May 17, 1954 – On This Date In History -

Dred Scott, Abraham Lincoln, Homer Plessy, Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, Chief Justice Earl Warren, Rosa Parks, the freedom riders, anti-war demonstrators and civil rights marchers.

Today we have Romney, Gingrich, Palin, Walker, Ryan and a media where most actually don’t do their jobs as honest progressive journalists. That’s because it’s the corporate media now. They live inside the beltway and only care about each other’s opinion, instead of ours. Think about it. The night of the correspondent’s dinner – each of the media outlets spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on parties. Parties at the best hotels in DC. For the so-called media.

The banks, insurance companies and so on? They could care less about the soul of America.

We have a presidential election in 2012. Some in the media were excited about Trump running. Trump. Now we’re stuck with Palin (?), Romney, Bachmann, Gingrich.

Trump – Who came on stage, spit in President Obama’s face, and then left. NBC has him. I hope they’re proud.

Romney, who sold America’s worker’s soul to make money.

Gingrich – a fruitcake in every sense of the word.

Palin – twitter candidate.

Bachmann - unbelievably hateful.

How far we have fallen.

________________________________________________________________

This was talked about last night on Lawrence’s program, but it bears repeating:

On May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren read the decision of the unanimous Court:

"We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does...We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court struck down the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy for public education, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and required the desegregation of schools across America.

The Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision did not abolish segregation in other public areas, such as restaurants and restrooms, nor did it require desegregation of public schools by a specific time. It did, however, declare the permissive or mandatory segregation that existed in 21 states unconstitutional. It was a giant step towards complete desegregation of public schools. Even partial desegregation of these schools, however, was still very far away, as would soon become apparent.

Feisty:

It is always the same with these people, stretch the truth until it snaps. This is about all we can expect now until 2012. The GOP/TP has nothing for the average American, the 98%, but everything for Wall Street, Big Business and the Millionaires and Billionaires the 2%.

This is not going to change and we are in trouble as the GOP/TP continues to rig elections in about 22 GOP/TP controlled states. This is a sad day in Mudville indeed.

Don’t mess with my Medicare:

As a kid I learned to never give your opponent a stick he could use to hit you. It seems that the Tea Party has made the Ryan budget the litmus test in order to gain Tea Party support. So begrudgingly many of the Republican candidates are falling in line to support the Ryan budget. Well, that is just the stick the Democrats have been looking for. As Republicans pledge their allegiance to the Ryan budget, they are confronted by Democrats who can rightly claim that the Ryan budget ends Medicare as we know it and extends tax breaks for the wealthy.

Americans have been saying for some time, “Don’t mess with my Medicare or Medicare for my kids and grandkids”. If you want to decrease the debt, remove the tax breaks for large corporations. Make oil companies and financial institutions pay their fair share of taxes. Increase the taxes on the wealthy if you must, but leave my Medicare alone.

Oh, that stick I was talking about? I expect to see ads created by Democrats saying, Now that you are reaching retirement age, you know that Medicare and Medicaid you were expecting? Paul Ryan removed all that and your Republican Tea Party Congressman voted to support the Ryan budget. Your Republican representative has already messed with your Medicare.

I know, elections are about 18 months away. That’s just about how long it will take for all voters to know that conservative ideology is the friend of the wealthy, not Main Street Americans.

I can’t help but think that the Republicans-Tea Party is stuck in the mud. Lately they are exposing their hand and the American people don’t like what they see.

I have a feeling that a dark horse may appear on the fore front, because the group of Republicans in the race now or in the wings waiting to run look pretty sad.

For lefty-liberal Veterans only:

It is quite annoying, if not irritating, if not infuriating to read how liberal-types are sissies, are afraid of the dark, are lazy, are indolent, and are lifetime welfare recipients. For those liberal-types who are veterans, you can ratchet that fury up at least one notch. Moreso, when the name-callers are of the species chicken hawkus yellow-stripus. It is quite painful to think that when you took your oath to protect the United States and our Constitution, it included those same cowards - those same people who are so quick to spit on those who have something of a liberal bent.

So, for lefty-liberal veterans I have this wonderful story, related to me courtesy of my daughter. She is still working as a waitress, a job she took to help her get through her first two years of college. (We help her financially, but we think she should have a financial stake in her education. One of those heartless lefty-liberal things, you know.) In any case, she was serving a gentleman, who asked her if he might speak to a waitress in another serving area.

Had she offended her customer? Had she committed a faux pas? She asked her customer if that were the case. No, but the other waitress was serving several Marines, and he would like to pay for their meal.....anonymously. Wow!

Now my daughter knows a thing or two about veterans. Both of her Grandfathers served in WWII. Her Mom's uncle was killed in Korea. My uncle served there, but came back safely. I did the Viet Nam thing. She didn't share that with him, but she told him she thought that was a wonderful thing he was doing, and she told him her brother was deploying to the Middle East in June.

Well, this gentleman reached into his wallet and took out a hundred-dollar bill. He gave it to her and said she should take her brother to dinner when he returned. "Thank him for his service," he said.

This story makes my eyes leak, and it helps me remember that there really is an America worth defending, that there really are Americans who are worth protecting. To those folks, let me say, "Thank YOU!" Makes me proud to be a lefty-liberal veteran.

This story makes my eyes leak

Mine too! Thanks so much for sharing!

Bob,

I think you need to do some more research and stop throwing your own spin on the topic of taxes. Yesterday, Ira posted a great response to your information posted, which I listed below.

Ira Lapin

bob-1805084

“Take the demagogue god himself, Obama - he is a millionaire and doesn't pay his share. Obama made $1.7 million and paid not the 35%, but 27%!

.................................................................

“Look up itemized deductions on Wikipedia...they reduce your marginal tax rate and thus the amount of taxes you pay. Both he and his wife donated the proceeds from their books to charity both this year and last and had a huge carry forward credit. These "loopholes" are available to every taxpayer in America and have been for a very, very long time. He paid his fair share with no CPA tricks.”

WHAT'S WORSE THAN THE BIG LIBERAL TAX LIE - THE LIE THAT LIBERALS CARE

People think of taxes as a way to raise revenue to fund the federal government / run the country. But for the left tax rates are just a political statement - an ideological statement that promotes class-warfare.

To the ideologues like Obama, it is more important to score political points against the rich, against Wall Street, against big business than it is to create an economic enviroment that would help a few million out-of-work Americans find work. The unemployed are simply collateral damage.

Obama knows better, he can not be stupid enough to deny the historical facts regarding the "tax he rich" mantra. He doesn't care. He will try to ride the mantra to re-election. It's his only chance.

What a selfish pathetic ideology.

Who cares?

Libs claim they do. They don't.

Thanks for that one David. Personally, I'm proud to call myself a lefty-liberal vet. Bet people would be surprised to know how many Viet Nam era vets volunteered even tho there was a draft.

My Mom has health insurance provided through my deceased step-father's union pension and benefits plan. She received a letter that the insurance provider has been granted a waiver to allow them more time to address the increase in insurance caps for annual benefits. I know because I read the letter and explained what it meant to my Mom. The letter explained exactly how the waiver worked and that it would allow the plan time to implement it and when it would be totally compliant.

Many of these waivers are strictly for the purpose of allowing the employers or pension benefit providers more time to implement the rules of the Affordable Health Care Act. States can receive waivers IF they write and pass health care legislation that is equal to or better than the Federal Plan--Vermont is doing that right now. That's not some plot, it's fact and it benefits everyone concerned. This attack on HCR continues and is unjustified--my post, #2, about ALEC gives us an idea of where it's coming from.

David Walker:

Great story and I have witnessed exactly what you have said. Last year when in San Diego visiting my LtJG we went to diner at a very upscale restaurant to celebrate her promotion. She was in Uniform and the owner of the restaurant came over to her and thanked her for her service. He was a retired Navy. And we started talking a little and he heard about her promotion and knew I was a retired Navy Vet. He pick up the tab for the whole dinner and we left a big tip for our waitress whose husband was on active duty in Afghan.

Kinda makes you proud to be an American at times does it not.

Thanks again for the great story. I am sure others here on the board have seen the same thing. Lets hear from your stories of support for our brave men and women keeping us safe to yap here on this board today.

Poor old Noot. I bet HE'S glad the world ends this Saturday. Still, I don't think that one guy should have dumped all that crap on him yesterday. That was pretty childish and all, considering Noot is making himself look pretty doofy all by himself.

Speaking of the world ending- doesn't it say in the bible that "NO ONE will know the hour", not even "the angles in Heaven"? Do these idiots believe, or don't they?

Job,

You don't get it.

I never said Obama cheated. Of course he used deductions, or loopholes or whatever. The rich like Obama and the big companies simply do not pay the tax rate. As Obama says - their fair share.

We need Ryans, or somebody's tax reform. The above proves the point.

Why can't you even understand what the argument is?

Goodness, gracious, such a spectrum of posts. David Walker, that was a very nice yarn! Thank you so much for sharing it.

There isn't a lot to add to several of the posts, except that it bears repeating:

The "crisis" in Federal fiscal matters is MANUFACTURED - a lie to justify purely ideological attacks on the government at every level. Remeber, a "crisis" is an actual event either in progress or immediately approaching - and there is no such immediatacy about the debt and deficit. Yes, there is urgency, but there is also time to rationally address it without gutting the nation the way the Tea Party zealots cry is needful.

The ONLY "crisis" underway now is the serious and desperate threat to America and the world posed by the debt limit ceiling. Tea Party wingnuts, abandon your insane posturing and take care of the nation's business!

@ bob-1805084 - You have made a CRUCIAL error in your attempt to employ statistics. The nation's economy is and has been in a deep slump, the Bush Recession, which has sharply cut into GDP. You forgot that the emergency measures to prevent that from becoming a Depression required substantial public expenditures, at the same time that the national output almost went into negative numbers.

ONLY a combination of enhanced revenues and judicious spending cuts will help bring this country out of further decline and protect the recovery, which as we have seen from various reports this week, remains a tender matter. Certainly the debt ceiling vote is vital to that.

Nothing but malicious and misleading propaganda from the rigid ideologues of the right.

David Walker,

Thank you, for sharing this great story.

@JohnA -- but, but I thought this was true:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I gave this some thought last night, and frankly Karl Rove could not have scripted this better. How better to get conservatives of all stripes to rally around the Ryan budget than to have one of their own attack it. Rove would know that conservatives have been conditioned by Rush Limbaugh to immediately cast out any fellow conservative who dares to speak an original thought, and he would know that, by-and-large, the conservative pundits and the conservative base is not terribly introspective. In short, Rove would see this as the perfect opportunity to shore up the base around the Ryan budget. Newt, for all his purported intellectual credentials, does not seem to be a competent strategic thinker. While he no doubt thought he was saying something reasonable, by any objective measure, he walked right into the inevitable Limbaugh buzz saw. Limbaugh is many things, but never reasonable.

So, I have to admit that the whole thing makes me wonder. And after this, democrats should not be too confident about the Ryan plan. Especially given the democratic defections in the Senate on the oil company subsidies.

@ David Walker ~ Ditto Job1's comments, and thank you so much for sharing. Another misconception among the right wing that is fueled by Rush Limbaugh types. I remember once listening to Shaun Hannity say that anyone who opposed the Iraq War wanted American troops to die. Hello?! Quite the opposite, in fact, but conservatives always mistakenly believe they are the only patriots. By the way, Hannity, how did that Iraq War thing work out, anyway?

Think Progress:

Newt:

"I want to make sure every House Republican is protected from some kind of dishonest Democratic ad. So let me say on the record, any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood."

____________________________________________________________

He's lying. David Gregory did a great interview on Sunday with Newt.

The so-called conservative charged how much on jewelry? Perhaps $500,000 at Tiffany's? Unbelievable. Truly unbelievable.

I'm a liberal. My credit card balance is zero. I don't buy anything I can't afford.

Frank:

Very true as a lefty libby vet I hear you. It should be noted that there are a he!! of a lot of lefty libby vets buried in Arlington. Many have Purple Hearts, Bronze and Silver Stars and Medals of Honor.

They put their lives on the line for this country. More than I can say for a lot of the posters here who are only concerned with what they have and how much more than can get at the expense of everybody else, including or vets and current military folks.

They just make me sick and to think our best blood is out there defending these people from harm.

David Walker, well said and thank you for sharing such a heart-warming story.

Pat:

I'm a liberal. My credit card balance is zero. I don't buy anything I can't afford.

Ditto, that. My balance is zero, too -- at least once a month. ;-0 Rather than being irresponsible, like Donald H-for-Hypocrite Trump, most liberals I know are VERY responsible professionals, who both stimulate the economy, partly by buying many items locally, and pay their debts.

BTW -- Just kidding. Trump's middle initial is "J" -- for John. But don't get me started.

@Jody

My Mom has health insurance provided through my deceased step-father's union pension and benefits plan. She received a letter that the insurance provider has been granted a waiver to allow them more time to address the increase in insurance caps for annual benefits. I know because I read the letter and explained what it meant to my Mom. The letter explained exactly how the waiver worked and that it would allow the plan time to implement it and when it would be totally compliant.

Why did your Mom's policy need a waiver and how are they going to change it to bring it into compliance?

How does this square with the President's statement that "if you like the insurance you have nothing will change"?

JohnA,

First - The Bush recession officially ended 6 months after Obama took office. The period we are in is called a recovery, although under Obama that is a bit of a misnomer.

There have been other recoveries in history, this is the worst recovery in 70 years. Want the stats on that?

Not much of an argument John, just obfuscation - what's new, huh? Can't refute history, all the different administrations, all the different sets of problems ...... and TAX REVENUE HAS NEVER EXCEEDED 19% of GDP.

Ignore history, ignore empirical evidence ..... just close your eyes ...... put your fingers in your ....... and childishly chant ........lalalalalalalalalalalalalalala, or the libbie equivalent .......

Nothing but malicious and misleading propaganda from the rigid ideologues of the right.

bob-1805084

The Laffer Curve? YOU DON'T GET IT. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.

When Arthur Laffer gave us his curve, it was accurate. It still is. By the way, Laffer was not the first to note this effect. However - and this is where you get lost - it only describes a certain period of time. It does not work if specific conditions do not obtain. You cannot plug it in for any era.

There must be a demand for goods and/or services. There must be willing investors. The manufacture and production of those goods and services must be within the taxing jurisdiction, etc. We are not seeing a confluence of those variables right now.

Interestingly, we did have such a period under St. Ronald of Reagan. Lowered tax rates indeed appear to have increased tax revenues. Yet, the deficit increased almost 200%.

That's because your boogie man - increased spending - was wildly out of control. (Holy Drunken Sailor, was St. Ron a closet "liberal" spender?) I have pointed out repeatedly that is the reason for our increasing deficit and the political will to bring this into balance is not there.

As far as your moral argument and your complete and utter misunderstanding of the liberal mind, I give you this quote from one of the greatest judges in the history of the United States, Judge Learned Hand: "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again, the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible."

However Bob, if you deem it morally wonderful and truly patriotic to pay MORE taxes than you are legally obligated to pay, I'm sure my fellow "liberals" would encourage you to do so.

bob:

this is the worst recovery in 70 years. Want the stats on that?

Duh. As always, master of the oblivious. (Yes, you read that right.) It was also the worst recession in about 80 years.

Repairing republican policy disasters of that magnitude takes time.

Seriously, is that the best you've got?

Hey Bob - Keep believing the lie that Repubicans continually tell you that it's a spending problem. Yeah, sure it looks like a spending problem when for the past several decades Republicans have continually lowered tax rates to the point where the government can no longer provide services people need and want. When the tax rates were appropriate the spending was in line. So go ahead keep telling yourself it's a spending problem if it makes you feel better. Truth be told it's a revenue problem and it has been for seveal decades exaserbated by GWB who saw a surplus and started two wars and gave away two big tax cuts and a Medicare Part D plan all not paid for.

Truth be told it's a revenue problem and it has been for seveal decades exaserbated by GWB who saw a surplus and and started two wars and gave away two big tax cuts and a Medicare Part D plan all not paid for.

I'll accept the tax cuts as a revenue issue but how are two wars and and unfunded entitlement program part of a revenue problem?

Lies and Broken Promises:

If we are elected we will create Jobs, stimulate the economy and improve our educational system. Sound familar? This is what the GOP/TP ran on in 2010. To date that have broken every one of those promises. In fact their legislation is going to cost about 700,000 jobs, it will stall the ecomomy, it will repeal Medicare, Medicaid and cut over 50 Social Programs to the bone making them impotent. They promised to bring Bin Laden to Justice and lately to stop the subsidies to big oil. Again all broken promises. In fact name one promise they have really kept??

President Obama to date:

While President Obama’s History is still being written is will include the following;

1. Preventing a 2nd Great Depression

2. Passing Universal Healthcare

3. Financial industry reform

4. Bringing the war in Iraq to an end

5. Passed legislation to curb greenhouse gases and improve the environment:

6. Nuclear non-proliferation agreement:

7. Repairing Our Image Abroad

8. Lifted Bush restrictions on embryonic stem cell research:

9. Implemented education reforms

10. Brings Bin Laden to Justice

Bob, I do understand. However, I don't buy into any of these Republican plans. I have seen a lot better plans that will work much better. Remember the 1990's?

Alan, NJ,

It is a revenue problem in that previous wars were paid
for with a “war tax” and these two were/are not.

1. Preventing a 2nd Great Depression

2. Passing Universal Healthcare

3. Financial industry reform

4. Bringing the war in Iraq to an end

5. Passed legislation to curb greenhouse gases and improve the environment:

6. Nuclear non-proliferation agreement:

7. Repairing Our Image Abroad

8. Lifted Bush restrictions on embryonic stem cell research:

9. Implemented education reforms

10. Brings Bin Laden to Justice

1. Prove It

2. Has not even passed Universal Health Insurance never mind Universal healthcare

3. Does anybody think he solved the issue of "Too Big to Fail"? If so, I'd love to see JPM being wound down.

4. Really? When do consider hostilities ended ? January 21st 2009?

5. Please provide a link to the relevent legislation

6. Agreed

7. Open to debate

8. Agreed

9. Please supply details.

10. Agreed

@Navy -- Your characterization of the legislation is just left wing talking points and absolutely does none of what you say. Jobs are on the increase over the last 5 1/2 months right?

Prevent the 2nd great depression -- oh really LOL -- what a bunch of bunk that is pure conjecture.

Universal Health Care -- That to is a joke. Over 1,300 waivers means something is broken and not well thought out. It also angered the base to no end. LOL!

Financial Industry Reform -- oh please let me go get my cat LOL. The financial industry is still operating the same and passing out huge bonuses and didn't even touch Freddie & Fannie the two biggest culprits.

Iraq -- Still a broken promise as to the time table. An inexperienced military man opens mouth and inserts foot. What you been smoking???? LOL!!! You can't be serious~~LOL

The rest aren't even worth talking about because some are even considered accomplishments.

You are correct about UBL -- but the McDonald's example still applies -- giving Ronald McDonald the credit on a good tasting burger is like giving the clown credit instead of the person that cooked the burger.

Your worn out postings are falling on deaf ears of the truly intelligent.

Ben - Come on the waivers are in place now and only apply until the law kicks in in 2014. That's the reason for the waivers. You would have known that had you cared to read further than Fox Noise talking points.

Something to think about:

Thanks to stem cell research, which our President has supported and expanded, the FIRST CURE FOR HIV/AIDS has taken place. This is a major, exciting and hopeful development vital to the entire world! Read all about it here:

http://smd12364.newsvine.com/_news/2011/05/17/6660838--san-francisco-man-becomes-first-in-history-to-be-cured-of-aids

Your worn out postings are falling on deaf ears of the truly intelligent.

That's strange - I was thinking the exact same thing about you & your ramblings! ;o)

I quit taking anything you say seriously, when you didn't EVEN know what PolitiFact is! lol

For example - you've posted the idiotic Ronald McDonald 'joke' multiple times inferring that you came up with it!

In fact it was sent out in a chain e-mail and has been circulating ALL over the web!

You may be a lot of things Ben, but much to your chagrin, intelligent isn't one of them! ;o)

Alan, it is not entirely accurate to say that prior wars were funded by "war taxes." In fact, they were mainly funded by debt. That has been true since the Revolutionary War.

Taxes to help retire that debt over time were indeed levied - but again, they applied to a steady retirement of the "revolving credit" form of debt of the government. Interestingly, both times income taxes were established - by the Lincoln Administration during the Civil War, and by the Wilson Administration after WWI, they were part of an overall program for increasing national revenues to help pay off the costs of wars.

Feisty - A chain letter, no less!

What a delicious smackdown! You are really the BEST!

Add that one to your list to discuss when we next gather at the Dew Drop Inn! I'll bring some Glenfiddich and Finlandia so you have a choice of poison when we toast you!

Alan, it is not entirely accurate to say that prior wars were funded by "war taxes." In fact, they were mainly funded by debt. That has been true since the Revolutionary War.

I didn't say that. It was Dennis who insists that a war is a revenue issue because it is not funded.

The "crisis" in Federal fiscal matters is MANUFACTURED - a lie to justify purely ideological attacks on the government at every level.

Sorry John A., you're the liar and you've been lying consistently on this issue.

According to the CBO, federal debt held by the public will stand at 62% of GDP by the end of FY10 – having risen from just 36% of GDP at the end of FY07. In only one other period in U.S. history (during and shortly after WWII) has that figure exceeded 50%. Hmmm, starting to sound like a bit of a crisis to me. But don't take my word for it, listen to what Erskine Bowles had to say about this issue a month or so ago: "I think we face the most predictable economic CRISIS in history."

And there's more from the CBO: "...a growing level of federal debt would increase the probability of a SUDDEN fiscal crisis during which investors would lose confidence in the government's ability to manage its budget...as other countries' experience has shown it is possible investors would lose this confidence ABRUPTLY and interest rates on government debt would rise sharply."

John A., you're the ideological attack dog on this issue. You're the one doing a disservice to every American who reads your garbage. You're the one showing unmistakable bias by attacking those with the impartial clarity to see that Rome is burning -- even as you merrily fiddle away, chirping your extreme left wing talking points. What a piece of work.

laurie-480643

Ben - Come on the waivers are in place now and only apply until the law kicks in in 2014. That's the reason for the waivers. You would have known that had you cared to read further than Fox Noise talking points.

And I'll ask again. If, as the President stated, "if you like your current insurance you can keep it", why is there any need for waivers?

fisty, "Romney has it all" what you say? how is the campaign army going?

go over to the vine and please tell us

@Feisty -- sorry sometimes memory lapses happen and since I think the St. Petersburg Times is a rag not worth the paper it's printed on, it's no wonder I didn't make the immediate connection It was only the second time for the joke but as a great comedian says "Now that's funny. I don't care who you are"

The joke although sent through chain emails is way more accurate than anything coming from stink progress, huff post, politifacts, et. al. Since I don't know you, I will refrain from commenting on your intelligence or lack there of. Try to dispute facts that conservatives post for a change. I bet you are somebody's ex-wife. :-)

Bob: this is the worst recovery in 70 years. Want the stats on that?

AM: Duh. As always, master of the oblivious. (Yes, you read that right.) It was also the worst recession in about 80 years.

Repairing republican policy disasters of that magnitude takes time.

Sorry AM, not true. The rule of thumb is the steeper the economic decline, the sharper the rebound. For example, the first five quarters of the Reagan boom coming out of the steep 1981-82 recession showed GDP growth of 8.1%, 9.3 %, 8.1%, 8.5%, and 8.0%. The Obama "recovery" is puny by comaprison

Try to dispute facts that conservatives post for a change

I'm still waiting for a conservative to post one! lol

Trust me, once they do, I'll be ready! ;o)

Here's some "Setting the Bar" for you.... with facts

The Wisconsin budget and union protests earlier this spring cost the state over $8 million.

According to a state report, the major cost belongs to the extra security needed: $7,819,665

But there were other costs too, like the money that will be needed to repair the Capitol. Paraphrasing a restoration expert hired by the state, MacIver says the building experienced “three to five years of wear in that one month:” - $161,050

And finally, there was another six-figure cost associated with repairing the lawn: $108,500

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has detailed some of the costs, too:

• Capitol police: $458,406. The figure does not include the normal salaries that Capitol police officers would have received anyway. It represents overtime and other staffing costs for extra hours they worked during the demonstrations.

• Other state law enforcement agencies: $3,034,088. These agencies include the Wisconsin State Patrol, the University of Wisconsin-Madison police, wardens from the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Justice. Those costs also are limited to just officers’ overtime and other added expenses, not the cost of officers’ regular salaries.

• Local law enforcement: $3,904,919. A total of 202 law enforcement agencies, from town police to sheriff’s departments around the state, agreed to staff the Capitol protests and most have billed the state for their wage, travel and damage costs. Thirty-two law enforcement agencies have not yet submitted bills.

• Additional supplies and services: $422,252

How did protesters respond to the damaged property?

They posted some signs on the lawn letting others know: A Very Small Price to Pay

This is what the price tag associated with “democracy” looks like.

Meanwhile....

*** Obama’s day: He heads to Boston to attend two DNC events.

btw.....20 percent of the latest slew of Obamacare waivers went to luxurious restaurants, nightclubs and hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's district

and

The Health and Human Services Department announced late Friday that Nevada had secured a statewide waiver from certain implementation requirements of the Obama administration's health care law,

I see Conservatives have nothing today. You can always tell when there's nothing on the board but recycled lies. Real desperation begins to set in at the point where they start to paint the two parties as just the same. We're just about there at the point where someone claims it's a lie that Conservatives don't care about people--it's really Liberals that don't care about people. From a letter signed by dozens of clergy members of many denominations;

As Christian leaders, we are committed to fiscal responsibility and shared sacrifice. We are also committed to
resist budget cuts that undermine the lives, dignity, and rights of poor and vulnerable people. Therefore, we join
with others to form a Circle of Protection around programs that meet the essential needs of hungry and poor people
at home and abroad.
1. The nation needs to substantially reduce future deficits, but not at the expense of hungry and poor people.
2. Funding focused on reducing poverty should not be cut. It should be made as effective as possible, but not cut.
3. We urge our leaders to protect and improve poverty-focused development and humanitarian assistance to promote
a better, safer world.
4. National leaders must review and consider tax revenues, military spending, and entitlements in the search for
ways to share sacrifice and cut deficits.
5. A fundamental task is to create jobs and spur economic growth. Decent jobs at decent wages are the best path out
of poverty, and restoring growth is a powerful way to reduce deficits.
6. The budget debate has a central moral dimension. Christians are asking how we protect “the least of these.”
“What would Jesus cut?” “How do we share sacrifice?”
7. As believers, we turn to God with prayer and fasting, to ask for guidance as our nation makes decisions about our
priorities as a people.
8. God continues to shower our nation and the world with blessings. As Christians, we are rooted in the love of God
in Jesus Christ. Our task is to share these blessings with love and justice and with a special priority for those who
are poor.
Budgets are moral documents, and how we reduce future deficits are historic and defining moral choices. As
Christian leaders, we urge Congress and the administration to give moral priority to programs that protect the life
and dignity of poor and vulnerable people in these difficult times, our broken economy, and our wounded world.
It is the vocation and obligation of the church to speak and act on behalf of those Jesus called “the least of these.”
This is our calling, and we will strive to be faithful in carrying out this mission.

http://go.sojo.net/site/DocServer/Circle_of_Protection_Statement.full.pdf?docID=181

wasted time, wasted effort here.. ohh God, where is Daniel; i miss him so much........

Bill, Fairfax -

You daily post crap that misrepresents the issues, manipulate citations into propaganda, and just plain lie out of both sides of your mouth constantly. And you have the gall to write this kind of attack garbage:

John A., you're the ideological attack dog on this issue. You're the one doing a disservice to every American who reads your garbage. You're the one showing unmistakable bias by attacking those with the impartial clarity to see that Rome is burning -- even as you merrily fiddle away, chirping your extreme left wing talking points. What a piece of work.

As for my posts, they are based on long experience as an historian, public affairs counselor, journalist, and scholar. I don't resort to "talking points" from anyone, but you've been caught here by others several times with your pants on fire.

As I wrote before: A "crisis" is by definition IMMEDIATE. It is ongoing - as, for example, the disastrous crisis now looming because right wing ideologues want to gut this country without thought for the conseuqence by blocking the debt ceiling vote. The national fiscal "crisis" trumpeted as an excuse for the GOP/TP irresponsbility is NOT IMMEDIATE.

THAT is why it is a lie used to mask the right's real political intentions. It is scare-mongering, nothing more.

And also as I have written before, during a rational, reasoned approach to drafting a budget, and addressing the public policy issues associaed with that, as well as developing a rational approach to both spending reductions and revenue increases, the alleged fiscal "crisis" can be addressed. The house is NOT ON FIRE.

Reasonable discussion here with conservatives such as Alan, NJ, have brought us to considerable agreement about the priorities, process, and elements of fiscal policy involved.

Dung-throwers like you are not included. Go wash your hands, guttermouth.

John A

While I agree with your assessment of the quality of Bill's post,...I don't think the quantity is quite as prolific. Just keeping it real.

Timetraveler -

Better watch yourself here. One of the other conservative posters tried your angle and soon backed down:

BTW, how much do you, Feisty, and the other full-time socialist instigators get paid for your countless posts on Newsvine? It must be lucrative working for one of George Soros' many anti-American and anti-capitalist foundations Huh?

Not only are your basic characterizations wrong - none of us are socialists, you display abysmal ignorance making such a claim - but also none of us are paid by anyone to express our views.

We are all independent-thinking, patriotic people who very, very much care for our country and strongly oppose the lies and tactics of the ultra-right.

If you don't like it, go somehwere else to play with yourself in public.

Talk about stretching the truth... think progress posted this (from navies post way, way above)...

Last night, Republicans filibustered the majority’s attempt to repeal $21 billion in subsidies for the big five oil companie

Seems that a vote doomed it, and the amount of cuts was about $2 billion, not $21 billion as posted.

Along the same vein with profits why do the FR libs ignore the following facts as posted by CBS news on the $ returns to companies per $ of revenue...

$ .06/$ for oil, $ .16/$ for computer mfg, $ .17/$ for pharmacueticals.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7365896n&tag=api

Why not hit the tech and drug companies up for their contributing more or heaven forbid allow the oil companies to have the same earnings per $ revenue as they get?

And why didn't the senate go after all oil companies, rather than the top 5?

Seems that this type of politics is why our corporate and individual tax codes are so varied and extensive.

JohnA - quit being both stupid and arrogant (ref post 1.56). If you posted the same type of argument when FR liberals said or implied the same to another poster, I might agree that you have a point.

Since you don't, your pathetic attempt at trying to control who posts here (ie timetraveler100) as well as probably others can probably be seen by many visitors as a means to control and manipulate people to do your bidding.

Post script, just read your reply to Bill of fairfax. looks like you want to be this years poster boy for FR's SIASD. If what you say is your argument why do you even post here? Surely it is not to carry on a reasoned discussion.

Did I see someone mention single malt scotch?

John A.

The national fiscal "crisis" trumpeted as an excuse for the GOP/TP irresponsbility is NOT IMMEDIATE.

So, the fact that we have reached the limit on the debt ceiling doesn't constitute IMMEDIATE to you?....lol

Anna - Hard day before the judge? ref post 1.59

So many lunatics.... so few brain cells!

Rant on loonies... rant on!

timetraveler -

NO ONE in the Tea Party wants to repeal women's rights, civil rights or border security, and they don't hate teachers or firemen, you disgusting LIAR!

The TP does NOT want to repeal women's rights? So they do NOT want to ban abortion? I don't think you are following the correct Tea Party playbook.

Civil Rights . . . I live in Orange County, California, and the local Tea Party wanted me to come to a protest with them. They were protesting a non-profit fund raiser to support battered women. Now why would the Tea Party protest a non-profit fund raiser? Because Muslims were attending and donating. That's right, they held signs that said "Go back home", they called them pedophiles, and shouted racial slurs. I refused to join them. Don't believe me? Look it up . . . Yorba Linda, California Tea Party Protest.

So you go ahead and TRY to tell me that the Tea Party is NOT against civil rights. You just try and tell me that, and I will laugh in your face. I saw it with my own eyes. I saw the Tea Party that did this . . . it disgusted me.

I won't even get into what I have heard the Tea Party say about teachers.

Timetraveler100

You are truly offensive. Your comment to disablednavyvet is outrageous and uncalled for. I can't believe you haven't been suspended. Please try to refrain from offensive behaviour. It does not reflect well on you or your chosen Tea Party.

You daily post crap that misrepresents the issues, manipulate citations into propaganda, and just plain lie out of both sides of your mouth constantly.

My goodness John A, touch a few of your hot buttons did I? Held the mirror a bit too close to your face did I? Such unseemly behavior for a self-described "scholar." For all the world to see, no less.

The fact of the matter is I consistently cite impartial sources, and never obviously biased trash like ThinkProgress. Yet when these sources show data that conflicts with your narrative, you accuse those who don't share your point of view with manipulating citations into propaganda? I guess I need some help on that one, so explain to me how I'm manipulating this from CBO:

"In spite of a good credit history and a relatively small amount of government debt, Ireland experienced a fiscal crisis after being overwhelmed by large spending obligations,
including those related to the recent financial crisis. As recently as 2007, Ireland carried a central government debt of only about 20 percent of output; interest rates on Irish bonds at the time suggested that investors considered those bonds to be almost as safe as German bonds, which are generally perceived as stable and reliable investments. Over the next two years, however, Ireland's debt grew very rapidly as the country dealt with massive failures of financial institutions and a major economic downturn. Investors began to lose confidence that Ireland could manage its rapidly expanding obligations, and by March of [2010], investors in 10-year Irish bonds demanded almost 3 percentage points in extra annual interest relative to the rate for German bonds of the same maturity."

CBO goes on to describe the aggressive austerity program Ireland instituted which included, raising taxes, reducing spending significantly and cutting wages for public sector employees by 15 percent. Initially, investors responded favorably and rates on Irish debt went down. But despite its efforts, budget deficits in Ireland persisted and their debt to GDP ratio was projected to increase to 70% by the end of 2010. Investors have since responded by again driving up the cost of Irish debt sharply. The Greece story is even worse, by all means go here and read to your heart's content.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc11659/07-27_Debt_FiscalCrisis_Brief.pdf

In the face of similar realities that loom large over the U.S., you take the laughable position that since the $hit hasn't hit the fan here yet there is no crisis?? Good grief, and you have the temerity to call yourself a "scholar?" Erskine Bowles doesn't agree with you, as I indicated previously. The president's own debt commission doesn't agree with you either. In its section titled "The Looming Fiscal Crisis" the report states: "If we do not act soon to reassure the markets, the risk of a crisis will increase....Continued inaction is not a viable option, and not an acceptable course for a responsible government." [p. 9] The debt commission report isn't titled "The Moment of Truth" without reason.

http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2010/12/fiscal-comm-final-report.pdf

The trajectory that we're on is leading us right to an Irish or Greek outcome. The real scholars who debate this issue seriously agree that the time for action is NOW, not in some vague kick-the-can-down-the-road-again future. But instead of engaging in a responsible fashion, you choose to parse words in a way that supports your bogus, irresponsible narrative that the right is manufacturing a crisis where no crisis actually exists. And then you call us all manner of impolite names because we don't subscribe to the crap you're peddling. Unfreakingbelievable. As for this "scholarly" comment of yours:

Dung-throwers like you are not included. Go wash your hands, guttermouth.

I'll respond just by restating by my previous comment that you are a liar. And you do a disservice to every American who reads the garbage you post. But I do take some solace in knowing that it must irritate you to no end to know that the Republicans are in the catbird seat on the debt issue. And that we are well positioned to extract HUGE spending cuts. Politically speaking, we are about to bury you and those of your ilk. That will be a good thing for all of us who are alive today, as well as for the generations of Americans as yet unborn.

Have a nice day, Mr "Scholar."

TRUE AMERICAN -- re your thoughts on the costs in WI -- I live here, and pay taxes here, and can see valid points on both sides of the union debate. We live in a democracy and this means that citizens have the ability to take to the streets -- march on THEIR state capital, and be heard. This cost red herring was tossed out there immediately and greatly exagerated by conservatives trying to paint protestors as hooligans with no respect for the "decent working people" of WI (utter tripe). While your numbers are certainly correct, they are the price of doing business in a democratic state. I for one would much rather have some grass to re-plant than no voice in my state government.

THOUGHTS FROM CALI -- You are right! Though now in WI I am originally from CA and still have many friends in OC -- they were disgusted / appalled by those sign carriers @ that fund raiser. It truly is unfortunate that there were folks who were very worried about the deficit, joined the TP movement, and have now come to the realization that it has basically been co-opted by racists with a thinly veiled agenda. Not saying I was ever in favor of TP ideology in the first place, but if you look at the original planks they supported, race and womens' reproductive rights never entered in; it was purly fiscal. We can all thank the Christian Coalition for that one.

Ben. "alligators in the moat", I think you were misinformed.

Republican Congressionals have many times agreed to put Immigration Reform on the table as long as their requirements for manpower and resources on the border were met. Those requirements have now been met in full and surpassed.

You refer to May 10 in El Paso when Obama said:"Over the past two and a half years, we've seized 31 percent more drugs, 75 percent more currency, 64 percent more weapons than ever before. And even as we have stepped up patrols, apprehensions along the border have been cut by nearly 40 percent from two years ago. That means far fewer people are attempting to cross the border illegally.... violent crime in southwest border counties has dropped by a third. El Paso and other cities and towns along this border are consistently among the safest in the nation."

Intelligence personnel working on the border has been tripled, 100% of rail shipments screened, 20,000 agents now on the border, twice as many as in 2004, etc.

The President's comment "maybe they'll need a moat...want alligators in the moat....or a higher fence", referenced how many times said Republicans have moved the goalposts on their border requirements up till now.

This progress on border security could do with more media coverage. It is now time to move on.

Seems that Bob has bought the whole package of a Republican economic theory for the past 30 years. I was a Gerald Ford republican that supported a strong defense and sound fiscal policies, and Barry Goldwater who stood for keeping the government out of my personal decision making.

I left the republican party in 1980 when Ronald Reagan brought in the social conservatives and the "vodoo economics" of the Laffer curve. The social conservatives have no regard for small, non-intrusive government. They support an incredibly intrusive large government that goes to the heart of doctor/family/patient decision making (e.g., abortion, end of life decisions (Terry Schaivo). And the movement of public funds to support private, and/or parochial education.

It has been the irresponsible fiscal policy supported by believers in the Laffer curve, and off-the-books spending of the past 30 yrs that have led us to the current debt ceiling debate. The current argument over the debt-ceiling doesn't face the reality that the debt will explode if it is not raised. The simple reason being that the debt we already owe is currently financed at historically low interest rates. Any siginifcant rise in those interest rates will wipe out any of the out-year savings that are under discussion.

The only balanced budgets came during the Clinton administration which raised taxes, cut spending, and operated under Pay-GO rules (requiring payment for either additional tax cuts or spending inceases by offsets elsewhere in the budget). When Pay-Go rules were proposed in the past few years they have been blocked by republicans.

What the Laffer curve has shown us is that lower tax rates on corporations will generate profits, but not increases in employment. That corporations rather than raising wages or hiring more US workers rewarded their corporate bosses; moved their jobs out of the US; and bought out their competitors. We just have to look at current corporate behavior to see that we are going through another flurry of corporate mergers that will further reduce employment.

We need to have a debate that focuses on specific programs, which are truly essential, and at what level of resourcing. If they are not truly essential and they are needed let the private sector run them, but without relying on payments from the public sector (local, state or federal budgets).

The country has way too much debt, but it has taken us 30 years to get here, and its going to take a lot longer to dig our way out.  The problem is that we refuse to pay for what we need and want in this modern society. The discretionary budget can not pay the bill, as you could eliminate all discretionary spending for the next decade and you'll still have 3 trillion or more left. And that assumes we raise the debt ceiling and don't face the rise in interest rates on our exisiting debt that could easily wipe out all projected savings. Budgets have two sides income and expenditure, focusing on one is not a solution.

Bill, Fairfax:

No, you're wrong, I'll tell you what's unfreakingbelievable.

A darker-than-your-average-Republican guy - a Democrat - is elected to the office of President and suddenly Republicans get very smart. Suddenly, Republicans realize that expenditures cannot exceed revenues forever. Suddenly, When a Democrat holds the office of President, Republicans understand that deficits DO matter. The "Education President" - Barack Obama.

Unfreakingbelievable? Yup, President Barack Obama made Republicans smart - and you can take that any way you like.

I note that while you hold up the example of the failure of Ireland, you foreget to mention that its low corporate tax-rate was a Republican talking point for some years. You speak of investors who demanded increasing risk-premiums on the paper they hold, but fail to note that other investors took their money to lower-wage manufacturers in other countries.

Republicans are most assuredly NOT in the catbird seat when it comes to the debt issue. Indeed, Paul Ryan's idiotic plan ADDS to the deficit. Neither party has a plan that's worth a damn.

That's the important truth. Neither Congress nor the American public has the guts to face the real issues. True liberals and true conservatives could fix the problem. Republicans and Democrats cannot.

Bill provides an amusing thought about the power of your digits:

Sorry AM, not true. The rule of thumb is the steeper the economic decline, the sharper the rebound. For example, the first five quarters of the Reagan boom coming out of the steep 1981-82 recession showed GDP growth of 8.1%, 9.3 %, 8.1%, 8.5%, and 8.0%. The Obama "recovery" is puny by comaprison

Sorry Bill, but a 'rule of thumb' is a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation. The comparison you're trying to evoke here is more along the lines of the 'apples and oranges' approach. Not a good try, therefore, no cigar.

Have a nice day

Alan. The waiver had to do with a required $750,000 in available funds for a patient; the company requested, I think it was 2 years, to bring their annual allocation up from $300,000 to the required level. The best way to describe it is to compare it to the amount of money a bank is required to guarantee its clients money. There were a couple of other items that just required more time to implement.

John A.-400474-Not only are your basic characterizations wrong - none of us are socialists, you display abysmal ignorance making such a claim - but also none of us are paid by anyone to express our views.

We are all independent-thinking, patriotic people who very, very much care for our country and strongly oppose the lies and tactics of the ultra-right.

Wrong. You are very, VERY partisan people who believe all of the leftist propaganda and lies you are spoon fed, and then spread those talking points around the internet in an effort to influence public opinion.

You think you and other leftists are PATRIOTIC?? WOW! That's the greatest irony ever!

Evidently your idea of patriotism is following for 20 years the rhetorical nonsense of a man who says "GOD DAMN AMERICA" (Obama following Jeremiah Wright).

Evidently your idea of patriotism is Marxist redistribution of wealth and restricted individual freedoms by an all-powerful dictatorial government, or the pride you get from burning the American flag. Far left-wing Marxists have infiltrated the Democrat party, disguised their agenda with nicer-sounding terms like compassion, progress, fairness and equality, and many well meaning but gullible people have been taken in by it - people just like you.

If you don't like it, go somehwere else to play with yourself in public.

How about a secession? Would that suit you? Sure, we take half the states and you take half. You leftists can run things any way you like, and we'll do the same. It would be poetic justice to see in how short a time it would take before the socialist states went broke, had no economy, no jobs, a lowering standard of living and were swamped by illegal aliens invading their land and consuming their resources.

Seriously, I think we should do this before your kind are able to bring us all to ruin, which is exactly what you'll do given enough time.

KathyK, thanks for speaking up on behalf of large numbers of Republicans whose party left them behind. There was a time when there were Republicans I respected and even voted for. Unfortunately the party has become so extreme as to be destructive. You'd think as a Democrat I'd be happy about that but not so. I'm an American first, Democrat second and as such I want our political process to be healthy and beneficial to the nation. A crazy, John Birch Society-dominated GOP doesn't serve that purpose.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Try to dispute facts that conservatives post for a change

I'm still waiting for a conservative to post one! lol

Trust me, once they do, I'll be ready! ;o)

I GUESS SHE WASN'T READY AFTERALL......LOL!!!!!!!!!

Navy Patriot:

Thank you for your service and support today.

To:

Alan, NJ

@Jody

My Mom has health insurance provided through my deceased step-father's union pension and benefits plan. She received a letter that the insurance provider has been granted a waiver to allow them more time to address the increase in insurance caps for annual benefits. I know because I read the letter and explained what it meant to my Mom. The letter explained exactly how the waiver worked and that it would allow the plan time to implement it and when it would be totally compliant.

Why did your Mom's policy need a waiver and how are they going to change it to bring it into compliance?

How does this square with the President's statement that "if you like the insurance you have nothing will change"?

the answer is this:

the waiver is granted to the insurance company to give them more time to increase the maximum annual amount that will be paid out to the insured. How does that square with the President's statement? I guess it doesn't since it changes the insurance policy to make it better for the insured. You know, as in, a cap for annual benefits being the maximum amount an insurance company will pay out to a sick person.

so, I guess the President's statement should have been: "If you like the insurance you have now, you will like it even more when the bill passes."

Thanks for pointing this out.

Jody:

Great post I like your better than what I was going to say. These guys have been around since the 70's and virtually everything the GOP has done in the past comes from their ideas and writings. In fact many of the proposals and Bills do not even bother the change the language. They accept the whole propsal.

This is not limited to just Congress, these guys have been very active at the State level as well.

As I have mentioned many times this is nothing more the the wholesale sell off of this country both at the Federal and State level. The Middle Class will cease to exist and class warfare will dictate two remaining classes. Those that Have and will have more every year and those that never will have. They will be fighting for table scraps just to survive. The American Dream will be DOA and the middle class will be the new slaves. We will all be saying "Yes Master".

You worried about the Bilderbergs And the Council on Foreign Relations, too? The secret group of bankers, ( all 4, or 7, or whatever small number the professional conspiracy theorists have come up with this week), who run the Federal Reserve?

Quick- check under your bed. There could be a communist, Al Queda terrorist, or one-world- government operative there!

No Joe. Guess you don't support democracy, you support Government of business, by business and for business. Personally, I don't think membership dues in any organizations should be tax deductible. Oh, BTW, it's conservatives who check for communists and terrorists hiding under their beds--I check for dust bunnies.

Jody, excellent report. ALEC is essentially an unregistered lobbying organization, created in fact to get around laws restricting certain forms of lobbying at both the state and national level.

I saw this group in action first-hand in California, where its efforts aided in causing legislative gridlock for many years. Legislators who belonged to ALEC even managed to get their dues and expenses for attending events paid for by the state!

And as an aside, when I was in high school in Orange County, CA, working a summer job selling magazines door-to-door, one little old lady dragged me into her home yelping about "proof" that Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball were active Communists. She left me inside her door to race for the documents kept in a box UNDER HER BED - giving me the chance to escape!

Jody, great post.

When I read and learned about this group earlier this year I was astounded, few knew of it's existence. It makes sense in understanding why conservatives are all in lockstep, kinda creepy when you think about it. My way or the highway comes to mind but with a strong idealogical bent.

Oh, Jody? I have a little proof of something I have long suspected-

http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/hs.xsl/15044.htm

It's called plagiarism, Jody. It's a no no.

I suspect most of your posts are exactly the same- including your "weekly wrap- up".

Jody:

I knew all of that mumbo-jumbo you write or copy and paste is phony. Not one iota of it is original. You keep lifting others stories or opinions and you just might find yourself in a legal battle. This is only a blog but for some people this is the highlight of their lives.

I don't see any efforts here to defend ALEC, only attempts to criticize and ridicule those bringing attention to an organization that's become a key linchpin in the war against the middle class. The consistency of language and intent among Conservative legislation in statehouses all over the country this year has been striking.

Tax giveaways to the rich and big business, destroying the ability of counties and municipalities to fill the giant deficits being handed to them by the state and federal governments, takeovers of local governmental agencies, forced privatization, drastic underfunding of schools, union busting, and elimination of child labor laws are the agenda of ALEC.

How do you defend that?

Jody: no jo is GREEN with jealousy that you get so much attention with your excellent weekly wrap ups. She is the LAST person who should be critical given that her links almost NEVER say what she claims.

I don't see the plagiarism nojoe is implying, either, based on that link. Aren't slander and libel also no-no's, nojoe?

BUSTED AGAIN, NO JO!

IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A CLAIM AND OFFER A LINK TO BACK IT UP, YOU SHOULD READ THE CITE YOU MAKE FIRST!!!!! YOU SO FREQUENTLY SCREW UP THAT WAY. IF IQ IS A MEASURE OF THE CAPACITY TO LEARN, YOURS IS ZERO.

Oh, Jody? I have a little proof of something I have long suspected-

http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/hs.xsl/15044.htm

It's called plagiarism, Jody. It's a no no.

I suspect most of your posts are exactly the same- including your "weekly wrap- up".

I just went over and READ the website, including the backup documents. NO PLAGIARISM. Jody did cite some of their figures, but her post was an original piece of writing based on the content - stuff we ALL do here at times. THAT ISN'T PLAGIARISM.

BUSTED IN ANOTHER MALICIOUS LIE, NO JO. GO TO YOUR BEDROOM, TURN OFF THE VIDEO GAMES, GET OUT A PAD AND PENCIL AND WRITE, 10,000 TIMES, "NO JO IS A LIAR."

It really does get old, doesn't it John A and Clara? You would think that no jo would be tired of being called out on this and learn to do a proper cite...or don't they teach that in University programs any more?

You worried about the Bilderbergs And the Council on Foreign Relations, too? The secret group of bankers, ( all 4, or 7, or whatever small number the professional conspiracy theorists have come up with this week), who run the Federal Reserve?

Quick- check under your bed. There could be a communist, Al Queda terrorist, or one-world- government operative there!

Nice deflection, no joe. That's what a good conservative blogger always does whenever they have nothing else.

That's all fine, but completely irrelevant. Now, where's your response to Jody's point AND the indisputable evidence about the connection between ALEC and this wave of legislation?

What? Haven't got one? I thought so.

It really does get old, doesn't it John A and Clara? You would think that no jo would be tired of being called out on this and learn to do a proper cite...or don't they teach that in University programs any more?

It's called Conservative Catch 22. If you do give a cite, they ignore the cite and insult you for cutting and pasting, diverting attention from the fact that they cite NOTHING. If you don't give cites, then you're accused of plagiarism, even if your statistics are spot-on accurate.

Do you think we should accuse them of plagiarism for stealing the idea from Joseph Heller?

I do think we should, Anna Molly. Be interested in the response! : )

Well, I see this turned into accusations quickly. I do not need to defend myself against those who disagree; however, No Joe, and ITM have made serious accusations here. I don't copy and paste and then claim as my own. I read, make notes, research and combine that data into my own words which is not illegal. When I quote information or use a direct source, I use quotes and name it. As for NJNB's link, I've never heard of it or used it--my information did not come from there. The numbers, the names came from public sources and it is not illegal to list money or names of companies involved nor is it illegal to use said information to add factual substance.

As for Friday's wrap ups, if you can find that somewhere on the internet, be my guest--because someone is probably copying my stuff! If you pay attention, you will see in that wrap up where I use quotation marks when the words are not mine.

Thanks liberals for the kind words and for jumping in to the fray.

NJ,

I just went to the site you listed and can find no trace of plagerism. This is several times now I have followed links supplied by you and get completely different information than what you post here. Your credibility is nill with me.

ITM: you never say ANYTHING of value. Trick.

I am going to post my thoughts without the use of labels which I find offensive. But it amazes me that there is a group of people in this country who can not accect that the country is OUT of money.

I mean, live (like all americans) on a budget. I get a paycheck every two weeks and am forced to live on that amount of money. I pay my bills, buy my food, and every now and then can afford to treat myself and the family to something special. But when there is no money left at the end of the pay period we don't get that special treat. But there are times that I may say you know, the kids really want to go to a movie this week, lets NOT go out to dinner and take them to a movie instead.

I'm in no way implying that any of the social programs are as trivial as going to a movie instead of out to eat. But when there is a finite amount of money you have to make decisions as to where that money should be spent. We can no longer "have our cake and eat it too" some hard decisions should be made, and all parties are going to have to COMPROMiSE to get the decisions made.

Yesterday the senate voted not to take away the tax subsidies for Oil. I believe 8 democrats voted against taking the subsidies away. 2 republicans voted to take the subsidies away. We need more compromise than this. If we don't start working together and stop pointing fingers there will be more hard times for this country, and no one will be able to blame the other party

Newday expresses deep concern

"It really does get old, doesn't it John A and Clara? You would think that no jo would be tired of being called out on this and learn to do a proper cite...or don't they teach that in University programs any more?"

I encourage you to get off your pedestal. This is, after all, a discussion group, and nobody's making money from their posts. Before getting your blood pressure up, consder the Republican echo chamber, in which magically, every day, Repub voices across different media segments mouth exactly the same phrases. Some of those phrases show up magically here also, and without attribution. If you're not equally blasting those Party members, I would suggest you're a hypocrite.

Have a nice day

Gyortillicus

Perhaps in your world someone can just say someone else is a plagiarist and there should be no blow back? Well, that's certainly one way of dealing with bald faced liars. Personally, I think calling them out and shining a light on their BS is the BEST sanitizer in the world.

It's one thing to repeat Limbaugh talking points and quite another to wrongly accuse someoneof plagiarism. No Jo has been full of crap for a long time; but she can't stand it that we won't give her a pass on it. Notice she disappeared? Not much to say when she's been exposed for the liar that she has become.

If the defense of a fellow poster offends, just put us all on ignore and blow right past. We won't be bothered in the slightest.

I would suggest Gyortillicus, that if you have a specific criticism of something I have posted, you be, well, specific. I sense that you are being snarky about something I have said, but you are not clear on what that might be. I cannot stand dissembling, and no jo is the worst offender here. Her links, if you follow them, rarely have anything to do with what she claims, and since she has bragged constantly of a doctorate, it makes sense that she should be able to do a proper citation.

So, if you don't know the history, maybe you can refrain from the comment.

You have a fine day too.

Jody:

NoJo is just be less than honest again. I also read the article and see nothing wrong with your post. I find everything NoJo writes is nothing more than the same talking points over and over. She changes the words sometimes but they are all recycled ideas that failed.

When you are sleeping in bed with a party that has no new ideas and the ones they have dam# near put us into bankruptcy you get the kind of vile no sense rhetoric that we see here every day from the right. Attack the source, attack the victim, hell attack everybody and blame everybody else. "Karl Rove". This scheme is no longer working and many of us see it for what it really is. A party that has lost its way a long time ago and is being hijacked by a bunch of loons on the right that will destroy the very fabric of democracy. They (GOP) is being called on it and they do not like it. People are standing up to them and they do not like it. We want the truth and they tell us lies. We want JOBS, Economy and Education and they give us abortion Laws and take away our voting rights.

Great party they represent. I would be mad too.

the fascinating thing about all of this is what I posted last night and none of you responded but today O'Donnell had on his show "Starving the Beast" any one of you could have gone into Wykopedia and seen the text - it has been the republican agenda - simce Reagan - also look at his kitchen cabinet and what he was promised to put forth this agenda

You're right, Bramble. It's been a long-held dream of Conservatives to fundamentally change society. For years they could do it subtly, smoothly, behind the scenes so they could keep people from really noticing what's going on. They've been successful enough over the last 30 years that they can't go that route anymore and their agenda is fully exposed.

How long has this been the plan? Do some research on the John Birch Society. The America laid out in the Republican budget was their vision clear back in the 1950s. Joe McCarthy is one of their heroes. Even the attempts to disenfranchise qualified voters owes to the Birchers' belief that the "slippery slope" started WAY BACK when we first allowed people without property to vote.

This isn't new, they're just experiencing newly-acquired power.

Steven: Good to see you up and about, and posting. I've missed you. Yes Steven, I will sign the petition.

Lately I've been watching the History Channel and when I see the guy who is examining our infrastructure, I think, Steven has talked about that.

Steven:

Same here.

That is an absurd idea, to ban lobbyists. It violates the First Amendment!

Moreover, to allow only lobbyists from a Congressman's district would be easily overcome; hiring a token lobbyist who allegedly lived in the district...this may require more bureaucrats to monitor who lives where...and lobbyists would be hired to lobby the lobbyist regulators...and so on..

The way to get rid of lobbyists, is to lessen the power of Big Government. Go back to basic Constitutional principles. The more power in DC, the more lobbyists, it is as simple as that.

Thanks Steven. Will do.

@Steven -- How about incorporating this obama lie in the petition:

“Lobbyists won’t work in my White House!“

Great idea, Steven, I've already signed.

Steven, I signed the petition and posted it on FB too. Good to see you here.

Thanks for the link, Stephen. Signed and posted on Facebook.

I have read that this type of petition is of no value. In order to have a worthy petition you have to have actual signatures. Does anyone know for sure ?

2 lobby verb
lob·bied lob·by·ing
Definition of LOBBY
intransitive verb
: to conduct activities aimed at influencing public officials and especially members of a legislative body on legislation
transitive verb

Requiring a lobbyist to lobby only his representatives is not limiting your first amendment rights Bob, you can spout all the poop you want.

Ben, if you are a US citizen, then President Obama is YOUR President. Your disrespect for the Office of the President of the United States of America and President Obama is sickening and embarrassing to this senior citizen veteran.

Great cause, Steven. Too much money in politics is a big share of the poison in our government and our society.

Pay attention to who argues in favor of taking that legalized bribery out of the process and who argues in favor of it. That's telling.

Oh, Steven?

Read here

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/02/24/134024781/obamas-white-house-consults-lobbyists-though-stealthily

Obama has as many or more interactions with lobbyists as any president- heck, he even employs them in his administration!

So much for that little campaign promise. Well, it sounded good at the time.

Like the rest of his rhetoric, it was only good for a sound bite.

no joe

I believe we should rid ourselves of ALL lobbyists, regardless of who uses them; left, right, in the middle, up and down.

Throw ALL the money changers out of OUR CAPITAL NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's one teeny, tiny problem with your petition........the law you propose would be clearly at odds with the First Ammendment. If the Supreme Court is going to rule that we can;t restrict who gives money to politicians, as it recently did, do you think it would ever uphold a law that restricted who can talk to politicians?

steven of delaware - your lobbyist idea, while sounding noble flies directly in the face of the US Constitutions 1st amendment on the right to petition the government.

Your petition is petitoning away the rights of anyone to petition the government based on qualifiers for even petitioning.

Interesting that you say this...

Any person, entity, corporation, association, or thing will not remunerate the individual lobbyist financially. All expenses will be solely the responsibility of the one performing the lobbying.

Bet even the average lawyer would be against this, but the lawyers clients would love it.

Bob

I would love for you to explain how abolishing lobbyists goes against the constitution but I'm sure it'll be the same mind boggling ridiculousness you've been spouting on here all day. I'm sure you have an answer and I'm sure it's just as wrong as every last word you've uttered on this page already today. I'm usually not astounded this much by unfounded, pseudo intellectualism but you win the blue ribbon, sir. Kudos to you for being one of the ignorant masses.

You were right about one thing, though, liberals don't care...it is a myth...they put up rightwing bull@!$%# like yours because they don't care. You're a moron, Bob...but keep writing...it's amusing as hell.

Right on cue the Conservatives come along to defend wealthy elites who buy and sell the government that is supposed to serve all of us. They're OK with the ridiculous assertion that money is somehow speech.

Money isn't speech, it's bribery.

Signed and posted! Thank you for the link, Steven!

It takes a retard to elect a retard. Stupid people tend to admire people who are equally stupid. And no I am not calling anyone stupid, your actions are a brand all your own. If you believe anything this old haggard of a man has to say, well, like I said.... Stupid is as stupid does!

Signed.....Thanks for the link, Steven!!!

Here in Pennsylvania we're having fund-raisers to buy Santorum a house in some other state so he quits embarrassing us. I'm thinking Alaska is big enough, far enough away and is used to right-wingers but we'll consider others as well.

No matter what anyone thinks of Senator McCain's politics, it is undeniable that he is an American hero for his service in Viet Nam. Santorum should be ashamed. Maybe he was confused because he heard the prison was called the "Hanoi Hilton."

...and this friendly reminder...

If you don't think waterboarding is torture, how about we do it to you and THEN ask you if you feel like you've been tortured?

Noid, what Santorum was referencing was McCain's statements that terrorists would say anything under such treatment. Not only is it not true, !cCain KNOWS it is not true.

When I was in college, we had a guest speaker, (I am ashamed to admit I no longer remember his name). He was a German psychiatrist who worked with the German underground, (yes, there really was such a group), to smuggle Jews out of the country and feed information to the Allies. He was caught, and taken to a German prison.

He told us that he KNEW what was coming, and believed he was prepared to deal with it. At first, he was put into a cell in a dark, damp basement, and was removed and beaten periodically. Then, the beatings stopped- and he was questioned. He knew that the interrogators knew the answers to the questions he was being asked- they were gauging his level of cooperation. After a time, the beatings began again- same routine.

Finally, they removed him from the damp dark cell, and brought him to a cell on the second floor. He had a window, a chair, and several books. As the days went by, he became more and more terrified. He knew, you see, that if he did not cooperate, he would be brought back to the basement. The idea of losing the light, the books, the chair- he knew he was about to crack.

Fortunately, it did not come to pass. Germany surrendered.

That is how enhanced interrogation works.

I take nothing away from Senator !cCain's service, nor do I question his opinion. It simply differs from mine.

Santorum is a A$$ period. There is no doubt that Sen. McCain served our country with honor and of great sacrifice. Sen. McCain is a war hero and demands are utmost respect and thanks. It has nothing to do with his politics at all, but it has everything to do with the man and he deserves respect, period.

Why is it always the cowards that do not put their lives on the line to serve this country that are always attacking our service members.

Have we really stooped that low as a Nation??? My God I hope not.

I was going to post more but then I read No Joe's post where she tried to explain enhanced interrogation based on a speech she once heard as opposed to the opinion of someone who had actually undergone it and now my head is spinning. Geesh.

Yeah, no, I'm sure that Senator McCain's time as a POW in Vietnam was a piece of cake!

No matter what anyone thinks of Senator McCain's politics, it is undeniable that he is an American hero for his service in Viet Nam.

I see McCain is back in favor and is no longer a traitor for breaking under torture. Wonder what he'll be called the next time he criticizes the President.

Alan,

During McCain's candidacy I always said that one thing was off limits and that was his service in Vietnam. You can call the man out on anything policy-wise but you DO NOT go after him for that.

What a shame the GOP didn't extend the same courtesy to Kerry in 2004.

Really, Navy? Am I to assume that you are in the process of writing a letter of sincere apology for your posts during 2008? The ones where you questioned his sanity, patriotism, (as I recall, the word "traitor" was bandied about), and his competence?

No? I thought not. Ah well, back to the Raingutter Regatta.

Relax, US Navy-

Like other Americans, US veterans have differing opinions on the use of waterboarding as an interrogation method, depending on the circumstances.

If recent polling is to be believed, the American public as a whole supports enhanced interrogation by slim majorities.

You need to be more tolerant of diversity of thought, US Navy...aren't you Democrats the self-proclaimed party of diversity?

In any event, it's good to hear nice things being said at First Read about Senator McCain.

I'm certain it's mostly hypocrisy...but, good to hear nonetheless.

Wonder what he'll be called the next time he criticizes the President.

AN AMERICAN WAR HERO, his politics have nothing to do with his service to this country. You RWNJ are so lost on any viable message or plan that you are starting to look like a very poor carnival show where all the side shows are frauds, the games are rigged and the food is stale and unhealthy.

More BS and crap from the right so far this AM. Why am I not surprised.

Where are the JOBS, the Economic Stimulus, the aid to Education Bills you guys have been promising us. Instead we got the "uterus police" Bills and the "Voter Disenfranchisement" Bills, etc.

President Obama is going to win re-election and it is driving the right nuts.

Bag:

If recent polling is to be believed, the American public as a whole supports enhanced interrogation by slim majorities.

A majority of Muslims in some backward countries think suicide bombs are OK. The fact that majorities back barbarous practices doesn't make them right.

I'm certain it's mostly hypocrisy...but, good to hear nonetheless.

You mean hypocrisy like Gingrich and Ensign, and Diaper Man Vitter lecturing people about family values?

BTW: McCain is right on torture, and he was also right on immigration (before he flipped for political expediency).

Mixed Bag: Show me your source regarding your comment that a slim majority of Americans support enhanced interrogation. Enhanced interrogation, aka waterboarding, aka torture is a crime. It was practiced by the Bush administration, but no longer under the Obama administration. I find it hard to believe that a majority of Americans support a crime as spelled out by the Geneva Convention.

Didn't catch the name of who reported it on MSNBC last night but apparently a legislator said Santorum was the dumbest legislator who ever served in Congress. And Santorum wants to be President, too. Heaven help us.

I've got this, MB

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051702248.html

There are others.

What a shame the GOP didn't extend the same courtesy to Kerry in 2004.

I totally agree. Even Al Gore was smeared. Anybody from either side who engages in this type of smear is a low-life. However, I have seen posts on this site call McCain a coward because all he did was "crash 3 planes, drop bombs on civilians and still succeeded in getting shot down". The real reason was because he disagreed with the current administration.

McCain, Kerry and Gore are all men of honor who fought for this country and deserve respect and thanks.

Eight years ago when I was still living in Pittsburgh, I secretly hoped that one day, Arlen Specter would lose his cool on the Senate floor and power-slam Santorum onto Ted Kennedy's desk.

Alas.

We travel in rare company these days and should be eternallyy grateful to have a contributor such as nojo, who is either an expert on so many topics or has first hand knowledge of someone who is such an expert. How lucky can you we be?

I am no fan of John McCain, and feel in 2008 he sullied his good name and reputation for being a straightshooter. He is not the man he once was, but I will always honor his service and the terrible conditions he was subjected to while a prisoner of war.

Waterboarding is torture and torture is a crime. We are Americans, we do not or should not torture, it is not up for debate.

@Ron -- from the washington post:

Even as the debate over the treatment of terrorism suspects during the Bush administration continues to roil political Washington, a new poll conducted for Resurgent Republic suggests that the American people -- including politically critical independent voters -- by and large support the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" on suspected al-Qaeda operatives.

Asked whether such tactics were justified, 53 percent of the overall sample said they were and 34 percent said they were not. While Democrats strongly opposed the use of these controversial methods and Republicans strongly supported them, independent voters were slightly more divided than partisans of each side, with 51 percent expressing support for the tactics and 31 percent opposing them.

Good morning, Houston-

As usual, you missed the drift of my comment.

To make it simple enough for you to grasp, I'll rephrase:

There are differing opinions on the use of waterboarding, among U.S. veterans and the public generally.

Actually, I have no problem with your views on the use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique whatsoever. You're entitled to your opinion, just as everyone else posting here is entitled to theirs. I do marvel at your self-righteous ideologue's certitude on matters of right and wrong, although I'm afraid I have trouble identifying with that mindset on a personal basis.

And...

The overwhelming outpouring of love for Senator McCain from the First Read usual suspects still looks like hypocrisy from here.

Nice chatting with you, Houston.

no joe, no bo, nj

I've got this, MB

Good for you. Now we know a slim majority of the population supports the government committing crimes. It kind of explains why the voters in their infinite wisdom elected the Bush crowd, some of whom have to be very careful where they travel overseas to avoid arrest and prosecution.

We travel in rare company these days and should be eternallyy grateful to have a contributor such as nojo, who is either an expert on so many topics or has first hand knowledge of someone who is such an expert.

I hear ya GM!

Our very own 'Snookie' is quite a KNOW-IT-ALL isn't she? lol

Bag:

I do marvel at your self-righteous ideologue's certitude on matters of right and wrong, although I'm afraid I have trouble identifying with that mindset on a personal basis.

You may consider whether it's OK for the government to commit crimes a matter of opinion, but I don't. Both American and foreign courts have prosecuted and convicted soldiers for water boarding prisoners.

I never regarded being against war crimes an ideological question the way you do. It goes to show how far into the lunatic fringe of the far right you've become mired that you now try to apply moral relativism to torture. Next are you going to tell us that it's a matter of opinion whether or not segregation of the races is OK? An overwhelming majority of the American people used to believe that, too.

Question:

Would the same 53% that favor the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" by this country also be okay with the use of the same "techniques" on an American soldier captured by Iran or North Korea or would they consider it a crime?

no joe, no bo, nj

Really, Navy? Am I to assume that you are in the process of writing a letter of sincere apology for your posts during 2008? The ones where you questioned his sanity, patriotism, (as I recall, the word "traitor" was bandied about), and his competence?

No? I thought not. Ah well, back to the Raingutter Regatta.

• #4.8 - Wed May 18, 2011 10:02 AM EDT

NoJo: You are the resident most lying piece of garbage I have every seen. First I never questioned McCain's Military service to this country period. Never called him a traitor either. And I was not even on the board in 2008 you A$$. I started posting here in June of 2010 you moron.

Go lie about somebody else

Senator McCain's "opinion" is two-fold; 1-that "enhanced interrogation" is TORTURE, something beneath America's moral standards, and that; 2-Torture is an ineffective method of interrogation. This is apparently based on personal experience and up-close observation of very adept and expert practitioners of the "arts" in question over a relatively large sample size.

Senator McCain's "opinion" on "enhanced interrogation" (It's F$%#ing TORTURE BTW, but I love a good euphemism) is what we call and 'informed" opinion, informed by seeing his fellow prisoners being TORTURED and having BOTH of his arms broken, for example.

If you don't think someone who was actually TORTURED for YEARS knows even a little more about the REALITY of its efficacy in ACTION than you do...

If you don't believe that we, as a nation have achieved our greatness in part by holding our society to a higher moral standard than our enemies, that respecting human dignity even in times of mortal conflict is the imperative of a just people and government...

Bottom Line; If you support torturing "them" you support them torturing US, and that moral equivalency doesn't just put our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, husbands and wives directly in harms way, but perverts our national morality and makes us no better than the worst of our enemies.

Of course, that's just an opinion...

that poll is 2 years old AND lo and behold, where is the sampling data?

PLEASE, nj, would you come up with something relevant, for once?

Houston-

Were you correct, your view would suggest that that a slight majority of the public has joined me on the "lunatic fringe of the far right".

But, of course, you aren't correct...about that, or much of anything, really.

With our every exchange you demonstrate that you have no idea what I think or believe...rather remarkable, considering the number of discussions you've initiated.

While I'm flattered by the attention, I'm not sure the obsession is healthy, Houston.

Navy: way to give no jo a lesson in honesty..not that she can ever learn! I may laugh the rest of the day!

dangerfield-

From over here on the "lunatic fringe of the far right", the gang and I are struggling to feel remorse over the repeated waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed...sorry about that, but it is what it is. We can't help but feel KSM's suffering pales by comparison to the suffering of those inside the collapsing inferno of the World Trade Center.

Similarly, we're unrepentant on the matter of putting a bullet in the eye of an old, frail, unarmed Osama bin Laden...we approve, even though some (if not all) of his human rights may have been violated.

I respect and admire Senator McCain and am not surprised by his revulsion toward the use of waterboarding, given the treatment he endured as a prisoner of war.

That said, I can't honestly feel sympathy or compassion for Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the other two detainees that were waterboarded after the 9/11 attacks.

I'd be lying if I said that I did.

During the Second World War, the United States firebombed Dresden and used nuclear weapons on two heavily populated cities in order to defeat Hitler's Germany and Imperial Japan.

I don't know what that says about our "national morality"...did it make us any better than the Germans or the Japanese? How much better, and in what way? In that instance, were any means to the end of the war justified? Which means wouldn't have been justified, I wonder?

Do you know?

Mixed Bag:

With our every exchange you demonstrate that you have no idea what I think or believe...

I don't know or care what you really believe. Based on your slippery replies, probably not much.

While I'm flattered by the attention, I'm not sure the obsession is healthy, Houston.

You seem to have a Donald Trump complex. You apparently think it's all about you. If you look, you'll notice I reply to a lot of other right wingdings, too.

And I notice you weaseled out of responding on whether it was OK to have the opinion that segregation was OK, an opinion held not just by a slim majority, but by an overwhelming majority back in the '60s, and probably by a large percentage of the Republican "base" to this very day.

I'll be that if you polled the Iranian police, they'd approve of water boarding, too. They use "enhanced interrogation" techniques "encourage" Iranian citizens protesting against the government to confess that they're Israeli or American spies. It's amazing how many spies you can find using these techniques.

During the Second World War, the United States firebombed Dresden and used nuclear weapons on two heavily populated cities in order to defeat Hitler's Germany and Imperial Japan.

I don't know what that says about our "national morality"...did it make us any better than the Germans or the Japanese? How much better, and in what way? In that instance, were any means to the end of the war justified? Which means wouldn't have been justified, I wonder?

Do you know?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MB-

I generally do not bother with rebuttals here as they always seem to descend into ad hominems, but...

Considering covertly violating the Geneva conventions or worse, tippy-toeing around them using odious legal gobbledygook, and official military actions taken during CONVENTIONAL warfare between nations during the Second World War are not comparable, and you know it. Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were acts designed in theory to end their will to fight on, SHORTEN conflict and potentially limit American forces and non civilian casualties.

I have no sympathy for KSM, OBL etc. and I'm pretty sure John McCain doesn't either, but to insinuate that believing that torture is beneath the morality of United States of America is tantamount to coddling terrorists is semantic silliness and little more.

Your personal lack of remorse (and mine) aside we didn't torture the Soviets and they didn't torture us for the duration of the cold war, when the entire world was at risk of becoming a hellish fireball and causing the end of all life on earth forever. With the end of the world waiting at the end of "Defcon4" it would have been easy to justify ANY action that would prevent that outcome, but we (and they) didn't. What is the justification to violate our moral principles and the international law we were instrumental in drafting, to MAYBE prevent an attack by a small group on limited targets?

I'm NOT surprised by your lack sympathy or remorse for the scumbags who hate and are trying to kill Americans, I am saddened by your lack of shared of revulsion for tactics that in their practice demean our national character and disgrace us as a people.

It isn't about "remorse" or "sympathy" but about pragmatism, decent treatment for OUR troops, the American way and our "American Exceptionalism"

dangerfield-

I'm well aware of what Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were intended to accomplish, and I doubt that you'll be surprised to find I can't criticize those missions, despite the brutally devastating targeting of civilian populations.

I make no distinction between the warfare employed by Al Qaeda and what you consider "conventional" warfare. The American way you're defending should apply (or not) in either case, no? Just an aside...would you consider the Nazi death camps a part of conventional warfare?

And, from what I've read of LeCarre, I wouldn't be so certain that waterboarding and much, much worse wasn't employed by both sides in Eastern Europe during the long Cold War.

Anyway...

I'm still not losing any sleep over the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his two colleagues.

And that's what this all about, right?

The waterboarding of KSM, and two others?

Houston-

You really struggle to interact with non-ideologues, don't you?

It's all black or white with no shades of gray, isn't it?

Classic, hard-core partisanship.

Sorry, Houston...can't relate.

As for your remarks about desegregation, I hardly took note of them...it's almost always necessary to sort wheat from chaff with you, tossing out the irrelevant non-sequiturs along the way.

No, it's about the first photos of American soldiers being treated "in kind", and the inevitable uproar from those who share your "opinion" and who will also share the collective culpability.

No I wouldn't consider Nazi Death Camps to be the product of conventional warfare any more than I would consider "Andersonville"...but the point is that we didn't use their despicable acts to justify our own similar despicable acts.

Like torture they were aberrations, PERVERSIONS of conventional warfare to be abhorred, and beneath a civilized society. What you advocate/condone is institutional BARBARISM. The difference between a renegade "Jack Bauer" and a stated national policy.

I believe that we are supposed to strive to be better than the cultures and societies who resort to torture; Those who advocate for or condone the use of torture have lost sight of who we are. There is no justification for the practice in a moral Nation. John McCain is right, and those who share your opinion are not only wrong, but put our troops around the world in danger of the same barbarism.

That's what it's about...

Bag:

You really struggle to interact with non-ideologues, don't you?

It's all black or white with no shades of gray, isn't it?

Classic, hard-core partisanship.

You started out your attempt to get attention for yourself by accusing progressives of hypocrisy simply for agreeing with McCain on the issue of torture. You've got a lot of nerve talking about hard core partisanship. You clearly operate by Bush's "With us or against us" simple-minded view of the world, so a person must agree with McCain on everything, or they cannot agree with him on anything without being a "hypocrite." And your ad hominem attacks for what you falsely allege to be hard core partisanship when you're clearly a hard core partisan taking cheap shots at progressives makes you a hypocrite, too.

Have a nice day!

BTW: Agreeing with McCain on torture being "hypocritical" doesn't even make sense, unless Bag is claiming that progressives secretly approve of water boarding if done by a Democrat. I'd be interested in knowing what Democrat has engaged in torture. But I don't believe we've been confronted with the problem of addressing Democrats torturing people, at least since President Obama banned the use of torture. I certainly condemn it in advance if he or another Democrat were found to use torture.

On a real issue issue rather than made-up nonsense, the Obama Administration's crack down on whistle blowers is alarming. The administration is using laws against espionage to prosecute people who are trying to expose malfeasance in government. I wish one of those White House correspondents who mostly try to get the press secretary to respond to Republican political attacks would instead hold the administration's feet to the fire on its apparent intent to discourage whistle blowers.

dangerfield-

With all due respect, I would argue that all modern warfare, indeed ALL warfare PERIOD is, by definition, "institutional BARBARISM"...and that observation is based on my own personal experience.

One example:

While undergoing U.S. Army basic training, I was instructed in the use of phosphorus grenades. A phosphorus grenade, upon exploding, is intended to shower burning phosphorus on enemy personnel. The burning phosphorus cannot be extinguished while in contact with the air. If it contacts human skin, it will continue to burn and burn and burn...until the flesh (or the phosphorus) is exhausted. This horrific weapon was part of the Army's "conventional warfare" arsenal, and for all I know, still is.

Conventional warfare is institutional barbarism...nearly unimaginable barbarism. Never doubt it.

When I think about the interrogation of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, I try to remember his own horrific "interrogation" and murder of Newsweek's Daniel Pearl...that's my benchmark for barbarism. Waterboarding isn't in that league in my opinion...but then, that's just my opinion.

Anyway...

You can define the parameters of our discussion however you like. I reserve the right to do the same.

I've been discussing a specific interrogation method called "waterboarding" that was used on Khalid Sheik Mohammed and two others after the 9/11 attacks.

For me, that remains what this all about.

The difference is that Biden is your good hearted, honest, has your back, crazy uncle Joe, and Newt is a lying, self serving, egotistical, social misfit, that will knife your back.

Steeler, where can I send a donation to get Santorum out of PA?

How do people like him get elected, get thrown out by the voters and still have traction to run for President? Just amazing.

Forrest---I think McCain could take Santorum.

If I was McCain and I was in a wheelchair I would try to run Santorium over, like I said I'm not a McCain fan but that takes some gall for a punk like Santorum to say that about a man who was a POW.

Forrest,

I agree, John McCain could kick the butt of that little punk Santorum.

If somebody water boarded Santorum, I'll bet that within a matter of minutes, you could get him to confess that he was the guy who shot J.R.

He looks like he would water his pants before you got a chance to waterboard him.

RVZ.........that's because torture is a crime, that is, except to a warmonger like Cheney and his stooge GWB.

Why are you so eager to hurt our country by accepting behaviour defined as torture? And you wonder where American exceptionalism went to? Down the drain of misbehaviour, making us the same as every tinhorn dictator. We are better than this, no exceptions.

I don't even think McCain would have to take one swing at Santorum before Rick fell to his knees and begged for mercy.

I criticized McCain for his policies and his choice of the half Gov from Alaska but one thing I never questioned was his patriotism, his heroism, or his service to our country. I questioned whether some of his policies and stands on issues and his anger at President Obama for defeating him put "Country First" but never did I question his love of country. Therein lies the difference, we should debate, disagree on policy and how best to solve our problems but we never should question anyone's patriotism or love of this country, including on First Read.

Exactly, GingerBread Mamma! The LAST thing we need is a reputation for moistening the faces of zealous terrorists who want to murder Americans just for being Americans. What will the international community think? Perhaps we need a new Water Czar to collaborate with a new Board Czar to decide once and for all whether inconveniencing a terrorist can truly be defined as torture. After all, waterboarding played no part in the intelligence gathering that resulted in the demise of UBL; all the information was REALLY collected by saying, "Pretty please?"and "I'll be your best friend!", and by giving KSM a couple of noogies.

RVZ is there a reason for your backwards thinking, are you dyslexic, are you dain bramaged, how can you come to the conclusion I want to torture Santorum, a punch in the nose is about what I propose. Don't forget I am one of those union thugs so it is no fantasy if I was John McCain, or should I say if McCain was me Santorum would get his smack in the mouth. Besides your the guy who celebrates the aniversary of the national gaurd firing on and killing 4 students at Kent State. Honestly if I had to deal with you in person on a daily basis I probably would wind up smacking you in the mouth sooner or later.

You seem to harboring a lot of anger and violent impulses there, Forrest Grump, and it is, apparently, focused on anyone who disagrees with you.

No not at all my business for forty years has been dealing with disagreements, and sometimes disagreeable people, on both sides, labor and management,.Lots of people disagree with me, I am usually fine with that, but truthfully sometimes you just need a blunt instrument. I have settled a few disputes that the lawyers, and mediators could not by giving somebody who desperately needs it a punch in the nose. If the company or its managers are willing and determined to put my crew in danger, you bet there might be a fight. I have flat out told them, you want to hurt somebody? Well lets go outside and you can hurt me!, come on lets step out and put the hurt on each other. 99% of the time they decide they don't want to hurt anybody (today). BP and Massey energy killed a lot of miners and oil workers last year, everybody new things were not being done properly, but nobody said or done squat. Now do I have anger issues with that kind of crap, you bet I do. I'm the guy that would have to bring the dead mans tools and belongings back to his widow and children and explain whatever death benefits and insurance they are entitled too. So if I punch a nose or get punched in the nose, it is no big deal is it?

People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law.

The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

Okay, Mark, let's see where this takes us-

The police have a warrant to arrest John Doe, at 123 Main Street. Unfortunately, due to a clerical error, the address on the warrant is 125 Main street. The cops arrive at 125, seeking John Doe. The family there are, understandably, terrified.

You think they should pull out guns and start shooting?

Try this one- a police officer on patrol hears screams coming from a home where almost all of the lights are out. He calls for back up, and the cops force their way into the home- only to find a bunch of teenagers watching a horror film with the surround sound cranked up. Should the teens pull out guns to "defend" themselves?

In a perfect world, police would never attempt an arrest at the wrong address, make the wrong judgment call, or act on bad information.

We do not live in a perfect world.

Obama got himself in some little bit of trouble by weighing in on such a situation early in his presidency. It is STANDARD procedure to ask someone to step outside when there is a report of a break- in. It is the only way to ascertain that the person is not being held by a criminal. You think that professor would have been justified in shooting that cop?

The courts ARE the proper place to adjudicate police mistakes. It is simple common sense. Your suggestion that all such situations result in shoot-em-ups is ludicrous.

no joe

what part of smaller government would said ajudication be funded by?

PS. You are once again ASSUMING the facts of the Cambridge situation. Which has been debunked. But I know you can't let go of a 'good' lie when it supports your narrative,...no matter how often you're proven wrong on your 'facts'.

High school teacher, college professor, doctor of economics AND apparently fully versed in Cambridge Police standard operating procedure. Where ever do you find the time for enteretainment? nevermind,...

Clara, dear, I have MANY police officers in my family. Cambridge, Manhattan, San Francisco, Honolulu- every police department has the same SOP- if there is a report of a break- in, one asks the person opening the door to step outside. It is the only way to ascertain that they are not being held captive.

Geez.

And, what Mark was suggesting is that the professor would have been justified in shooting that cop.

Do you agree?

Maybe I'm reading Mark's comments incorrectly but I do not see where he disagreed with the ruling beyond noting it overturned years of common law. He wondered how the TP would react based on their gun totting, don't tread on me words, their history of private militia participation, and anti-government ideology.

Was he asked to step outside before or after he was asked to provide ID?

Yes, your extended family are experts in ALL topics. I am sure they, like Palin, read ALL of the press, too. Especially yours.

I would imagine fewer police are shot in wrongful arrest cases probably more likely to be bounty hunters.

My step pappy had a saying: "Jack of all trades, Master of none"

For some reason that comes to mind when I read your little pearls of wisdom and experience. You seem to have a 'stock' parable no matter the situation. I guess I've decided to call BS on you. You crossed from plausible to fantastical months ago.

Mumbai was only the beginning.

@Jody- The post below my wondering on how the Teabaggers would react is actually from an article in the Indianapolis Star.

I tried to provide the actual link to the story, but FR was not including it when I click "Post Comment". The part of the ruling I find most interesting is this....

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said.

with MODERN Fouth Amendment jurisprudence?? Do I hear an activist judge? Appointed by a GOP Governor? Surely not.

This is why I'll find it interesting how the Teabaggers will react to this w/ all their screaming about what our Founding Fathers intended, etc...

@No Joe..... I disagree. I don't recall ANYWHERE posting a professor would be justified shooting a police officer. Exactly where am I suggesting ANYTHING?

Why don't you try applying common sense to a situation, as the court majority did, and forget about politics.

Thanks, Mark. That's what I thought I was reading.

Don't give up on Newt. He can make it back. All he has to do is two things:

1. Make sense.

2. Drop delusion.

At to morality, how do we explain him to our children?

Newt has one obstacle left: having people imagine him as President, rather than wanting to run away.

Newt: serial adulterer, betrayal, deceit.

John Edwards: "Sure I did it, but she was in remission."

John Ensign: Enough said.

Gingrich-Edwards 2012! Bipartisan. Experienced. Strong name-recognition among women.

The Niche: Dark horse Dream-Team. No more politics-as-usual.

Platform: "Three wrongs and a child: Mistakes were made. Everybody's human. I reached out to God."

In the interest of transparency, Newton is not Sir Isaac Newton.

Not a racist? Please.

"Food stamp President"; "I like Texas more than Detroit"; "Obama: The Kenyan-minded anti-colonialist."

Newt's done so many flip-flops on race, they starting to call him "Flapjack".

The American Revolution was anti-colonial.

If Newt's not for "right wing social engineering", what's left?

Ira: Sorry if this was totally boring.

Not at all Ira. An excellent explanation. For how much noise that is coming out of DC about these "subsidies" to oil companies, you'd think all our problems would be solved if they are rescinded. $4.5 billion a year is the savings, about as much as we deficit spend in a little over one day.

Brace yourself, Ira. Many of the regulars on this board take umbrage at anyone who undermines one of Obama's talking points.

That you posted a rational, factual explanation that gives the lie to the "subsidies" talking point will leave you open to a number of ad hominem attacks.

Don't get too discouraged- you are a rational, articulate poster and, though we disagree on many issues, I enjoy your posts.

@Ira -- Darn excellent recap of what is involved. It lays out an extremely sound reasoning for having those subsidies in place. They sort of make sense now don't they?

Ira:

Good points. We should not be limiting our scope to just one industry as you say and I agree with that. The tax code needs a major overhaull for sure.

Maybe the right and left will just stop the crap and get together and do something. If both parties put a unified proposal out there I think most Americans will accept it. It is this stupid my plan your plan, No plan that is driving us nuts.

Get together and do something both parties.

Ira Your post as usual is an unbiased statement of facts. This is so refreshing given that most posts on this site are biased attacks on both sides of the house resulting in childish name calling. Nice to see an adult who can debate on issues rather than people. If more people focused on the issues we could accomplish a lot of things that would make this country better. Well done.

I would call elimination of tax breaks to the tune of 4.5 billion per year to an industry that has record-setting profits a very good start.

Ira, thank you for an extremely valuable and informative post. I feel like I've got a better comprehension of the debate over these subsidies.

Ben, yesterday I was for eliminating the tax breaks. Spanky asked me a question yesterday that really bothered me and I researched the subject. They do make sense now and you have to know these costs, if eliminated, will get passed along to the consumer.

One additional point. I'm not sure that eliminating the tax breaks is entirely legal or even constitutional.. Smacks of discrimination against a specific industry. If you do it for the oil industry seems you have to eliminate these deductions across the board.

What do I know?

One additional point. I'm not sure that eliminating the tax breaks is entirely legal or even constitutional.. Smacks of discrimination against a specific industry.

That it does, but the tax code is littered with preferential treatment of some industries/companies while other industries/companies are punished. Sens. McCaskill and Schumer are on the war-path for eliminating these "subsidies", and they are using it as a politically correct weapon in trying to paint people against them as being for "Big Oil". So I imagine some type of legislation Claire and Chuck favor will pass.

Thank you, Ira, for that very clear and detailed explanation.

That they are targeting one industry shows they are clearly simply grandstanding, or worse, sliding down a slippery slope.

So, can of worms: simplify the tax code?

Excellent information, Ira. Thanks for posting it.

Skip, we live in serious times

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-18/greek-restructuring-rejected-by-ecb-officials-in-clash-with-eu-politicians.html

Note that just shifting funds around will not cut it- Greece needs to cut spending and sell assets. Ditto Portugal and Ireland.

Spain heard the messagemloud and clear, and adopted the spending cuts necessary to survive. We must do the same- period.

Obama seems not to understand that little reality. We need to elect somebody who does.

Good morning family! :0)

I never thought I would ever say this . . . but . . . gulp . . . I'm kinda starting to feel sorry for Newt Gingrich. I know I shold be enjoying him reaping what he has sown, but it is becoming painful to watch.

And the glitter?

I don't like his politics, his past, or all the ridiculous, inflammatory, and just pain stupid stuff he says, but can we all agree that dumping glitter on some dude's head is never the best plan? Can we? lol

Ya'll leave Newt alone, he ain't never gonna be President, but his ego needed a feeding, so he ran.

Let's just enjoy the show . . . trust me . . . it is flashy enough . . . no glitter required!

P.S. I want to see John McCain's wife and Newt Gingrich's wife together in the same room . . . I'm starting to think these dude's are sharing a wife! :o)

no joe:

Since you are so much smarter than President Obama, why aren't you helping us all out by running for President? I mean, you have got all the answers, so why are you making us all suffer? Save us no joe! :o)

P.S. Did you and President Obama date in college or something? The "hate" you feel for hims seems awful personal . . . just sayin'.

Dear NjNbNj

I didn't realize I had pullled your chain. But thank you for the civil response anyway.

Actually NJ I think we are living the ancient Chinese curse.

"May you live in interesting times."

It's only serious if you think about it too much. The times are interesting because of the irony of our current situation. Those to blame are the ones trying to assign blame to others and the funny thing is, you're getting away with it.

After 30 years of failed GOP economic policies we find ourselves deep in a hole with no ladder. Not counting President Obama, over the last 30 years we've had one Democrat in the White House. Bill Clinton and he balanced the budget. The other 22 years have been one Republican after another with their "trickle down" voodoo economic plans that only increased the size of government and the deficit. I'm not making it that up, just check the numbers, it is a fact.

That's one hell of a mess that you and your GOP buddies are now trying to slough off on the President. And, the sad thing is, you will probably get away with it because you are very good at it. But, the fact remains most of our current economic distress was delivered by elephants, not mules.

The GOP response is to blame somebody else and throw granny under the bus. Classic. Well, we have a saying down here, "The guilty dog always barks first."

So, if I choose to lighten the mood with a little bit of political satire I hope you will indulge me.

Poor Newt, we hardly knew ye.

Have a nice day, I envy your rich fantasy life and the black/white world in which you live with no shades of grey to muddle things up.

Yep, dumping glitter over his head was unnecessary, disrespectful and silly. What I find interesting is the same politicians and right-leaning op ed writers just a few weeks and months ago were praising Newt Gingrich for his intelligence, his ideas, etc., yet this week they are disrespectful, unforgiving and unrelenting in their criticism. Why? Because Gingrich inadvertently told the truth about the Ryan Budget. The best thing Newt Gingrich could do is stand by his remarks instead of running from them.

Houston, we have a problem. Bill Maher is a CINO (comedian in name only) on his very best day. His funniest joke is his claim that he is a libertarian.

RVZ555

I think more people were watching FOX at that time, just as they do through MSNBCs entire lineup. Sorry.

Are you going to blather about ratings again after you made yourself look like an idiot by predicting Lawrence O'Donnell's highly successful show would go off the air in a few months? Everyone knows that normal people split their news viewing between CNN, MSNBC, PBS, and the network news. The mouth breathers all watch one station to get their "news": Fox.

"Maybe you and Skippy The Okie can get together and try to have all programming that you disagree with, BANNED!"

Isn't that already on the table, RVZ555? While the Fairness Doctrine might get renamed by progressives (that term for liberals is a joke by itself), it will never completely go away until freedom of speech and freedom of thought are eliminated.

I dunno, RVZ555. A lot of people I see on the highway during my commute with one or more right-wing bumperstickers are usually white-knuckling the steering wheel, heaving open-mouthed with flies buzzing in and out of their dry, cracked orifices.

Of course, that could just be an east Texas thing. I'll be the first to admit my powers of spatial perception aren't the best. :p

RVZ

And don't forget that more people watch Spongebob Squarepants than Fox News on any given night. Quantitative 'facts' certainly don't account for qualitative ones.

It is ALSO a FACT that Foxnews viewers are the LEAST informed on actual news.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=

and here is an older study - seems to be a recurring theme with the Faux News viewers failing basic civic tests, repeatedly:

http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions

oh and here's another table:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/16/daily-show-fox-knowledge/

You were saying, RVZ?

More people watch other stations than watch MSNBC, CNN and FOX combined. More people watch MSNBC's "Lockup" on Saturday nights than watch Mike Huckabee on FOX. And you know what? Who cares.

Jody, Iowa

More people watch other stations than watch MSNBC, CNN and FOX combined. More people watch MSNBC's "Lockup" on Saturday nights than watch Mike Huckabee on FOX. And you know what? Who cares.

Fox viewers care, and so do the people who run that network. On one Sunday news show a while back, Fox boss Roger Ailes was confronted with the fact that Fox had reported a story that was totally untrue and never retracted it. When asked to account for this, Ailes replied that Fox News had more viewers than other networks. To the far right, the number of viewers compensates for the number of proven lies they promote.

I'd go so far as to say the number of viewers JUSTIFIES the number of lies in their minds, Houston. With the Right the ends justify the means.

John B.

I'd go so far as to say the number of viewers JUSTIFIES the number of lies in their minds, Houston. With the Right the ends justify the means.

It's the number of people who believe something, not whether or not it's true. The same mindset was evident in another thread over torture, which some people on this board think is OK because an opinion poll found a slim majority to believe in it.

Journey towards peace..

No...the tax deductions and credits were put in place to offset the high cost of exploration and capital costs for equipment to provide an incentive to drill. They are available to ALL oil companies, large or small. The "subsidies" up for elimination do not encompass ALL the deductions, they just target a few. Hope this helps.

Ira -

Was this a move by Democrats to repeal the Bush Energy Policy Act of 2005?

Journey, not sure on what the democrats really want, but the devil is in the details...

The measure would have affected Shell Oil Co., ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, BP America and Chevron Corp.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43065013/ns/politics-capitol_hill

Seems that only the above 5 companies are being targeted, and many wonder why our tax laws are so complicated...

Retired Military ... where do you think those big, ever increasing CEO bonuses were coming from? These guys, when they get bonuses, they don't get chump change bonuses ... we're talking BIG BONUSES! More money in one check than what everyone HERE earns in one year ... type bonuses.

and yet the oil company profits only amount to 6 cents on every revenue dollar taken in while computer companies earn 16 cents/$ revenue and pharmaceuticals earn 17 cent/$ revenue.

Retired - If the oil companies want to maintain a given level of profit % then any cost increases (as in losing the subsidy would be) need to be offset by increased $$ passed unto the consumer. Would the price increase be significant? Probably not.

The big deal lies only in the fact of what one considers to be an exceptable return. Why shouldn't the computer and drug companies also be constrained to the same 6% as the oil companies?

Is there a problem with the true cost of oil being reflected in the price of the product rather than hidden in our tax bills?

Perhaps the oil companies are afraid of having consumers see the true cost of their product because it helps the cause of conservation and alternative energy.

Speaking of which I've always wondered how conservation got to be the opposite of "Conservative."

I must've missed your post on this yesterday, Ira. Now that I understand why the waivers were issued, the high percentages stated in the Fox article don't annoy me in the manner they were intended to annoy. Rather, I'm terrified for an entirely different reason.

ed3891..

This scares me too. People here were so focused on hating Pelosi they missed the importance of the flaw in the law.

Ira: And initially, like a fool, I fell for the dog and pony show.

I don't like unpleasant surprises. The issue with these waivers alone is bad enough as is; I don't want to discover what else might be waiting in store.

ed3891..

Totally agree...and it's nice to know that at least one person is reading the dribble I write.

Gentlemen - you may find many things scary about obamacare. the scariest I find to be is on what "affordable care" means. To date not one person has replied on what it means. Will "affordable" be based on income?

It's pretty hilarious when someone lists the Huffington Post or Think Progress among their "credible" sources.

It's pretty hilarious when some idiot accuses a news organization of not being credible without providing a shred of evidence to back up his accusation.

Houston,

They are credible sources....just like the National Enquirer, The Star, Hustler magazine, and a daffy duck comic book.

Amazing that once something is in print, it is accepted as true.

If that were true you should have no trouble disproving what's been said.

Yet no one ever does. That speaks volumes.