I've been contemplating McConnell's latest 'scheme'.

Even though Lawrence O'Donnell did a brilliant analysis last night on his show, I'm still not certain this isn't the latest right wing gimmick to bring down the President.

After all, Mitch is on record multiple times, avowing that the ONLY objective on the Teapublican agenda is to ensure President Obama in a ONE term President at ALL costs!

BIG money FIRST & country LAST is the new 2012 Teapublican campaign slogan!

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is proposing a new plan
that would give the Republicans everything they want — $2.5 trillion in
spending cuts — plus 12 new chances to blame Obama for everything. Under the McConnell plan:

1. Obama would have to request and increase in the debt ceiling
along with "a plan to reduce spending by a greater amount."

2. Either chamber could pass a "Resolution of Disapproval"
blocking the plan. Since the GOP knows they don't have enough votes in the
Senate, this method ensures the House would pass such a resolution, sending it
back to the President.

3. Obama would then have an opportunity to veto the resolution.

4. Obama would have to round up enough Democratic votes to avoid
the veto from being overridden.

Each of these unnecessary steps would be repeated three times,
giving Republicans a chance to bash Obama on 12 separate occasions, while
avoiding any accountability for the debt ceiling increase or spending cuts. The
largest of the three debt limit increases under the McConnell Plan is scheduled
for the summer of 2012, to maximize political opportunities against Obama.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/12/267031/new-mcconnell-plan-we-get-everything-we-want-on-debt-ceiling-plus-12-opportunities-to-bash-obama/

These cowards are beneath contempt…

So the Grand Deal is now DOA - well at least President Obama has these idiots on record for TURNING DOWN 4TRILLION dollars in savings...

PS: It was NEVER about the money FR!

Late yesterday Sen. McConnell announced his Debt Ceiling Proposal that basically gives President Obama “Carte Blanche” on the Debt Ceiling issue. The GOP/TP has given President Obama everything he wanted (a clean debt ceiling) and then some if this proposal is true as reported. Rep. Boehner supports this issue as well?? This morning Joe S. said he does not, he was only being polite.

Last night I watch many left wing pundits declare victory. I watch many of the right wing pundits claim the GOP/TP caved in and the Tea Party is pissed that McConnell and Boehner sold them out. Rep. Cantor is sitting in his office revising his resume for a run on Rep. Boehner leadership position in the House.

I know that 470 high profile business people (Wall Street) sent a letter yesterday demanding that the Debt Ceiling get resolved immediately. I saw an article where Moody’s lowered Ireland’s bond rating to junk status. Was the USA next to have their credit rating lowered?? How much of an influence was this to what happened??

When President Obama said yesterday that he could not guarantee that people would get their Social Security Checks, Veterans would not get their retirement checks, etc and McConnell made the statement that this issue would not be solved as long as President Obama was in office send a message that put this over the edge?? What about the pending collapse of the economy and the global markets if we do not solve the Debt Ceiling??

I would like to think that rational people finally got their act together and did something to move us forward as a country but this is not a done deal people, not by a long shot.

Look, I am not breaking out the 14 year old scotch just yet. I am happy that it appears that this issue may be put to rest and that this country may have dodged the bullet but until all the I’s are dotted and the T’s crossed and sign, sealed and delivered I for one will wait and see. As I have said, this is not a done deal yet. One thing this convoluted bill does is expose President Obama to 12 chances for the right to snipe him with the biggest opportunity coming before the 2012 election. Personally I am not to worried about that because if we are moving forward as a Nation, the arguments will have no bearing. The GOP/TP is betting on the other result (the country will not move forward) and basically are doing a “cut and run” on this and trying to walk away from any and all responsibility and then use this against President Obama in 2012. That I think is the real danger to President Obama of this McConnell plan.

We need to keep in mind that no matter what happens with the Debt Ceiling, the GOP/TP is still going to be the “Obstructionist” Party and oppose everything that has to do with creating jobs and improving the economy. This is not going to change one bit.

What the GOP/TP is really doing I think is walking away from the responsibility of the Debt Ceiling and then continue their current agenda hoping to use it against President Obama in 2012. There are no “Free Lunches” in Politics.

President Obama has another meeting today with Sen. McConnell and maybe we will learn more after that meeting. I hope so.

On another note in Wisconsin last night all 6 of the fake democrats paid for by the Koch Brothers lost in the primary elections. What another waste of time and money. Now the real recall elections will be held in August and the democrats only need to win three of the six seats to flip control of the State Senate. The American people are on the march.

Also, yesterday the campaign donations were published. The GOP/TP together (all candidates) pulled in 35 million for the quarter. President Obama and the DNC pulled in 86 Million. Is this more signs that the American people are starting to get involved??

President Obama raised $86 million. Great job everyone!!

I see no where where President Obama has disrespected anyone in the Republican Party. I see no where where he wants to humiliate anyone. It's not in his character to tear people down. I see a leader who wants to work with Congress – both parties. I see a leader who wants to raise the level of discussion to a higher place than it’s been in years. It's why he won. It's why we the people voted for him.

All his politicking is happening behind the scenes. He’s not on tv ridiculing anyone. He’s on tv explaining to the American people what needs to be done. And he is more than happy to work with whomever wants to get the job done.

And if the Republican Party doesn’t want to work with President Obama to get the job done then the American people are going to see this plainly and the Republicans are going to lose in 2012.

It’s that simple.

Rupert Murdoch. Is anyone surprised at what a slime ball this man is? Are American companies still advertising on Fox? They shouldn’t be.

As Bernstein said last night on Lawrence’s program, Murdoch isn’t engaged in journalism and he himself created the situation he now finds himself in.

Is anyone on Fox going to resign? No, of course not.

Fox. The biggest cheerleaders for the Iraq Invasion.

Despicable.

Let’s see- A Democrat beats a Calif Tea Bagger, McConnell raises the white flag, DNC fails to raise goal of $60 Million last quarter- they raise $82 Million instead.

Yep- gonna be some mean-spirited posts all day long on First Read blogs. Maybe even a rash of ‘collapsing’.

Hide and watch.

The folks that represent the REAL American populace will certainly enjoy the show. Now- Who has that bowl of popcorn?

FR: Breaking down Mitch McConnell’s parachute (or Hail Mary punt)…

As a football fan (go Packers), what in the world is a "Hail Mary punt"?

You guys should have your man card suspended.

Pat:

How true. This is the crap you get when your party is rendered impotent. The GOP/TP is becoming more and more impotent every day. Wall Street is making them toe their line - no surprise there.

The best news for Obama: More than 550,000 donors contributed to the campaign with an average of $69 per donation, which means that Obama's small-money army is there and can give again -- and again and again. (In fact, it says that 98% of its donations were $250 or less.)

YAY!!!

The 'paper route' money is flowing freely!

This is not going to sit well with a certain nut job from NJ! lol

Time to bust out some of Feisty's special *popcorn* - it's extra salty! lol

It looks like yesterday was a pretty good day for Progressives. I still believe that people who were just plain lazy and didn’t vote in the 2010 election in which only 37% voted, are waking up and ready to get behind the President and the Progressives, in stopping this Republican-Tea People crazy train, that is out of control.

Let’s just hope that the mojo continues, and we can put the brakes to the far right extremist that are attempting to force their failed policies onto the nation.

No doubt about it dbo. The tide appears to be turning, the buyers remorse we've been talking about for MONTHS is getting too big to ignore. Conservatives will respond with their "superpower", intense anger and unreasonable outrage.

Pat, Boston. Nicely done and absolutely right, President Obama has not ridiculed anyone and he has proved time and again that he will work with anyone to get what needs doing done. Anyone who says otherwise has their head stuck in the sand.

Navy, Feisty, Louis--good stuff today! I enjoyed reading everyone's first thoughts, even Joe Albany and Bill, Fairfax (even if I disagree).

BTW, to all the FR lefty liberals that claim Social Security isn’t broke: If you can’t send out SS checks without borrowing on the Chinese credit card, then there is no disputing SS is broke. Unless you want to take the position that Barry is lying to the American people about this issue.

Exactly. Now lets hear the response from all those who claim that SS is solvent until 2035 because of the trillions in the trust fund. Is it solvent or is the President lying?

I watched Chris Van Hollen on Morning Joe yesterday. He said it was fine for the President to talk about reforming entitlement as long as it was raising the SS tax (see above regarding solvency) and allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies. If this is the Democrats idea of reforming entitlements then what exactly were the 4T in cuts that the President was proposing? Does anybody have one specific cut?

I think the President's statement yesterday that he could not guarantee SS checks was a huge political blunder. I checked the comments on other boards carrying this news story and the reaction was fierce to say the least.

@Jody

Pat, Boston. Nicely done and absolutely right, President Obama has not ridiculed anyone and he has proved time and again that he will work with anyone to get what needs doing done. Anyone who says otherwise has their head stuck in the sand.

Name one specific program the President is willing to cut? How was the 4T in cuts to be achieved?

I am disappointed in McConnell. He may think he is playing a shrewd game of chess but I'm sick of the political BS. The Republicans won in a landslide in 2010 because the voters want spending brought under control and this isn't going to get it done.

So true Drive By. The collapse chickens will be out in force today.

$86 Mil... I have said it before and will say it again...

The Republicans will break out the biggest campaign contribution money making ponzi scheme that is likely ever seen in an election cycle. The constituents will blindly pour all their money into a fruitless effort to make sure President Obama is not re-elected.

They may as well provide for their families and help America out instead of giving their money to the Republicans. President Obama will be president until 2016.

The Republican candidate will only pull a Christine O'Donnell/Sarah Palin on them.

Alan, NJ: Name one specific program the President is willing to cut? How was the 4T in cuts to be achieved?

Look at the MSM and how they report this story. Obama says he is "Bending over backwards" to reach a deal. Obama says that "Social Security is on the table", Obama says that "Medicare is on the table", Obama says that "Tax reform is on the table". But have you read one detail anywhere about how each of the programs will be cut/reformed by Obama? Not even a whisper about any of them. That's because Obama is just blathering and just posing for the media. Far be it from the media to demand from Obama any details and something in writing about HIS plan, because it doesn't exist.

We will raise revenue first, then talk about budget cuts.

Mitch McConnell has breathed new life into Karl Rove's dream of a Republican Reich. McConnell's proposal to give the President virtually unilateral power to raise the debt ceiling is emphatically NOT a capitulation. McConnell did NOT blink. This is one of the most cynical and vile power grabs in the history of this nation.

The Fourteenth Amendment notwithstanding, the basic Constitutional separation of powers - the checks and balances - is destroyed by giving the President this authority. The debt limit is part and parcel of the Congress' responsibility with respect to the nation's budget.

Consider that danger within this context. Since the end of WWII, the United States has not been involved in a war. Only Congress may issue a declaration of war and it has done so only five times in the nation's history. Yet, since 1945 we have sent troops to fight AND die in Korea, South Viet Nam, Grenada, Somalia, twice in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the list doesn't end there. These incursions have come courtesy of the War Powers Act and other iterations, which is a complete abdication of Congressional responsibility as outlined in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

Only when we had a brown Democratic President did this become an issue. Think Libya. Suddenly, Congress has noticed that the President has usurped Congressional authority. Never mind the lies that put us into Viet Nam, or Afghanistan, or Iraq.

Now, consider what McConnell has done. Although the Democrats still control the Senate, as a practical matter, Republicans control both houses. In the House they have a majority and they have the filibuster to stop the Democratic majority in the Senate.

The effect of McConnell's proposal is to retain spending power in the Congress while forcing the President to pay for the programs by borrowing. He cannot raise revenues any other way. Congress retains the power to tax. The fact is, Obama is smart enough to know that is exactly what will happen, and he has his veto to stop spending. He might, but will future Presidents, particularly the G.O.P. types who are determined to transfer every penny of wealth to the rich?

Here's where it gets very nasty. The media have long been attracted by shiny objects and loud noises. An American public that believes a President can turn an economy around overnight controls the fate of this nation. When the media report that Obama won't finance noble plans of the G.O.P., imagine a fired-up electorate voting for its own destruction by electing a Republican. The base of the Republican party votes against its own interests routinely.

If this legislation gets out of Congress, the President MUST veto the bill. The net effect of this bill is to create a truly Imperial President. Republicans are not shy about wielding power. Look at Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and Florida for proof.

We have now seen ten years of tax cuts that are literally financed with borrowed money that has been handed to the very wealthy. That is not hyperbole. That is not spin. That is fact.

There is no trick too vile, too rotten, too abominable for a Republican Party bent on controlling this country and reducing it to a feudal monarchy - An Imperial President with his court of lords and ladies in the Senate and House. McConnell's plan has the potential to bring us to our knees. He wants us to kiss the G.O.P. ring. I suggest we tell him to kiss our collective back side.

Wikipedia:

Pan Am Flight 103 was Pan American World Airways' third daily scheduled transatlantic flight from London Heathrow Airport to New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. On Wednesday 21 December 1988, the aircraft flying this route—a Boeing 747–121 named Clipper Maid of the Seas—was destroyed by a bomb, killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew members.^[1] Eleven people in Lockerbie, in southern Scotland, were also killed as large sections of the plane fell in the town and destroyed several houses, bringing total fatalities to 270. As a result, the event has been named by the media as the Lockerbie bombing.

On 24 February 2011, Libya's former justice minister Mustafa Abdul Jalil said that Muammar Gaddafi had personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing.

Think Progress Today:

Libyan president Moammar Qaddafi “is sending fresh signals through emissaries that he is ready to discuss stepping down, Western diplomats said Tuesday,” while intelligence reports show the country’s military weakening. French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said Qaddafi “sending messengers everywhere” across the globe to discuss stepping down.

Alan, name what the republicans were willing to give up. As for President Obama, cuts in military spending, restructuring social security and medicare, cuts to food programs, clean energy, etc. There had to be a lot of cuts to achieve $4 trillion so your point is what? Oh, never mind, your point is to be contrary. Have a nice day.

Um, First Read? You guys take arithmetic? Cause, those numbers don't add up.

If the numbers you print are correct, then the average is not $69 per donor.

Grab a calculator.

Louis,

Yea ....... Obama is really the "Fonz" ain't he.

More like the "Ponz."

So Barry Ponzarelli, the cool leader all libs worship, can't lead enough to put a budget out - a violation of law.

Ponzi has a debt ceiling, which also happens to be a law that has been there, but he feels should't have to apply to him.

He is running the greatest ponzi of all time. He ruinining lives and the futures of millions.

Obama has blown through 4 trillion and simply wants more. Other can pay back in the future, 10 - 12 years from now - that's their problem, I'll be gone.

This guy throws his grandmother under the bus, lies about his dying mother, gives $10 million stimulus money to Mexican drug cartels, ....... and now tries to terrorize the elderly ....

And this guy is cool to you guys?

Joanie wouldn't even have been fooled ...... what is wrong with you guys?

Anyway ..... speaking of Happy Days ....... everyone will have to wait for Novemeber 2012.

Consider that danger within this context. Since the end of WWII, the United States has not been involved in a war. Only Congress may issue a declaration of war and it has done so only five times in the nation's history. Yet, since 1945 we have sent troops to fight AND die in Korea, South Viet Nam, Grenada, Somalia, twice in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the list doesn't end there. These incursions have come courtesy of the War Powers Act and other iterations, which is a complete abdication of Congressional responsibility as outlined in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

Only when we had a brown Democratic President did this become an issue. Think Libya. Suddenly, Congress has noticed that the President has usurped Congressional authority. Never mind the lies that put us into Viet Nam, or Afghanistan, or Iraq.

OK David the War Powers Act came into being after Korea and Vietnam. There was Congressional Authority granted for Afghanistan and Iraq. So what are you left with Somalia and Grenada. I don't know what authority was used to operate in Somalia but you can argue that Americans were in danger in Grenada and it definitely lased less than 60 days.

The problem with Libya is not that we have a brown President, it's that the executive have now pushed the envelope again and the next Administration, which could be lily-white, can now use this Administration's actions as a precedent. I can't wait to hear you supporting the next war pushed by neo-cons because they use drones, or tactical nuclear weapons, in Iran claim that they don't need authorization because there are no hostilities.

Whether President Obama decides to accept Senator McConnell's solution to raising the debt ceiling, or some other proposal is adopted, the President is left with the same problem:

He has no long-range plan to address the nation's crushing debt load; no legislation capable of passing both Houses of Congress, and landing on his desk for signing.

The debt ceiling discussion has served a useful purpose though;

As everyone ruminates over which of the nation's debts would be paid if the debt ceiling isn't raised, the chatter only serves to remind one and all that the United States must borrow more that 40 cents of every dollar it spends in order to meet all of its obligations.

That hasn't changed.

It's still unsustainable, and the world's debt markets will at some point intervene and disrupt the ability of the United States to finance its deficit spending.

The clock is still ticking.

Feisty:

How true; since you and I get our share (and then some) of collapses we know that Newsvine does know who is doing the collapsing. Every time somebody flags another poster it is recorded and because of the last run of BS with the collapsing, they are watching. Things will change, you can count on it, it's only a matter of time.

I do not collapse posts, I rather have them up so all the people can see how weak they are and how they are so lost and impotent.

where is a plan? where is the 2012 budget?

HAHA, Bob, speaking of irony. I was flipping through the television last and came upon Happy Days and made my kids watch it with me... I said that he's the Fonz. I tried to explain this is what I used to watch when I was a kid and tried to tie it to what they watch on Teen Nick. They thought it was a boring... complete fail.

oh well, irony.

Hey, Prez- do this:

Take the McConnell deal, then cut, say, a couple of trilion ANYWAY, AND let the Bush tax cuts expire for that top 2%. Watch the votes head your way in 2012! Show 'em who's the adult. Screw the Republicans and the horses they stol......Er....rode in on.

Louis J the graphic you drew with text characters is just really cool, I did not get it at first until I backed up from my screen a little bit. That is really neat, I can barely draw stick figures, you have a gift sir.

David Walker:

While I see your point, I also know that we have not had a functional Congress in this country for a long, long time. I would prefer that the Republicans just go ahead and vote to raise the debt ceiling, just like they did 19 times for President Bush.

Enough of the foolishness.

But even if this hairbrain scheme is enacted, I would assume that it would have an expiration date.

Where is the 2012 budget? Ask the Republicans in the House dgmtp...it's their Constitutional responsibility to originate that document.

President Obama did offer up a FY 2012 budget near the beginning of this year.

It proposed $1.1 trillion in deficit spending for 2012, and included a 10-year CBO projection of $13 trillion in new gross debt to be added to the $14 trillion already on the books.

The proposal wasn't well received.

"The president had painted McConnell and Boehner (especially) into a corner."

No, he was trying to use the same old 'class warfare' techniques that are popular with Chicago-style politics (scare granny on her Social Security benefits), but McConnell has turned the tables on Obama.

The last thing the Democrats wanted was to 'own' the responsibility for making the difficult decisions on what to 'cut' from spending - they were looking for ways to blame the Republicans - that's why Harry Reid never proposes a budget, despite his constitutional responsibility to do so (a).

Now the Democrats will have to make those difficult cuts and be held accountable (there are no tax increases in McConnell's plan). When they don't make enough cuts to have any effect on the Deficit, they will have to answer for it in the next election. The Republicans will have a slogan for the 2012 elections "We gave the Democrats all the spending authority they wanted, and look what they did - more reckless spending".

(a) The House passes a Budget (which they did), and then the Senate must pass one and then the two houses meet in a 'conference committee' to resolve the differences. Harry Reid has failed to bring a Budget up for a vote in the Senate for most of the last several years - clearly abdicating his responsibilities.

John B, Des Moines IA: Where is the 2012 budget? Ask the Republicans in the House dgmtp...it's their Constitutional responsibility to originate that document.

Where is the FY2012 budget from the House? Created, debated, and passed on April 15th, 2011.

Source: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/15/135446782/house-passes-ryans-2012-budget-plan

Hope this helps you John.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Feisty:

How true; since you and I get our share (and then some) of collapses we know that Newsvine does know who is doing the collapsing. Every time somebody flags another poster it is recorded and because of the last run of BS with the collapsing, they are watching. Things will change, you can count on it, it's only a matter of time.

_________________________________

Betty: did you mention "paranoia" in your post to me??

Conservative posters/readers: Betty and Navy have put you on notice. You flag the (formerly) secret libsrus chat room gang's posts at your own peril.

Thanks Forrest.

"So the Grand Deal is now DOA - well at least President Obama has these idiots on record for TURNING DOWN 4TRILLION dollars in savings..."

No, it was $3 Trillion in spending cuts in return for $1 Trillion in new taxes. This way, the Republicans may get $2.5 Trillion in spending cuts (all by the Democrats) with NO new taxes.

It would appear that McConnell is a better 'chess' player than Obama.

Why do Feisty and her friends think there is some conspiracy against them? Newsvine provides features for readers to express their approval or disapproval of what someone posted. And apparently a lot of people just don't like what they write.

FR:

Here’s the lesson we’ve all learned: What the GOP cares about is low taxes and shrinking government. The deficit and debt are only means to that end.

This very point has been made repeatedly on the FR/FT blogs for months. The apparent capitulation of Sen. McConnell in the debt ceiling talks at last brings the fact home to other observers - the Ryan budget plan, the utter abandonment by Congressional Republicans of any productive legislation dealing with the economy, the focus on the right-wing ideological goals, all of the GOP activity has been aimed at fulfilling the Libertarian and ultra-right-wing program of completely changing the basis of American government.

Months ago, I wrote here that the debt and deficit "crisis" was largely manufactured by the right wing to serve their ideological interests - that, by definition, a "crisis" is an immediate problem of great significance, which neither the deficit nor debt in fact are. They are of great significance, and must be addressed, yes, but immediate was not then nor now the issue. Except, of course, in the frenzied howling of the far right.

Rather, the crisis was the looming debt ceiling vote.

And the Republicans manufactured that crisis, too - by arrogantly refusing to participate in the political process.

While David Walker's post is extremely interesting, and essentially the same argument that has been made about other risky political precedents such as the line-item veto, the McConnell proposal does not have to work out the way he fears. For example, the legislation required could be wirtten to expire on Jan. 20, 2013, effectively making this particular issue moot.

In addition, the very idea of a debt ceiling is itself just a construct that lingered long after its original purpose had faded. The debt ceiling was part of a war bonds measure Congress passed in 1917. The idea at the time was to put war spending and finance under close Congressional scrutiny. (Oh, if only that had worked so well when G.W. Bush took the U.S. into the Iraq War with off-the-books financing!) The McConnell proposal does not transfer new powers to the Presidency; raising funds to meet the nation's Congressionally-approved spending or to meet contracted debt obligations is not any kind of authoritarian position.

It was clear long ago that the debate about Congressionally-approved spending, and means of paying down the national debt, should be separated from the debt ceiling. Finally, it appears that the question will finally be divided, as parliamentarians are wont to say, and the nation can again attempt to address its real business. Of course, the ultra-right will still demand that the national social contract be changed - but perhaps now without the added risk that conducting that debate occurs in the ruins of a gobal economy the rigid ideologues had first destroyed.

And apparently a lot of people just don't like what they write.

WTF are you to silence voices you don't like?

Oh wait - you're one of those phony constitutional flag pin wearing conservatives who likes to talk a BIG game about YOUR 2nd amendment rights...

When it comes to the 1st amendment, eh... not so much!

Here's a clue, if you don't like what I write don't read it... see how simple it is!

PS: The 'approval' feature you speak of would be the VOTE button - NOT the cowardly collapse feature favored by those who don't practice free speech!

The best news for Obama: More than 550,000 donors contributed to the campaign with an average of $69 per donation, which means that Obama's small-money army is there and can give again -- and again and again. (In fact, it says that 98% of its donations were $250 or less.)

no joe, no bo, nj

Um, First Read? You guys take arithmetic? Cause, those numbers don't add up.

If the numbers you print are correct, then the average is not $69 per donor.

Grab a calculator.

i grabbed my caculator and for once in your life your right, instead of $69 per donor its $85 per. but the artical did say that MORE than 550k donated, the exact number is, 681,159 doners at $69 per. thats more good news for Obama and i know that just makes you mad!!!

hey did you take your hate face off this morning?

Alan, NJ:

I'm not going to get involved in pissing matches today. So, I'm going to make this short and to the point. Besides, all you guys want to do is argue anyway.

I noted that there were other conflicts besides the ones I enumerated. Lebanon comes to mind at the moment. Panama. There are others.

Since Korea, the envelope has been pushed again and again. The phony Gulf of Tonkin incident in Viet Nam, the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Yes, you could argue that American interests were endangered in Grenada. You could also argue that Punxsutawny Phil's shadow is a true weather indicator. Neither is true.

Lastly, you write, "I can't wait to hear you supporting the next war pushed by neo-cons because they use drones, or tactical nuclear weapons, in Iran claim that they don't need authorization because there are no hostilities." Don't wait and don't hold your breath, unless you think you're going to look good in blue.

Jody, Iowa

Alan, name what the republicans were willing to give up. As for President Obama, cuts in military spending, restructuring social security and medicare, cuts to food programs, clean energy, etc. There had to be a lot of cuts to achieve $4 trillion so your point is what? Oh, never mind, your point is to be contrary. Have a nice day.

I'll admit that the Republicans are giving up nothing right now. They are taking the untenable position that there should be no new taxes. The way around it is to start with the Ryan proposal to reform the tax code to remove deductions, which favor the wealthy, and to lower rates (slightly) so that revenues rise. Then they can claim lower taxes. On the Democratic side they have offered nothing either.

Cuts in the military? Where?

Restructuring SS? All I've heard is a proposal to raise the cap on contributions. Have you heard something different? Means testing? BTW Jody, weren't you one of the posters who claim SS does not add to the deficit and is solvent until 2035? If so, is the President lying?

Medicare? What are the proposals? All I've heard is that they should be allowed to negotiate with the drug companies to lower costs. Have you heard of a different proposal? If so, please share.

Cuts to food programs? Which ones? I thought these were part of the deal in 2010. Are these new cuts? How much?

Clean Energy? What and how do the clean energy proposals cut the deficit?

So, get off you talking points and come up with specifics.

Where are the 4T in cuts?

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

And apparently a lot of people just don't like what they write.

WTF are you to silence voices you don't like?

Come on now Feisty, I'm not silencing anybody. Not even trying. I'm just registering my opinion using the tools provided by Newsvine for doing just that.

Don't get your knickers all in a wad.

PS: The 'approval' feature you speak of would be the VOTE button - NOT the cowardly collapse feature favored by those who don't practice free speech!

BTW, the feature for registering your disapproval says nothing about collapsing a post. I'm sure many people don't even know that is a possible outcome of their use of the feature.

Feisty, he (Jim in Houston) and everyone else that posts a comment like that (a desire to silence other posters) that has numbers behind their screen name (Jim in Houston 1509351) is someone that likely has multiple accounts that log in to make sure a post is collapsed. They could care less about decency and that's why I don't even bother with them. They're called trolls.

Many of these Republicans that post are the same TEA Drinkers that crow about Constitutional Rights while they burn the flag. The only rights they recognize are from symbols of rattle snakes coiled up on Yellow flags.

Pat, I understand partisan views but lets be real. Obama has attacked the GOP every time he gets a chance and goes into the gutter more times than not. Because you probably agree with his positions and the reasons for the attack you are immune or wear your rose colored glasses but its just factually wrong that he doesnt politic and attack the GOP. Every time he is on TV, press conference or political stumping, he attacks. Remember attacking the Supreme Court in the State of the Union speech? Remember attacking Ryan in front of him denouncing the Ryan proposal on Medicare? He lectures us like we couldnt possibly understand the nuances of his positions at every chance he gets.

Have you read books on leadership? His style of leadership as President has been disappointing generally criticized by everyone including his own supporters and followers, so stop the BS on his being a great leader. He rarely takes chances, too slow to react and pull the trigger and always concerned about what others think about his decisions. A good leader, takes a stand and puts forth solid decisions or views and says to his troops go make this happen. Obama stands back and lets the troops decide what the outcome is going to be and thinks he can gently guide them along. Sorry thats not leadership.

As for the debt ceiling lets face it the democrats have shown no willingness to compromise and they are becoming the party of NO. Whether we need tax increases or how much isnt really the issue because the democrats are unwilling to cut any spending. From what I understand, the $4 trillion of supposed cuts was $2.8 trillion of tax increases (wow thats going to stimulate the economy and create jobs taking that out of employers hands and $1.2 trillion of cuts to future spending based on cutting the rates of growth but no real cuts to budgets. Thats silly. Where is the democratic leadership willing to look at entitlements with serious proposals?

Nash,

We have a system of checks and balances, at least that is what the founding fathers tried to set up.

Obama's spending ....... Obama is out of control.

He is the reason the founding fathers set it up this way.

Congress needs to do it's job ...... now more than ever.

I agree with Navy. By collapsing posts that don't agree with your side, you are actually hurting your own argument. I even think that leaving the 2nd grade playground name calling posts up and live shows how pathetic people from X side can really be. I'd like to see the collapse button killed.

On a side economic note, we have all industry segments doing well. We usually see a recession coming a year or so in advance, and see us coming out sooner than Wall Street. What we are experiencing is probably a combination of:

1. Our industries have been on a buying hold from 2008 to the first have of 2010, therefore their inventories fell more than they should have, resulting in needed purchasing now.
2. Although the economy is not doing well by any standards, it is doing good enough to get our customer bases across different industries to purchase.

A sincere hope that this trend holds true for America, so that we can add some prosperity, create tax revenue and start to fund some of the needed social programs, and talk balancing budgets that don't fundamentally hurt as much as they look to be hurting today. Y'all have a good day bantering back and forth......Keep it sane!

David

The reason I reply to you is that you think people oppose the Administration because the President is brown. I think you support the Administration because the President is brown.

I think the previous administration was the worst ever and that they rode roughshod over a spineless congress. I have not seen much difference in behavior form this Administration or this congress.

Don't get your knickers all in a wad.

Not possible, don't wear em! ;op

JoAnna Smith - Surely you have the intelligence to realize that it is the Republican House that is the problem and not the President. What the Republicans in the House are doing is akin to insanity. They are bent on the destruction of the country and all Americans, and, to boot, it's political suicide for their party. What in the world are they thinking?

By: John Steele Gordon 7-12-2011

President Obama's press conference yesterday—in which he only took questions from left-leaning reporters apparently–contained an amazing statement. It should be noted the first two instances of the first person singular pronoun in the sentence refer to Barack Obama, President of the United States. The second two refer to Barack Obama, taxpaying citizen:

And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I'm able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don't need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they've got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.

There is, of course, nothing whatever stopping Barack Obama, taxpaying citizen, from donating his excess income to the United States Treasury. But his statement demonstrates an astonishing economic illiteracy. To be sure, someone earning a great deal of money has an income greater than what he spends. You can only spend so much on luxurious living however hard you try, a reality so rich with comic possibilities that a 1902 novel called Brewster's Millions has been made into a movie no fewer than nine times.

But, unlike Scrooge McDuck, the rich do not put the excess in a vast money bin and frolic about in it. They invest it. What a concept! Where does Obama think new capital comes from, the tooth fairy? It's nothing more than the excess of income over outgo. Take away the income the rich "don't need" and spend it on social programs, and capital formation in this country drops to zero.

Why is it the House Summertime? Because they want to impose fiscal discipline on this country? So Navy, Fiesty, John whoever, we all know how everyone feels about tax increases, but where do the democrats and liberals including you guys standing on bringing our spending in order? Give me specific proposals by them or you that would reduce spending to levels commensurate with our revenue. Explain why keeping budgets in line with inflation or revenue growth is prioritized or if not where would you prioritize? You keep blaming the GOP and they certainly have their share of the responsibility, but where is the democrats and Obama's responsibility? Still havent seen one proposal on spending cuts yet?

American, if that quote is real from Obama, I agree with you that conclusion or view is one of the most scary policy views. Besides your statements on whether the income earner invested the excess, it really doesnt matter what he does with it. Obama thinks that because Lady Gaga, who already pays close to 50% of her earned income in taxes, has some extra money he has the right to take if from her to give it to someone else. I am sorry but Gaga earned it with her talent and hard work and its not his decision on what she does with her money. Thats not America and how we reward success. Obama doesnt get to decide what charities we donate to.

Kirk,

I have one. Stop corporate welfare.

McConnell, Boner and the other RINOS are COWARDS and need to GO just say NO to debt ceiling increases Obama blew through $ 5 Trillion in 2 1/2 years with NOTHING to show for it except POLITICAL PATRONAGE reelection support and BIG DONATIONS from paid off Wall Street, Unions, Big Pharma, Big Insurance and Military Industrial Complex (THEY got the trillions not small business and hard working citizens) how can anybody trust Mr. "throw grandma under the bus if I don't get my tax increases" who submitted the LARGEST most PORKED UP budget in the history of this nation be trusted to make REAL cuts TODAY not PROMISE cuts TEN YEARS FROM NOW the Left's answer to everything is limit supply and promote death why else do Leftists want more abortion funding with 40% unemployment of black youth and increased NY education costs and now want STARVE the ELDERLY Obama and Sebillius just can't wait until 2013 when Obamacare kicks in and they have the POWER to cut off granny's healtcare good thing Obama doesn't have that power yet or he would cut that off too in a fit of anger over conservative REFUSAL to RAISE the debt ceiling so he can keep handing out that cash cash cash like a game show host to screaming applauding misguided crowds brainwashed into believing life will be better as slaves to the Leftists has life gotten better in the last 2 1/2 of Communist inspired rule under Obama and the lefitsts while they print money, inflate the dollar and drive up the cost of food and energy by SHUTTING down our access to our own natural resources?

I believe that all posts that have xx or xxx, etc. only should be collapsed as having absolutely no value to the string. It is idiotic, stupid and immature.

Alan are you back on that debunked kick that lowering taxes raises revenue? So you're saying if your employer cuts your hourly wage by $2.00 an hour you'll be taking home more money.

Interesting that the discussion has switched from the debt ceiling to the issue of the deficit and debt. As i wrote above, those are significant, and deserve to be debated separately.

First, the Progressive Caucus in the House - Democrats, of course - long ago prposed a very realistic and effective budget that would cut trillions from the debt and deficit over a period of years, without also taking a cleaver to government. Unlike the Ryan budget, which actually adds trillions to the debt and deficit.

But the issue isn't the money, as the authors of this article also observed. It's the ideology.

In what supposedly is a move to "reduce the size of government," aspects of the Ryan budget simply take the money and give it to for-profit corporations to perform what is now government work. That isn't reducing the size of government at all - it's making a gift of public funds to private interests. This iw what the previous Republican Administrations have done over a 30-year period. It is a circular game in which contractors, lobbyists, think tanks and ultimately officeholders and their staff member enrich themselves at taxpayer expense.

It's time to get real. Dump the absurd "free market" ideology of Milton Friedman and the zany demands of Grover Norquist, views that created the very mess the country now faces, and move forward. The Democrats HAVE made the proposals. the right-wing nutjobs, however, have stuffed fingers in their ears and chant loudly, "I can't hear you!"

Alan are you back on that debunked kick that lowering taxes raises revenue? So you're saying if your employer cuts your hourly wage by $2.00 an hour you'll be taking home more money.

No. I am saying that if you remove deductions, which favor the wealthy, you can lower rates and still increase revenues. As an example, the President earned 1.7M last year and paid an effective rate of around 26% because he could claim deductions (I believe one was 250K on book royalties earned overseas). So if you remove these deductions but lower the top rate from 35% to 30% you will receive more revenue, a real increase from 26% to 30%.

@ Mo.

Exact wrong argument. If the employer kept the wage the same, but picked up a greater share of your health care costs, would you have more money to spend?

By lowering taxes, you reduce the cost to the person with the money. The taxpayer/corporation. Therefore, they have more money to invest. Not saying right or wrong, just saying that is the argument.

By stating what you did, you actually support the cutting tax argument. Simply and FYI.

By: Charles Hurt

It has taken three decades, but Americans are finally living through Jimmy Carter’s second term.

Now we’ve got Jimmy Jr. barking at us from the White House about eating our peas and ripping off our Band-Aid. He might not even let us have our Social Security checks.

These are just the latest in a long line of nagging lectures. Already, we have been taught how we should sneeze into the crook of our arm. We need to drive less. And we need to caulk up those drafty houses of ours.

What ever happened to the soaring rhetoric and big bold ideas President Obama promised us in that historic election of his?

Is this what he meant by a new kind of politics? If so, no thanks. Oh, and it is not new. Jimmy already dragged us through all this once and we just barely survived it.

One of the most unpleasant things about Mr. Carter was the condescending disdain he could barely disguise for struggling Americans and their irritating malaise.

Increasingly, Jimmy Jr. is having difficulty concealing that very same disdain for us as the political winds around him turn hostile and all of his bright ideas lie fallow as nothing more than socialist hocus-pocus.

But even Mr. Carter never laid bare so baldly and plainly as Mr. Obama did earlier this week his deep-seated contempt for this whole annoying process we call “democracy.”

The problem with reaching a deal to raise the debt ceiling, he explained in a long sermon, is that there is this huge wave of Republicans who won control of the House in the last election by promising not to raise any more taxes and to cut the absurd overspending that has driven this town for decades.

He bemoaned - in public - that these Republicans are more concerned about the “next election” rather than doing “what’s right for the country.” In other words, he is saying the honorable thing would be for these Republicans to ignore the expressed wishes of voters, break their campaign promises and raise taxes. Wow.

As if the whole problem of Washington spending us into oblivion is the fault of stingy taxpayers and stupid voters. And what we really need is Jimmy Jr., who knows what is best for us despite what we may think.

Continuing his lecture, Mr. Obama then complained about America’s “political process, where folks are rewarded for saying irresponsible things to win elections.”

How did this man get past sixth-grade social studies, much less Iowa?

When Mr. Obama finished his sermon about the contemptible Republicans keeping faith with their voters like a bunch of chumps, he then turned to his own intentions - and revealed even more of his contempt for us.

All this talk about “raising revenue” - the deceitful line he uses to describe raising taxes - has been most unhelpful, he said. “I want to be crystal clear,” he said. “Nobody has talked about increasing taxes now. Nobody has talked about increasing taxes next year.”

So when would these tax hikes that he is demanding take effect?

In 2013, well after Mr. Obama must face voters for re-election.

Lucky for us, it appears more and more unlikely every day that we will not have to suffer through a third term of Jimmy Carter‘s.

I wonder how people like redhead and retired navy sleep at night when they spend thier days blogging for pay on this site with nothing of value or honesty. Oh thats right, its easy to sleep when you have no soul or common sense. I am sure the both of them will keep up the fight to spread lies and mis-information so that they can do thier parts for thier political bosses at keeping a wedge driven between Americans.

"Is Obama really that out of touch with Americans? It seems so. In the latest IBD/TIPP Poll completed Sunday night, our proprietary Confidence in Federal Economic Policies Index plunged 13.2% to 33.4 — only the third time this gauge has been below 35 since its inception. The last was during the 2008 financial meltdown."

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/577932/201107111858/Compromise-Not-On-Taxes.htm

Ever notice how "conservatives" waste a lot of time critiquing President Obama instead of their own failed policies/leaders.

I did.

P.S. Okay . . . I give up . . . what did you draw Louis J . . . I can't "see" it! :o)

Biteme-3470275

Your post is itself empty vituperation.

Neither Navy nor Feisty have EVER posted any lies or misinformation. Navy's posts, which are lengthy and full of citations and substantive comment, usually address subjects that are important. Both navy and Feisty face off against right-wing liars here daily.

I sometimes come here and do the same. The crass fiddling with "facts" - which thus are NOT factual - by the right is like an oil spill that just doesn't stop, although those propagandists claim otherwise (think: Exxon Mobile in Yellowstone River, BP in the Gulf).

And neither of them, nor I, do this for pay. We do this because we love our country and are outraged at the machinations of the ltra-right, not just now, but for decades.

On the other hand, we do know that a number of the ultra-right posters we face are paid trolls whose activities are concerted by right-wing organizations. After all, that's in Grover Norqust's own manual for Libertarian terrorism.

What we might ask you is, how do YOU sleep at night?

Nash,

I don't take issue with economic conservatism, I take issue with the party in Washington pretending to and failing at promoting that economic agenda.

and Louis J has way to much time on his hands to be drawing. And I have way too much time to, as I also have spent significant time trying to figure out what the heck that is.

Joe in Albany: "Most" SS checks don't go out on the 3rd. SS checks are mailed on a published schedule; e.g., the 1st Friday, 2nd Wednesday, etc. When YOUR check is mailed is based upon your birthday.

timetravler100:

I know you are but what am I?

Dramatic much?

No more caffeine for you.

It's me with my head in a my hand shaking my head. Well, it's anyone really that just wants to shake their head at the Republican circus show. It can either represent our embarrassment and pity to Republicans clumsiness or reaction to their comedy show in people like Palin, McConnell and Bachmann. Regardless, they represent the United States of America but are doing a poor job of it. SMH.

Like it or not all you lotus eating liberals President Obama now owns the debt. The ball is in his court no matter what. He can make the cuts, he can veto McConnell's bill, he can accept McConnell' s Bill no matter. He now completely owns the debt. It is up to him whether it goes up, down or stays the same.

John A: I am able to sleep very well at night since I dont need a bunch of puppet masters pulling strings on me and putting words in my mouth for money like you and the other parrots and bloggers out here. People like you and the others I have mentioned are nothing but a cancer to the American people. If you loved your country like you say you and the others do you wouldnt be part of the problem with your rhetoric and paid blogging with nothing but cut and pastes from biased news sources. Wake up and see that the blogging that you people do only exposes your ignorance and your ability to be brainwashed and manipulated.

John A, I have posted many times pointing out Navy's misinformation, incorrect facts and more often embellishment thats not accurate. You surely no better. Are you in college? Why do you think we should dump capitalism for a less meritocracy form of economics? What progressive budget was proposed by the democrats that was realistic? I have never seen one by either party that is realistic or makes sense? You seem to have some misguided understanding of debt in which we can continue to borrow without impacting our aggregate standard of living? Stop providing theories from some college professor etc and lets discuss real situations. You have no idea whether Ryan's plan for medicare would work just as you probably thought welfare reform wouldnt work just as if you thought cluster low income housing would work, or any other progressive economic policy that in hindsight just created generational welfare and reliance on the government. Stop trying to teach us school book progressive theology and lets talk about real work fiscal behavior thats proven and in which many of us have real life experience.

Jobs1, I agree lets eliminate corporate welfare. So I assume that you would support the elimination of all corporate subsidies to oil companies? the green energy tax credits? farm subsidies, depreciation on real estate etc right? And then we should reduce the tax rates for corporations and make the tax code simpler right because 77% of all small businesses use these deductions, subsidies and welfare to determine their tax and report it on their personal tax returns as flow through tax entities. As for large corporations you dont want to reduce the value of these corporations by making them pay more tax I assume, because union pension plans, college endowments, 401k plans etc rely on the value of the companies for retirement benefits so I assume you arent suggesting we burden our seniors by eliminating corporate welfare?

But I am in total agreement that we need to eliminate corporate welfare but that doesnt cut any spending. So far I dont have one post that suggests any cuts in spending. Come on you democrats, stop being the party of NO and obstructionism and put some ideas forth

Here's my take on hou this all will fare. Obama will wait until the 11th hour, take the Reps. suggestions, then come riding in on his mighty steed and SNATCH us from the closing jaws of bankruptcy. Cue the American flags, the trumptets...oh, and the cameras. He alone has saved the elderly and the military families... And then the speech to tell us just how wonderful and brilliant he performed.

Then he'll hit the links....or the campaign trail and collect another $86+ million from...wait for it...those dirty, low down, nasty RICH people. None of whom, of course, are Democratics..no such thing as nasty rich Democrats. Never mind Pelosi, Reid, Gore, Clintons, Obamas, Unions, Soros, and so on and so forth.

Alan, NJ

You have not simply taken irony to a new level, you have taken it to another dimension. Yesterday, I figuratively extended an olive branch to you. I had been attacked by Mixed Bag and Spanky as being anti-Semitic because I had expressed my utter contempt and hatred for Eric Cantor. (Does it sound to you like I am trying to mince words, like I am trying to hide my feelings?)

As you know, I challenged both to prove that Cantor was a Semite. Neither did so, but you responded with a link that showed he was Jewish. As I explained, being Jewish and being a Semite are not necessarily the same thing. Many Muslims are Semites. Yet, without proof and based on erroneous information, Mixed Bag is still able to conclude that I am anti-Semitic. He is going to simply define words as he chooses. His position is that if you are anti-Semitic, you are - by his definition anyway - anti-Jewish. This is the guy who can throw barbs because he has decided that I am presenting myself as an "intellectual". Here's a guy who is so smart he is his own dictionary.

Today, in post 1.23, I wrote, "Only when we had a brown Democratic President did this become an issue. Think Libya. Suddenly, Congress has noticed that the President has usurped Congressional authority. Never mind the lies that put us into Viet Nam, or Afghanistan, or Iraq." Based on this, you tell me I am pro-brown. What will I be tomorrow?

The fact is this nation runs on identity politics. To deny that is to display either ignorance, naivete, or outright denial. I live in the very red state of Kansas. In discussions about Obama, I hear the word "@!$%#" and "coon" routinely. If it isn't that it's about being a Republican. This isn't a gut feeling. I'm not basing this on a hunch. If that were the case, I might look to the state south of me - Oklahoma. This is a state where more than three-quarters of high-school students cannot tell you who was this nation's first president. Three in four! Yet, not one of Oklahoma's counties carried for Obama. Surely you aren't going to tell me this was based on the intellectual calculations of that state's voters, are you? Of course, I also know Oklahomans who are quite liberal with their use of "@!$%#" and "coon". That's rather on the empirical side. Yes, in many cases, it is about the President being brown and/or Democrat. So no, I don't think people oppose the President because he is brown, I KNOW people opposed the President because he is brown.

If you are from New Jersey as your moniker indicates, I urge you to get out and check out the red states first-hand. You will be shocked. I was.

Does that mean that everyone who opposes Obama's policies are bigots? Of course not. I have opposed any number of his initiatives and actions. Am I anti-brown on those days? What label will you hang on me that day? Those of us who tend to be of a liberal stripe disagree among ourselves. You can look at this thread and see that both John A. and Nashville fan are hesitant to endorse my view. Hell, I may be wrong. When I see disagreement from people whose views I know are based on their research, I'm going to listen.

I invited you to do just that. Join in on the discussion. You may be right. You may be wrong, but I'm sure as hell going to summarily dismiss you when you come in here throwing bombs and when you draw totally unwarranted and unsupportable conclusions.

Aggie: Be careful with those accurate and literate thoughts. This vine has a lot of censoring, paid political bloggers out here that will not tolerate any of your critical and intelligant thinking.

When I realized Mcconnell caved I laughed myself hoarse. For a while I was afriad the GOP would never see reason.

Louis J:

I see what your pic is now . . . a man with his hand on his forehead . . . as in "good grief!" . . . perfect! :o)

Mitch McConnell is voicing frustration with the Tea Party. The Republicans cannot negotiate because of the whiny children in their corner. If REAL Republicans must choose between Obama and the Tea Party - Obama wins.

McConnell's proposal is bad news for Republicans any way you look at it. The President and Democrats can load the proposed spending cuts with every cut that Democrats would support and every cut that Republicans oppose. Defense? Oil subsidies? Immigration enforcement? Homeland Security? The Republicans could not vote NO fast enough - voting NO on spending cuts would look pretty silly, wouldn't it?

The impasse is between the REAL Republicans and the Tea Party. The REAL Republicans are putting a lot of faith in President Obama that he will not screw them. That says a lot.

Now let's see how fast bad press can leak out about Michele Bachmann. It is beginning to look like the GOP wants its party back and may sacrifice the Presidential election to regain control.

Louis J:

I just realized that you already answered my question . . . I'll shut up for today . . . see ya'll tomorrow!

I read the irony of these comments. Congress is supposed to come up with a budget and pass laws, basic civics should tell you that. Considering the six of seven times that the ceiling was raised by a Republican President and Republican Congress, I'm seriously starting to think that people have absolutely no concept of history or simply decided to ignore and forgive that sin of conservative thinking.

Now, President Obama, you need to pull the troops out of Afghanistan. Part of our economic woes can be contributed to that ten year conflict. We got Bin Lauden, let's declare victory and go home. There will be less spending of money to a useless conflict. Next, you screwed up extending the tax cuts for the rich that wasn't supposed to last this long, and didn't work as they were supposed to when it came to the economy.

Congress, there is way too much spending in the MIC. We've wasted more money in that then any of the social programs you've attacked combined. Instead of going for the 12% of the budget for social programs, go and do the right thing by cutting into your precious sacred cow. Come up with an infrastructure plan that would in turn put people to work, instead of tax breaks that do not. Do not mess with Social Security (that actually also includes you Mr. President), find sensible ways to actually eliminate waste in the Meds, you can do it without putting grandma on the street, I have faith in that.

Everyone, this did not happen overnight, this will not get fixed overnight, stop looking for the friggin' magic wand. It doesn't exist and short term fixes do not fix long term problems, only kicks the can down the road to someone elses feet.

Speaking of Hail Marys (and what is a Hail Mary Punt anyway?) Republicans are looking more and more like Cliff Stoudt of the 78-79 Pittsburgh Steelers, they want the rings, just don't want to play.

Kirk-2957282 -

You have resorted to that abusive, dismissive tripe before. It comes straight out of Grover Norquist's handbook on ultra-right conservative tactics - attack, attack, and don't really say anything useful.

Your kind of crap is what distorts the real discussions.

Had you paid any attention to several of my posts, you'd know that I am a professional historian, employed in private industry. That I have three degrees, and quite a vast amount of real-life experience in politics, public affairs, and business. That I Irefuse to accept the machinations, lies, and propaganda put out by your kind. That I endorse a vision of America obviously far different from yours. A vision of America, I will add, that is far better than the so-called "laissez faire" image you espouse.

As Thomas Frank wrote in The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Ruined Government, Enriched Themselves and Beggared the Nation, the conservative movement is actually for anything but 'smaller government" - Bush boosted Federal employment far beyond the quarter-million jobs that had been pared during the prior Clinton Administration, and doubled the national debt in his eight years. It was a cynical display of the conservative movement's real priorities, too - essentially dumbing down Federal agencies and enshrining incompetence - on purpose - while pouring billions of public dollars into the hands of a few favored corporations. And the goal was to do exactly what the Ryan budget proposed. The Progressive Caucus' budget plan, by contrast, seeks to strengthen the American economy, stimulate employment, make meaningful cuts in spending and reduce the deficit and debt, an exact opposite of the Ryan budget and the kind of alleged "economics" you appear to espouse.

You and your kind are indeed the cancer destroying this nation. Just because you get on your high horse and claim Navy and Fesity, and, apparently, I as well, are liars and cheats does not make it true. You con men use that tactic all the time. You are less than credible, and have nothing to back you up. I'm now putting you and your truly disgusting garbage on "ignore."

Alex, Lou KY -

Boy, you're really having some tough weather there in my city of birth. Hope it eases up soon.

Your post was interesting. The principal points you raised are all in the Congressional Progressive Caucus' proposed 2011-2012 budget. You may wish to read it - the summary document is concise and easy to follow:

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70

David Walker-

Hi, David.

You've said that Eric Cantor (the highest ranking Jewish member in the history of the U.S. Congress) "is willing to sacrifice this country on the altar of his true god - MONEY/POWER".

And;

"Cantor has sold himself for 30 pieces of silver."

Interesting thoughts, David.

Hmmm.

"Why is there such a preoccupation in anti-Semitism about Jews and money? That's because when you go back to deicide, the other side of it is that Judas sold out Jesus not for theology but for 30 pieces of silver. So that becomes another fundamental basis for anti-Semitism: 'The Jews are greedy, they'll do anything for money, even sell out the Lord.'"

-Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League-

You just can't help yourself...can you, David?

Anyway, as I've said...

First Read hasn't had a resident anti-Semite since Eric, Salinas departed the scene.

While you're certainly different from Eric stylistically, I would argue that you're fully qualified to fill the vacancy, David.

John A, you are so wrong. Have you read this blog at all? The democrats and this blog are masters at the art of using personal destruction as a political tool. No one was better at it than Bill Clinton and Hillary as they destroyed all those around them that tried to bring them down. Do you watch the media, have you listened to the personal attacks on Michelle Bachmann and I am no fan of hers but the attacks are not limited to her positions but her personally. Come on man wake up. I could care less that you are a historian because you obviously havent had any real life experience on these matters. If you disagree with me and as a historian you must be able to easily prove me wrong but you and Navy never do. I dont even know who Grover Nordquist and never heard of him until seeing his name on this blog but I know who Saul Alinsky is and if your a fan of history you would know that the tactics of the left and the media are his playbook so stop making stuff up. You must know George Soros by now and you cant really believe his funding of media matters and all those embellished made up factual websites isnt exactly what you are accusing me of.

Yes Navy has lied and misled. Go back and read his diatribe on why the GOP hates women and all his incorrect sites and statements regarding the GOP and how I refuted each one with the actual facts. Could he counter? No, did anyone else even try? NO. Stop the holier than thou attitude towards to paid scribes on this blog that are not interested in honest intellectual debate but just espousing the party line without trying to illicit honest critical thought on any matter.

I have continually asked the easiest question for you guys over and over and none of you seem to be able to answer. What spending cut plans, programs or ideas have the democrats proposed or do any of you on this blog personally believe to get our fiscal house in order? I know you dont think our debt is a problem and that in of itself proves to be your lack of understanding of financial issues and how it links to the aggregate standard of living in this country but that is an opinion you have and I respect it. On factual matters though I am not going sit back and let you try to use the art of personal destruction because you dont know the evidence to refute me or support your outlandish conclusions.

Bag Boy, I know from other places on this blog that David Walker can defend himself quite well. But I do want to stand up for him. At no time have I ever read any racial/ethnic slurs in David's material, and I followed the current conversation quite closely. He's absolutely NOT anti-semitic. He DID play with you as a cat does a mouse, by intentionally slitting hairs on the word "semite," and you didn't get it.

Your accusation is just another way to smear someone without foundation.

As for Eric Cantor and selling out, you can use any term you like to describe it, but Cantor HAS sold out. I referenced Thomas Frank's book above - read all about it! Cantor's long ago been bought and sold via the Norqust "think tank" that funnels corporate money to compliant creeps like Cantor.

PS - I disagree about as often as I agree with David Walker, but certainly have respect for his opinions and observations. Can't say that happens too much with you.

LouisJ

Feisty, he (Jim in Houston) and everyone else that posts a comment like that (a desire to silence other posters) that has numbers behind their screen name (Jim in Houston 1509351) is someone that likely has multiple accounts that log in to make sure a post is collapsed. They could care less about decency and that's why I don't even bother with them. They're called trolls.

Sorry Louis, but I have to call you out on this. What you said above simply isn't true. I only have one account on Newsvine. I don't know why I got the 1509351 appended to my user name but it was done by Newsvine when I registered, not me. And if you go back and look my posts over time you will find that although I am conservative in my fiscal beliefs I have always been respectful of others and I certainly don't use the kind of offensive language so many of you frequent posters do. I do use the buttons to register approval/disapproval of posts but not for the purpose of silencing anyone. In fact, for the longest time I didn't even know that disapproving of someone's post could result in it being collapsed. If you want to call me a troll go ahead but don't make stuff up and claim it as fact. You will lose any credibility you might have.

John A.-

"Bag Boy"...

That's what Anna Molly calls me...

She has her reasons.

I can't recall any other male blogger calling me that.

Are you sure you want to refer to me that way? I'm OK with it...but are you sure?

I am not Jewish, John A.

But, while I'm sure you believe that David Walker is "NOT" an anti-Semite...I also believe that the Director of the Anti-Defamation League would believe otherwise.

Tell me why he and I are wrong, John A.

Or, prepare to argue why YOU shouldn't be regarded as the new First Read resident anti-Semite.

I have no prejudice.

Make your case, John A.

Jim in Houston, I have to back you up in respect to the screen name. When I registered, Newsvine also automatically appended the numbers to my name. As for any of the rest, I don't know.

But Louis is correct in one respect - there are a number of trolls here who have multiple registrations, while others "switch off" on a particular screen name, with different people manning the keyboard at different times under the same name. Several have been caught.

Bag:

This topic has now run two days. You have done everything possible to divert attention from the fact that you are unable to substantiate what you have written; that you have engaged in a libel. You post disinformation and lies and when called on it you deflect and run away.

The issue is that Eric Cantor is a traitorous bastard. As John B correctly observed, Cantor's religious persuasion is irrelevant. You raised the issue simply to divert attention from the truth - that Cantor is determined to destroy the country. Perhaps it will help with your unhealthy preoccupation with disinformation if I refer to him as a modern-day Benedict Arnold.

Until you can back up your specious charge of anti-Semitism - or better yet, simply retract your libelous implication and your filthy reference to Julius Streicher - we have nothing to discuss.

Fine, David.

But YOU initiated the discussion with your remarks about pounding, and thus rearranging, the expression on Rep. Cantor's face, didn't you?

And, I still see you.

Clearly.

And I'll respond to any further anti-Semitic remarks.

Count on it.

Apology to you Jim in Houston.

"Republica­­¬ns approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to
help him go broke.
“They stand four-squar­­¬e for the American home – but not for housing.
“They are strong for labor – but they are stronger for restrictin­­¬g
labor's rights.
“They favor minimum wage – the smaller the minimum wage the better.
“They endorse educationa­­¬l opportunit­­¬y for all – but they won't
spend money for teachers or for schools.
“They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine – for people
who can afford them.
“They consider electrical power a great blessing – ¬but only when the
private power companies get their rake-off.
“They think American standard of living is a fine thing – so long as
it doesn't spread to all the people.
“And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they
would like to buy it.”

--Harry S. Truman

To clear at least one matter up. I have a number behind my name and I definitely only have one account.

Bag Boy - actually, I was emulating Anna Molly's usage. If there's something there besides a reference to a supermarket employee, it's beyond me.

As for anti-semitism, it is NOT automatically a prima facie case that using the reference to Judas is intended as a slur. The reference is part of the common cultural language in the United States, and applied to anyone else would certainly not have been considered anti-semitic on its own. It's a reference instead to somone who sold out, and for all history will be remembered as a traitor.

I had never, in fact, until you made an issue of this, even considered that referring to a "Judas" was somehow thought of as anti-semitic - everyone in that group was Jewish, for crying out loud. Certainly my friends from B'nai Brith in the San Fernando Valley weren't being anti-semitic when they called one of their compatriots a "Judas" for supporting Ernani Bernardi in a 1980's city council campaign.

It is unfortunate in a sense that David was referring to Cantor, because it created the opportunity for you to race-bait him as a result. It reminds me of the terrible error the Soviet Union made in Los Angeles in 1977, when that country scheduled its first-ever trade and cultural exposition in the city. The USSR was entirely insensitive to how that would be received, since the event was schedule for the week of Rosh Hoshana - and Los Angeles was then home to the largest Jewish population outside of Israel. The USSR was horribly embarrassed by the resulting outcry.

Similarly, I was the PR director in charge of Handa's announcement of, and subsequent groundbreaking for, the first Japanese auto plant in the U.S. for reasons I never understood, the company insisted that the groundbreaking - at a northern Ohio location, for crying out loud! - had to take place in DECEMBER! Brr, and besides, not even jackhammers would have made headway against that frozen soil. But worst of all, they chose December 7 - Pearl Harbor day! They not only didn't think that would matter, they said that wasn't the date of the attack, that it happened on December 8! Well, that was the date in Japan in 1941, on the other side of the international date line ..... I did get them to change the date by a week, but it did nothing to endear me to the lads in Tokyo.

Now, as for your race-baiting me, don't even go there, Bag Boy. There's quite a long record here on the 'Vine to embarrass YOU for the attempt. Just crawl back under your conservative rock and dream of Ronnie Reagan, falling asleep at Cabinet meetings, violating the Constitution, selling out before the 1980 election to the Iranians, making decisions about world affairs based on Nancy's astrologer's advice, buying a home in L.A. with the street address of "666."

Kirk: You will never get a straight answer from people like John A and the other paid bloggers. They are too busy name calling and putting out thier quota of mis-information and lies so that they can get paid.

Wilberta Berry, Where is John A when you I need him. So John is her post positive or negative? Is it full of incorrect facts, embellishments or lies? Start with the first one? What industry is growing the fastest in this economy? Can you name me one republican bill created to help the farmer go broke? What about housing? How are the GOP against housing or is it that they think people should be accountable for their choices and behavior and not just handed something without earning it? How has that low income cluster high rise housing that progressives pushed for worked out for you? Labor? you mean they want government unions to be subject to the same benefits as the private sector? Did you read yesterday's wall street journal where the union contracts are costing the new World Trade Center Tower an additional $100 million of labor costs for people to do nothing? Absolutely nothing and get paid for it. Are you referring to wanting a meritocracy to decide performance, pay and promotions? Yeah that is definitely anti labor. Or maybe you mean minimum wage where every study shows that there is a direct link to increasing teenage unemployment with the increase in minimum wage as it just increases the current cost of labor requiring lay offs. Or you mean education in which the cost of education budgets since 2000 have skyrocketed with 80% going to teacher's salaries wow so far Wilberta has done very well. What about modern medical care and hospitals? Since 85% of us have some form of employer provided coverage with the union plans being by far the best, tell me who is being denied great health care by the GOP? I need to stop because I am getting tired of refuting lie or embellishment after embellishment.

John, if you want to have an intellectual honest debate, both sides have to criticize crap like this and discuss solutions to real issues. Dont just go after one side without calling out the other. Navy and Fiesty do the same thing and much worse and you shouldnt defend them.

Biteme, I know and as they attack and name call rather than debate, I try not to get in the gutter with them but challenge them on their conclusions and facts. On many occasions, I continually ask them well tell me what spending cut plans you or your congressmen are endorsing and I have gotten only one response over the last few weeks. I get responses regarding raising taxes etc or ending corporate welfare which is a tax increase but I always say I know your position on taxes but what would you cut. We have to cut somewhere regardless of tax increases so give me some cuts. Guess how many responses? I wonder how many of the posters on here are paid? Most people who truly enjoy intellectual honest debate would prefer it with people who dont think like them or share the same beliefs because how do you convince someone your not drowning to people already at the bottom of the pool. Most of the posters give each other group hugs and praise each others brilliance which isnt normal for people who want to share their opinions and belief systems to assist in hope and change.

John A.-

By all means...access the record of my comments on First Read.

Unlike many of the members of Libs R Us, I haven't deleted one single comment from First Read's archives.

So...go for it, John A.

But before you do...please re-read David Walker's comments about Eric Cantor, then read the comments of the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League on the nature of anti-Semitism.

He's rebutting you, John.

In no uncertain terms.

So...

When you're done with him...

It's you and me, John.

lol

Agreed that the White Flag raised by McConnell will provide temporary powers to the Executive Branch, and the president will need to handle it with care. After which President Obama and the Dems can get to work on cuts in spending -- But they understand that creating jobs is #1. Dispite the right-wing propaganda, the Dems also understand that the debt has reached a destructive point, and must be addressed going forward.

Let's hope this is an opportunity for the Dems to do the REAL work (like always) to balance the budget. Any GOP/TP leader who votes against spending cuts the Dems propose will be in jeopardy in the next election. Republicans will finally be forced to participate in finding solutions for our nation.

As for the collapse cowards, you may note that the criteria for voting against a post is per a code of behavior (for example it must be inflammatory) and not per your personal dislike. This confusion by conservatives only shows how out-to-lunch they are.

In fact, we are seeing a cumulative effect from conservative chicken crap, whether the election in NY or California or Wisconsin. The American people will not abide far-right extremism of hacking people's phones, medical records, Wikipedia, or any other Operation Chaos, or sabotage or "strategery." If the GOP/TP can't win based on merit, than they have no one to blame but themselves.

Kirk: I certainly miss the old aol public forums from years ago. Thats when conversing with people, like minded or not, was both fun and informative. It certainly has changed for the worse.

Bag Boy -

I wasn't really going to continue dirtying my hands responding to you, but as usual it seems necessary. So this one last time.

You again have mis-read a comment on another post, in this case, mine. I didn't say anything about YOUR record on the 'Vine - the record I mentioned was my own. Nor have I, or any of those to whom you seem to be referring, deleted any archived posts. But you sure do demonstrate that you are apparently stalking some who post here with your comments.

As for the head of the Anti-Defamation League, he isn't "rebutting" ME, he's citing one sort of instance in which bigots use the Judas reference in connection with the ancient attack on jews used by some Christians today as well as certainly historically. Nowhere here did either I or David Walker make such a comment. I found David's response, particularly re Benedict Arnold, perfectly apt.

So stuff your race-baiting, Bag Boy. Take a nice nap under that rock.

I can't believe some of the conservative points of views on this issue.

The republicans are unable to do their job. This may be due in part to the 2010 election of TEA party members. However, they voted them in. I know I didn't put them in the House. If the representatives are not able to complete the job they were elected to do you should vote them out, not cheer for them.

Secondly, since the realization that the task at hand is unachievable by McConnell and company, the concept of passing the job on to the president doesn't bother conservatives, viewing it as a rope the president can hang himself with instead of shirking responsibility, which is exactly what it is.

What happened to the work and reward mantra republicans boast so much about? It left with the "contracts are legally binding" and "citizen rights".

Funny how all morals are thrown out when a democrat goes in.

John A.-

David Walker made reference to Eric Cantor's worship of money...

He mentioned Cantor and 30 pieces of silver, a clear Judas reference...

The National Director of the Anti-Defamation League mentioned both of those as well, and discussed them in the context of anti-Semitic doctrine.

Are you really that obtuse, John?

So...

You haven't deleted your Newsvine record either?

That's two of us, anyway.

I can't stand it any more. Since I began following blogs and threads and posts and all that good stuff, I have seen reference after reference to paid trolls/bloggers/whatevers who come to disrupt and destroy reasonable discussions.

Can anyone show me that there really is such a thing?

Bosslimo, can you explain your post? I dont understand what you mean by "contracts are legally binding and citizens rights? Can you give me the example you are referring to so we can discuss? I assume on the debt ceiling discussion, you believe its 100% of the GOP's responsibility to compromise with whatever position the senate or the president is taking? Can you provide the compromise solutions or proposals the democrats are putting forth so we can honestly discuss? I guess I was under the impression that the democrats arent compromising or moving an inch so the GOP isnt either. So it appears that whether you think more tax increases are warranted or spending cuts, I dont really see the democrats proposing anything and they share at least 50% of the responsibility given that they control the senate and presidency so why is it the GOP's issue here?

Compromise means both parties give not just one. I am still trying to determine what the democratic compromise is so far

David Walker:If your following and reading you will be able to see it clearly. Those who do nothing but cut and paste, quote themselves, and are incapable of having an original thought are generally paid bloggers. They are on every posting and vine out there, regardless of political affiliation, and they are always at the first postings of said vines. Thier posts read as pages from handbooks rather than people capable of having independant thought. They can only insult rather than retort. They most commonly take your posting name and twist it into an insult to hurl back at you rather than try to have any discussion with you. They will post on the first page for a little bit ,then they will disappear for fear of having to have an original thought. These are a few tell tale signs. Go to any vine site and see the trend in all of them.

What's "reasonable" about saying that Eric Cantor is "the enemy"?

What's "reasonable" about saying that Eric Cantor "is willing to sacrifice this country on the altar of his true god - MONEY/POWER"?

What's "reasonable" about saying that Eric Cantor "has sold himself for 30 pieces of silver"?

"Reasonable"?

Hardly.

Anti-Semitic?

A reasonable conclusion.

David, I have no idea and you certainly are not someone I would necessarily think as paid. You tend to always side with the progressives on this site but you seem like someone that wants an honest intellectual debate and want to share your opinion. Your wary of us that want to see if we can shake the tree some but I would treat you with respect regardless of your viewpoint. Sometimes you stick up for your friends when they have been naughty and I am not sure why but you do but otherwise you and I would get along fine as long you respect other's differing opinions.

On the other hand, Navy and Fiesty, Pat John A, dont debate. They just state inflammatory conclusions or facts and then hug themselves for being so brilliant with each other. I find that odd. Not always, sometimes its just passionate defense of their positions. But the real reason I would see some nefarious posts is that no matter what even when proven wrong, even in the face of disappointing conclusions they wont say anything negative or bad or contrary to the democratic party line. Nobody is 100% perfect and certainly no political party is perfect. As an example, Navy, Pat fiesty etc would find some way to defend Obama's friendship and transaction with Tony Rezco or some of his other chicago dealings like the preacher and professor terrorist. Even if everything was 100% legal or above board, not every choice a politician makes in life is a good one and you can still criticize some choices while being 100% behind them. Its like NOW refusing to criticize Clinton's behavior in the white house. They can still hate the behavior and love his politics but they wouldnt do it. If Navy, Fiesty and others were completely objective and not paid, I would expect to see more of that.

Bite me:

Who pays them?

I would assume an arm of the DNC or one of the PACs associated with the organizations and to be honest Soros is throwing out a tremendous amount of money to influence the media at the moment.

David Walker: Whatever organization maintains and edits that particular vine. In this case, MSNBC, if you were on a fox vine then it would be fox,etc.,etc. Normally they would already be an employee of that media outlet.

David Walker:

Mixed Bag engages in libel at least once a week . . . that is how he rolls.

P.S. Cantor is a lying jacka$$. Any attempt to divert attention to any other fact is a waste of time. Mixed Bag is here to stir up $hit, and he is good at what he does . . . all while pretending to be "independent".

Walk away from this mixed up dude David . . . time to discover the "Ignore" feature . . . click on Mixed Bag's name . . . and look for it to the right of where his "face" would be . . . you won't regret it! :o)

Kirk & Bite Me:

If the facts are not on your side, criticize the source, eh?

The truth does not cease to exist because you refuse to acknowledge it.

lol, Nash.

Libel.

Called anyone a "liar" lately?

PS-You aren't doing a very good job of ignoring me, are you?

Kirk-2957282

Bosslimo, can you explain your post?

Ok, when Wall Street was bailed out, an outrage for CEOs receiving their bonuses from tax payers ensued. The conservative response was, "Contracts are legally binding documents and the bonuses must be paid."

When Wisconsin lost their rights to collective bargaining and the contracts the state signed with the union was null and void, republicans cheered at the supposed "win" over defeating those contracts; contradicting their stance on contracts being legally binding. Their solution around the legally binding part was to remove the legal part. In essence, it is fine for CEOs to receive millions by contract but if the contract is in an opponents favor, why, it must be changed.

Rights, the removal of privacy rights are just fine under conservative control. The Patriot Act was saluted by conservatives under Bush Administration as a tool to fight war on terror but, the current president extends the same act and is chastised by republicans for the squashing of rights. This holds true to collective bargaining rights. When it became an issue in Wisconsin, conservatives where opposed to the right, claiming it wasn't a right but a law. They also oppose unions, claiming that there are laws protecting workers and unions are obsolete. And yet, the "law" of collective bargaining was removed. The conservatives feel it is fine to remove one of those laws on the books that protect workers. What is to prevent them from eventually removing all worker's rights? Why, Unions of course.

Compromise by GOP? It depends on how you perceive the situation. The president stated pointedly that all options are on the table. You can interpret that as you wish, however I perceive it to be exactly as stated. At each discussion on the debt ceiling, offers were made and then opposed. It continued up to the tune of 4 trillion dollars. At one point, even though democrats were accused of treason by abandoning Wisconsin to prevent legislation from passing and called every name in the book for doing so, republican hero Cantor leaves the negotiation and emerges as a hero by conservatives for doing so.

Compromise appears to be what the democrats and the president seems to be doing. They opened up negotiations on all sacred cows. The republicans could easily propose whatever was needed to get the issue passed. They still could not achieve the People's work required of them and pass the work off to the president to do. At what point in any reasoning do you get to the part that all the republicans are doing is... nothing. No help on jobs bills, they lay in fillibuster still. No help on tax reform, it failed negotiation. No help on private jet subsidies, failed negotiations.

You must have some inckling deep down in your guts that the republicans are cruising along on free rides just waiting for the next election.

Actually Mixed Bag, I am doing an EXCELLENT job ignoring you, but I do appreciate your concern!

P.S I still call people who tell lies, liars. And folks who make up stories about folks that they can't back up . . . I called that a Mixed MuthaFreaking Libelous Bag of #$@#. :o)

Nash-

You are funny!

Just not intentionally so.

I don't feel ignored at all, darlin'.

Kirk:

I must tell you there are some posters whose opinions I trust very much. I know more about John A. than others because we share something of a common past. He says we agree about half the time. He's crazy. We agree much more than half the time, and when he doesn't agree with me, he's wrong. Seriously, his research is stellar and while we reach differing opinions based on our information, I am always going to see what he has to say. He has changed my mind.

I write that by way of making a point. Some times loyalty. respect, and friendship get in the way. You trust someone. You like someone, and where you would cut someone else no slack, you are going to cut your trusted friend some slack.

With that said, I have not found any reason to quarrel with the points made by Navy and Feisty. They are a bit too far to the left for me, but that does not make them wrong. Also, Feisty has some awesome recipes.

Nashville fan and I seem to be on the same page most of the time. It is very hard to see flaws in the thinking of someone who clearly thinks much the same as you. Again, I trust the research.

To go a step further, perhaps you read the post of Wilberta Berry. She posted a wonderful collage of quotes from Harry S Truman. An objective reading necessarily leads to the conclusion that much of what we see in today's Republican party extremists has changed little in many, many years. The crowd that burned witches is with us today and masquerading as Republicans. That's a shame, but it sets the stage for a predisposition to view the G.O.P. negatively. Still the party of the rich. Still very happy to dumb down the population. Still saying they are the party of God even as they disavow the tenets of the Sermon on the Mount with the Great Beatitudes. Still ignoring the teaching of their Christ as he taught of the corrupting power of money.

There is yet another facet to this discussion, at least with respect to me. I am not going to go into my personal history, but I have always been a participant, a hands-on, feet-on-the-ground, in-the-mix guy. To borrow a hackneyed line....Been there, done that. That's the reason I know that so much that is written here is not based on real-life experience, but rather on talking points: The uncertainty factor with respect to investment; the nonsense about illegals taking jobs from Americans to name but two.

I know first-hand how rotten Republican extremists can be. I know how they twist the truth. I know that for the extremists, the ends justify the means. I know that for all the talk about smaller government, they really want government big enough to peer into every facet of your private life and control your every behavior. Their handbooks include 1984, and of course, Ayn Rand's how-to-be-a-sociopath series.

How do you take seriously a party that gives you Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Pat Robertson, Rick Perry, and so many other Christers. Take a look at their defenders....many of whom post here. These are the people who actually tried to alter WikiPedia so that it would square with the ignorant interpretation of history from Palin and Bachmann. Really? How do these people deserve trust?

You have seen JoAnna Smith and No joe deliberately misquote people. Surely you have watched as Mixed Bag plays this ridiculous word game with the intent of deflecting attention from Eric Cantor.

That's enough for now. That's just my insight. It's time to take a shower and see what's for dinner.

When the #2 Republican in the House is willing to crash the economy for personal gain it's very reasonable to consider him "the enemy."

The ridiculous thing is that the Republican Party and Conservative movement have become so unhinged that's even a question.

John, I appreciate the post. My point is more obvious and I would bet you and I agree at 50% of the time but its more about the approach but not yours or Nashvilles. I couldnt agree more that the GOP invites crazys to the right that are generally focused on social issues and this board loves to point them out and lets say they probably make up 20% of the population and are 100% part of the GOP. This board ignores the 20% crazy loons on the left and refuses to point them out or even accept that they exist. Whether its Jeremiah Wright, Pelosi and dont try to convince me she isnt wacky left but I understand she represents that constituent, or the crazy anarchists, socialists, communists, environmental whackos that lets say they make up 20%of the population but are 100% democrats. The rest of us 60% share many of the same goals and opinions while differing on some but generally share the same goals and dreams for this country. Most of these people identify with one party because they lean fiscal conservative and ignore the social issues and many people lean democrat because social issues dominate why they vote whether its gun control or abortion. I want to have intellectual honest discussions of our goals and dreams and how to solve our current problems without the name calling and automatic assumptions that my facts are right and your an idiot approach. I am not saying I am never guilty of that because it can get the best of you at times. Look at Bosslimo's response above, it was well reasoned and I couldnt agree more with most of what he responded to but he uses those issues to paint the GOP one way without any nuance. But I can appreciate that response or yours. But watch how others respond to me even John A as if I am not worthy of debate. I am open to being proven wrong but 95% of the time no one does. Even Nashville says above that just because I dont like a fact doesnt mean I am right. What fact? So far, no one has given me a researched fact responding or refuting what I say. Fiesty I am sorry is very nasty to people she disagrees with and so is Navy. He totally ignores any post where I correct him or calls me a thug. Not once has he replied with a researched or intellectually thought out response. You have. Everytime I have tried to debate or refute what John A says, he would prefer to out me in some right wing conspiracy group rather than tell me why I am wrong. Sorry but that isnt debate. Moreover, failure to recognize untenable positions or ideas by your own party just makes posters on here lose total credibility. I bet there are plenty of GOP posters on here who would agree when Palin or Bachmann say something or take a position they dont agree with. I didnt see anyone on the left here give Romney props for refusing to sign the antigay marriage pact by the Iowa christian group. Good for him he should get props. Its that kind of behavior by people here that drives me nuts.

Nashville, please provide me with an argument I made in which I had the facts wrong and I will agree with you. I am not too proud to do that.

Bosslimo, thanks for your response. I think there are nuances you missed but I am not going to defend the contracts are contracts on the bank bonuses but I will defend the collective bargaining stance as there is no reason that the state union employees dont have the same collective bargaining rights as the federal unions and thats all that was taken from them and then we can discuss the fiscal issues as look at states like mine that will go bankrupt because fo the contracts--illinois. As for compromise, lets see how much of the compromise came in the form of spending cuts from the democrats because some of the reports indicate that they were unwilling to give much of anything and most were hidden taxes and fees so they were revenue raisers rather than cuts. We need both but I am certainly not going to defend the republicans in this process either I think its an equal opportunity circle jerk

John, I would hope you would respect my background and experience too and we could generally share ideas and come to mutual solutions.

Movement—Finally:

Republicans seldom listen to their constituents, but they always listen to Wall Street. Certainly Mitch McConnell did some listening as Wall Street told the GOP/TP to stand down with regard to the debt ceiling. The financial risks were too great and it was the bankers who blinked.

No one, except the Tea Party wanted to see the severe consequences of interest rates increasing, a second economic recession, a drop in the stock market, social security checks being withheld, disability checks withheld, Medicare checks left unpaid. Wall Street was not willing to go there.

Mitch McConnell will take some heat from the GOP/TP, but he had no choice. The guy with the political problem is John Boehner. He could be in a lose—lose situation. To get 30 Republicans to vote for the pending bill will anger the Tea Party. To not get 30 Republican votes could torpedo the bill.

Politics has strange bed fellows. I’m wondering if President Obama will give Boehner some cover.

While I’m at it; in Wisconsin all the fake Democrats (Republicans who pretended to be Democrats) lost their primary bid…by big numbers. In less than a month the political landscape in Wisconsin will change. That’s change you can believe in.

Ron:

I see a lot of us on the same page today. It should be interesting to see how this plays out. I am waiting for the fat lady to sing on this one.

President Obama has a meeting today at 4:00 maybe we will here something about this after that.

I think the GOP/TP is doing a "Cut and Run" trying to avoid any and all responsibility on the Debt Ceiling and will continue their "Obstructionist" agenda and try to use it in 2012.

I just am not sure this is a good idea or not. I would rather that President Obama stick to his guns until this plays out.

Ron, well said. Yes, I believe our President will give Speaker Boehner some cover. Boehner is stuck between a rock and a hardplace (TPers and TPers) but despite his tough talk, I think Boehner understands the dire consequences and even if I disagree with his politics often, he is willing to do what is right.

Jody:

Agreed. I really think that if they left it up to President Obama and Rep. Boehner they would come to some agreement. Granted nobody would like it but I think they can talk to each other and something would be worked out.

I was hesitant to take a victory lap this morning because I was trying to figure out what is in this for Boehner and McConnell when it occurred to me,…

They have sent a warning shot across the bow of the Teapublican Express basically stating, “Get on Board or Get Nothing!”

That is the kind of party message and discipline that Democrats simply do not have; a willingness to throw a segment of your constituency under the bus. To flat out say – You Can’t Always Get What You Want!

It’s not about smaller government for Boehner and McConnell, it’s about controlling the masses. Don’t think the larger message here isn’t about the Republican Nominee for President, either. This battle has just begun; but the party establishment clearly plans to go “All In” to show who is running the Republican Show!

And if they can abstain from any actual responsibility and push it all off on President Obama while continuing to squeal about ‘leadership’ and scream NO at the top of their lungs; well then it’s a Win-Win for them.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This piece from Barb Shelly on Grover Norquist was also interesting:

http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/gop-should-stop-kowtowing-grover-norquist/

…Washington, we know, is a planet onto itself. But out here in the heartland, it’s pretty surreal to watch an unelected guy with a broken ethical compass bring the capital to a standstill and thwart the spirit of compromise that the majority of Americans say they want.”

This is the Republican plan to have no responsibility. Then back to business as usual its all President Obamas fault.

In the righty mind, the entire debt was started on the day we elected President Obama. Before then there was no debt and the Republicans had nothing to do with creating the debt.

Republicans are trying to do as much damage as possible before the recall elections on them start.

Anyone who signed a pledge to never raise taxes need to go. Anyone who votes to cut Social Security needs to go. Republicans have made it quite clear they do not care about America. They know we need to raise revenue, but have to protect the rich at all cost. Is that really the tea-vangelicist platform, to protect the rich and get rid of President Obama. No jobs, no caring about America.

I find it interesting that when post are collapsed, when it is a righty post is collapsed they have said nasty, hateful things. When a liberal post is collapsed it is an informational piece.

Republicans what they do best is trying to hide the truth from the rest of us. It works on Faux why not here.

@Navy -- when are you and the rest of your leftist, progressive, socialist, blind posters never on the same page? What a waste of space along with kudos, etc. All strings that begin with xx or xxx, etc. should be collapsed. Another stupid tactic.

I actually think it's a brilliant move.

For an evil dictator, of course :( Yeh, might seem dramatic, but follow along with me here;

1. Set a precedent for increased white-house power. Carte Blanche over the debt.

2. Use deficit-spending as a tool in the next election cycle. Obama is going to get some real heat if he keeps his high-spending ways. People, even some dems (but not all), are unhappy over the rising debt.

3. During election cycle point out the truth. 'He had complete budget authority.' 'We passed a budget, the dems obstructed it.' 'You are now <insert> dollars in debt.'

4. Get your candidate elected. Whether 2012 or 2016 doesn't really matter in the scheme of things.

5. You now have a republican president with carte blanche budget authority as well as a precedent on 'Drones, missiles and bombs don't count as hostilities'. Awesome. A lot of agents can be delivered in missile form including anthrax, serin, nuclear weaponry, etc. Seriously, that's huge.

6. ...

7. Profit.

from fiesty...

The 'paper route' money is flowing freely!

Sweet! guess we can kiss off on all these people creating demand for manufactured goods to get our economy and jobs rolling again.

Since the libs don't believe in any type of "trickle down", looks like the media and other campaign promoters will just get this money and start hoarding it. Naturally they won't forget a few donuts and cups of joe for the volunteer help.

technishane - seems that your grasp on politics is to be commended.

xx

So do we just leave Medicare and Social Security alone, as Nancy Pelosi demands? I'd like to see a liberal's 'take' on this information, which comes from Obama's own projections;

Here are Obama's projections (2012 Budget) for the Social Security and Medicare programs for the 10 years from 2012 - 2021;

Social Security Revenues (taxes) = $8.937 Trillion.

Social Security Expenditures = $9.921 Trillion.

Social Security Deficit = $984 Billion.

Medicare Revenues (taxes) = $2.730 Trillion.

Medicare Expenditures = $6.621 Trillion.

Medicare Deficit = $3.891 Trillion.

Obviously, the Medicare program is the biggest problem, and something drastic needs to be done. The total 10 year Deficit for both of these programs is a staggering $4.875 Trillion, which must be covered by spending cuts and/or tax increases. Nancy Pelosi's statements that these programs are 'untouchable' is just not realistic.

Source - The White House site to verify these numbers is as follows - see Table S-3;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf

You all say the republicans blinked. The President put the ball in the repbulicans court with his push granny off the cliff move. McConnell did not hesitate to put it back to Obama with his alternative. Obama has been trying to lay off any responsibility and put it on the republicans since day one. Now if he does not act it is his fault.

Roy,

I covered this with you YESTERDAY,...The baby boomers were ALWAYS going to strain Social Security. That is why we SCREAMED as Republicans raided the Trust Fund. Yes it is projecting deficits - it was ALWAYS projecting deficits for the Boomers. You might want to go back and review the RAIDERS that drained the fund to pay for their Wars, etc. There were SURPLUSES to cover the Boomers; but Republicans played fast and loose with the cash.

Clara - Clinton reported surpluses yet the national debt went up each year that he was in office. Do you have any idea what those surpluses were used for. I do know he wanted to use his "reported" surplus to put Hilary's health care plan into effect but the republican congress would not let him.

Posted by MSNBC:

What the GOP cares about is low taxes and shrinking government. The deficit and debt are only means to that end.

You may be right about the GOP desire for low taxes and smaller government (less critical oversight), but the GOP has other critical goals such as keeping defense spending up, under the guise of the providence of national security, and continuing a heavy flow of cash to the banks and investors holding our national debt is another critical GOP goal too.

On the defense spending issue, the most recent House vote is a clear indicator of the GOP priority. To give the military every new weapons program on their wish list along with several items that they didn't even ask for, such as even more C-17 aircraft, clearly shows the GOP tie to the profits of defense contractors. In a year with an out-of-control budget deficit, voting to raise defense spending by 11 figures is fiscal irresponsibility at the least. The GOP claim about saving (defense industry) jobs is horse-pucky, since defense spending only creates 1/5th as many jobs as does government spending on the civilian economy. This issue goes back to the Clinton-era, when cuts in defense spending then cost regional recessions in defense-spending dependent cities and towns, and this latest military budget is an attempt by the GOP to guarantee defense contractor profits in a recession, and could be looked upon as a form of welfare for the rich too.

Remember when we had a substantially-balanced budget at the end of the Clinton-era? How long did it take for the GOP to ruin that progress and get America back on the plan to continue to raise our deficits, our debt, and the amount of interest paid yearly on the debt? Do you want to know why the GOP hates social spending so much? It is because in an economic environment limited by the money supply, social spending competes with the ability of the GOP's pet industries to maintain profits. Make no mistake: The absolute last thing that the GOP (and their close supporters in the global banking industry) would want would be fiscal responsibility that could endanger the flow and growth rate of interest on our national debt getting paid to the financial institutions that the GOP'ers hold dear.

The one reason that the GOP is so rabid on changing the game in Social Security is to try to cover-up the fact that under GW, in the neighborhood of $2 Trillion was stolen from the SS Trust Fund, basically as a short-term goal to give Dick Cheney's company Haliburton and a few other defense contractors huge profits, which would enable them to make substantial donations to the favorite political candidates, as well as to restore the defense spending-dependent economies of a few local Republican-voting regions. Now that the $2 Trillion IOU is coming due, the GOP doesn't want to have to pay it back, because it would compete with the ability to maintain the growth of defense-contracting profits. That is where the new buzzword "entitlements" came from, as its use is designed to split the electorate to possibly vote against continuing the program that had been completely responsible before it was raided. Just remember, half of all the money in the Social Security program was paid into the program by individual workers, and the other half by their employers. Getting back the promised benefit is not an entitlement, it is a contractual obligation.

Make no mistake: The absolute last thing that the GOP wants would be an American economy strong enough for our workforce to begin to ask for raises and for employers to have to compete again for the best workers through competition in worker incentives, like was the case during the late Clinton-era, when we had a substantially balanced Federal budget and defense spending had been cut. This proposal by McConnell slays several GOP demons at once, as it quiets the Tea Party rhetoric, while at the same time allows for the maintenance of the status quo when it comes to the flow of debt service and defense industry profits, and takes the proposed Obama tax increases off the table too.

Mitch McConnell is an old-school Republican, he is not a Tea Partier, and his strategy is aimed at quieting the Tea Party rhetoric until later in the election cycle, and is certainly not aimed at bankrupting the US Treasury. McConnell is a master of strategy, and his proposal will undoubtedly result in the politics of deficit control vs social spending vs defense industry profits being the critical centerpiece of the 2012 elections. The way that I look at it, McConnell may have become worried that none of the current GOP candidates to replace President Obama stood a chance of winning in 2012 given the inflammatory and highly-polarizing Tea Party rhetoric of false fiscal crisis, and their proposed resolution by cutting Social Security, Medicare, and a whole number of other social programs, which would in effect have alienated the senior vote, which the GOP would need to have any chance of winning the Presidency in 2012. The Federal on-budget debt ceiling is less of an issue than it could be because of so much off-budget spending, something that neither party wants to admit to, but something that clearly exists and has existed when both major political parties are holding the Presidency too.

By what I have read recently, I suspect that our good friends in Israel will try to start World War III here soon by taking military action against Iran, probably just as soon as Obama manages to make substantial troop cuts in Afghanistan. We all know what the GOP position would be on supporting Israel militarily in its new time of need too. Just as long as our government finds a way to repay the trillions of Dollars in IOU's that are owed to Social Security, the program is solvent until 2037, and only then will benefits have to be reduced by 15%, or will the income ceiling subject to SS taxation have to rise to keep benefits paid level. Medicare needs some help right away, and it appears that McConnell is going to cave on that issue, at least until after the 2012 elections. Remember that the GOP needs the senior vote to have any chance of winning in 2012, something that Paul Ryan obviously wasn't thinking about when he made his proposal.

McConnell is a master strategist with a career involved in fighting the GOP fight. It may be that he has grown suspicious of the goals of the Tea Party, and perhaps worried about the future of his own party and its own separate goals, needs, and close supporters. His proposal cuts the legs right out from underneath the Tea Party immediately just as much as it pins blame on the Democrats should the economy not make substantial recovery by late 2012. His proposal appears responsible yet it could come back to haunt the Democrats sometime in the future when the GOP is back in power and needs to raise the debt ceiling too.

The other day US Marine posted this piece, about a recent non-partisan budget analysis, and I found it so interesting that I figured that I would share it again, since its contents continue to be valid in our discussion today:

http://www.cbpp.org/files/5-10-11bud.pdf

with the republicans refuseing to budge on the debt limit there are things to do ...... #1 start bringing our troops home from all over the world ...Europe Asia Africa ... Iraq ... Afghanistan #2 halt all government services ,,FBI .. IRS... FCC ...CIA... Border Patrol etc ... #3 layoff all congressional and senate aides ... do it now before we run out of money.

Jeekers- TWO: posts from Me First Bill.

S'matter, Bill- things got you a little stired up today?

It's obvious the gift card I sent Mr. Me First Bill, for the FREE sword sharpening hasn't arrived yet! ;o)

Bill@#3==(That's the fear mongering pushed by the left if the U.S. "defaults" on its obligations – and a scenario bought hook, line and sinker by the MSM.) Is MSN the only news you watch? I have seen the same information on CNN,ABC,CBS,and NBC. Now I admit I have not seen this news on FOX as I quit watching FOX eleven years ago. I have a feeling you are getting your information from FOX and maybe RUSH. Have you noticed how much trouble Rupert Murdock is in for his company hacking into files that are private. And the money he has lost which is probably yours and Republican/Tea party biggest concern, it's all ways the money with your kind.

Actually, Bill, that 'fearmongering' you attribute to the left came from the IMF (International Money Fund) who stated that not lifting the debt ceiling would have 'dire consequences'. Moody's and Standard & Poor's also threatened to drop the country's 'credit rating' if the debt ceiling wasn't raised.

So if you are saying that the IMF, S&P and Moody's are 'lefties'?

I guess not. Anything to deflect your attention away from the REAL problems that we have in this country.

Carry on, Bill.

Seattle Sue, I hadn't thought of that, but, yes the scandal threatening Murdoch's "news" empire, and his resultant fortune, will be a blow to the Tea Party demagogues. Sweet.

Sorry Bill, That worn out old argument doesn’t cut it.

So let's raise the debt ceiling so we can borrow some more money to pay the interest on the debt we already have which just increases the amount of the debt we must pay interest on. When does it end? In 2.5 years Obama has increased the debt by almost $5 trillion and he wants more to keep funding his redistribution agenda. When will you people wake up. He has absolutely no plans to curtail spending. He needs this money to buy votes so he can continue to reshape this country into a socialist one. If he is reelected, with the blind mice following him, we are doomed. History has shown us that countries facing financial crisis have only been able to recover by cutting spending, not increasing taxes. The rest of the world is starting to realize that. Why are we allowing these idiots to take us down the road to failure?

Dave,

You are SO FUNNY. Right out of the FOX Playbook which is 100% False.

You do know Dave that the Republicans do not care about the debt ceiling.

You are another one, who seems to think the debt started the day we elected President Obama. The Republicans are responsible for a major amount of this debt (you know those pesky wars you wanted so bad) and want no responsibility for fixing anything.

Jobs,what jobs, much more important to give 15 buildings new names. The guys who paints the new signs gets a job.

Anyone truly worried about the debt ceiling would raise taxes on the richest. This whole thing was about making it President Obama's fault. That is why they moved the goal post again.

History, ah yes, sweet history, when the tax rates on the rich were over 70%, cutting taxes did work. Now that the rich pay a less percentage than say me, cutting taxes on the rich is stupid. No one ever accused the Republican of being the smart party.

Good grief Feisty, I surely would like to sharpen that old blade. But you know what they say: the pen is mightier than the sword. So I'm OK :)

But you know what they say: the pen is mightier than the sword.

If that's the case, don't look now, but your ink well ran dry! ;op

pietro, better recheck your history. S&P's earlier threatenened downgrade of the US was based on if the US did not come up with a plan to address our debt over the intermediate and long term within two years. Its current continued talk of a downgrade still reflects the stance of the US potus obama or congress still being unable to come up with a plan over the intermediate term, and not on raising the debt ceiling.

http://2deepfinance.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/sp-threatens-downgrade-of-us-aaa-credit-rating/

As for moody threatened actions...

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/more-empty-posturing-out-moodys-rating-agency-once-again-threatens-us-downgrade

The real bottom line by any ratings agengy is that America has a dysfunctional presidency and a congress that can't work together.

Excuse me if I am mistaken, Bill, but, the price of gold was actually fixed at 35$ an ounce up to 1971. Isn't it a bit disingenuous? Are you arguing we should go back on the gold standard?

just askin' - I'm too much of an economic idiot to argue one way or the other...

Good post Bill. It is interesting to see all of the posts aiming the fearmongering at different targets when it was Obama that said that SS checks may be in jeopardy. That is fearmongering.

Posted by Bill, Fairfax, VA:

Consider this: in 1971 one U.S. dollar could buy 1/35th of an ounce of gold, while today that same dollar can only buy about 1/1550th of an ounce. So in the years since 1971, the U.S. has been paying its debts in dollars that have come to be worth less and less. If that's not effectively a "default" than I don't know what is. Call it a "stealth default" if you like.

So Bill, where was all of this neoliberal globalist hand-wringing since 1971, when the Republican leadership presided-over 75% of the total increase in our national debt since then? What, an extremely low-value Dollar not working-out for the profit involved in off-shoring our jobs? Should have thought of that possibility before people like you voted with their feet!!! One sure way out of this mess would be for American companies to produce what they sell here in the US using our own middle-income workers, instead of trying to rape underpaid foreign workers and their environment., trying to bypass our own Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.

At least the purveyors of Keynesian economics seem to care what happens to the little guy, unlike so much of the neoliberal globalist crowd, who by and large seem to view workers as a dime a dozen scum ripe for plundering.

Who knows, if we had defaulted, maybe Obama and the Democrats might have elected to pay our Federal workers and "entitlement" holders first, and give a richly deserved "haircut" to the neoliberal globalist employment off-shoring crowd instead??? Maybe Mitch McConnell has decided to throw you neoliberalists under the bus too???

They've shown their true colors, Jody----keeping tax rates on the wealthiest low is more important than balancing the budget.

Steeler Fan:

Very true and let us remember that the Agenda of "Obstructionism" is still alive and well in the Greedy Old Party (GOP).

All they are trying to do is run from the Debt Ceiling. If this is the same thing that President Obama wanted why did they not just support him and take part of the credit for moving this country forward. That would have been a win win for both sides and send a better message to the American People.

Still trying to figure out the real motive here. We know the GOP/TP is not doing this to help America. There has to be something in here that they see as a major benefit to them down the road.

President Obama will figure it out. He is learing how to play the game better every day.

Debt Ceiling Crisis. The GOPTP legislators can be described in three words: greedy, fools and cowards.

Hi Jody

Call me naive, but isn't this a win for everyone? Despite the feeling that some have that the GOP are trying a trick, perhaps they just understand reality. The debt ceiling must be raised.

The debt ceiling crisis is averted and its financial and economic consequences. Obama and Congress can avert the first ever default in our history and stop a potential double dip. The debt ceiling will be raised for every dollar cut. We all knew that there would be cuts, I for one would rather there be $2.4 trillion in lieu of $4 trillion. The GOP can technically say that they never voted for increasing the debt ceiling and stay true to their base. Whether it is through tricks in the rules by the GOP, a compromise was made. Fine by me, if they get cover. Thank you Mr. McConnell for a workable if convoluted solution.

As I said yesterday, Obama needs to make a deal, the best he can get. This appears to be it. My only complaint would be that eventually increasing revenue needs to be part of the answer we can't reduce our deficit on spending cuts alone. Perhaps now we need to tackle tax reform and debate increases or broadening the base and cutting loopholes.

In lieu of the normal Liberal or Conservative perspectives, I would like to get the views of central/moderate voices such as Ira Lapin or Groucho Marx; people I believe will not put an extreme D or R spin on things. Perhaps like most political deals I can get a feel for if it is a good one by the amount of yelling by extreme liberals like me or my extreme counterparts on the other side.

YellowDog:

I hope you are correct. Once burnt twice shy. But I think we are getting the cart before the horse. This is not a done deal by a long shot. I do not see it passing the House right now.

That is why I think President Obama needs to keep plugging along with his original agenda.

The big question is if this is exactly what President Obama wanted then why did they not just accept his proposal and claim part of the credit for saving this country from economic ruin and global meltdown?

Something is rotten in Denmark.

I believe Wall Street gave the GOP leaders an ultimatum--just do it or we'll take our campaign money elsewhere. I have always felt that Wall Street and the powerbrokers of corporate interests would step in through back channels and tell them to get it done. Wall Street doesn't care about the rest of the citizenry but they do care about the money in their pockets and understand they would lose big time and so would the rich and powerful.

The debt ceiling olive branch is not a done deal. I won't break out the "bubbly" until President Obama signs a bill raising the debt ceiling. I also recognize this is not some big breakthrough toward achieving future cooperation from republicans. They will continue their obstruction, denial, delay but they know who elects them. Republicans will use this in 2012 but democrats can use it as well.

My Tea Party Brother harrangued me about the Federal Deficit a couple of months ago. He insisted on showing me a chart with a figure of a man standing next to a football field sized area of stacks of dollar bills, showing what our Deficit looks like in physical terms.

I'm afraid to ask him what he thinks of Republicans walking away from the only chance we'll get to cut spending by 4 trillion dollars, and trim Medicare and Social Security...all for the sake of preserving a few tax loopholes.

Hi US Navy,

You are right, as soon as I get excited that this will work, who knows what the die hard Tea Party crowd does. Believe me I don't believe that the GOP is doing this for Obama out of the goodness of their heart, but I don't see the two sides agreeing to anything but this. I don't think Obama can continue on his original plan due to the stalemate.

Perhaps this plan was completely out of left field, Obama will get credit/blame for raising the debt ceiling but GOP will get credit for the solution. I agree with Amy though, the GOP will be blamed by their base for missing out on getting deeper cuts.

Both sides are going to take some heat. Obama is a very good politician, but perhaps McConnell outflanked him, if Obama doesn't take this deal who knows who the populace will blame for the consequences. That said, not a lot of the masses always follow and understand politics outside of the beltway (me included).

By the way read a few comments above, and agree that the President mistepped when talking about unreliability of social security checks if there was a default. Perhaps he was being too truthful, I would have had him say that social security checks will go out whatever the cost. It could have been seen as a bit of scare tactics from the GOP perspective.

Yellowdog, good points, great post. I agree, it is a win for both sides because it will achieve what has to be done. The GOP wins points with its base because they won't necessarily have to vote "yea". Overall, I think President Obama scored the most points because if this happens, he gets the "clean bill" he first demanded. Boehner and McConnell understood from the beginning that the debt ceiling had to be raised. My three words to describe the GOP were perhaps harsh but I believe they lost the most in terms of what they could have had and proved that greed and obstinance achieves nothing; and now they take the cowards approach and wash their hands of it.

As for President Obama's comments about social security, disability, military paychecks--it is likely true, there are no guarantees on what would happen Aug 3; he was honest, he cannot guarantee anything because the USA has never defaulted before. If the GOP claims it is scare tactics, well, that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Jody, when the FY2011 appeared to be going nowhere and an impasse was likely, many pointed out that the potus had the ability to prioritze who got the money first if a deal was not made. Why should this impasse be any different in who decides who gets the money first?

At the very minimum, cash flow into the treasury is a monthly event with payroll taxes coming in quarterly. For obama to proclaim the US may not have funds available is ludicrous and threatened actions against thepoor, rlderly and disabled even more so.

american 205

You make a good point and I happen to agree with you. However I don't think Obama threatened holding SS payments malaciously. I seem to remember that Geithner had said that different accounting payments could be made (prioritized) if a default happened. As I said above it could be seen by those who don't agree with the POTUS as a scare tactic. To be fair I think all of us when trying to persuade a point use language to convince people to agree with us. The President is no different. Perhaps I am too biased, however, I think he was saying he wasn't sure what could happen. I think if he could take it back he would.

Yellowdog, of course Obama was fear mongering when he said he could not say if SS payments would go out on the 3d of Aug. I didn't hear him say that federal employees, including the WH staff and members of congress and their staffs wouldn't get their checks. He didn't say he would ground Air Force One and quit campaigning. He didn't say the welfare checks and unemployment checks would stop. This is just one of Obama's continuing class warfare acts.

More revenue has been collected during the 1st 3 qtrs of this year than last year (8.5% increase) Individual income taxes were 24% over last years during the 3 qtrs. Social Security taxes are collected every month and, except on a few occasions, is more than enough to cover current payments.

Hi yellowdog, malicious would be the wrong term, but political theatre or political drama would be a more accurate description. Unfortunately for any politician today, rhetoric alone will hang many of them.

I find it interesting that the left pushes for tax increases even when the obama tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of 2012. You and I both know that any proposed spending cuts are unlikely to be implemented in full during the next 1 1/2 years. By the time they come online the extended tax cuts will have expired and the left will have their increases.

Wow, look at all the teapublicans pissing and moaning about SS possibly not going out. What, you thought you could stomp your feet in the sand box and not get any of the sand in your eyes? interesting how the loudest whiners about entitlements are the loudest whiners when they think they may not get those entitlements.

Bill Clinton and his tax rates -- 8 years, balanced budgets, 23 million jobs.

Anna Molly, sshhh! You're undermining bob's facts with context!

Bill Clinton had the technology/digital revolution...not an economy with a 1.9% (and slowing) growth rate with a 9.2% national unemployment number.

Even Bill Clinton wouldn't re-impose his tax rates in this economy, AM.

No way.

@AM

That was with Newt Gingrich as Speaker. You really want him back?

On a more serious issue, a pundit yesterday drew some differences between Clinton and Obama. One was the fact that Clinton was a Southern Democrat who was used to compromising with opponents who disagreed with him. Obama on the other hand has only dealt with people who agree with him and so does not have the same type of political skills.

I thought it was an interesting opinion.

Clinton was a Southern Democrat who was used to compromising with opponents who disagreed with him. Obama on the other hand has only dealt with people who agree with him and so does not have the same type of political skills.

Clinton knew when to cut his loses and spend some quality time mentoring the interns.

Obama is too stubborn to change, and too stupid to negotiate.

Bob+##@#6(Yea, like as recently as 2003 – 2007 (8.2 million jobs) I would like for you to show where you got your figures for these job numbers. I got mine from wikipedia, and they show Mr. Bush two terms( that's 8 years if you don't know that) and he only is credited with 1.1 million jobs for all of that 8 years. I sure trust wikipedia figures a heck of a lot more than any figure you put up. For your information Jimmy Carter is credited with 10.3 million jobs in 4 years, more than both #41 and #43 Bush's put together, a total of 3.7 million jobs. (that 12 years if you didn't know that) BTW there has been people (possibly even you) quoting Reagan as creating 20 million jobs during his 8 years, my figures show him with 16.1 million new jobs which is good but Clinton racked up a whopping total of 22.7 new jobs during his 8 years. Have a nice day. from a Moonbat.

MB: Bill Clinton had the technology/digital revolution

Don't complicate the issue for the Liberals MB. The economy is much more complex than a tax rate, but the Liberals don't do "complex". Life is simple for the Libs because that's all they understand.

Bob,
You are so off base in all of you postings. It's clear that you don't know what you are talking about. We can just put you in the category of the far right that hates the President and the majority of people in the United States.

The Republicans turning down the President's offer to compromise by trimming Medicare and Social Security in exchange or raising the debt ceiling to prevent a default...will go down in history as the biggest lost opportunity since Ted Kennedy turned down Richard Nixon's offer to provide universal health insurance.

JoAnnaSmith1

Clinton was a Southern Democrat who was used to compromising with opponents who disagreed with him. Obama on the other hand has only dealt with people who agree with him and so does not have the same type of political skills.

Clinton knew when to cut his loses and spend some quality time mentoring the interns.

Obama is too stubborn to change, and too stupid to negotiate.

========

He's President of the United States and you're complaining on a message board.

If his stupidity got him from where he started to where he is at, I'll take his stupidity over you're self-proclaimed brilliance anyday.

The talking heads may claim that Clinton knew how to negotiate with republicans but they are ignoring President Obama's record in Illinois. There are republicans in Illinois, especially down state. He worked closely with republicans in the IL State Senate to compromise on legislation; as a federal Senator, he worked with Dick Lugar on nuclear disarmament and other republicans as well so those claiming he only knows how to work with those who agree with him are factually deficit.

Anna Molly, lets talk about Clinton, John B you too. Go back and do the research because this is always a liberal talking point. Tell me where the additional tax revenue came from during his tenure. Was it from the tax rate increase on the highest bracket? Did he also pass offsetting credits, deductions, AMT relief at the same time that reduced aggregate taxable income. But more importantly, HE REDUCED THE CAPITAL GAINS rate that created a massive run up in the stock market and investment in hard assets like real estate that created the realization of massive capital gains boosting revenue for the government. So the Clinton years were as a result of a TAX CUT. So good thing you brought Clinton up.

If his stupidity got him from where he started to where he is at, I'll take his stupidity over you're self-proclaimed brilliance anyday

Not Obama's stupidity. 53% of the voters stupidity. People voted for the bumper sticker slogans "Hope and Change" and "Yes We Can", and a guy that read a decent speech. I imagine you were one of them. Next time smarten up a little, will you?

Mixed Bag:

Bill Clinton had the technology/digital revolution...not an economy with a 1.9% (and slowing) growth rate with a 9.2% national unemployment number.

As I recall it, Clinton started with the Reagan/Bush41 recession caused by the bailout from their self-created S&L scandal. Bush started with a small Clinton recession and turned it around with tax breaks, a phony-baloney war, and a phony-baloney housing bubble, punctuated by the Wall Street meltdown. It turned out to be a house totally built on sand. By the time he left office, almost all of those 8 million jobs he supposedly created were already gone and unemployment had already been on a steep incline for a year.

Even Bill Clinton wouldn't re-impose his tax rates in this economy, AM.

No way.

Are you sure, Bag Boy? Really? Because this is not a drill, and jeopardizing the entire economy is not a game, at least to some of us.

Alan, NJ:

That was with Newt Gingrich as Speaker. You really want him back?

Sure, provided that Bill Clinton comes back with him.

I'm absolutely certain, Anna Molly.

No way Bill Clinton would yank over $400 billion a year from consumers and crush already weak demand for goods and services in an economy limping along with growth at 1.9% of gdp (or slower, perhaps), with more than 9% (and rising) unemployment.

I'm surprised that apparently, you believe he would. That would be inviting economic contraction...the ultimate "anti-stimulus", AM.

The virtually guaranteed result of such a course of action would be the economy slipping (and, it doesn't have far to go, does it, AM) back into recession.

(and, it doesn't have far to go, does it, AM) back into recession.

How on earth should I know? I'm only a libbie loon, remember? A libbie loon whose assets are all in cash at the moment, by the way.

No way Bill Clinton would yank over $400 billion a year from consumers and crush already weak demand for goods and services

Hmmm ... now I'm confused. I thought businesses weren't hiring because of uncertainty over the deficit. Following that line of thought, my impression was that, if we fixed the deficit -- some way, somehow -- then hiring could begin again, demand would increase again, and it would all fix itself.

Or isn't that right? Because if not, you'd better tell Congress ASAP. Not to mention Albany Joe.

Or does it make some difference where the money comes from to fix the deficit? Because I always thought money was money.

Or are you really saying that it's okay to fix the deficit by revoking the IOUs given to the elderly, and taking away benefits from the poor, the disabled and the sick, but it's not okay to fix the deficit by taxing people with enough money to buy luxury boats?

Because in my opinion, that crosses the line of decency. And I've always thought you were better than that.

Gee anna, think the tech boom didn't play the largest part in that period of economic expansion? Perhaps you can point us to all the legislation passed by clinton that enabled that tremendouse growth. Maybe even tells us who controlled congress,

Like all good things, we also had the dot com bust at the end of his presidency. Funny thing about recessions, they occur every 7 - 12 years and NO POLITICIAN or ECONOMISTS has ever devised a plan to eliminate them.

job1 - Like matti in houston all you can do is whine, denigrate and point fingers at those you don't agree with. Sure would hate to have you as my wingman, pointman or backup in any type of conflict.

JOhnB - and you ignore historical events. A monkey could have done as well with the exploding tech boom economy of the mid to late 90's.

Anna Molly-

You work in a profession that engages in the precise use of language.

So, this time I'll try to be more succinct in the hopes that brevity will score a breakthrough:

If the U.S. were to return to the Clinton tax rates, pulling more than $400 billion out of the pockets of American consumers in an already sluggish economy, the likely result will be another recession.

I think that would be bad...for the poor, the disabled and the sick, and everyone else, too.

You?

LoL Bag Boy ~ I believe I got it the first time, but as libbie loons tend to be hard of hearing, amplifcation is always appreciated.

And yes, I think that another recession would be bad. You get no argument there.

Bill Clinton and his tax rates -- 8 years, balanced budgets, 23 million jobs.

Anna Molly you forgot 1 thing republican congress.

Alan, NJ:

That was with Newt Gingrich as Speaker. You really want him back?

Sure, provided that Bill Clinton comes back with him

Well Anna Molly I agree with that. I didn't vote for Bill Clinton, however he was successful despite his womanizing.

Midol, Bob.

Try it, you'll like it.

Yes, bob, but Obama had to pay off his big campaign donors. So, the guy who owned Tesla, who bundled $500,000 for him in 2008 got half a billion in stimulous funds.

Not a bad return on his "investment". Plus, it's "green"- in more ways than one, it seems.

I guess First Read will stick to the script in this election cycle- that it is paper route money going to Obama. They divide the "take" by the number of supposed donors, and claim"see! It's the little people donating to Obama!"

Somehow, I do not think the rest of the media will be as complacent this time around. It was kind of embarrassing for them to discover that Obama's lies were, well, lies. More than 75% of his donors last time were big money donors. Donors who got paid off with appointments, jobs, and money.

I guess the writers of this blog will rediscover their ability to question every utterance from the White House in 2013- when there is a republican president. Until then, they will remain y paid propagandists.

Who spends $800,000 of their own money to try and defeat a candidate they feel doesn't make good decisions about spending money?

Well, First Read just proved that they will print whatever Obama tells the as fact, and never mind the glaring inconsistencies.

So, that $86 million came fro 552,000 "little people".

Let's just ignore the number of $38,500 a plate fundraisers for now- try sure did- let's do the math.

It comes to about $156 per donor on average- more than twice the $69 trumpeted. If you just concentrate on Obama's $47 million of the take, it comes to $85 per person.

And, let's face it- doing the averaging makes as much sense as factoring your neighbor's shed in the average of house prices in your area.

They got most of the money from big donors. Period. I don't expect them to do any research, however. They could not even do the simple math necessary to put the lie to the campaign statement.

More proof there is not one professional journalist on this board.

It is a shame so much fund raising is required to win an election. Who are these people that spend thousands of dollars for a dinner and fund raiser.

I would rather that even half of those staggering sums $82 million plus would have been put to good use to a local charity, food shelter.

YD absolutely agree, this campaign fundraising money could be put to such a better use supporting charities. That is exactly why I never give money to politicians.

So Boblotsa#s .. are you saying a government funded program such as NASA is great? Well, I think it is one of the best government agencies ever. The technology they brought forth has benefitted us all. That is why I am stunned that Bush killed the agency. But wait, you hate government so you must have supported all efforts to defind the agency. So what are you saying? You like what government agencies do, or you hate them. Tell us Bob, should we spend money on these "good" government agencies, or dismantle them in the good old GOP/TP fashion?

Anna Molly @#9=== Because they are just liars, thieves and crooked. It's just in their DNA and they can't help it. Maybe they can go to Bachmann's clinic in Minn. and her husband can cure them with heavy doses of prayer.

@ SSue==too funny.

@ Anna - so glad to hear the ruse in Wisconsin was a total failure. This referendum is a much needed wake up call to the nasty TP group. And I couldn't agree more that the bully Prosser should step down until the allegations are fully investigated. In any workplace environement, suspended leave would have been implemented. It is time that the public demand that these so called justices to be within the law and be within standard workplace norms.

I wonder how much this "special" election cost the good citizens of Wisconsin? Wonder why the democrats were unwilling to wait until the next election cycle? Think they could have been concerned that Governor Walker's plans could have actually worked. Just another case of democrats being more than willing to spend someone else's money.

Seattle sue, I wonder who you would turn to for comfort if one of your loved ones were gravely injured and lying in your arms. Would it be God thru christ for help or some other entity to interceed on your loved ones behalf. Naturally, i am sure you know that there are only two certainties in life, death and taxes.

Rick, Democratic and independent republican voters, spoke loud and clear in the July primary. Scott Walker did his best to destroy collective bargaining and erode hard won rights employees earned. These same voters will push for recall of Scott Walker in 2012.

American, not everyone is a "Christian" as you define the word. For that matter I wonder how faithful you are to Christ's tenants? Do you love your neighbor as you love Christ? Do you help the poor? Do you care about people after they are born? Have you forsaken material goods? How does what you typed relate to Seattle sue's post?

Seattle Sue

Anna Molly @#9=== Because they are just liars, thieves and crooked. It's just in their DNA and they can't help it. Maybe they can go to Bachmann's clinic in Minn. and her husband can cure them with heavy doses of prayer.

American, not sure who Sue would turn to but if one of my loved ones were gravely injured I can state for certainty that I would turn to a Doctor and not a spirt in the sky.

John B:

Sure looks that way. No matter which way Boehner went he was going to get hammered. Now he knows how President Obama felt when stuck in the same position. He is not laughing very much now.

Cantor is redoing his resume so Mr. Boehner better watch his back.

First Read says in one paragraph: "McConnell is the ultimate tactician, pure and simple; it's his gift and his burden."

Then just two paragraphs later, it's "One more point on the McConnell plan: It's also a concession of sorts that Republicans realize they can't "win" this stalemate. They only lose badly or lose honorably. The president had painted McConnell and Boehner (especially) into a corner".

So who's really the "ultimate tactician" here? The guy who got painted into the corner, or the guy wielding the paintbrush?

And much as I seldom agree with JoAnnaSmith1, I can't recall the last time I ever saw a "Hail Mary punt" myself. If we're going with the football analogies, I'd have said it was more like a last-minute end-around with the potential for a big fumble and change of possession. Oh, and did somebody just call a penalty for intentional grounding? Can we tack on a delay of game? Unsportsmanlike conduct?

What's interesting in all this is that McConnell's parachute to allow the President to raise the debt ceiling whenever it is required, goes in line with the recent discussion that the 14th Amendment allows any president to do what is required to pay the country's debts. Perhaps what we have is a recognition that a debt ceiling is not really in the Constitution. Food for thought anyway.

Jody Section 5 of the 14th amendment, "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." It's not the President it is Congress, no where does it say the president. Section 4 says, The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... Only Congress last I checked can make law.

The budget was passed by Congress and makes obligations contained therein legally binding. ""The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned."

What budget was passed by the congress?

Of all the things that have been said during the debt ceiling discussions, Nash, hearing the Speaker of the House of Representatives (and let's not forget, a man in line for the presidency) say that the debt ceiling of our nation was not his problem is the most shocking to me. Is there never a time when someone does what is best for our country?

Nash:

Outstanding.

Steeler Fan: I could not believe that Boehner said that. It is their problem and they are trying to walk away from it now with the McConnell proposal. I hope President Obama does not let them. I hope Wall Street now understands what they have to really lose here as well as the big businesses.

If we the people go down, so do they and there will be no bail out this time. There will be a lot of bankruptcy sales for sure and do not be surprised that if some foreign entities come in and swoop up the juicy ones.

Excellent, Nashville. What is more telling about Speaker Boehner is that Monday, he stood and clearly stated that the debt ceiling had to be raised and he did not mention spending cuts or anything else. Yesterday, clearly he had to sound "TPish" to keep Cantor off his backside. A lot of what Boehner says publicly is for republican ears.

I couldn't believe I heard Boehner say that the debt ceiling was not his problem.

I couldn't believe I heard McConnell say that a real solution for our financial problems is not possible as long as Obama is in the White House.

Then, I remembered that they are both Republicans and it is 2011...

Navy, Wallstreet has only begun to breath fire down the necks of the GOP and it will only get worse the longer Boehner holds out. The heat will get so intense that hopefully 26 republican U.S. representatives will vote with democratic representatives to give Obama everything he wants.

I have a question:

If there are so many people out of work, where is all this money coming from?

You do realize that Obama's share of the"take", $47 million, is three million LESS than Bush raised in the second quarter of 2003, do you not?

And Bush had barely gotten started at that point.

Not looking so good for Obama. Not so good at all.

no joe, no bo, nj

You do realize that Obama's share of the"take", $47 million, is three million LESS than Bush raised in the second quarter of 2003, do you not?

And Bush had barely gotten started at that point.

Not looking so good for Obama. Not so good at all.

===========

...and if you look at the economic climate in 2003 compared to now and consider that President Bush only raised 3 million more

(360 ways to look at a issue)

Meanwhile he gets nothing done for the country.

Chris, Cranbury, NJ.

I have a question: If there are so many people out of work, where is all this money coming from?

You do realize unemployment is not at 100% right? I know it's hard for people to understand and not get all overly dramatic in their cries of total doom and claims that the entire country is starving to death but where 10% UE is high it means that 90% of the country is still working. THAT is where the money is coming from Chris. People tend to think their little tiny corner of the world is a solid representation of the whole country. It is not. not even close.

Absolutely, Northstar, McConnell knows that the 80 plus House Tea-publicans will not vote to raise the debt ceiling; that Boehner simply cannot get it done so he has given Boehner a way out. While I disagree with McConnell on a lot of things, he is not stupid and he knows the debt ceiling must be raised and he knows the GOPTP in the House will not do it. McConnell is doing what he knows has to be done and cleverly has figured out an escape hatch for his side.

Lawrence O the past two nights provided an excellent analysis of the last few months debt ceiling talks. His explanation about McConnell's proposal helped me figure out what had actually taken place as I found it confusing. Lawrence is one TV host I recognize as having the knowledge to evaluate and explain it in easy to understand terms.

So what happens if Obama says thanks for the offer, Mitch, but no thanks and then insists that the House do its Constitutional duty? If he were to do that, I don't think he and Boehner would be playing golf again anytime soon.

actually McConnell's wife is Elaine Chao - who served as the 24th United States Secretary of Labor in the Cabinet of President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2009. She was the first Asian Pacific American woman and first Chinese American to be appointed to a President's cabinet in American history.

I'm sure they're really nice people in private, but I still despise their politics.

Nice!! I've used Poker comparisons before, but this is the best. I tell ya, President Obama has them blinking so many signals that he just keeps calling their bluffs. For someone that was a 'community organizer', he is making them look like rank amateurs.

Jack, I know there is a best seller waiting to be written about this. You are the writer!!! Keep your posts coming in... I wait for your next installment.

@NorthstarDFL: In all honesty and as I've stated in my post, I didn't write the original poker comment. Besides, you can't dream this stuff up, because sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. But thanks for the comps anyway :-)

Jack, this is one of the best poker analogies I have ever seen. You got everything right except that all of the clothes AND the shorts are on the table. The President let them keep their garters!!

I cannot wait for more commentary, Jack. Keep posting!

Jack, My mistake. I didn't seee that you were sharing the analogy and not the original author.It still is a wonderful post.!!!

OMG that is hysterical. i too spit out my coffee.

Exactly the point David Walker made in his post ((1.23).

Perhaps a pretty shrewd move for when a republican is elected POTUS! Hopefully not in the forseeable

future, but lets just hope our president is still playing his brand of poker and leaves the table a winner.

Excuse me, the Executive branch did not propose it; it was avanced by Senator McConnell. He is not really an idiot, however, just a craven coward. He ran a stupid bluff and now doesn't know how to recover when he's called.

Yes! The republicans stood up and read the Constitution upon their election premier. The past 7 months have been spent trying to undermine it. As a result, McConnell has exported his job to the president. That way, though you can't accuse him of doing his job, you can't fault him for not doing it either.

AMEN and HALLELUJAH!

If you are gonna be "citizens", pay your damn taxes!

And go to prison when you screw up!

P.S. How in the hell can Constitutional "conservatives" claim that they believe that the founding fathers wanted corporations to have the same rights as humans? WTF are they basing that one?

Santa Clara vs. Southern California Railroad (1886) first established corporations as legal persons, not citizens.

And Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis often remarked that the Santa Clara decision would in effect create monopolies and eventually an oligarchy. Brandeis was correct.

Love your posts. :-)

Thanks for the shout out Tom! ;o)

The dilemma McConnell and Boehner are dealing with is that while they may want to put everything on the table, their members have signed so many oaths predetermining their votes, neither McConnell nor Boehner have the votes to do anything.

A new definition of 'dysfunctional' is warranted: The Republican Party.

Bruce, Ain't that the truth!! am betting that the independent voters will see your point.

Yes, dysfunctional defined, but I'd use the Fourteenth Amendment remedy instead of taking the "deal".