budget; sometimes you have to maintain that budget's current spending and affect the bottom lines elsewhere (like get new customers, stop some services that are being offered, develop a new line of business).

Why is it so hard for the 'cost cutters' to see that COMPLETE picture?

Maybe the 'cost cutters' CANNOT see the whole picture. Maybe the picture is not being presented properly, so incorrect conclusions are being made. Maybe there is not a willingness to HONESTLY evaluate the picture even if it is presented correctly.

The bottom line is this - we cannot just cut, cut, cut if we want to balance our budget. We need BALANCE, and that balance SHOULD be provided by the parts of Congress that are responsible for the budget WORKING TOGETHER with the parts of Congress that do not have a direct responsibility for the budget.

Let's see how this plays out.

Well said Navy, great examples of how to or not to, and if we use Paul Ryan's road map we'll be in double trouble.

Bob says "Funny comparing the federal government to a business' yet you expect President to provide all the jobs lost since 2007? He can only show the way, the private sector makes their own timetable.

I agree as usual to every post you write. Vital to keep education k-12 to keep up with China and other countries. Repubs are cutting education in Texas and the middle class is taking a huge hit in job losses and pay. Course repealing the tax break for the rich isn't on the list to cut spending...And will the rich hire the uneducated. This is a tragedy waiting to happen and the future of this country is becoming bleak with this type of leadership.

Hi Pietro

Here is my problem with raising taxes/revenues. The money is fungible and can be diverted to purposes other than cutting the deficit. Take Social Security as an example. One proposal is to remove the cap so that all income is now liable for the SS tax. This would remove any shortfalls caused by the Baby Boomers. I have no problem with this proposal except that any surplus will be used for other current spending needs and when SS requires it it's already spent. This is basically what has happened since the last SS fix. You cannot trust politicians (of either party) with tax money they use it to stay in power. Look at the scandals arising at local government now with gold-plated contracts in return for political support. Even George W Bush tried to buy off the AARP demographic with Medicare D. They all do it and they always will. Create an entitlement and then claim the other side will take it away. You tell me how we stop this and I'll look at tax increases.

So, in other words, we should just keep throwing money down rat holes, in the vain hope that some day, maybe, it will pay off?

Liberals really have some weird ideas.

Let's try this: suppose you have a company, and you hire a salesman to open new markets for your products. He recommends spending exorbitant amounts of money to lay the infrastructure for the growth.

After two years, your sales in that sector show minimal growth. His excuse is that the customers are too stupid to understand what a good job he has done.

If it's my company, I fire him.

That is what happened to the democrats.

Now the chief salesman has gotten a bump because he compromised with republicans on taxes, (giving people back the "hope" that they have Clinton back in the White House), and because he is relentlessly exploiting the tragedy in Arizona.

I wait with bated breath to see how long either lasts.

John B, Des Moines, IA

Nicely said, USN.

Ditto me Navy. I'm becoming a US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired ditto head. We are so frequently on the same page.

Bev;

Nice post. Ryan's road map should be retitled to "The GOP Road-Map for the Destruction of the Middle Class". His agenda will raise the taxes on the middle class and reduce the taxes on the richest 2% to a record low. About 98% of the people will pay a rate higher that is higher than the elite 2%. The break even point, if it even exists which most economist say no, is not until 2080. Most of us will be long gone by then.

Exactly, Navy

I see Chef Darrell is still having a problem with 47%. Since he doesn't need libbie Talking points I'll ignore his brash right wing ignorance.

Those 47% have duty to pay excise taxes i.e. payroll taxes. and investment taxes, state and local taxes, too.

If Chef Darrel would like to engage in libbie talking points, perhaps; he might want to discuss why Republicans created the Earned Income Tax Credit in 1975 under President Ford (a Republican), and was expanded numerous times over the last 35 years by Republicans?

If he's a tea bagger it might interest him to know their relentless rant of Taxed Enough is an oxymoron. Most Tea Baggers don't pay income taxes either!!!

People like the Koch's, Dick Cheney's haliburton and big businees don't pay any taxes at all because they have offshore accounts. Furthermore the payroll taxes go into Medicare & SS. Haliburton employee did get their entitlements because they aid no payroll taxes

So what's the beef? May he got a little dyspepsia from FOX NOISE.

Ah Beverlie, still smarting from da Bears' crappy showing on Sunday?

Lets talk about apples then. According to this Ryan Paul plan, the top 2% will pay a lower FEDERAL income tax. Correct? That leaves the other 51% of those who pay FEDERAL income tax to pay the rest of the bill. Correct? The remaining 47% of those who do not pay FEDERAL income tax are still not paying FEDERAL income tax. They pay sales tax and perhaps payroll tax and all those other little taxes, but not FEDERAL income tax.

I personally don't think his plan will pass as it is, so why all the libbie uproar?

I don't have a beef either. I am a proponent of the fair tax and a surcharge on derivatives.

You can call me right wing all you want, but I lean towards independent. I voted for the current president because the other candidate was 4 more years of the Bush regime and I wanted change. Too bad the change I am seeing looks the same as the previous 8 years (GITMO, wars still happening, taxes the same, government expanding). But at least the blowhard KeithO is out of a job.

As far as the EITC, who does it help? Wikipedia states: For tax year 2010, the maximum EIC for a person or couple without qualifying children is $457, with one qualifying child is $3,050, with two qualifying children is $5,036, and with three or more qualifying children is $5,666.

So it looks like the lower income, multi-child having types are reaping the benefits. What's the percentage of that demographic that is liberal leaning?

Hey Alan, NJ:

First of all, I stated in my post that the Government needed to raise REVENUES. Does that necessarily mean that REVENUES=TAXES?

It does not in my mind.

From my short and non-scientific analysis of the 2010 budget, I did notice that while the taxpayer was shelling out $1.2 TRILLION to the Government in the form of taxes, Corporate interests were shelling out around $400 BILLION. My premise is that no matter how much you cut expenses, with a discrepancy as large as that on the REVENUE side of the ledger, you would always be in in a deficit.

Now, this is where thinking out of the box is required. What REVENUES could the Government create for itself - beside taxes - to help shore up its bottom line? Raising taxes is the EASY way out, and this is probably why the President wants, in the short term, for us to 'overproduce' so that the tax collection rates will increase.

Now, I agree with you, Alan, that when we have people of questionable integrity elected to be in charge of TRILLIONS of dollars, we WILL have issues. It is virtually impossible for ANY politician to NOT fall into that trap.

SO what do we do in the meantime?

-- leave Social Security alone to do what it was designed to do.

-- Make Medicare as lean as possible because at some point, EVERYONE will be on a Medicare-like health plan (since the insurance companies cannot help themselves and will not play nice in the sandbox).

-- Make sure that the Corporate Interests pay their fair share towards America. To me, its like having a huge, well financed corporate interest renting space in my building and they pay little or no rent and make it difficult to collect the little rent that they do pay. I still have to maintain my building, correct? So do I charge the Mom and Pop business more to subsidize the large corporate renter I have because it is easier to get money from the Mom and Pop organizations?

-- If we are going to be serious about the debt and deficit, then we need to provide the legislation that will address that SPECIFICALLY. Believe it or not, the Tea partyers have a golden opportunity to make a name for themselves if they will write TARGETED legislation that is for debt and deficit reduction. Let's see if they will 'step up' and do what is needed and right.

Alan, this is by no means an exhaustive or definitive list of what needs to be done, but it is a start.

Bob

"Either way - No choice, he would be gone."

"He" IS gone. The country was so disgusted with former President Bush, they elected President Obama, and he has done a great job leading us through recovery.

Petro conveniently forgets that Bill Clinton eliminated the cap on Medicare taxes- which was supposed to make it solvent for all time.

How did that work out?

Pietro;
Thank you, your post said it better than I did.

NoJo; You forget that President Obama has moved this country forward unlike that failed salesman you used. 12 consective months on creating private sector jobs. When Prsident Obama took office we were loosing 650,000 jobs per month. In the summer of 2009 that started to slow down and continued to slow down into the fall. In Jan of 2010 we started to see actual jobs created each month and he finished the year (2010) with 1.1 Million jobs created and millions saved.
The economy has been improving as well, albeit slowly, and with absolutely NO help from the right, except no to everything. Which, by the way has not changed. 71% of the companies reporting on the big board have exceeded the sales and profit expectatons. Big Businesses are sitting on over a Trillion Dollars of cash.

Jody,

I actually agree, in some instances such as NASA, government has the resources that private enterprise does not. NASA is the perfect example.

But what has Obama done to NASA, but to kill it / turn over to private sector and dedicate it to Muslim feel goof outreach nonsense. We also need to stay ahead of everyone in defense. What has Obama done but to kill the F-22 program, the one asset that we have that can truly survive and establish air-superiority. Insane, especially as the Chinese bust out their knock off.

But back to the topic - What "investment" that Obama has made has paid off? Stimulus - still no jobs. All of those teachers bailed out? Ready for the next here we go again? (Speaking of investing in education - expenditures have doubled the last decade - why is it still in such crisis? How did that pay off.

Nama ONE Obama "Investment"/Spending Spree Idea that has paid off.

Anyone?

Big government, big unions and big business like GE do not create the jobs needed. Government needs to get out of the way, quit increasing cost due to HCR, unnecessary rules and regulations, higher energy cost due to the destruction of the energy industry, debt costs, etc. and jobs will be fine. That simple. No need for more spending to prop up unions, Wall Street and the other cronies.

Bob - you are compaing apples and oranges here. You want to see a return on an investment RIGHT NOW that takes YEARS to bear fruit.

If you were a farmer, you are the type that would be complaining loudly why your corn crop is not grown fully 4 days after you have planted the seeds.

Then you would be on a crusade trying to convince others on how BAD corn seeds are.

What I am getting to is this - you want something IMMEDIATE to show that you were 'right'. What you are not getting is that your being 'right' has nothing to do with how things really are.

We do NOT need to show you any investment/spending spree idea that President Obama had that is paying off. You are the living proof of it.

If President Obama did NOT stimulate the economy, none of us would be here squabbling on what the President has or has not done. We would be too concerned about where we would be getting our next meal and very concerned about shelter. There wouldn't be any MONEY because the banks would have defaulted and we would be in GREATER Depression than the 1930's.

You can thank President Obama for saving your (and our) collective butts with his INVESTMENT for the FUTURE.

How's THAT for an investment example?

You guys want to see something interesting, go to the web and look up what technology that we use today has been developed by NASA, and think of all the jobs that were made possible by improving these technologies and/or branching them off into other business ventures.
Do not take my word for it, go look it up yourself.

@Pietro

Not sure I follow you. Are you saying close corporate loopholes and/or raise corporate taxes? Why not come at it from the other direction and stop corporate subsidies? (My favorite is the Ethanol and sugar subsidies). What about R&D write-offs? Are corporations reducing their taxes this way? Or say you get to a "fairer" tax policy, won't they just move to a "better" tax location and then they won't pay any tax.

No Joe conveniently forgets that the GOP passed and Bush signed Medicare Part D, the Rx drug plan for medicare WITHOUT paying for it, thereby eliminating the gains made by Clinton's action and pushing Medicare closer to insolvency. That's fact, not fiction.

Bob, what do Muslims have to do with NASA? Obama didn't eliminate NASA completely, and I thought republicans liked the idea of the private sector instead of government. Isn't it time the government turn some of NASA to the private sector? Stop listening to conservative talk--the stimulus created and saved jobs, the GOP governors of states told their constituents it did, economists right, left and center have said so. Honestly, do you suffer "truthiness", that condition that allows people to only accept what it chooses to believe as truth. As for the last paragraph, last time I checked GE was a private business. And the nonsense about unions and government, more "truthiness". The size of government does not matter, what does matter is smart, efficient government.

Pietro,

An arguement can be made for TARP. You cannot make the argument for Stimulus. Obama said unemployment would not go over 8% if we spent the money, 9% if we didn't. We spent the money and it was worse than Obama's scenario if we spent nothing. You have to be moron to argue that puppet theaters and other boondoggles helped anything. With regards to the insipid claim that it prevented things from being worse, nothing supports that and history in fact contradicts it. Fact.

Alan, NJ - No, I am saying that MAYBE we should look at other revenue streams other than TAXES when we are talking about the Federal Budget.

Stopping subsidies for Ethanol and Sugar are great starts. I tend to agree with you on the Ethanol subsidy, as it really does not help our energy situation, especially when it cost $2.21 to make a gallon of gasoline usnig Ehtnaol as opposed to the $ .63 it takes to make a gallon gasoline from crude.

I am saying that MAYBE we should be looking at NEW revenue streams other than just TAXES. It is pretty obvious that the amount we are collecting in taxes is NOT enough to cover the expenses - nor cover the deficit caused by rapid credit expansion - currently.

Well, Bob - I find it interesting that you said that TARP was ok and necessary, but the stimulus was not.

Now, why is that?

You seem to not have a problem with bankers who are gambling away your 401K (with millions of others) with derivatives. If they win, THEY keep the money. If they lose, YOU pay their debt.

I guess that is OK in your world, is it, Bob?

You cannot - or WILL NOT see - that the stimulus was an INVESTMENT in America; but you like the TARP idea.

Kinda short-sighted today, aren't you, Bob?

You cannot - or will not - see that without the stimulus, America would not be functioning as a country.

I guess soup lines are less important than your worthless 401K, eh, Bob?

My point is this - you rail on and on about the stimulus, but fail to realise that because of that stimulus, your 401K is now VIABLE again. You now have a retirement nest egg again. America is chugging along - albeit slowly - but it is moving forward.

I guess all of that means nothing because you have your 401K with something in it. Right, Bob?

Bob, if it wasn't for President Obama and the stimulus, you would not have a 401K. America would be in a world of hurt right now.

You can thank the President for saving your sorry butt, but I know you won't.

The reality about the national debt is one no one wants to address directly. Cutting taxes and spending will not reduce the debt. Raising taxes without doing anything else will not reduce the debt. The solution is a three-legged stool. Employment will have to increase, taxes will have to be raised and spending will need to be cut. If anyone is telling you anything else, then they are lying or are a drunken fool.

Also the stories that we here from No Jo No Blow are just that stories. She is either makin them up or has heard them on her favorite talk show. We all know thta the only callers that are put on the air have been hand selected to tell high tales and provide low insults.

First, I didn't say TARP was OK, or necessary. I said an argument could be made for TARP. I have read the articles and arguments. I haven't seen anyone make a reasonable argument that the Stimulus worked. I have read articles on how it could have helped if spending had been targeted and strategically timed etc. But I have never seen anyone make the argument that it worked.

Heck, just go back to your little seed analogy. Packet of seeds mentions targeting (preparing a certain area of soil for the seeds) timing (what time of year/weather conditions) and it tells you when to expect results. Obama defied all of the above and the seeds did not produce. Didn't Obama himself talk about the fruit maturing - the summer of recovery - that wasn't. Didn't come up when Obama said it would come up. Nothing Obama said came to fruit, except that when nothing grew he said it would have been worse if he hadn't done anything.

Huh? He promised fruit this summer - might come up next year, year after that, or 5 years from now? Maybe it will be crab grass instead of......

Yea, Pietro keep checking the dirt pile .......

Bob - I stand corrected. You DID say that an argument could be made for TARP. I wish I could get these quote things to work on my system again so I would not be misquoting you. I apologise for that.

However, my post asks why an argument could be made for TARP but you have a problem with the stimulus?

Did we or did we not 'stimulate' the banks with TARP?

Your post also illustrates the impatience you have with the stimulus investment. I will bypass the usual hyperbole about what President Obama said because it is irrelevant for this discussion (we can argue about that later). However, using our seed analogy, you failed to account for acidity of the soil, the work it would take to get rid of the crabgrass that seems to grow very quickly, and bad weather, are we surprised that your crop has not come up on the date and time you expected it to?

Are you going to complain to the seed manufacturer because you used his seed to plant a crop that did not come up at 11:27am in November as YOU expected?

Kinda hard to arge a point when you ain't got no ammo, Bob...

Pietro,

Well, with respect to the acidity of the soil, I mentioned targeting and the preparation of the soil, seems acidity was addressed in my point. Crab grass removal would also be part of the soil preparartion thing.

And that was my point. It could have helped if targeting and timing were done. The seeds could have come up if Obama had targeted soil that was free of crab grass and the acidity levels were correct, the stimulus could have worked if Obama, Pelosi and Reid had targeted the right sectors and timed it right. They had all the control of where it went and when and they blew it, it didn't work.

This conserversation has become absurd. I feel like I am arguing with Bev, and that's ridiculous - you are not that obtuse, Pietro.

Anyway, feel free to believe what ever you want. Any independants reading this exchange certainly have enough to form their own opinions too.

Bob - you are right. I am not that obtuse.

However, I fail to see how the stimulus 'failed'. Is it because it did not produce fruit up to YOUR standards? Then you blame President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for not 'framing' the argument in the 'correct' manner.

Why does that seem to me like you are shaking your fist at the clouds for not raining hard enough to save your crops?

The fact of the matter is this - the stimulus HAS worked because we are not in an economic free-fall. Just because the unemployment number that YOU felt should be didn't materialise does NOT mean that the stimulus did NOT work. And now you want to lay blame on SOMEONE that woulda, coulda, shoulda.

That's OK Bob - I'll get off your lawn now.

You guys are always talking about the GOP and big corporate greed, shipping jobs overseas - blah, blah..

Who's bigger than GE? Who has their hands in more aspects of American lives, from light bulbs to kitchen appliances to finance/credit to jet engines to.......?

Who is Obama's private sector BFF that gave so much money to him and to every Dem. he could think of, whose company (GE) gave $700 big ones to, a company that Obama gave $45 million in stimulus money to despite making $1.56 billion in 2009? A company that Obama is going to give $187 million in tax payer funded credits to for buying GM green cars? Who does Obama take to India to sign deals for jet engines, hook up with Hu of China for more jet engines,.........

What one company benefits from Obama's destruction of the energy industry more than any other due to their wind turbine, solar panel, etc. interests?

Oh, and about that jobs cutting/overseas stuff, what company laid off 18,000 Americans in 2009 alone (despite the stimulus money) and has added the equivalent overseas? (make their solar panels as well as everything else in China)

"Citizens United"? How about Obama Immelt/GE United?

You guys are such clueless tools.

Bob, you are surprised that Obama put the hog in charge of the trough?

Did you not read that he needs one billion for his reelection campaign? Where do you think he expects to get that money?

I know most of the clueless still think it was their paper route change that got him elected in the first place, but they were aided in that delusion by a media that showed no interest whatsoever in investigating the prepaid credit cards, donations of less than a hundred dollars by"asdf jkl?", among other irregularities. I understand that Mssrs, Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse were also contributors.

One might ask if the media will be so complacent this time around. I suspect so- but hope I am wrong.

bob-1805084

You guys are always talking about the GOP and big corporate greed, shipping jobs overseas - blah, blah..

"Citizens United"? How about Obama Immelt/GE United?

You guys are such clueless tools.

The New York Times reported that Obama's appointment of Immelt was "another strong signal that he intends to make the White House more business-friendly

On June 26, 2009, Jeff Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, called for the United States to increase its manufacturing base employment to 20% of the workforce commenting that the U.S. has outsourced too much and can no longer rely on consumer spending to drive demand

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

Who are the other Rich People And Corporations Who Benefit From Offshore Tax Havens? That'd be BP, Exxon and others in the oil and gas industry are off the table.”

http://cdn.publicinterestnetwork.org/assets/1JpX8jvsPAW7OKjq4p5diQ/USP-taxshellgamefinal-updateFall09.pdf

We’ve seen creative new techniques in the way election money is spent — and hidden — by outside groups.

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/01/20/after-citizens-united/

That means you cannot know where this floodgate of money comes from. At least you trace GE.

Snark off

Bev,

Too funny that you mention BP, the company gave Obama more money than they have given to any other American politician in the last 20 years.

Your response to my stating that GE shucked 18,000 American jobs in 2009 is that Immelt called for the United States to increase its manufacturing base.......

Again as Immelt laid off 18,000.

Sad, you don't even understand how much you don't understand.

Amen.

He who sows the wind reaps the whirlwind.

Last fellow I knew that clung to the 357 under his pillow had a bad dream one night thereby hastening his conversation with Saint Peter.

How do you know he had a bad dream?

Your right Chef might of been a cramp. Either way the results of such stupidity was just as fatal.

Bravo, IR. 34 Americans die each day by gun violence. Mayor Bloomberg gave an excellent speech yesterday, with 34 people behind him for symbolism, about our violent culture and pointed the finger at legislators and presidents for being unwilling to address this problem. The NRA leaders sit in the back pockets of gun and ammunition manufacturers, in fact some of those manufacturers are on the NRA board. Most NRA members do not support the extreme stand taken by NRA leaders.

Liberals own guns, too, for hunting, collecting just as conservatives do; democrats don't want to deny guns to citizens any more than republicans do. As with other issues, we cannot have an honest debate because the NRA strikes fear in both sides of politics. The debate should start with this question: why does the NRA, a special interest lobby, have such power that the lives, the safety of American citizens are dismissed as collateral damage?

Well said, IR. I have never been able to understand why some folks feel the need to carry a firearm at all times. It can be an invitation to an irrational decision.

Just in the past few days, here in So. Fl we have lost four police officers, killed in the line of duty, by criminals who should never had access to a gun. A number of young children are now without one of their parents and their families traumatized by the loss. There needs to be tougher laws as we are getting to the tipping point and after these incidents that you cite and the ones I mention, we seem to be nearer than ever.

Thanks Jody Exactly my point and for your post below. WE the people have got to get to somewhere where we reject the rethoric in favor of the solution and demand the information that leads to the formulation of that solution instead of blindly charging off with a simplistict answer that ignores the facts.

GBM I saw that sad news yesterday. First my sympathies to these Officer's families and loved ones. On the headlines this morning I saw where we have lost 11 officers across the nation the last couple of days. I think that we have let rethoric blind us to the fact that we haven't adequatly dealt with this climate that it has created and it's getting way out of hand. We can't stop all of it with legislation because you can't legislate Morality but if we can stop just one occurance we would be better off than we are now. I plan on putting up some related materal on this question the rest of the week in the hopes we can at least get a coherant discusion started

IR: Excellent posts all, Kudos. The sad thing is that the rhetoric cloaked in hate and violence has not diminished much since Tucson. In some cases on this board it has gotten worse. Until that stops Tucson will happen again. I see Cantor wants to be Pelosi's date??? Hey maybe there is hope if these two can sit together without going to "time out".

Jody your post is excellent...as usual.

Your examples of how change can come about are very sound. In the military complex alone, I feel sure, there is enough waste to be eradicated that would reduce our debt and help our country towards solvency and not have to worry about cutting Medicare benefits or undermine Social Security.

Jody:
Excellent and well presented. Your analysis is right on.

Jody, Iowa

Ideology versus Reality.

Big government, small government--does it really matter when what we need is smart government however large or small that might be? Social security is not an entitlement, it is a pension fund that workers pay into with every paycheck.

Excellent points Jody,

I kinda disagree about SS. I believe anything I pay into is entitled to me.

You are so on point government should be smart; no matter what size it is.

Yes, Beverly, I agree anything you pay into social security you are entitled to receive. Prior to age 70, anyone who retires is limited to other income without impacting the benefits. I just think that should be true at age 70 and above as well. I was not clear on that point.

I vote for two mules for sister Sara.

I enjoyed your post, Bill in Fairfax, it was well written, well organized and even amusing. Kudos to you for rising above the usual "you libtards," "Michelle Obama looks like a gorilla," "where's Obama's birth certificate,""Obamacare will force you to go before a death panel to save your grandma" rightwing rhetoric we have been treated to for the last two years.

Let's hope the new civility will lead to a discussion of how a healthcare reform bill that preserves private industries like insurance and for-profit hospitals constitutes a turn to "socialism." I'll be listening.

The left presumes that most people are inherently weak, that we have neither the capacity nor the will to properly evaluate the information we're constantly exposed to

The Left presumes so because they are inherently weak. You see it ever day as the Left genuflects to the latest Left Wing Liberal blare-horn that "talks to them". If the Left had to put 2+2 together by themselves they'd never be able to come up with an original thought. That's why you see on a daily basis the innumerable cut-and-pastes from left wing websites showing up on these pages and the usual Left supporters cackling "Great post!" in return.

Lets call it what it is, Bill- the cynical exploitation of a tragedy to censor those who oppose the left wing.

It is beneath contempt, and I hope that every right thinking person, ( pun intended), calls it out.

I had not thought that certain people could go any lower. It seems I was wrong.

" He wasn't exactly a poster boy for calm, dispassionate discourse"

Loudmouth "ME FIrst" Bill- I hope to hell you aren't a Hannity or Limbaugh fan.....

Nice post, Bill, Fairfax even if I disagree with parts of it. You are a thinker not a follower, you make a good point about people in general making their own decisions but there are many who listen to the general chatter and assume it to be factual and never bother to check. There are many who are susceptible to fear in all forms--fear of "isms" but as that old tune from "South Pacific" says--"you have to be carefully taught to fear and hate." There are unfortunately, too many people who buy the ideals but fail to understand the true meaning.

Obviously, you did not like Keith Olbermann. Fine, but not once did Keith Olbermann ever suggest violence against those with whom he disagreed; he pointed out their words, he criticized their positions, poked fun at them but never did he suggest violence as a solution. Unlike Olbermann, Glenn Beck just recently told his viewers to shoot democrats. Having different views is one thing, but one side suggesting violence as the solution against the other is inexcusable, irresponsible and idiotic. Glenn Beck and those like him who suggest violence should be removed from the airways, words have consequences.

The consequence the liberals seek is censorship.

They have this wonderful idea that, if they can exploit the Arizona tragedy, despite the fact that there is NO CONNECTION between Loughner and any political rhetoric,( except his delusions), they can control the dialogue and never again face the consequence of their actions as they did in the midterms.

This cynical exploitation should be what has consequences- from the electorate.

Using a dead child, judge, and others, as well as those grievously injured to advance a political agenda is despicable.

At the risk of being censured, let me state that I hope it blows up in your face.

Glenn Beck isn't exactly my cup of tea and I don't care to be in the position of defending him. But he did not tell his viewers to "shoot democrats." He was actually referring to radicals who advocate violent revolution.

The full transcript of his remarks can be found here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594343,00.html

A concise debunking of the clip that was taken out of context can be found here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-glenn-beck-really-tell-his-audience-to-shoot-people-in-the-head/

Distorting the remarks of individuals that some folks don't like doesn't advance anyone's ball closer to the goal line. It just moves the goal line farther away from all of us.

Glad to know Beck isn't your cup of tea. Bill, I stand corrected; I meant to say people not democrats and that's the truth. Beck did not say democrats but that does not justify making such an irresponsible statement. He should be pulled from the air, suspended without pay or something. There is never any reason to suggest violence against anyone but this man does it frequently. I stand by the rest of my comment.

Bill

As for Olbermann, good riddance to bad trash. He wasn't exactly a poster boy for calm, dispassionate discourse. Maybe that's why the MSNBC audience is even smaller than the one for The Potato Network. The hypocrisy of the left on the civility issue knows no bounds. I know this because I can think for myself.

It's a great asset to be a free thinker. But, there is no comparision with Glenn Beck v Keith Olberman. In fact, pratically the whole Fox Nation and Tea Party pales in comparison.

Keith may be brash and never has Keith; and I doubt if you will ever hear Keith wanting to use guns as a solution for ballots.

How did it rise above "you libtards". It was nothing but a thinly veiled slam of those who think differently than he does. He offers nothing to the discourse. Because he didn't think, he reacted. That is the problem with many here. Nothing to offer as far as an actual idea, but yet they feel compelled to spew their hate and drivel none the less.

Amused In The Midwest
How did it rise above "you libtards". It was nothing but a thinly veiled slam of those who think differently than he does. He offers nothing to the discourse. Because he didn't think, he reacted. That is the problem with many here. Nothing to offer as far as an actual idea, but yet they feel compelled to spew their hate and drivel none the less.

And you are differ how????? Do you know what hypocrisy is??

"The consequence the liberals seek is censorship."

Care to provide some support for that accusation? The President hasn't called for censorship. None of the Democratic House or Senate leadership has called for censorship. I don't know of anyone here who has advocated censorship. No, quite the opposite in fact, everyone has called for people to be AWARE and take RESPONSIBILITY for the possible consequences of language which incites to violence.

So, are you going to back that up, or are you just using a horrible tragedy to cynical ends by accusing people you don't like of things they haven't done?

Words have consequences.

Why do you refer to Emanuel as "Rahm"?

Ha ha. Good point. I think it's because, unless you are an Israeli, "Rahm" just sounds like a last name and Emanual sounds like a first name. Most Americans would be quicker to know you are referring to the guy with the big personality and dreamy eyes if you say "Rahm," but "Emanuel", not so much. I bet the journalists aren't even aware they are doing that.

Should we refer to Sarah Palin as just "Sarah"? How about George Allen, he's running for Senate in Virginia, is he now just "George"?

I bet the journalists aren't even aware they are doing that.

There are a lot of things "journalists" aren't aware of.

PS I have caught myself referring to Massachuttes Governor "Patrick Deval" instead of "Deval Patrick" a half dozen times. Maybe its because Maine is not known for our cultural diversity.

"There are a lot of things "journalists" aren't aware of."

Ha ha, good point.

In the scheme of things, does this matter? He's Rahm to most of us including FR.

Well said, Robert. You hit on one point many of us have talked about often--gridlock is counterproductive. Both sides must be willing to compromise. This country has serious problems, some brought about by kicking the can down the road for decades, some by just irresponsible spending while decreasing the revenue stream.

Due to time constraints, the President cannot provide lots of specifics when discussing so many issues but we should have a general idea of goals. Same goes for the two rebuttals. I agree, both provide starting points, roadmaps but It is important, though, to listen carefully.

For over fifty years, and I can vouch for this our education system has been broken and yet every year governments throw more money at it and it just stays broke in more than one way. Each school district has an ivory palace full of next to be retired eduators receiving double if not tripple the classroom teachers salary and are tenured so they cannot be fired or put back into the classroom. Oh and they also have a full office staff to do their distgrict work. Students now just look at the teacher and do nothing toward learning because they know they will pass regardless because No Child Will Be Left Behind and they get their deploma that means nothing anymore to sociely. In teaching an apprenticeship class I found that students set their priorities and reading or doing lab assignment is not on their list. They come and want you to show them what they were supposed to learn. They cry that they did not learn what was on the test because the ballgame on "TV or the one they went to was more important than learning an occupation. My how things have changed in over seventy years.

I'm sure you have taken some poll and skewed the numbers and come up with a mathematical way to make your premise work, but that doesn't make it true......

Reactionaries suppose that whenever opinion polls favor Republicans, the poll results are true reflections of the Will of the People. But whenever the polls favor Democrats, the wingnut knees jerk sharply and they automatically blame the poll results on the vast liberal left conspiracy.

If you do not like it here why don't you take your trash and dump it somewhere else?

I know, that's the only explanation otherwise, I'm not sure how you go from discussing two different business models, one succeeds, one fails to blaming the "community organizer". That truthiness thing again.

Olbermann could get his own cable news. He is the ultimate fact checker and I relied on him to expose the anti-intellectual lies of the righties. I will miss him terrably........but it really is easy to fact check the GOP and tea party anyway...........he just did it in a hilarious way!

Olbermann has already gotten a new job; he'll be shining O'Reilly's shoes and fetching coffee for Beck. If he's lucky, they'll let him hang around so that he can learn something about television journalism.

Bachmann is proof that the GOP will have difficulty keeping the TePee on the reservation.

Great post!
I couldn't have said it better myself.
What is he so afraid of?......I've never seen a President so afraid to respond to his critics.
Maybe it's because they're right!

Indigiblood, I see you've been brainwashed by Fox.

BTW: It's apparent you prefer lies, to facts, truthful context of information and holding both sides accountable. Why else would you be on Fox soap box.

Have a nice day and enjoy being lead around by the nose by Fox.

Mo
I see you've been brainwashed by MSNBC.

BTW: It's apparent you prefer lies, to facts, truthful context of information and holding both sides accountable. Why else would you be on MSNBC soap box.

Have a nice day and enjoy being lead around by the nose by MSNBC.

Obama should go on Dumb FUX NEWS, let them give him their worst(Beck).

Why won't Beck go on the Daily Show, Stewart has been begging him to get on the show...

"True" American-2366567

BTW: It's apparent you prefer lies, to facts, truthful context of information and holding both sides accountable. Why else would you be on MSNBC soap box.

What lies? Examples, please. Incredibly vicious lies are easy to come up with on Fox, such as the lie that President Obama's trip to Asia cost $100 million a day or the lie that he attended a radical Islamic madrassa as a child. Those are only two lies out of a steaming pile of BS that Fox has accumulated for years. So either tell us what lies have been told on MSNBC or admit you're just making stuff up, just like they do on Fox.

Beck would easily overwhelm Obama; all Beck would have to do is insist on honest responses to questions in the absence of the teleprompter. Jon Stewart? He presents about as much political acumen as the Jerry Springer Show.

Depends on which FOX news you're talking about. Odd that FOX was proven as the most efficient in providing misinformation to the public if their news team is so fantastic.

You are right Obama should go on Faux news. He should do it LIVE and have secret service agents with guns drawn on the producer and camera men. If they even TRY to edit, cut away, or cut Obama's mike off they should be shot in the face. If Beck starts to weep he gets TWO warnings. When he first begins to weep a secret service agent will unholster his weapon and point it at Beck's face. If he continues to weep or begins weeping a second time the secret service agent will chamber a round. If Beck CONTINUES to weep or begins to weep AGAIN he will be SHOT IN THE FACE.

Agree to these terms and Obama SHOULD appear on Faux news.

Nah, he'll "admit" that it was Bush's fault, or the Republicans' fault, or the SCOTUS' fault, or that more government will solve all the nation's problems.

Ever consider the possibility the right is telling their conservative followers that President Obama is more republican now because that way, when the GOPTP compromises to get things done, they'll look less liberal. Oh, my.