Now we know the REAL reason the Barry campaign came out early with its fundraising results and was touting the low average donation as a sign of “grass-roots support”. They wanted to get their spin machine running before they filed the report and everybody found out the REAL truth:

From Politico:

Is Obama losing rich liberals?
By: Matt Negrin
July 14, 2011 10:36 PM EDT

President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign this week trumpeted a dramatic fundraising success — $86 million for the second quarter — and made a point of saying it was evidence of renewed grass-roots support.

But Democratic insiders will be watching Friday’s official filing by the campaign, with its detailed breakdown of donors, for evidence of whether another key constituency is reenlisting with Obama with the same enthusiasm as in 2008: wealthy liberals like Guy Saperstein.

Saperstein, a lawyer and former president of the Sierra Club Foundation, gave a total of more than $100,000 in 2008 to Obama’s campaign and other Democratic campaigns and causes, but he doesn’t plan to donate to Obama at all this time. He faults the president for “weak stewardship” on the environment, promoting a “Republican plan” on health care, extending the Bush tax cuts, repealing the military’s ban on gays only after being “dragged kicking and screaming” and escalating the war in Afghanistan.

“This is going to be a plebiscite on him,” Saperstein said of the 2012 election. “I think there is almost universal disappointment.”

These are the pinch-me rich — the progressive upper crust who don’t mind paying more taxes and who have been angered by what they see as unconscionable compromises with Republicans by the president they so enthusiastically supported in 2008.

In a dozen recent interviews, some of these wealthy donors described how they’ve been either turned off by Obama or more hesitant to write checks for the same amounts as they did three years ago.

“I’d almost rather see him not be willing to compromise so much, even if he loses something,” said Morris Pearl, a New York City investment firm’s managing director who donates to congressional races across the country. “You look better losing a fight than compromising. Winning is best, losing is second best and compromising on a principle is the worst.”

“Nobody wants a consensus,” Pearl added, referring to liberals who want Obama to stick to progressive policies.

Peter Buttenweiser, a major Democratic fundraiser in Philadelphia, described efforts to meet financial goals at a recent Obama fundraiser in the city as “extremely difficult” because the president isn’t “being exactly the person that everybody saw in Denver” in 2008.

First Thoughts: No winners and no losers

And everyone gets a trophy.

"Standard and Poors has placed its 'AAA' long term and 'A-1+' short term sovereign credit ratings on the United States of America on CreditWatch with negative implications."

That's the soundbite from the S&P report the MSM is spreading far and wide. Oh those evil Republicans, the threat of downgrading U.S. credit is obviously their fault. They're just a bunch of intransigent, non-compromising ideologues who are about to push the country into some economic catastrophe. Well umm, not quite. S&P goes on to say:

"We still believe that the risk of a payment default on U.S. debt obligations as a result of not raising the debt ceiling is small, though increasing."

In other words, the prospect of not raising the debt ceiling isn't the driver pushing the S&P downgrade threat. No, here's the driver:

"…the political debate about the U.S. fiscal stance and the related issue of the U.S. government debt ceiling has, in our view, only become more entangled. Despite months of negotiations, both sides remain at odds on fundamental fiscal policy issues. Consequently, we believe there is an increasing risk of a substantial policy stalemate enduring beyond any near-term agreement to raise the debt ceiling….We may lower the long term credit rating of the U.S. into the 'AA' category in the next three months if we conclude that Congress and the Administration have not achieved a credible solution to the rising U.S. debt burden and are not likely to achieve one in the foreseeable future."

Did you catch that sports fans: "a credible solution to the rising U.S. debt burden." That's the core issue underlying the S&P threat. And between the two parties, which has offered a credible plan for dealing with this problem and which has offered fairy dust spending cuts? Ah, there's the rub. The ONLY credible suggestions on this issue are coming from the Republicans. It's the Democrats who remain in denial by insisting that their sacred welfare state be preserved at any cost – a cost that could include a downgrade of U.S. debt.

The whole freaking world knows we're on an unsustainable fiscal path. The only adults in this conversation are the Republicans, because they're the only ones who don't have their heads in the sand and have offered plans for putting us on a more sustainable path by addressing the fundamental problem: REDUCING SPENDING. Those who fall for the pablum of "compromise" don't quite seem to recognize the inherent intellectual dishonesty of that position. Because "compromise" means we make a token attempt at reducing spending while increasing job killing taxes at the same time. All that does is put a band aid on a deep wound, a wound that will continue to bleed us dry as time goes on and the costs of our welfare state continue to impede economic growth.

This is an extraordinary moment in our history that calls for an extraordinary response. Anyone seen anything extraordinary coming from the Democrats? No, and we'll not likely be seeing anything any time soon. The other day the prez said it's "time to eat our peas." Well we're about to get those peas, topped off with a double serving of broccoli. Because in the absence of any credible solution coming from the Dems, Republicans will be serving this dish, and serving it cold by standing firm on the debt ceiling increase. It may not be the best way out of our fiscal mess, but it FORCES us to confront the key problem: it's the spending, stupid.

Quote of the week:

In Benedict Cantor's own handwriting in his high school yearbook - I want WHAT I WANT when I WANT it!

Yup - really does sum up his frame of mind (or what's left of it) anyway...

I'm looking forward in hearing what the President has to say at 11:00. It's clear that the American People are on the President's side and the Republicans had better start doing their jobs, because the American People are darn tried of their game playing.

Wrong on the "no losers" front-

We lose. Standard and Poors announced that there is a fifty fifty chance we will lose one of those 'A's' from our triple A rating. Why?

Because the debt is too high, and raising the debt limit is only going to make it higher.

Showing their usual level of understanding of these matters, the White House weighed on on the announcement by saying that it is because S and P fear a default.

Do they read? Do they comprehend?

Since they seem incapable of admitting the failure of their policies, or the ability to do simple arithmetic, I am guessing no.

Obama's total incompetence is destroying this country. 2012 cannot get here soon enough.

“Don’t call my bluff” ……… I’m all in.

This guy has no game.This is the guy who played the Afghanistan / Taliban Grand Slam Poker Tournament with the his cards facing the wrong direction. Now this game ......

This from a guy that is spending $4 trillion this year and wants another $4 trillion to make thru the election next year …… sheez …… he has a damn billion he has to raise ……. he doesn’t have time to be bothered by this again.

He actually said he doesn’t want this to be a campaign issue, a distraction? What the heck is a better campaign issue, what is more important ……. THIS IS THE ISSUE!

What are the repubs doing…..what are they thinking?

McConnell’s plan? Give Obama another $2.5 trillion cleverly crafted that demonstrates Obama’s reckless disregard for spending? WE KNOW THAT! Your job is to stop it, not create a campaign point! Asinine.

So what does Obama hold? The “I couldn’t care less about the law requiring a budget” card? The “I ignored the budget ceiling law” deuce? The "I'm spending more money than every president combined" spade? The "Boehner will be remembered as the first president in history to default" card?

The repubs are holding the “59% of independents are against raising the ceiling” ace. There all kinds of great repub cards with flop.

If there is agreement on a trillion in cuts – play half that. Give Obama $500 billion and take $600 billion of those cuts. Make Obama come back in 6 months.

Too big? OK Cut it back where SS, military, etc. are just covered for a month – DO IT EVERY MONTH.

Obama has no excuse to hold the 9mm to grandma’s head.

Make him eat his peas. After that ……. Tell him to start on his homework and come up with a budget.

In other words – go all in – there has never been a better

Paul Ryan was on defending his Budget with the same debunked talking points. The problem is that if we do accept his Budget it adds about 5.5 Trillion to the deficit/debt over the next decade and we would have to increase the debt ceiling by about 6 Trillion under his plan.

Exactly. The Ryan plan does not go far enough. There was a similar report on CNN where the economist from the University of Maryland stated that $4T is just the start. After that further cuts are necessary because we are in such a hole.

BTW Navy, can we expect the Democratic plan to get us on the path to fiscal sanity anytime soon?

2012 - What do you want? Proposed Republican Austerity or Imposed IMF Austerity?

FR: With President Obama set to make remarks at yet another news conference at 11:00 am ET, the bipartisan debt negotiations are now essentially over.

Obama will put on his "Oh, I'm so disappointed" face at his latest propaganda conference. Maybe if you ever presented a plan of your own Obama, and you weren't such a hot-head when confronted, this deal would have gotten done. Obama's ideology of raising taxes in bad economic times just was a non-starter, so the blame falls squarley on Obama for sticking with the nuts in left-wing base.

"...The only adults in this conversation are the Republicans, because they're the only ones who don't have their heads in the sand and have offered plans for putting us on a more sustainable path by addressing the fundamental problem: REDUCING SPENDING...."

And for God's sake, don't even t r y to increase INCOME! Jesus, Bill....

Sorry Bill,

You are 100% incorrect. This high deficit is due to the Bush Administration, and NOT the Obama Administration.

Remember the campaign promises that his administration would not be politics as usual and transparent???? This failed prez has been caught in so many lies one needs a super computer to total. An embarrassing First Amendment violation by the failed prez’s administration.

The White House is full of lies, lies and lies and anyone who agrees with the conduct of the WH in suppressing First Amendment rights are not true Americans. You may disagree with what is broadcasted but as Americans you must support their right to say it.

“The Obama administration seems to have lied about its attempt to exclude Fox News Channel from access to an interview with the ‘pay czar.’ These documents show there is a pervasive anti-Fox bias in the Obama White House,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The juvenile Mafioso-talk in these emails has no place in any White House. For the Obama administration to purposely exclude a major news organization from access to information has troubling First Amendment implications.”

White House Emails Detail anti Fox Bias inside Obama White House: “I’m putting some dead fish in the fox cubby -- just cause” “[FNC Anchor] Bret Baier…is a lunatic”

Washington, DC -- July 14, 2011

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has uncovered documents from the Obama Department of Treasury showing that the Obama administration, contrary to its repeated denials, attempted to exclude the Fox News Channel (FNC) from a round of interviews with Treasury’s “Executive Pay Czar” Kenneth Feinberg. The documents, which include email exchanges within the Department of the Treasury and between Treasury and White House staff, also provide colorful evidence of an anti-Fox News bias within the Obama White House.

The documents, obtained last week by Judicial Watch pursuant to an October, 28, 2009, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, concern a series of interviews with Feinberg, who served as the Special Master for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) Executive Compensation, on October 22, 2009, organized by the Treasury Department. According to press reports, the Fox News Channel was specifically excluded from joining the pool of reporters which precipitated a backlash among the networks and a reversal by the Obama Treasury Department.

According to The New York Times: “Fox’s television news competitors refused to go along with a Treasury Department effort on Thursday [October 22, 2009] to exclude Fox from a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg that was to be conducted with a ‘pool’ camera crew…”. Fox News Channel’s James Rosen reported this backlash forced the Obama administration to reconsider its position on the matter: “The Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV news network consulted and decided that none of them would interview Feinberg unless Fox was included, and the administration relented…,” reported Rosen. Ultimately, after other media representatives objected, Fox News Channel was allowed to participate in the interviews.

The Treasury Department’s official response, as detailed in back-and-forth emails uncovered by Judicial Watch, included a clear denial of any such plot to exclude Fox News from the interviews: “There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing.” Moreover, in an October 23, 2009 email to New York Times reporter Jim Rutenberg, Jake Siewart, Counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, repeated the denial that there was an effort to exclude Fox News Channel: “Call me today on your Fox-Treasury report,” Siewart wrote. “Not true that there was an ‘effort to exclude’ Fox.”

However, despite this public position, internal Obama administration emails obtained by Judicial Watch provide evidence that FNC was specifically singled out for exclusion. According to one October 22, 2009, email exchange between Dag Vega, Director of Broadcast Media on the White House staff, to Jenni LeCompte, then-Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs in the Treasury Department, Vega informs LeCompte that “…we’d prefer if you skip Fox please.”

Regarding general anti-FNC bias within the Obama White House in an October 23, 2009, email exchange between Jennifer Psaki, Deputy White House Communications Director and LeCompte, Psaki writes, “I am putting some dead fish in the fox cubby – just cause”. In an email on the night of October 22, 2009, commenting on a report by Fox News Channel anchor Bret Baier noting the exclusion of the network from the pool, Psaki writes to Compte and fellow White House colleagues, “…brett baier just did a stupid piece on it -- but he is a lunatic”.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest bluntly described the White House’s position on Fox News Channel in an October 23, 2009, email to LeCompte: “We’ve demonstrated our willingness and ability to exclude Fox News from significant interviews…”

The Treasury Department blacked out a key email regarding its refusal to make available Treasury Secretary Geithner for an interview on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2011/jul/documents-show-obama-white-house-attacked-excluded-fox-news-channel

Sorry, Bill- yours was not up while I was doing mine.

Yours is much better.

Good morning First Readers:

A personal apology is in order. As some of you may be aware, over the past few days, Eric Cantor has been exposed as a shameless lackey who has sold out to his unelected masters - Grover Norquist and the Koch brothers among others. I have made no attempt to hide my undying contempt for this punk, going so far as to assert that his actions rise to the level of treason in my estimation.

Eric Cantor and his attempt to bring this nation to its knees is the issue; nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately, several posters here have tried desperately to divert attention from Cantor's reprehensible behavior by attacking me personally. They have attacked using a tag team approach, which in and of itself is not a problem. Regardless of the size of their team, they are no match for the truth. The odds are still heavily in my favor.

As always, I refer you to readily available information. I have recently learned that you can click on my name, and it will take you to my posts. You may judge me based on your readings, not the ravings of several shallow provocateurs whose sole goal is to divert and deflect your attention from the genuine issues facing our country.

You may decide whether you find a scintilla, a tiny shred of evidence that even remotely shows their ridiculous charges to be true. You will find their posts in the threads where I have posted. Their vile allegations have all the substance and depth of phlogiston, but it is instructive reading their posts. They take the tiniest bit of information, remove it from context, and construct a straw man. They define words to suit their purpose. The dictionary means nothing. They twist and mangle information to fit the scenario they have created. Truth be damned.

These evil bomb-throwers are part and parcel of the danger facing us; fear mongers who are comfortable with an "ends justify the means" modus operandi for their despicable actions, their constant barrage of lies, and their coordinated campaigns to spread disinformation and hatred.

I apologize for allowing the hijacking of these threads. I apologize for not recognizing these pathological liars immediately. Most importantly, I apologize for treating them with the respect I should have reserved for you - honest citizens seeking information and truth.

no losers????

what about the American people???

Obama's Job is Done

“WASHINGTON DC - USA - Critics of Barack Hussein Obama say that he has created more discord, polarity, bankruptcy and hopelessness. They are right. That was his job in the first place.

"He has done more damage to the USA than even Bush and that's saying something. I have to say though, he's achieved what he was put in place for, as was Bush. Obama's job was to take America into the quagmire further and he has done a stellar job of it.”

http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/most-popular/2538-obama-s-job-is-done.html The picture is worth a 1,000 words and depicts a stark reality.

One must realise that for the introduction of a true world government and new world order, America cannot exist in its present form. This is why it has to be broken up, so that the new world government can take full control. Of course, we have countries like Afghanistan, Iran which are still slightly out of the world order, but this is why we are conducting special operations within these countries to bring these rogue states under our control. As for America, a wasteful country like that can never be allowed to happen again, it must never be allowed to exist again. Obama has done a very good job for his masters and this is why we, his controllers, commend his wonderful work," a Brussels politician told the Novus Ordo newspaper yesterday.

Obama's attack on American civil liberties; increasing of troop numbers in war zones; health care reform; bogus stimulus drives and wasteful budget are all great ways of restricting America's strength.

"Every day they spend trillions of dollars they don't have and print more paper money knowing very well that this will contribute to America's destruction as an economic force. There does not have to be a traditionally violent takeover, this will be a peaceful destruction with a pliant American people too busy playing with electronic gadgets and watching brain dead American entertainment programs to realise what is going on. Once the full extent of the destruction is discovered by the people, it will be too late. China and the UN will just walk in and takeover. Expect checkpoints, food shortages, and the slow whittling down of the population. The post-consumerist age dictates that technology has finally come to a stage where the consumer is not required to service the elite. Slavery will be mechanized therefore making the consumer redundant, an aged model that will be phased out and erased from history," another EU official disclosed.

Soon, the storm troopers will be knocking on your door, instead of some poor defenceless Arab's, to ransack your home and take away your guns. This is the reality of America's future, where the fourth amendment and constitution will be trampled on, and consigned to the dustbin of history.

This is why Barack Hussein Obama and his handlers are doing what they are doing to the economy now. This is why Lehman Brothers were paid off and given a show grilling as a form of public theatre. This is why nutrients from human food are being systematically removed from the food chain and replaced by genetically modified material. This is why your travel is being restricted. This is why you will read this, then go back to your mundane Facebook (Newsvine) page and forget about everything.

Just now one of the credit rating companies either S&P or Moody's - did not get the name may lower our credit rating before Aug 2 dead line.

If so, this would be irresponsible in my opinion.

The sad thing is these Republicans-Tea Party people are so illiterate as far as economics, is concerned. They want to roll the dice and not raise the debt ceiling. If it wasn’t so serious an issue, it would be fun to see their reaction when all of their savings goes bye-bye as the markets crash.

Wake up you little sleepy heads.

Ben-636050

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/07/13/obama-caught-in-a-massive-lie/

ROTFLMFAO & wiping tears of laughter away...

You sure got yourself a credible source there Bennie...

Make it stop! ;o)))))

David Walker:

Well said and that got my vote.

Keep writing I look for you every day.

So now Feisty has dug into something Eric Cantor said in Hogh School. That is just pathetic.

Feisty:

You sure got yourself a credible source there Bennie...

Yeah, like Think Progress or the HuffPo.

Ben,

"Obama's attack on American civil liberties; increasing of troop numbers in war zones; health care reform; bogus stimulus drives and wasteful budget are all great ways of restricting America's strength."

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

You and your buddies are the true Nazi Brown Shirt's in the room.

FR: *** “It’s decision time”: In yesterday’s White House meeting, Obama said he wants all the congressional leaders to choose a path forward in the next 24 to 36 hours that can pass both the House and Senate, according to a GOP aide. “It’s decision time,” Obama said at the meeting.

Sure Obama, whatever you say. Hey, lets try this, seeing you have yet to write down anything on a piece of paper, and just for giggles, lets say you go first! And make sure Obama that you don't just re-submit your FY2012 budget again, you know the one, the one that was voted down 0-97 in the Senate because of "changing conditions" (Thanks for that one goes to Johnnie B in Des Moines!)

You have 24 to 36 hours to get this done Obama. Go!

Our Credit Rating is about to be trash which will be a shot heard around the world and the GOP/TP is celebrating?

The chaos this will cause will make at other recessions and depressions look like a picnic.

I told you they were betting against America. What a Party - NOT!!

First Read:

"To use a historical analogy, it's the Korean War or Cuban Missle Crisis - no one won or lost, and the bigger war (The Cold War) is years away from being decided. In this case, the Cold War is the war over the role of government."

That's a poor analogy in at least one important respect...we aren't 25-35 "years away" from the outcome of this crisis being decided.

We only have until the world's financial markets and ratings agencies decide that U.S. debt has become a bad investment, or until the nation's leadership agrees on a viable plan to address the debt crisis...whichever comes first.

And that's very little time indeed.

David Walker - I agree with what Navy said...

What's even more despicable behavior from the hijacking hooligans is they drag it from thread to thread trying to continue the distraction...

Best to stay focused and not feed the ravenous trolls! ;o)

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Just now one of the credit rating companies either S&P or Moody's - did not get the name may lower our credit rating before Aug 2 dead line.

If so, this would be irresponsible in my opinion.

By the ratings company, or the complete irresponsibility of the US Government? (All branches and all parties). What you don't seem to get Navy is that this is not a crisis of the Debt ceiling being raised it is crisis of the Federal Government spending much more than it is receiving, and has been for the last 10 years. Projections show that there will be no changes to this behavior. Do actually understand what is happening in Europe? Do you really believe that if we continue to add 10% of GDP to the debt each year that the same crisis will not happen here, probably before 2016?

So I ask again who is being irresponsible?

Bill (Fairfax) quoted S&P as saying:

We may lower the long term credit rating of the U.S. into the 'AA' category in the next three months if we conclude that Congress and the Administration have not achieved a credible solution to the rising U.S. debt burden and are not likely to achieve one in the foreseeable future."

I've dealt with rating agencies in the past. These guys do a heck of a lot of good research and are very thorough. Their word is very well respected. To hear them say that the credit rating may be downgraded not because of a debt ceiling issue (c'mon...we all know it will get raised and apparently so does S&P), but because of the continuing accumulation of debt...that's serious. I don't care which party's Congress or President accumulated how much debt. (Funny thing...most of the debt has been compiled by Republican Presidents and Democratic Congresses...nice that we are at least bipartisan there). The bottom line is that we have to get this debt going DOWN and soon. We can't just raise the debt ceiling and then forget about the debt. Losing that AAA rating will have ramifications. Let's hope they can come up with a serious deficit reduction plan...for a start, how about going back to the findings and recommendations of the commision (I forget if it was called the debt or deficit commission)?

Have a great weekend all and Spanky...happy belated birthday!!!

David Walker-

I have promised to quote you accurately, and I believe I have. You're more than welcome to offer examples suggesting otherwise.

Your words...not mine, are your problem, David.

"You have 24 to 36 hours to get this done Obama. Go!"

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

Remember

Eric Cantor vote total 138,209 President Obama vote total 6,852,230

no joe, no bo, nj

"Sorry, Bill- yours was not up while I was doing mine.

Yours is much better."

Your WHAT?? Ewww.....

Alan, NJ: 2012 - What do you want? Proposed Republican Austerity or Imposed IMF Austerity?

Which flies in the face of First Reads take that there are "no winners or losers". Try as Obama and the Democrats, as well as FR, do to make this about politics, it just isn't. It's about economics and the reality that both the deficits and the debt of the country are out of control. The choices we have as a country can make to solve the problem become more limited with each passing day. Obama himself now admits that Social Security is no longer self-sustaining with his threat that those checks may not going out unless the debt ceiling is raised and borrowing can resume. Either we can make the tough choices that need to be made to solve these problems today, or our creditors will tell us how to do it tomorrow.

Navy,

You said the President has said he put everything on the table.

Really?

Has Obama put a budget on the table so that we know where the spending is going? Has he put a plan on the table? You realize the CBO doesn't score speeches right?

Obama talked about entitlement reform - the big problem.

Yet, the biggest, (in the words of another great blo-hard, Bagdad Bob), the "Mother" of all entitlements wasn't mentioned.

You think Obam will put HCR on the table?

We are spending billions on an entitlement - legislation that most of America wants to repeal. Legislation that takes $500 billion from Medicare, that has helped kill the recovery - legislation that we don't even know if it is LEGAL!

Think that is on the table .....

or do you think Obama was lying again.

Thanks for reminding everyone where the tool department is.

@Feisty -- dispute the facts not the messenger. If you research Beck you will see that despite his delivery method his predictions are pretty well dead on.

Correction:

"You have 24 to 36 hours to get this done Obama. Go!"

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

Remember

Eric Cantor vote total 138,209 President Obama vote total 66,852,230

Once again the question for conservatives is this: Where was the concern, the outrage about the debt and deficit spending from 2001 through 2008? There was none. The debt ceiling was raised 7 times without any demands for spending cuts--business as usual.

In 1993, the debt was $4 Trillion plus. Former President Clinton with the help of Newt Gingrich worked together to balance the budget. When Clinton left office, their were budget surpluses that SHOULD have been used to pay down the debt, establish a "rainy day" fund, and prepare both social security and medicare for the out years. President Bush with the help of the GOP squandared every dime with unfunded and unsustainable tax cuts, unfunded wars, unfunded everything and the result of those policies was economic collapse and a giant deficit and debt.

Both parties share some responsibility as do Americans for allowing the "charge it" mentalilty but the biggest share belongs to republican legislators and presidents from Reagan, Bush 41 to Bush 43 and those who blindly listened to the Cheney words that Reagan "proved deficits don't matter". Those same republicans now refuse to consider increased revenues to pay down the debt, closing tax loopholes for the rich and famous, and don't touch the military spending. Serious? A few are but most are playing political football with the country's economic future. The GOP legislators have zero credibility.

Sometimes I wish everyone would just stop and reflect for a moment on why we're all here.

And while we're at it, reflect on what we owe to each other. We don't owe it to politicians, but we do owe it to each other.

Obviously we have differing viewpoints, but all I ask is that we remember one thing:

We're all human beings and we're all in this together.

I'll see you all next week. I hope.

@Jody -- The outrage during those years came from Obama, Pelosi and Reid who voted against raising the debt ceiling. The proper question is where is their outrage today???

Which flies in the face of First Reads take that there are "no winners or losers". Try as Obama and the Democrats, as well as FR, do to make this about politics, it just isn't. It's about economics and the reality that both the deficits and the debt of the country are out of control.

Actually in the IMF case both political sides will be winners. The Democrats will get their massive tax increases AND the Republicans will get their massive cuts. The American people will be the biggest losers.

Elections do matter. The American people elected George W Bush and Barack H Obama and we have to live with the consequences of our decision.

x

Feisty:

The GOP/TP is really lost and scraping the bottom of the barrel, in fact I think they just feel through into the slop - Quoting Glenn Beck as a reliable source is so funny. Only an idiot would take what Glenn Beck says as anything other than pure garbage. What a joke.

David Walker:

GREAT!

"Obama's total incompetence is destroying this country. 2012 cannot get here soon enough."

We're on the same page, no joe. Keep up the good fight.

Nicely said, David Walker, and oh so true.

Incidentally Ben, President Obama never said his mother did not have health care insurance, he said she fought to get them to pay the bills.

Sorry Bill, The Republican-Tea Party are toast.

Bill:

It is easy to be on the same "page" when you are reading from a lie filled script.

Carry on.

What is with all the back-patting here this morning? Geeez, you Libs should form your own secret group or something.......

Ben

"@Feisty -- dispute the facts not the messenger. If you research Beck you will see that despite his delivery method his predictions are pretty well dead on."

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

Need I say more other than, "Right Wing Nut Jobs."

Mixed Bag

We only have until the world's financial markets and ratings agencies decide that U.S. debt has become a bad investment, or until the nation's leadership agrees on a viable plan to address the debt crisis...whichever comes first.

You're sort of right, but it's not a "debt crisis" that's going to bring that about. It's the Republican-manufactured debt ceiling crisis. We only have two or three weeks until one of two things are likely to happen unless a deal similar to what Mitch McConnell proposed:

1. The president sticks to his commitment not to let the Republicans impose their destructive budget cuts and the US becomes a deadbeat nation and a new worldwide recession ensues.
2. The president caves to the Republicans in order to get the debt ceiling raised and the sudden disappearance of hundreds of billions of dollars in government spending from the US economy triggers a new recession.

One thing is certain: If either of those two unacceptable results occurs, the Republicans will blame Obama for their own mischief.

The Progressives will bring the pop corn and the Republicans will bring the nuts.

Frank:

Nice post again and happy Friday. What a week I think a long cool one today at the DDI is in order. First round is on me.

What about our US Women's Soccer team?

Ben. President Obama has stated clearly that the debt must be reduced, and spending reduced and stated it often. Do not try to deflect the question posed--where was the outrage from republicans about the debt from 2001-2008? Prior to losing the White House, they had no problem with it. As for the democrats votes against it, do some research--it is and always has been customary to allow many within the party out of power (WH) to vote NO but both parties always ensured there was enough votes to pass raising the debt ceiling. Republicans did it, too, so don't try the bait and switch, Ben--it won't work.

Frank "Grimey", the only part of your post I disagree with is the claim that it was democrats in Congress who helped republican presidents deficit spend. Democrats are "tax and spenders" for a reason, they generally pay for what they implement. From 2001 through 2006, the GOP controlled the House, the Senate and the White House--it was they, and they alone, who undid the hard work of Clinton and Newt Gingrich to get the debt and deficit under control. Beyond that, great post.

Nay, I will take you up on your offer. And remember the week is not over yet!!

again President Obama is a man of his word.

Pure, unadulterated offal.

Lies During First Year

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Obama Inaugaration. 20 Jan 2009

Cut Deficit in Half by end of first term
Associated Press Video

Health Care deals will be covered on C-span
Obama Lies

As President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide
ABC

Recovery Act will save or create jobs
ABC News

Unemployment rate will be 8.5% without stimulus.
Obama Lies

No Earmarks in the $787 Billion Stimulus

CNN

I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan
Specator.Org

We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages.
Obama Lies

I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage.
NPR

Guantanamo bay to be closed within a year
Council on Foreign Relations.

Won’t Raise taxes on those making less than 250,000 per year.
Businessweek: Obama Agnostic on taxes
List of Tax Promise Violations

2008 Campaign Lies

Obama campaign would accept public funding
http://obamalies.net/wp-admin/post.php?post=901&action=edit-to-break.html">ABC

Ann Dunham spent the months before her death in 1995 fighting with insurance companies that sought to deny her the coverage she needed to pay for treatment.
Mounting Heath Care Lies

Didn’t know Jeremiah Wright was Radical
Dreams of My Father – A radical Socialist.

Would have the most transparent administration in History
Cato Institute

We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way.
Boston Globe

I have visited all 57 states.
Snopes

I’ll get rid of earmarks
Source: Any bill passed during presidency

When a bill lands on my Desk, The American people will have 5 days to review it before I sign it.
Campaign Speech

My father served in World War II.
The Videos and the Facts

Have troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2009
News Video

Seniors Making less than 50,000 will not have to pay taxes
YouTube

Would not vote for any bill supporting troop funding without a firm withdrawal commitment from the Bush Administration.
He has done nothing but continue the Bush admins strategy and to explain how the “surges total failure” has now become his greatest achievement.

Present Votes Are Common In Illinois
NPR

I Won Michigan
Huffington Post

I won Nevada
The Nation

I don’t Have Lobbyists
US News

My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad
Crooks and Liars

I Have Always Been Against Iraq
Washington Post

My Wife Didn’t Mean What She Said About Pride In Country
CNN

Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity.
Obama Campaign Video

I Barely Know Rezko
Sun Times

My Church Is Like Any Other Christian Church
ABC News

JoAnnaSmith1

First Thoughts: No winners and no losers

And everyone gets a trophy.

Except you, Joanne. You get to stand in the corner with a dunce cap on!

Hey Navy...

Thanks for the comments!! I'm liking our chances, but to be honest, if we are going to lose to anybody, I don't mind it being Japan. That team wasn't supposed to get anywhere near the finals and they pulled through. I love what they do before each game...they unfurl a banner thanking the world for the help that they provided after the devastating earthquake and tsunami. Having said that though...I'm gonna wear my red, white, and blue and root our girls on. I'm predicting USA 2, Japan 0 on Sunday and our first World Cup since 1999.

Go USA!!!!

Have a great weekend!!

(Edited to address Jody)

Hi Jody...

I was going by something I saw yesterday that showed the debt accumulated depending on which party controlled Congress at the time. The large majority was during Democratically controlled Congresses. I'd have to go back and look, but it was during one of the afternoon posts yesterday. (The poster quoted a pretty sound source as I recall). Similarly, if you look at debt accumulated depending on which party has the White House, you'd see that Republicans have the large majority of the debt. That's where I was going with my "bipartisan debt" comment.

Take care!

@Steven -- Great recap of the Liar in Chief. Keep up the good work!!!

You have 24 to 36 hours to get this done Obama. Go!

Good one JoAnnaSmith!

What a funny idea for a poll - What will Obama do this weekend?

1. Play golf and basketball. Maybe offer his help on the NFL lock-out. (He did say he would rather talk about that.)

2. Hop in the 747 to try find an expensive place Michelle hasn't had their lobster yet.

3. Attend a few $35,000 a plate fundraisers.

4. Think about the debt - ceiling issue.

Dearest Steven B:

Your desperation is showing! ;o)

Unable to explain why Republicans are siding with "corporate people" against the American people, Steven B brings out the longest list of debunked lies, half truths, and distortions he can find!!

lol

Not taking the bait StevenB . . . what are the Republicans planning to do to create/keep jobs in America?

What are the Republicans planning to do to stop my tax dollars going to subsidize for profit businesses that pay ZERO taxes, like oil companies and Fox News?

Where are the plans Steven B?

Ben:

Do try to keep up . . . the talking point for today is that "back patting is bad" . . . just like White Collar Auto said . . . now cut that out! lol

Jody, Iowa: Ben. President Obama has stated clearly that the debt must be reduced, and spending reduced and stated it often.

And yet Obama submitted a FY2012 budget with $1.65 trillion in deficit spending. Since that time, the Obama budget was voted down 0-97 in the Senate, and Obama has taken to making speeches about how concerned he is about the debt, while doing absolutely nothing about it. He'll probably be doing one more such speech at 11:30 today.

Talk is cheap Obama, when are you going to actually do something?

You're framing the debate incorrectly, Houston.

If responsible lawmakers from either or both sides of the aisle can force President Obama to endorse a specific, long-term agreement on debt along the lines of his own debt commission's Plan in exchange for agreeing to raise the debt ceiling, all this wrangling will have been worth the bother.

A timetable to implement spending cuts and an overhauled tax code with enhanced revenue as part of a comprehensive long-term agreement is a matter that can be negotiated...both can be phased in with an eye on causing the least degree of disruption to a fragile economy.

I would argue that the mere announcement of such an agreement on a long-term solution to the debt crisis and the signing of such legislation into law would have an immediate stimulative effect on the economy, and would immediately boost the confidence of investors worldwide with regard to the soundness of U.S. fiscal policy.

Of course, the ideologues on both sides won't like such bipartisanship at all, will they, Houston?

Navy, I was going to list just a few items in which Obama was not a man of his word as you stated Steve B beat me to it. His list is much more comprehensive. David Walker, you wanted an instance in which Navy embellished the facts here is another one. As for what taxes in the new Obama approach, supposedly none of revenue comes from closing loopholes, it comes from partial limitation on itemized deductions for the people making over $200k. In addition some subsidies for jet owners, oil companies etc are eliminated. Those are tax increases and if its closing a loophole eliminate the deduction for everyone or dont bother as that justs a tax increase or wealth transfer and providing welfare for one class of people over another. In addition, his proposed spending reductions supposedly dont involve the big entitlement programs so he is just kicking the can down the road. Where are the spending cut proposals from the democrats and the President. Why cant we get them to stop being such obstructionists.

David Walker. I am not going to attack you for Cantor but you do realize that so much of your anger is because he is part of the republican leadership of the house and has to heard the cats. You can probably now appreciate why Pelosi generates so much distaste from fiscal conservatives and why her approval ratings were always in the teens.

Gee, Nash, I make an observation that their seems to be an inordinate amount of "Great post, I voted for you" comments from the libs today, something that had kind of gone away for a while, and you call me out for spouting some kind of talking point?

What's up with that?

Kirk:

Why is it okay that so much of the middle class wealth has been transferred to the top for the past decade?

Let me be clear:

I don't give a flying $#@# what you call it, a tax increase, closing a loophole, or PAYING THE DAMN BILL YOU RAN UP, but this nation needs increased income, and it is going to come from those who are making an income, and that is just that.

All of these smoke and mirrors, whining, and subject changing just ain't gonna cut it.

If you want to use the U.S. Economy as your personal piggy bank and keep all your bonuses and ill gotten gains, then when the country starts reaping what YOU have sown, YOU are going to have to help right the ship.

So pay your damn taxes, stop subsidizing corporate people, and get over it for crying out loud.

Ya'll would rather turn poor folks out into the street than drop some extra CRUMBS off of your pile of STOLEN MONEY.

There is a special place in hell reserved. A very special place.

All these posts and the best one is Feisty's "Better stay focused" At what slopping the extra butter on all that popcorn you and bev eat! Again everyone of the Independents I talk with everyday are still center right! Again please remember you left proggies are the M I N O R I T Y!

White Collar Auto:

And now you shift seamlessly to the "pretend to be offended" tactic. Poor you. Poor mistreated you.

What am I today, anti-semitic? A freeloader? Or is it "must hate white people" day?

Blah, blah, blah, both sides, blah blah blah Obummer blah blah blah.

Happy Friday.

First of all, here's the quote from PresidentBarack Obama;

"For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they're saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don't have to pay her treatment, there's something fundamentally wrong about that."

That's a very believable statement, and he's correct that people shouldn't have to spend times when they're dealing with critical medical emergencies ARGUING WITH insurance companies. My aunt had to spend weeks ARGUING WITH her insurance company because her insurance tried to deny a 50 mile helicopter ambulance trip called in by paramedics BECAUSE SHE WAS IN RESPIRATORY ARREST!!

I'd guess little Bennie must work for Glenn Beck, seems like most of his "facts" come from Beck. Bennie maintains he has an amazing track record in terms of being right. I'll let FR readers judge for themselves. Here's a small sampling of times when Glenn Beck was demonstrably wrong;

http://glennbeckreport.com/2009/10/beck-debunked/

http://glennbeckreport.com/the-9-principles-deconstructed/principle-1/

http://www.infowars.com/glenn-becks-lame-attempt-to-debunk-fema-camps/

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/08/04/beck_doubles_down_on_his_debunked_cash_for_clunkers_conspiracy_theory.php

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201011170048

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201006250027

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201006180022

http://mediamatters.org/research/200705080009

http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=glenn+beck

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

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=22&ved=0CB4QFjABOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fasymptoticlife.com%2F2009%2F08%2F26%2Fcash-for-clunkers-glenn-beck-debunked%2F&rct=j&q=glenn%20beck%20debunked&ei=LlEgTr3zD5HmsQPFx4k6&usg=AFQjCNHt02rr-B3V5PtDxJG7uEANHiT4GQ&cad=rja

http://rainydaythings.blogspot.com/2011/01/glenn-beck-lies.html

There's A LOT MORE out there, but I think this is enough to see a pattern. Glenn Beck isn't an information source, he's a propagandist. It's reasonable to immediately discard anything he says.

Nashville,

That is pathetic. I earned my money. Didn't steal a dime. All of it legally, no ill-gotten gains here. I pay my taxes, every damn penny, every damn year. My "fair share" , even though you think it should be more.

Your post reeks of jealousy. If you are unhappy, figure out how to get paid more. In the mean time, quit crying about those of us who have figured it out.

I'll give you a tip. It starts with hard work.

NF: this nation needs increased income, and it is going to come from those who are making an income, and that is just that.

Because Lord knows, having the economy generate new jobs, and new tax payers, will never work with ObamaNomics. Chronic unemployment, chronic under-employment, these are the symptoms of Keynesian economics, and Obama's economics, which are the same thing. But the Leftists of the country will never get that message, they are just too stupid to comprehend it. And that is just that.

2008 Campaign Lies

The chain e-mail LIVES! lol

@ Nash - funny to see all the RWNJ's little fe-fe's hurt! LMAO

Time for some kool-aid dontcha think?

Nashville, You don't have the power to offend me. Nobody does. Just wondering where the talking point comment came from. LibsRus?

Mixed Bag

You're framing the debate incorrectly, Houston.

I'm not framing any debate. I'm stating facts that you don't like.

If responsible lawmakers from either or both sides of the aisle can force President Obama to endorse a specific, long-term agreement on debt along the lines of his own debt commission's Plan in exchange for agreeing to raise the debt ceiling, all this wrangling will have been worth the bother.

You don't get it, do you? It won't be worth it to the millions of additional people likely to lose their jobs when federal government spending is abruptly cut by an enormous amount.When you fire some "useless" government employee like a food inspector who tries to ensure the food you eat isn't poisonous, that guy stops spending money on private sector stuff like cars and home improvements. The people who make cars or do construction work then lose they're jobs. That is what's likely to happen if the president caves in to the Republicans on their insane demands.

White Collar,

Great post, I voted for you......

I remember once seeing "Family Feud" and a first question was something to the effect of ....

"If you are awakened in the middle of the night with what sounds like might be a break-in ...... what is the last thing you would want to see when walking downstairs?"

A guy quickly bussed in ......... naked grandma!

The camera pans over to the family ........ great answer, good answer, great answer .....

Think of the FR bunch kinda like that.

Grimey. Good points. I don't disagree, both parties played a role in the debt but if you go back to the Reagan years, it was democrats in Congress who nudged Reagan and helped him recognize his original tax cuts could not sustain the needs of the Government because Reagan had increased the size of it. It was the combination of taxes too low, increased size of government mostly on military spending without paying for it that doubled the debt. After that first huge tax cut, the deficit and debt soared; by the time taxes were raised (11 times during the Reagan years--mostly on average folks), it was almost too late. Credit Clinton and Gingrich for setting a course that had us with balanced budgets and surpluses to pay down the debt. Some debt for any Government is not a bad thing but what took place from 2001 through 2006 was arrogant disregard for the country's economic future and that was total GOP rule--the democrats could do nothing to stop the irresponsible unfunded spending because they didn't have the votes plus much of it was done through "budget reconciliation" where the filibuster did not apply and only 51 votes were needed. Responsible republicans like McCain at first objected to what was happening but there were not enough McCain's.

Always enjoy reading your posts and generally agree with most everything you say. Have a great weekend. Go USA women's Soccer Team!

White Collar Auto:

So you went with freeloader, huh?

Very original.

P.S. Good to know you are not jealous, so all that whining about "back patting" and references to Libs R Us is just . . . yeah. Whatever.

P.S.S. What is your plan to help somebody other than yourself White Collar? huh? What are the Republicans in Congress doing to earn an actual paycheck from me? I need a plan, not insults. Not rhetorical questions. Not magical thinking. A plan.

Feisty:

A big bowl of popcorn is in order. With cheese please!

Feisty:

How true, when all else fails go get the debunked chain mails out of moth balls. The GOP/TP is really floundering now. Obama has them on the ropes. They have absolutely nothing but more idle rhetoric and the same lies as before. This just further demonstrates how impotent the GOP/TP Party has become.

It is time for the American people to now take a stand and put the GOP/TP down for the count. President Obama cannot do it alone, the people are going to have to get to the polls in larger numbers than they did in 2010 and vote.

President Obama has exposed them for what they are and now the people have to finish it off.

Houston-

You simply aren't listening.

How can the President be regarded as "caving" to a bipartisan piece of legislation, passed by both sides of the aisle in both Houses of Congress?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

WOW, the koolaid drinkers - on both sides - are out in force today. Here are a few of my own, humble observations:

An increase in taxes, through removal of tax preference items, will not kill jobs.

A reduction in spending on defense might actually be a good thing. If we don't spend the money on weapons, maybe we won't be so eager to go off into foreign lands and get our young people killed or injured.

There is room to reduce spending in domestic programs. Do we really need to subsidize oil, sugar, corn, GE ?

This is not a game. You don't "win" by "bluffing" your "opponent" into compromise.

Negotiation is not a swear word.

It is time for our political leaders to grow up and govern. Enough of the games already. "We the People of the United States of America" are tired of them. Do the jobs you were elected to do and govern already !!!!

It is easy to be on the same "page" when you are reading from a lie filled script.

_____________________________________________

Well, that would explain why the FR lefty liberals are ALWAYS telling each other "We're on the same page today" after they each post the same lefty nonsense.

How come the voodoo economics didn't work under President Bush?

Why didn't it trickle down?

WTF happened?

Why does Exxon and ADM need a subsidy with MY money? Why? Why? Why?

Why is ME getting government benefits from the money I put in portrayed as a crime?

Why?

P.S. White Collar Auto . . . you ain't even making enough to pay taxes your damn self most likely . . . we are talking about corporate people and wealthy people . . . not disgruntled folks lie yourself, mmmmkay? This ain't ABOUT you, never has been about you, so quit pretending it is!

Hey Nashville, I'm all for a plan. When is President Obama going to put one on paper? How about a budget from the Dem's?

I believe the Republicans "earned their paycheck" by submitting, voting on and passing a budget. How is that working for Harry Reid and his Democrat Senate? Maybe they should be sending their paychecks back to you?

Help someone other than myself? You have no idea to who or how much I contribute with charitable donations. But here is a fact, if the government decides they need to take more of my money, those donations will be less.

NF: P.S. White Collar Auto . . . you ain't even making enough to pay taxes your damn self most likely .

Wow, you seem to think you know a lot about me. Do you have Feisty going through my High School year books?

White Collar Auto . . . you ain't even making enough to pay taxes your damn self most likely . . . we are talking about corporate people and wealthy people . . . not disgruntled folks lie yourself, mmmmkay

Yup, back to the idiotic "mmmmkay" reference.

Makes you long for the ol'LibsRUs Tree House Gang acronym list.

The President just came into the press room, shot a lay up and missed as usually.

Plenty here to address, but FIRST of all, DAVID WALKER.

The month's gold-star-on-the-forehead award goes to you sir, for being (as far as I know) the ONLY person ever to use the word phlogiston in a Newsvine post. In fact, this may be the only time anyone has used that word in written or spoken speech in the United States in the year 2011, outside of classes covering the history of chemistry (the record won't last, now, of course).

It is a term from an arcane theory of chemistry. The word would probably not even have survived in living memory had not Neil Stephenson, Philip Pullman, and some other writers found that theory a useful tool in their fiction. Want to know more? Look it up.

Now, let's see:

Debt and the U.S. Credit Rating

Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote that while the amount of debt accumulated by the u.S. government indeed posed the risk of a credit rating downgrade, it was the character of the debt and how the country proposed to reduce it, that would make a major difference.

Following are some excerpts from his recent book on the current economic crisis, Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy (W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 2010, ISBN 978-0-393-33895-9). Page numbers for the citations are in parentheses after each quote. (I am not using the quotation layout feature because the greyed-out, italicized text is hard to read.)

"... (A)s the government borrows more, those who lend the money will worry about whether the government will be able to pay it back. As their worry increases, they may demand a higher interest rate." (pp. 72-73)

The context of this statement is a discussion about severe austerity measures versus stimulus programs to spur growth and employment - which are ultimately the driving factors in renwed economic health, and a government's ability to generate revenues to repay debt. Stiglitz observes in that respect that governments have found themselves "between a rock and a hard place," damned if they do spend, damned if they don't.

In respect to the current debate, Stiglitz's observation solidy paints the debt ceiling impasse as the basis for the wrnings from Moody's and Standard & poor's. As Congressional inaction continues, and the right wing of the GOP attempts to drive the country into default, creditors indeed react exactly as he said they would. Although the concern involves the debt, the motivating factor is not its size but its repayment.

Further on, the economist explains that creditors are more comfortable with debt that is not aimed at creating consumer spending, but rather creates assets and sets a firmer foundation for economic health:

"If ... the stimulus money is spent on investments, these adverse effects are less likely to occur, because markets should realize the United States is actually in a stronger economic position as a result of the stimulus, not a weker position. If the stimulus spending is for investment, then the asset side of the nation's balance sheet increases in tandem with its liabilities, and there is no reason for lenders to be worried, no reason for an increase in interest rates." (p. 73)

As related to components of the debt accumulated since President Obama took office, stimulus money already spent or still available for future allocation includes some considerable sums of exactly the character Stiglitz described. The "green" manufacturing investments, the small business long-term capitalization investments, and yes, even those "shovel ready" projects are examples. Products of that spending of borrowed money are one reason why the actual debt at this time is not a far more serious concern to international creditors of the United States.

Again, the issue involved when China and other countries admonish the United States to straighten out affairs of its financial house is not the size or nature of the debt, but the utterly foolish obstruction from the GOP right wing to practical resolution of the debt ceiling.

GOP "slashonomics" will damage economic recovery

As explained yesterday in one of my posts, the right-wing obssession with cutting federal programs - really motivated by ideological considerations - is contraction of the economy, and does not contribute at all to growth or increased employment. The evidence is already abundant: As states run by Tea Party governors, such as Wisconsin and Florida, have chopped their budgets and sent tens of thousands of public employees into unemployment, private sector job growth has suddenly begun to slow. The recent figures do not reflect some sort of "failure" by the Obama Administration, but rather the failure of the right wing to learn any lessons at all from the economic collapse their failed polcies caused.

For the in-depth discssion mentioned above, see http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/14/7081699-first-thoughts-always-darkest-before-the-deal?threadId=3173432&commentId=55964206#c55960570

Stiglitz put the approach of the right wing into sharp contrast with what is actually necessary to keep the country moving forward, and his comments, first written in 2009, apply equally to the posture of the right wing in the debt ceiling debate:

"Anxieties about the deficit growing out of hand lead to the ralsource of concern: the political risk that America will not be able to stay the coures, jast as it failed to do during the Great Depression and just as Japan failed to do after the bursting of its buddle in the early 1990s. Will the government continue to provide a stimulus if the economy fails to achieve a robust recovery after the first dose of medicine? Will those who never believed in Keynesian economics ally themselves with deficit hawks in Congress to urge a cutback in government spending? I worry that they will, and if they do, a return to strong growth may be delayed." (pp. 73-74)

Stiglitz's prophetic words describe the issues at stake in the debt ceiling debate. If the right wing succeeds in holding the country hostage until it gets major cuts in federal spending - cuts far beyond reasonable - then the nation as a whole loses. So also do the economies of other countries that are closely connected to that of the U.S.

Conclusion: The Issue is NOT debt by itself, but confidence in the U.S. ability to pay it

The right wingers posting here repeatedly that debt itself is the issue simply do not know what they are talking about.

The very dangerous obstructionism and delay by the right wing of the house GOP in respect to the debt ceiling is instead a key component of worry by creditors and ratings agencies. And, further, the outside world sees the right wing attempting to hamstring the government's ability to foster continued - or rather, renewed - economic growth and an increase in employment, and thus become concerned that U.S. revenues will fall as a result. (By the way, that is one essential reason why the President's insistence of increased revenues from corporations now legally evading taxes, as well as the upper-income brackets, is so important. Given that the right-wing insistence of actually cutting employment and shrinking initiatives that help economic growth, the concomitant loss in revenues must be made up.)

WCA: Hey Nashville, I'm all for a plan. When is President Obama going to put one on paper?

The press just asked Obama "name one structural change you favor for any entitlement". Obama didn't have an answer. Oh, he babbled on and on for minutes, but he didn't answer the question - "Not getting into specifics" he said. What a clueless rookie.

Kirk:

I spent quite some time the other day returning a post. While I don't expect you to sit and wait for my response, I do expect the courtesy of at least reading it within 24 hours.

I have work to do, but you have raised several interesting points. First, I do not know to what fact or facts to which you refer in Navy's post. Please be specific. I didn't see anything that seemed to be untrue.

Please do not tell me what motivates my hatred for Eric Cantor. Obviously based on your response, you haven't a clue. As a matter of fact, there are only three cats that need herding in the G.O.P. The first is of course, the usual suspects - the center right. Group two includes the simple-minded screamers who count among themselves the chosen of God, the woefully misnamed Pro-Lifers, the arithmetic-challenged ("Why yes, as a matter of fact, we raise more money by collecting less!") and those who subsist on a steady diet of right-wing dogma food and fool-ade. Then there's the third group - a one-man wrecking crew who is stunningly stupid. Palin with a penis, if you will - the punk's punk, Eric Cantor.

Nancy Pelosi? I addressed Ms. Pelosi's expertise yesterday and in the context of the "herd of cats". Will Rogers' observation that, "I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat," is as true today as it was during his heyday. Yet, Ms. Pelosi was instrumental - and in fact, indispensable - in the passage of health insurance reform. Whether you like it is irrelevant. That was a monumental task and she was able to deliver, and the best her opponents can come up with is the trite, "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It."

I am generally a fiscal conservative, but you give respect where respect is due. You have to go back quite a way to find her equal. Gingrich? DeLay? Let's stay in the real world. What has Boehner done? Well, he puts his arm around Brutus and all but gives him a hug and a kiss.

Ratings? I don't give a rotund rodent's rectum about ratings. Most numbers are the product of identity politics. If not that, it's a "what have you done for me lately?" mentality. I'm not looking to the herd for direction.

First, David Walker, 5 stars for you! As I've watched news conferences from both sides, with their same old talking points, I just get madder and madder. Boehner has no control, no authority over his insane TP gang of ignorant thugs, he's useless. Cantor, you can't print what I think about that creep, so I'll restrain myself. Grover Norquist should be tried for treason, now. The idiot TP/Rethugs are now demanding a balanced budget, again. Guess what dummy's, the US is not a ordinary household, and to equate the two is pure fantasy and deceptive to the public. By the way, Paul Ryan voted for the TARP deal, the bailouts for GM and Chrysler, he voted for the stimulus pack., and he voted to raise the debt ceiling 7 times, so, hypocrite, shut you're pie hole, you are a liar of the first order. The President has offered way more than I think he should to compromise with these loons. But, I do know, that he is a constitutionsl scholar, and you can bet big bucks if he has to pull out the 14Th. amendment, he can, and I think he will, he won't like it, but he will do what is best for our nation. As a Progressive Dem., I've had to eat a lot of things I wanted done, and which I truly believe should have been done, single payer healthcare, bringing our Soldiers home, closing down the hell hole which is Gauntanamo, letting the Bush tax cuts expire, cutting off funds for unemployment, so I'm disappointed. But you can bet your last dime, I will vote for Pres. Obama again, because the alternative would be the final destruction of the US, as we know it. After reading John Nichols article in the Nation, re: ALEC and the plans of the Repubs to finish us off, I would vote for the Devil himself to keep those crazies out of the White House.

Because Lord knows, having the economy generate new jobs, and new tax payers, will never work with ObamaNomics

Home run! Touchdown! Swishhhhhhh! Goaaaaaaaal!

You're exactly right JoAnna, the left doesn't get that and NEVER will

Fiesty, there are definite embellishments on that email but its not inaccurate. If you believe Obama didnt lie about his relationship for example with Rezco prove it. We are both from Illinois we both know the truth so at least be intellectually honest some times. Even Obama admitted it the other day when he said he was just wrong and inexperienced 4 years ago when he made the statements about the debt ceiling vote as a senator.

Nashville, lets not be hyperbolic use the extremes to make a point. Lets talk about the aggregate impact or what the averages are rather than picking out some extreme example. First, give me an example of middle class wealth or assets transferred to the wealthy. Just one example. You might say the wealthy are paying a slightly smaller portion of their already 90% support of the government. I already gave you why income as also gone up proportionately for the wealthy because of the changes in the tax code to single tax structures rather than double tax. 73% of small businesses report income on the owners personal tax return rather than in 1980 when it was almost 87% the opposite. Also the middle class has been subsidizing the legal and illegal immigration since 1980 with so many of their jobs either lost of wages depressed as the wave of immigration has reduced the middle class standard of living. So tell me how the middle class has transferred even a dollar of wealth to the wealthy?

So you feel the class warfare thing again. What ill gotten gains have I made or the average person making 250k? Dont point to some hedge fund manager as at best there are 100 of them so lets focus on the average. Nobody in this so called wealthy caused the problems or stole the money. The average taxpaying family with a family of 4 making 250,000 pays 75,000 in tax. The average family of 4 making 75,000 pays 5,000 in income tax. You dont think thats progressive? You dont think he is paying his fair share and you think its your job to put your hand in his wallet. So your local brain surgeon or baby doctor who by performance or merit and hard work is making $500,000 a year and between federal incomes taxes, state income taxes payroll taxes he is already giving 50% to some government agency, you somehow feel he has stolen or taken and deserves to be punished for his success and his money handed over to solve our deficit problems. By the way, your reference to sending me to hell because you dont want to give to your favorite charity but want to use my money is offensive. If you can show me a government social budget living off crumbs in which that budget hasnt gone up way beyond the level of inflation over the last 10 years, please do so. Stop embellishing and use real facts to make your argument

Why is it that progressives get so bent out of shape when a conservative like Bachmann or Palin take a position on what a woman can or cant do with her body but that same progressive has no problem reaching into another person's pocket and taking their money. I find both equally offensive.

To: David Walker, Jobs1, Navy, Feisty, John A., Jody, Houston,, Clara and Michael Thompson:

CC: Mixed Bag

BCC: Spanky

First: Michael Thompson. I suspect you haven't a clue as to what Mr. Walker's post(s) were about and yet you wrote in support of him. This is not a liberal v conservative issue and if you actually read the posts Mr. Walker was referencing, you may not have written your post.

Second: Mr. Walker. Lets assume you are intellectually capable of segregating politics from your written word. Take politics out of the conversation. Let's both agree that Eric Cantor is a miserable SOB who's is incapable of compromise.

Cantor out of the way. Now let's talk about what you wrote. Not politics, your written word. Not a conservative deflection but your written word. Segregate the politics from the words.

You stated that the Holocaust was no different than the bombing of a heavily defended German city during World War II. That bombing Dresden, a military and industrial target, which was a major rail transportation and communication center, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the Nazi war effort, is the same as the genocide of 12 million people, I used Holocaust as a proper noun and you chose to to deride the use of the word as I wrote it with a "capital H".

You chose to describe Cantor as selling out YOUR country, not our country, for 30 pieces of silver. Classic anti-Semitic comment for reasons we already discussed.

You chose to equate Cantor as only interested in MONEY, again, another classic anti-Semitic slur.

Now take just those 3 statement, which are NOT taken out of context and explain them to me "an ignorant" and "a shallow provocateur" looking to stir the @!$%# pot.

You demand an apology! So do I and the other people on FR you offended. That's not many as I have found. They too seem incapable of discerning racism from politics or if they can then they are....what did you say..."of my ilk...make that of your ilk.

Finally: Nash: So if someone makes derogatory or racist comments about Obama, you can't place the race card anymore because your outrage "is a personal thing". Correct? That's what you said. Want me get the full quote?

You all have a good day, good weekend.

I was just watching Barry's press conference and here's a quick summary:

Blah, blah, blah, same old, same old, Dem lefty liberal talking points, blah, blah, blah, some more................

If liberals really cared about "global warming" as much as they claim, why is Barry just generating more useless hot air??

John A. nicely written, well researched, thought out, coherant and missing some of the obvious attacks on a particular political brand.

What is wrong with this picture ?

You do realize that you are writing on First Read... or did you get lost.... LOL :-D

You demand an apology! So do I and the other people on FR you offended.

Day 5 and Ira's still bawling!

Sorry Nash - I'm gonna have to skip the cheese for your popcorn, Ira needs it to accompany his WHINE!

*yawn*

PS: Here's 10 bucks - go buy yourself a pair of MAN pants for cryin out loud!

John A.-

Can you please outline any plan that Stiglitz advocates to address the nation's debt?

Feel free to omit any proposal that is not bipartisan in nature, and thus cannot pass both Houses of Congress and be signed into law by President Obama.

I realize that Stiglitz doesn't like the debt commission Plan, however...the debt commission Plan does have bipartisan support in Congress, if not the support of President Obama at present.

Again, what exactly is Stiglitz' long-range legislative proposal to address the debt crisis?

Joanna, Why are you even watching his news conference? I would think you would have better things to do?

Your opinion about the president is rock solid in your mind. It Friday , go enjoy yourself.

Throughout these negotiations, the president never really outlined his own plan or "owned" some other plan

I won't say Marcus Bachmann seems gay. That would be an insult to gay people.

Good points, Ira, and you have a good day and a terrific weekend as well.

Anyway, I would like to see David explain to Nash, Navy, Jody, and especially Clara, why he objects to the usage of the word "Holocaust" (with the capitalized letter "H") to describe the systematic extermination of the Jews of Europe.

I didn't really grasp the intent of David's remarks on that.

You chose to describe Cantor as selling out YOUR country, not our country, for 30 pieces of silver. Classic anti-Semitic comment for reasons we already discussed.

You chose to equate Cantor as only interested in MONEY, again, another classic anti-Semitic slur.

Now take just those 3 statement, which are NOT taken out of context and explain them to me "an ignorant" and "a shallow provocateur" looking to stir the @!$%# pot.

Ira - you are trying to deflect the conversation to soothe YOUR sensibilities when it is not necessary. What is important is that we are talking about the debt ceiling and why it is not being raised. What David Walker - or anyone else for that matter - thinks of Eric Cantor is IRRELEVANT to this discussion. What is relevant is that Eric Cantor is holding up the deal(s) that are being floated to solve this problem.

Now, if you are looking for a Semite v. anti-semite fight, then you are barking up the wrong tree. If you have issue with how David walker or anyone else as to how they referred to Eric Cantor, then take that OFFLINE (contact them through Newsvine e-mail if you need to). Your argument(s) about that really have no bearing in this discussion other than your outrage about them not being sensitive to the Holocaust.

You REALLY need a THICK SKIN if you want to last around here, Ira.

I suggest that you grow one.

Quickly.

Well I Feisty's still got it... lots of votes and still getting collapsed! Nice! The Right Wing you can count on them to try and silence the opposition. Tisk, Tisk for shame. I thought the GOTP was for following the Constitution? Or is it only when it suits them?

Ira:

I never play the "race card".

I play the "fact card".

And you are now officially playing the "beat a dead horse" card.

I will repeat for emphasis: this blog is about politics, not your feelings.

When sincere folks find something offensive, they say so. When an explanation is offered, they either accepti or don't. I suggest you do the same Ira . . . accept David Walker's explanation or don't.

Because this blog ain't about you Ira.

. I thought the GOTP was for following the Constitution?

LOL - the tea baggers follow the 2nd amendment closely - the 1st one, eh not so much!

Thanks for the kind words wakeup!

Ira: No problem.

You're right Joe in Albany, more hot air from our Blowhard-in-Chief. I was especially struck by his insistence on characterizing the current stalemate as a political problem where the players have to pull themselves away from their bases and stop "posturing." That way, the prez can portray himself as the voice of reason above the fray willing to bring the squabbling children together to do good for the American people.

HOGWASH!

This isn't a political problem. It's a philosophical problem, a colossal clash between opposing points of view. The Dems fundamentally believe in the welfare state and are unwilling to make any serious attempt at constraining its growth. Republicans fundamentally believe government is already way too big and are unwilling to provide it with any more fuel in the form of additional taxes. To their credit, I acknowledge Dems are standing up for what they believe in just as I acknowledge the Republicans who are doing the same. But to trivialize and demean their deeply held views by calling it "posturing" is an insult to folks on both sides of this argument.

The solution will not be found in a "compromise" that neither side can live with. The solution will be a raw exercise of power in an endgame that is still uncertain. Right now, it's looking like the Republicans will exercise their power and prevent an increase in the debt ceiling. If that happens, it's not "posturing." It's using your power to accomplish something you believe in very deeply. If politicos can't do that, then why bother being in the game in the first place.

Kirk:

If you wanna play numbers games or spin corporate fairy talks, bob or Bill from Fairfax are the folks for you.

Why do Republicans always pretend to be for the "common man", the try to confuse us with alot of phoney stats and crap?

Here is a field report from the real world for ya: Wages are stagnant and costs are going up.

Voodoo economics didn't work the first two times, and we ain't going for a third.

Ya'll can purchase the Congress, Supreme Court, and the media, but you can't tell me a turd sandwich is the American dream.

Kirk, don't keep asking me alot of bullsh!t questions. Type up some conservative solutions, mmmmkay?

I'm tired of presenting facts to folks who are just trying to pretend like up is down and right is wrong.

We can't afford to default on our debt so we have to increse the debt ceiling. Therefore our debt is higher next higher, it is a vicious circle. My question is where is that secret savings account that is going to allow us to pay down the debt someday without borrowing. Aha two choices, one is cuts to entitlements and the other is increased taxes. The debt can be paid off by spending less which means smaller government and less money for social programs. The democrats want to keep all entitlements and if anything increase benefits. They also do not want smaller government at the cost of social programs. Personnaly I perfer no increase to taxes and smaller government

David, I responded to your post you sent me and hopefully you found it respectful. I was travelling back in forth to Boston yesterday from 4am to 10pm so had no time to read anything on her but responded to your other post the night before. I wasnt being cute when I said I dont understand your hatred for Cantor as I truly dont know the reasons and personally have no stake as I know very little about him except the position he holds.

As for Pelosi, there is no doubt she should get credit for passing Health care reform (even though she admitted not reading it) but under your standards, I assume you think Newt Gingrich was the finest Speaker we have had. He basically got the Contract for America passed with a Democratic President no less (not a president of his own party like Pelosi) which allowed Clinton to take credit for the economic and social success he had during his tenure. It definitely was a monumental task and I will give her all that credit. My issue with her is ideology as is most of america's problem with her. Maybe thats why I was assuming your dislike of Cantor is similar to most of America's problem with Pelosi

But I apologize if you didnt see my response to your previous post from the other evening.

Nash is starting to get angry. Everyone back off, mmmmkay!

this blog is about politics, not your feelings.

How do you distinguish between a libs feelings and their politics?

Especially you Nash.

Never have been able to refute anything ....... why is that ...... arguing your feelings and beliefs against logic, facts, history doesn't work to well, uh?

And sheez .... how do you even get on the wrong side of this?

Regarding David walker / politics / feelings ....... who is more self absorbed than David walker - all David walker talks about is David walker.

BTW - Great comments Ira and Mixed ........ and for you libs - naked grandma too!

bob Jones, I agree with you that the debt ceiling needs to be raised. Wish there was a secret savings account as back up. Just like I wish I would win the lottery.. right now in my state which is shut down, you can't buy a lottery ticket.

Seriously, I think we should start with the premise:How do we make government work for all of us. With that in mind then begin to work on bringing down the deficit with cuts and increase in revenue.

Nashville, what are you talking about? I gave you facts and I didnt spin any corporate fairy tales. I dont even get your response. Are you saying that my examples of the doctor or the taxes paid were wrong. Those are facts, prove me wrong if you think I am. Wages are stagnant and expenses are up. But why do you say I ask you BS questions? You make a conclusion and all I say, how did you come to that conclusion. You said the middle class has been giving money to the wealthy and I asked you how? How is that BS? I ask you to prove your crumbs and sending me to hell conclusion. I dont get how thats BS to ask you to back up your statements with facts when you ask me to I do and then you say they are made up.

I didnt say that the GOP was for the common man, as I dont think any politician is for the common man including any democrat. I realize your passionate with your views but so am I when it comes to someone else deciding to reach into my pocket and take my money.

Because Lord knows, having the economy generate new jobs, and new tax payers, will never work with ObamaNomics

So, now you're telling us trickle down does NOT work? Also, all of that money that corporations are sitting on... that doesn't create jobs after all? Letting corporations and individuals keep what they earn... that doesn't lead to investing and growing the economy?

Wow! My world is being turned upside down. (sarcasm)

Nervously taps mike:

My input,

Last week Joe in Albany told a very bad joke or an attempt at humor involving explosions. I told him what I thought of his comment in not nice terms I might add. Within moments Joe in Albany apologized and said what he wrote was wrong. He had crossed the line and he knew it. Despite my feelings for his policies and politics the ablility for Joe to apologize and say that he was wrong really struck a chord with me. Maybe it was because I'm a yellow liberal type.

It is hard to admit you are wrong. I am not talking about the flyby dropins or yahoos it is easy for them. I'm talking about the true/real posters. It is hard. It is harder to say that what you typed was offensive and wrong. You might not have meant something as Joe didn't mean what he typed. Other posters in the heat of a rant can add something that can be misunderstood or miscontrued.

At the same time someone doesn't want to be labeled a racist or an anti-semite etc and those labels should not be thrown out lightly. Perhaps if we can take a moment to see things from the other guy's perspective. I think if someone where to call me on something I wrote or ask me why I wrote something that they deemed offensive racially or ethnically, I would try to explain myself. If they didn't accept my explanation I would say I'm sorry I offended you. I would not argue that my words didn't offend you.

Some posters including the one at the center of this issue have belittled my belief in what they term an invisible guy in the sky. We are all going to disagree and argue with each other on all types of issues. But we should make sure we are disagreeing and arguing about politics.

This horse is already dead. I agree that perhaps we should try to put an end to this subject and discuss politics. This includes posts from the so called mob. Or we can continue?

Stepping off soap box.

While I realize that this is a democrat controlled site, I find it so amusing that everyone just takes what President Obama says as the gods honest truth. Do you people not realize that he can say "I'm putting medicare and social security on the table all day" that doesn't mean squat. He knows that he will not get one democrat to vote for any of his plan to cut medicare and ssn. So he is being very dishonest. And like Joe (on morning Joe) asked both yesterday morning and this morning, EXACTLY what is it that he is willing to cut? He hasn't made not one specific point that will be cut or changed. Oh wait..... he said that he would consider upping the age one is qualified for medicare. How many dems came out immediately and said no way would that ever pass. So President Obama, its time your and YOUR party quit demonizing republicans for their ideas, when YOU and YOUR PARTY haven't had one idea in over two years to cut spending or balance the budget. So until you have an idea you should quit demonizing the republicans ideas.!!!!!!!

Kirk:

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

The bottome 80% of people in this country own 15% of the wealth. But the corporate people complain about their "tax rate" (that they are NOT paying) and tell me that most Americans are not paying their fair share.

I call bullsh!t.

Ok Nashville, having wealth and paying their fair share of income taxes are two separate things. Many people are wealthy including seniors who own most of the wealth so I assume you want to means test social security benefits because why are we paying our tax money to give back to the wealthy? If you look at it from that perspective, we need to have seniors pay for alot more for medicare and stop collecting social security because they control most of the wealth. Income doesnt translate into wealth. Second, I am fairly certain that the statistics your using are flawed because I have seen them too. Why, because, your not including entitlement payments, the present value of future pension and retirement benefits in the asset category for the bottom 80% which skews the numbers. If the wealthy are relying on their assets for retirement etc and the bottom 80% are relying on medicare, social security, pension or disability payments etc, then you have to include the present value of these benefits as assets.

As for corporate tax rates, I dont understand why I keep giving you facts as to why raising taxes on corporations just is raising your taxes via higher product costs or a reduction in your retirement benefits and you keep coming back as if its a zero sum game. I am not suggesting the wealthy dont control alot of wealth, but always have and unless we are going to have a 100% estate tax they always will. Thats totally different than taxing your doctor for making money because he is good at what he does

Yellowdog:

Well said. I agree.

janet:

Enough. The Republicans voted for the "Ryan plan" giving seniors a coupon towards healthcare, mmmkay?

How about the Republicans put up some non-specific revenue generators instead of whining about what the President does all the time?

Nobody wants to hear that crap anymore janet. It is put up or shut up town. This ain't about "Obama". Its about our country. Republicans need to lead instead of just telling us what the President ain't doing.

President Obama is doing a great job with the stuff he is actually Constitutionally supposed to be doing. So give it a rest, come up with a solution, or put a sock in it.

kirk:

Blah, blah, blah, blah. I am pretty sure you are not looking for any new information, seeing as you already know everything. You are "pretty sure", huh? How about you READ the link. It EXPLAINS the difference between wealth and income and EXPLAINS how the figures were arrived at. That is what someone who was SINCERELY INTERESTED in finding an anwer would do . . . but of course, you want to come onto a blog and show us all how smart you are.

I am so impressed Kirk. Truly. Blown away.

So President Obama, its time your and YOUR party quit demonizing republicans for their ideas, when YOU and YOUR PARTY haven't had one idea in over two years to cut spending or balance the budget. So until you have an idea you should quit demonizing the republicans ideas.!!!!!!!

Janet- you DO realise that the HOUSE is charged with crafting budget legislation, do you not? What is important here is this - the REPUBLICANS in the HOUSE, since they control the chamber, are CHARGED with crafting legislation concerning the budget.

Period.

What the President wants - or doesn't want - is NOT important because it all comes down to how the legislation is written.

The bottom line - The President DOESN'T NEED TO HAVE ANY IDEAS about the budget. It is up to the HOUSE to provide the budgetary ideas and the legislation to support those ideas. In other words, the HOUSE controls the 'purse strings' of the country.

What we are LACKING here is ANY legislation (or even a draft) from the Republican-led HOUSE. What we are seeing here - with this debt ceiling 'theatre' - is that the HOUSE Republicans are trying to make the President define and craft the budget legislation, which is NOT HIS JOB TO DO.

Whatwe should be asking is WHERE is the legislation from the HOUSE? Why CAN'T the HOUSE legislators come up with something that the President will agree with and sign into law?

Why is it NECESSARY for us to have all of this DRAMA about raising the debt ceiling when there was none before?

Janet, I do not question your passion, but I am questioning why NO ONE is CONCERNED that the HOUSE Republicans have not even crafted one piece of 'good', substantive legislation for almost 1 year now.

As far as actually PASSING legislation, it does take the OK of the Senate AND a Presidential signature to make legislation a LAW, no matter what Eric Cantor says. Legislation is NOT 'passed' until there is a Presidental signature on it.

How about the Republicans put up some non-specific revenue generators instead of whining about what the President does all the time?

Great idea Nash. The Republicans can go into the talks wanting to have a "conversation" on how to strengthen revenues and the Democrats can continue on their path of wanting a "conversation" on how to strengthen Medicare and Social Security. The rest of us will just hold our heads in despair as the country goes down the toilet.

Alan:

I will take that over the constant whining. How about the Repblicans just do what the hell they are gonna do, and let the chips fall where they may. We need them to be the freaking Congress, not the commentators.

Nash - re: Kirk

The poor boy is just confused. If you talk to him in terms of GDP he may begin to understand what you are saying; I think he has difficulty grasping facts and recognizing truth otherwise. Not his fault. I just went through a similar thing with him a couple days ago. I was asked repeatedly to "prove" a negative - "[any asserted opinion] If I am wrong, prove it." I finally had to post links to several authorities which he apparently was not able to find that did in fact prove my major points in terms of GDP before he seemed to be satisfied - at least have not heard more questions or contentions from him.

My opinion: he has been so immersed in the RNC spin/talking points/rhetoric so much that he has difficulty discerning fact from fiction except in terms relative to Gross Domestic Product.

Nash, I did read it. You do realize the difference between taxing income and wealth right? You do know that 80% of the wealth in this country is controlled by senior citizens depending on if you define that at age 60. You do realize that 87% of entitlement spending goes to senior citizens right? Your link concludes what I told you in that it doesnt include social security, welfare, medicare, pension benefits from example a union pension in its definition of assets. So your blah blah blah must have meant you didnt understand what I wrote. Its not a matter of being smart its a matter of understanding what you are saying. I never concluded (go back and read my post) that wealth isnt concentrated in a smaller subset of people. I never took a position on taxing wealth. I was saying that you cant conclude that people making over 250k in income arent paying all the revenue this country already receives. Thats different from wealth. And your link is flawed for the reason I stated.

Kirk:

I did not post that link in an attempt to tax folks' wealth.

I posted the link to point out that most real Americans are getting by on very tight margins.

The link is about people, not money, which is why you completely missed the point in your race to discount it.

Real people are hurting through no fault of their own, and all you wanna talk about is the technical definition of terms, Kirk.

You can't see the forrest for the trees.

Pietro -

Good post. I offer a few related thoughts:

1. The HOUSE actually DOES have a perfectly good plan for cutting the defecit, reducing the debt by trillions in coming years, and at the same time sustaining the recory and stimulating employment. It's the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget proposal.

By the way, contrast that plan with the absurd Ryan budget proposal - which ADDS trillions to the defecit and debt for years.

2. President Obama has consistently, as the article itself notes, taken the position that he articulates policy objectives, and then expects Congress to craft specific legislation to reach those goals. In fact, that is pretty much the way the U.S. Constitution defines his job, and the task of Congress.

In this matter, I admit I'd like to see the president emulate Franklin D. Roosevelt, who after Republoicans forced the country into another recessionary phase in 1936-37, started sending his own bills to the Hill. Certainly if there's no light at the end of the tunnel by next Monday, that would be a very advisable step.

In a broader sense, our President is fighting to save this country from the predators who have ravaged the land since 1981. This current battle is vital for the very future of this nation.

Sorry not as stupid but if you remember I provided you with all the GDP facts and links after you told me to google and you couldnt refute my numbers. Why is it that when you both make inflammatory conclusions with no factual support or I ask you to provide factual support, I am the one that is wrong. How come when I provide factual support for my conclusions, you both say thats not right and then say "just because" and say I am being unreasonable to ask you to prove a negative. I dont even know what that means. Just because you guys like to use class warfare and believe in your heart that what you feel is correct, doesnt make it so. I consistently give you guys facts and statistics in which you want to say I am spinning things. How do you spin what I have provided?

So when I say the elderly have all the wealth in this country? Is that spin? Based on what you guys are advocating since these wealthy elderly stole from this country to get that wealth we definitely shouldnt be paying them social security right? All I am pointing out to you guys is that your inflammatory conclusions without understanding your facts can lead to inconsistent policies and consequences

Kirk -

"...you can't conclude that people making over 250K [per year] in income aren't paying all the revenue this country receives..."

I may be wrong, but I believer Nashville_fan was referring to "fair share" of income. For your edification,

Bob Williams, a tax policy specialist at the nonpartisan Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, said this is largely carried out through popular tax breaks, which are sometimes called "tax expenditures."

"There are lots and lots of them," he said. "We estimate they total more than a trillion dollars a year in reduced taxes, and in fact the bulk of those go to the top end of the income distribution."

This from Politifact truth-o-meter (link cited above @ #14.1 by no-jo)

Is that helpful to your understanding?

And didn't you read my last two entries to our conversation? I'll be glad to re-post them here, along with the links which provide easily understandable "proof" that you requested.

John A. - Good Points and duly noted.

I did not include the Congressional Progressive Caucus' plan in my post because, as we are seeing, that plan is NOT being considered, since the Republicans control the House.

Janet, I guess you can say I was wrong about not having ANY plans out of the House. That statement was untrue. We are only hearing about the Republican plan, and we know that plan (the Ryan Plan) is dead in the water with the legislators as well as the American people.

If nothing else, this President is following the Constitution pretty carefully when it comes to legislation. The President does NOT craft legislation, especially budget legislation. The HOUSE crafts budget legislation and it is blessed by the Senate before it goes to the president for his signature if he likes the legislation or a veto if he does not.

I see a lot of 'outcry' from people on here wanting the President to 'come up with his plan'. The bottom line is that HE DOESN'T HAVE TO. IT IS NOT HIS JOB TO COME UP WITH A PLAN. IT is the job of the HOUSE to come up with budgetary plans for the Country.

And we can see very clearly that the House Republicans are FAILING MISERABLY doing THEIR Constitutionally mandated Jobs. They are too busy trying to foist THEIR jobs on the President, all the while screaming 'NO!' and throwing rocks at the President doing HIS job.

Nash, thats where we can agree. I am not missing the forest from the trees. I get that people are hurting, both my wife and I were laid off at various times over the last 3 years, my parents small business has suffered greatly and they are not wealthy people. I could care less if you want to tax Warren Buffet to death because thats not going to solve the issues. What I am trying to say is that the government has already increased the social safety net's budgets by huge percentages and spending has gone beyond our ability to sustain. All I am saying is that you cant tax our way to prosperity and its just wrong to say the "average" wealthy making a good living is already paying 50% of their income in taxes. They are already paying their fair share and give them credit for that not act like they have been raping this countries middle class. You cant make inflammatory statements and not expect someone to say but the facts dont back you up. Its not my job to say hey let me pick your pocket because poor susie there doesnt have a job. Its my job to say I can spare a little more, so i am going to give susie some money. It feels like you want to dictate whose pocket you pick

@Nash

How about the Repblicans just do what the hell they are gonna do, and let the chips fall where they may.

It seems that the republicans are going to do exactly what you want and the President will veto that legislation.

“I have not seen a credible plan that would allow you to get to $2.4 trillion without really hurting ordinary folks,” he said. “That doesn’t seem like a serious plan to me.” President Obama

Problem I have is there is no credible plan to balance the budget without really hurting ordinary folks. As I said before you IMF imposed austerity because that is where we are heading and both parties had better get their head out of their ass and come up with some realistic solutions.

Kirk:

How come when I provide factual support for my conclusions, you both say thats not right

Because all you present are your personal opinions, conclusions, or RNC rhetoric; we are attempting to point out to you that these are NOT "facts" and that you must cite accepted authority. What you have been doing in these posts is presenting the RNC position plank on a topic as irrefutable fact, then asking for someone to "prove it wrong" - Don't you see that? Well, we can go the other way... YOU find and cite the acceptable, unbiased authority upon which you base your contention and YOU prove it to be correct. Okay?

AGain not as stupid as you think, your link is not on point. the IRS has provided this over and over and I hate saying it but the people who make over 250k do pay over 80% of the governments income tax revenue. They make money other ways but thats the primary source. What you linked is the value of the deductions we all receive on our tax return and I am all for eliminating those deductions. We should eliminate the mortgage deduction etc and just make it a simpler progressive tax and everyone should have to pay some income tax above whatever poverty line we decide. I never advocated that we shouldnt do that. I also get fair share of income but that doesnt mean anything in a vaccum. Lets use a simple example, you could have a doctor making 500k paying half of his income in tax but with very little wealth outside his home. You could have a senior with $2 million of retirement assets spending it as needed but making less than $100k a year from social security and interest and dividends and paying very little tax. That example is getting more common every day. You cant just conclude that the wealthy are not paying their fair share. Also use Bill Gates or the Walton family. Their wealth is in shares of Microsoft or Walmart in which both companies pay enormous taxes. Both of those families if they dont work anywhere have income from interest and dividends but no earnings and to really tax them you have to go after their wealth not income. I get the difference

Not as stupid as you think:

Amen and thank you! :o)

What I am trying to say is that the government has already increased the social safety net's budgets by huge percentages and spending has gone beyond our ability to sustain. All I am saying is that you cant tax our way to prosperity and its just wrong to say the "average" wealthy making a good living is already paying 50% of their income in taxes. They are already paying their fair share and give them credit for that not act like they have been raping this countries middle class.

Did it ever occur to you, Krik, WHY the government has had to increase the social safety net's budgets? Can we at least look at WHY it is necessary for people to have 99 weeks of Unemployment benefits? Can you look at WHY there was such an uproar when the President stated that he could not guarantee that the Social Security checks will be sent out on time?

Ideaology aside, what you are propsing - and arguing about/for - is all well and good, but right now AMERICANS are HURTING and the social safety nets are doing EXACTLY what they were designed to do. To think that NOW is the time to 'do away' with the very thing(s) that are holding this society together right now is not only foolish, but it is short-sighted.

Now, if you were expending your energies to make sure that America is STABLE, then I am with you. I can THEN see the need for cutting redundant expenses in Government. Right now is NOT the time to start 'Slashonomics', no matter how nice it sounds on paper.

Convoluted logic Kirk, but nice try.

if they dont work anywhere have income from interest and dividends but no earnings and to really tax them you have to go after their wealth not income

Your own statement is non-sequitur; go after the income.

Nash: yw - anytime!

Right now is NOT the time to start 'Slashonomics', no matter how nice it sounds on paper.

No the right time was....Oh that's right there never was a right time. Doesn't matter anymore because the day of reckoning is coming anyway. There is no example of a country being able to spend it's way out of recession, and then cut back on the government. Once a program is implemented it just doesn't die. Look at ethanol subsidies as an example. There has been massive stimulus, 800B in fiscal, and trillions in monetary, and the economy is still not producing enough jobs to be so called self-sustaining. Even now, with another $1T of stimulus, if that was even politically possible, the results would not occur in time to prevent the credit crunch that is going to happen.

Yellowdog - Mark D:

Let me start with this. I meant exactly what I said. That several posters here pretend to be offended is of no moment. I have already told posters - if they didn't already know - how to find my entire conversation on this utterly false issue.

You are offended by my reference to an invisible sky guy. Do you really think I should apologize for that? You have no proof of your God or of any God's existence. I'm not asking for an apology because you offend my sensibilities as an atheist. My money says, "In God We Trust". I don't trust in God. The Pledge of Allegiance, which was written by a minister, did not include the words "under God" when he wrote it. It does today. I don't believe this is a nation under God. Yet somehow, the religious are the aggrieved.

I was confirmed into my church at the age of 12. I knew my catechism better than anyone in my class. I read the Bible cover to cover, and you know what they call someone who's done that, don't you? An atheist. The Bible, other books, and much questioning put me in a position where I could no longer muster the faith required to believe in a God or gods. The behavior of my fellow churchers routinely violated the teachings of the "Christ".

Time passed and I found myself in the service. I have sworn to protect the Constitution and the nation. "What do we put on your dog tags?" "Agnostic will be fine." "Oh no, we can't do that, how about Christian?" "Agnostic is what I want." "We can't do that." Yet, the religious types are the aggrieved.

Only recently, have Wiccan veterans been allowed to note their choice on their headstones in our national cemeteries. They don't believe in the right God, you see?

But who is persecuted? It's those poor Christians. Why, do you know, they can't even pray in schools? Of course, that's a bald-faced lie. Anyone can pray in school. There is absolutely no prohibition against it.

Before we get to Ira's utterly phony response, let me tell you about a "Christian" He was this nation's President for eight years - a born again former drug addict. This is the guy who couldn't serve in Viet Nam and who has at best a questionable service record. Let's get to those heavily freighted words. This is the President who referred to the invasion of Iraq as a "crusade". A crusade based on a welter of lies, Yellowdog. Frankly, I felt he was too dim to understand how his choice of words might be accepted. But I really didn't care all that much, because I would have opposed the invasion if he had called it a vanilla malt.

Now comes Ira, an outraged Jew. How dare I not accept his definition of a holocaust? Why it even has a capital "H". How dare I trivialize the murder of six-million Jews by comparing it to the fire bombing of Dresden. No one can be sure of the exact number of deaths, but estimates range wildly all the way from 25,000 to 235,000. Let's take the low figure and pay respect to Ira - he's Jewish, you know. So, 25,000 is not a holocaust. Women and children roasted alive in their basements, but that's not a holocaust.

Stalin was thought to have executed in excess of a half-million people. Not a holocaust? Maybe not in Ira's book, because he's Jewish. In Webster's book, it is.

Ira's sole credentials in this matter turn on his being a Jew. That's a choice he made and it does not confer on him any special powers - none.

I never trivialized Hitler's pogroms. Never. I never made light of the plight of the Jews. Never. Go check the posts. I have offered complete explanations. By the way, simply as a matter of fact, I have not demanded an apology. Life so much of what Ira has written that is also a fabrication. What I did say, and I paraphrase: Don't you dare pretend I don't understand the magnitude of the horrible mass murder of an almost incomprehensible number of people for the sole crime of being Jewish.

With that, I am finished with this nonsense.

Alan -

Your observations have been addressed, in some detail, in my post above:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/15/7089428-first-thoughts-no-winners-and-no-losers?threadId=3174336&commentId=55999177#c55994014

And, in fact, the book refeenced goes into even further discussion about those issues.

You should also consult Naomi Klein's book, Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, to see how some ultra-right strategists intentionally want to collapse the government and economy.

And finally, for a comprehensive history of the cynical manipulation by folk such as Grover Norquist (and his mentor, Jack Abramoff, that paragon of far-right virtue) check out Thomas Frank, The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Ruined Government, Enriched Themselves and Beggared the Nation.

It is inescapable - the economic crisis, the massive debt, the appalling incompetence of government under G.W. Bush - all engineered by the conservative movement.

Well, the President and his supporters are trying to stop that vicious juggernaut, and help the country, as well. The current debt ceiling crisis is NOT about debt or deficits - it's about ideology and power. How despicable the right wing is.

David Walker-

"Ira's sole credentials in this matter turn on his being a Jew."

And of course, David, his right to read, weigh, and comment on your remarks about Republican House majority leader Cantor, who just happens to be Jewish...remarks that dovetail nicely with boiler-plate anti-Semitic doctrine.

That is, anti-Semitic doctrine as defined by the Anti-Defamation League, and its National Director, Abraham H. Foxman.

Of course, I suppose that you would argue that Mr. Foxman's "sole credentials in this matter turn on his being a Jew" as well, wouldn't you, David?

kirk:

The average taxpaying family with a family of 4 making 250,000 pays 75,000 in tax. The average family of 4 making 75,000 pays 5,000 in income tax.

If you don't mind, I would appreciate seeing a credible citation for this. I don't believe it's accurate at all. The second family probably pays more than that just in state taxes and FICA and FUTA, not to mention federal taxes. But even if it is accurate, look at it this way: After paying taxes, the first family has $175,000 left over in disposable income. The second family only $70,000. This strikes me as way off balance, at least to the extent that you might expect the second family to generate demand for goods and services and/or to "share" the burden of the current deficit problem.

Well, well, well ... I didn't have time to post what I wanted to say this morning, and then I decided I didn't need to, and now I see that we're back at this again. This time I'll say what I really think.

The true reason why I wasn't more supportive of Bag Boy the other day when the Cantor/Jewish issue came up is that I wasn't sure at the time that I agreed with him as to the offensive nature of David's comments. The probable reason I wasn't sure was that I have made similar comments before, in particular, about 30 pieces of silver. I have used this as a metaphor for betrayal and denial and never, to my knowledge, specifically associated it with a Jewish person, although I know I have applied it to politicians. Now that the issue has bubbled up, however, I have been trying to work this out and sift down through my own guilty conscience to come to some conclusion about it. Here's my conclusion:

I know firsthand that it is easily possible for people to take those kinds of remarks as ethnic or racial slurs. In the workplace, for example, calling Eric Cantor Judas or accusing him of selling out for 30 pieces of silver would never be tolerated as Eric Cantor is in fact Jewish, and that kind of remark is the exact sort of thing that hostile environments are made of. I'm still not sure, that David meant it that way, although I will certainly agree that it was impolitic and unfortunate, even if he didn't, especially when coupled with the language that I found particularly troublesome, suggesting an urge to commit violence.

Anyway. Bag Boy had a right to call him out on it, just as he loves to call me out when I say stupid stuff from time to time. I really wish he wouldn't, but mostly because it pricks my conscience, not because he's wrong. And similarly, David had a right to defend himself and try to explain his remarks.

That being said, what bothered me this morning and prompted my earlier comment on this thread, was the apparent concerted doubling down that I saw from both David and others. The whole thing de-fuses and goes away -- I would hope -- if David just says, yes, I acknowledge that I said something that might have been taken the wrong way, I didn't mean it that way, and I am truly sorry. At least that's the strategy I use whenever someone calls me out for something I've said. I can remember a time or two that this has happened out here, and I've tried to learn from those times.

Instead, "my" side galvanized its position and further polarized the situation, causing the volume out here to ratchet up even higher than before. I'm not entirely down with that. Ordinarily, I respect David's comments very much, but I am concerned that continuing to fan these flames will only lead us back to that bad place where we were a couple of weeks ago.

I really do not want to go back there.

Anna Molly, my statistics were only federal income tax and you are correct that there are state and payroll taxes for both families. But you get your payroll back remember as your contribution to your future government retirement plan supposedly. I agree its way off balance and all you have to take is the IRS statistics from the 2008 report that everyone links on here to say that 47% pay no income tax.

Not as stupid, I am wondering if you have the wrong name. The government is already going after the income big time and thats the issue. Do you use misdirection as a tool keeping you from honest debate on purpose?

Pietro, I completely agree that the causes of these social safety nets going up is what we need to address and I never argued against these programs. My comments are directed at the progressive posters who claim that the GOP is cutting education, putting people on the street etc when the actual increases dont bear that out. If they said, the budget increased for welfare by 25% but thats not enough, I have no problem with discussing that. If our starting point was here is the budget for all these items and this is how our proposed growth should be and we discussed the priorities of allocating spending and how we stimulate the economy I am all for having that discussion but that doesnt seem to be of interest.

@ Kirk ~ Then I still question the numbers for the second family because $5000 is less than 7 percent of that family's income. The only way you could get to that number is through lots of deductions, which people at that income level may not be able to take. Again, I would need to look at the tax tables to verify that, but I do question it.

Pietro, I guess we would have to discuss in greater detail the need for slashenomics because I might differ. Even though having a debate on the merit of 99 weeks of unemployment is worthy, I dont think focusing our time on slashing (there goes that inflammatory word again because I dont consider slowing the rate of growth a slash) discretionary programs will make a dent in spending. If we want to make america's economy stable, the rhetoric about entitlement programs and trickle down needs to come down a notch. If you tax Buffet, you are correct, its unlikely to change his standard of living, but when you take additional tax out of the hands of small business owners, doctors, professionals making over 250 and I dont know where the cut off is, it defys logic to think your not going to impact the consumer economy and job growth in this sector. It makes no sense and every economist would say the same thing.

In terms of spending, defense, the wars, and health care and yes social security and medicare need to be reformed and such reformation will not necessarily have a negative impact on the economy. Its disengenous for people to say that these programs dont need to be addressed when every economist also says this. Our unfunded liabilities at the federal, state and local levels are going to bankrupt us and will cause the next recession after this one when we finally need to address them at the local level. So I would like to see some discussion on here on spending cuts.

Anna Molly and Mixed Bag..

I've been out of the office all day and just returned and read the responses to the David Walker post.

First, Anna, I want to thank you for your eloquent post. Absolutely eloquent, counselor.

MB... After reading Walkers response to Yellowdog - Mark D, I found it astounding that no one, except you, called him out on it. People actually voted in a positive manner to that response, giving even more credence to AM's post.

This latest outrage should be posted on every thread but I fear that no one would care.

Good news he is an equal opportunity bigot. Bad news he is an equal opportunity bigot.

As for me, the outcome was and ir predictable as I told you yesterday.

The community supports him and he will continue with his bigoted posts. I'm choosing not to read them...not put him on ignore...not read them.

For me, each time he speaks his ignorance it speaks volumes.

Again, to both of you...thanks!

Anna Molly:

An apology? These guys literally manufactured this nonsense. I'm not sure, and I'm not going back to check, but I don't believe I ever specifically mentioned Judas Iscariot. I definitely mentioned 30 pieces of silver, but that is clearly taken in the American vernacular to mean a sellout. I have switched to unmistakeable non-Jewish examples of traitors - Benedict Arnold, Brutus. But these guys have worked too hard making a mountain out of this molehill, and of course there's the value of diverting attention from that little punk, Cantor.

The anti-Semite label was introduced by both Spanky and Mixed Bag. I have carefully explained on several occasions that there is no foundation in fact for such a charge. Now, we have the sorry spectacle of Mixed Bag and Ira insisting that anti-Semite and anti-Jew are synonymous. That is simply not factual.

If you think about this labeling nonsense, it goes beyond ridiculous. As with Limbaugh who uses the label "liberal" to mean anyone who dares to disagree with him, so it is with these clowns. They apply a label and expect you to act in accordance with their definition. I am, as you are probably aware, given to a generally liberal slant. That does not mean that I have not worked for a living. It does not mean that I stand in welfare lines. It most assuredly doesn't mean that I don't have a temper.

I take it when Ronald Reagan threatens to take David Stockman out behind the woodshed, that's acceptable, because, well, he's St. Ron. But when Dave Walker says he'd like to take Eric Cantor to the cloak room and push his face in, well that's just not OK. It was OK that I was actually willing to kill people when the government that presumably included "the aggrieved" sent me to Viet Nam. Come on, isn't there some value in consistency?

I don't know how many ways I can make it clear that Cantor's choice of religions is not an issue. Frankly on the score of religion, I'm a bit nervous about anyone who believes in a supreme being whether named Yahweh, Allah, or just plain God. But that's not the issue. Neither is his ancestry.

What is important is what he is doing. It is blindingly clear to me that he has sold out. John A. has already provided an excellent biography of Cantor. It particularly galls me that he has fed at the government trough for the bulk of his working career, and then tries to destroy government for those who have not been government welfare clients like the hypocritical Cantor.

There is not clearer definition of "red herring" than this absurd holocaust/Holocaust argument. Apparently, if you don't share Ira's definition of holocaust you are, ipso facto, a holocaust denier. That's insane. If he is an expert on the holocaust because he is Jewish, will the fact that someone claims to be a Christian make him and expert on crucifixions?

Now, I said earlier that I would not respond to this issue any longer, but you are a special case - the eyes that are trained on the Wisconsin debacle as it were, and I trust your views. That said, this really is the last post on the subject. By the way, there will be no apology forthcoming for those twerps and their phony outrage.

Anna Molly-

A very heartfelt, sincere, comment.

Nothing more needs to be said, at least by me, about your words.

For some reason, Ira, I'm reminded of the film, "The Sixth Sense."

"They don't know they're dead..."

They really don't get it, Ira.

Most of them honestly don't get it.

Mixed Bag..

You do. You get it.

Spanky does.

Now Anna Molly does.

That's all that matters.

Great weekend and Shalom!

Anna Molly:

Thanks for sharing your views. Have a great weekend.

P.S. I still think that the level of "drama" generated around this issue was WAY overblown. Someone said they were offended. Someone explained what they meant. And then no joe said we were all anti-semites if we didn't post our agreement with the agrieved. And then Spanky called me a black kettle. And then I called bullsh!t (as is my way! ;o>). I guess what I am saying is, if this were comments from folks who hadn't just participated in libeling me less than a month ago . . . oh well. Whatever. See you next week Anna Molly! :o)

@ Ira ~ You're welcome.

@ Bag Boy ~ All I ask is that you remember.

@ David ~ I was once called out by Safecracker for shortening that to Cracker, which I meant sort of kidding-affectionately, but he/she took as an ethnic slur. That just goes to show you how easily innocent intention can be misconstrued.

But I am making no comment on anyone's intentions, including yours. Your comments are almost always on point, and in general, I share your views about Cantor. Only you know what you meant, and your words stand on their own. But we all have to be responsible for what we say. Even if you did not make the connection in your own mind, it is not the speaker's intent that matters. All that matters is what the recipient perceives and whether a reasonable person would be offended by the comments. I can see that case either way, as I said above, especially if you didn't know that Cantor was Jewish. Until Bag Boy mentioned it, I had never thought about it myself. However, the possibility should have been obvious if I had.

As I mentioned previously, I've used the same metaphor, so I'm not pointing fingers. My main concern here is not that so much as it is the galvanized doubling down on the whole thing. When Safecracker called me out, I apologized, even though I had not meant anything by it. I tried to see it from his/her perspective. Please try to see it from Ira's. That's really all I ask.

@ Nash ~ This stuff has to stop somewhere, and if anything, "we" ought to set the example. You have a great weekend, too.

Anna Molly:

"We" agree . . . but "we" will not provide cover for no joe, Mixed Bag, and Spanky to make a mockery of this forum: one moment slinging unsubstantiated innuendo and lies, the next minute morphing into "victims".

I've seen this dog and pony show too many times before.

However, I do agree, that the easiest way to diffuse stuff like this is just to be the bigger person and say sorry. So I agree 1000% with what you said, but in regards to the three folks above plus dangerfield? I have learned that they certainly do not practice what they preach.

Keep calling 'em like you see 'em Anna Molly . . . wish more folks would. You will always have my respect.

Nash-

Please provide substantiation for your claim that I have lied here at First Read..

You are very, very quick to apply the "liar" label...

What lies have I told, Nash?

This should be easy for you...my Newsvine page hasn't been sanitized as yours has.

Everything I've ever said here is at your fingertips.

Can you back up your charge?

Before I forget...

I won't forget, Anna Molly.

Ignored Bag:

What is good for the goose is good for the gander:

You prove that you aren't a liar. You libeled me. You know it. I know it.

'Nuff said.

See you Monday.

All of you -

Do you see what is going on here? This conversation is about the debt ceiling and the issues around it. Now because of Mixed Bag and Ira Lapin, we have WASTED posts on an issue that is NOT the issue we are talking about.

I really could care less if Ira or Mixed bag or Jesus Himself was offended by David Walker's words. What the THRUST of that post is about is Eric Cantor being the biggest nebbish he can be, and if anyone has ever dealt with nebbishes, you would know that you want to just punch them in the mouth - repeatedly - just because they ANNOY the crap out pf people.

Who CARES if Eric Cantor is Jewish? Who CARES if someone says that Eric Cantor is selling us out for 30 pieces of silver? The facts speak for themselves - Eric Cantor IS selling us out. If not, then why would he keep an investment portfolio that bets on the FAILURE the United States?

Eric Cantor should know better and he IS a Judas as far as I am concerned and as far as I can throw him (and that is pretty far, as I am not a small man).

Ira - get over yourself. Mixed bag - get over yourself. You are not that important, and people are seeing your tactics.

As I have posted on here before, you had better grow a THICK SKIN if you plan on playing in the pit (a metaphor for posting on this blog).

Everyone ifs falling for the okie-dokie and we are NOT talking about what really matters.

Let's get back on topic, shall we??

You are not that important, and people are seeing your tactics.

Amen Pietro!

Is this the new game in town from the right wing nitwits? Every time they feel insulted they're NOW going to demand an apology?

Good luck WITH THAT!

This is after all a political blog for those who have forgotten - I would suggest they take their selective POUTRAGE some where else... if you can't handle the freakin heat you have NO business in the kitchen!

PS: David Walker - in NO terms do you owe these phony miscreants an apology! They've proven themselves to be liars and (as my GF Clara said sh!t stirrers) OVER & OVER again...

There is NO disputing, we have spent an entire week on their ability to distract from the REAL issues!

SCREW EM!

@AM - Love you GF - be careful over there in the snake pit! Best of luck to ya! ;o)

BTW - this isn't the FIRST time Ira/Groucho (or what ever the hell he's calling himself these days) has played his phony outrage card...

It's wearing as thin as Ira's skin with the regulars around here....

You can't...can you, Nash?

You still can't ignore me, either.

Can you?

I'm not saying you're lying about that, though.

How about you, Feisty?

What lies have I told?

I haven't scrubbed even one of my comments from the First Read record...let alone ALL of them, as you have.

So...

Produce my lies, Feisty.

I hope you do better than Nash.

But...you can't.

You're both just pathetic if you can't back up what you've said.

lol

Aw now Mixed Bag, you don't really want me to ignore you . . . do ya? That really does bothers you, huh? Why should I have to "prove" anything? Did you "prove" anything when you happily joined in the smear fest against me? Yeah, I don't think ya did.

How about this . . . from now on, I will "prove" that I truly am ignoring you . . . and Spanky . . . and no joe . . . and dangerfield . . . and your lil' dog Groucho too! :o)

Now in terms of my "scrubbed" comments . . . surely you can get Groucho to email them to ya, right?

He is ruler of the Tri-State area dontcha know. . . besides, I never say anything worth a damn anyway, so why bother? :o)

Nash-

I would never, ever call you a liar...even though I disagree with the vast majority of what you have to say.

And, I haven't done that, have I?

Still, that's in spite of the fact that you don't hestitate to call me a liar.

Why is that, Nash?

You aren't a liar, in my opinion, because your beliefs are honestly held...just as mine are.

Just as the beliefs of the vast majority of those who regularly offer their views here at First Read are.

So, again...

Can you produce a comment from among the hundreds of my comments here are that are on the record (unlike your own) that demonstrates that I've told a lie?

You either can, Nash...or you can't.

And if you can't...well, that's a statement, isn't it?

As one of my old college professors was fond of saying..."the proof is in the pudding."

"Dontcha know' that, Nash?

Whatcha got, darlin'?

Sigh.

Nash:

"We" agree . . . but "we" will not provide cover for no joe, Mixed Bag, and Spanky to make a mockery of this forum: one moment slinging unsubstantiated innuendo and lies, the next minute morphing into "victims".

I'm not providing anyone with cover. I'm just stating my opinion that we all have to take responsibility for what we say, and sometimes what we say goes astray. If in fact the boys are trying to drive a wedge, then it's a mistake to give them a hammer, and a further mistake to keep swinging it for them.

I would hope for better from them, however.

Feisty:

@AM - Love you GF - be careful over there in the snake pit! Best of luck to ya! ;o)

Interesting. Sounds almost like I've been kicked off the island.

Anna, normally I agree with you almost 100% of the time, but I must say that I think you are off base a little bit on this. Not because of what you said (I agree with the sentiment, in general), but because of why you said it and the motives you have attributed to Ira and MB. I do not believe that they were outraged by David's posts, I believe it is manufactured outrage to try and bash someone from the left and deflect the conversation.

These are people who constantly provide 'facts' using opinion to prove these facts. When called out and shown that their 'facts' are, in fact not true, they cry 'racist', or 'anti-semite', or 'liar', or some other name and then congratulate each other on how they've 'proven' the left wrong without actually proving anything.

The cartwheels they perform trying to make 'that which is not' into 'that which is', is quite amazing at times. But what it really is, is intellectual dishonesty. And, when you are that dishonest about provable fact and deny that you were wrong despite being proven wrong, it is very hard to believe they are honest about anything, including their (to borrow from David) 'aggrieved' sensibilities. It is why I have MB on ignore and am about to put Ira on ignore, they have nothing of value to contribute and I will not waste any more time on them.

Keep posting, Anna, been missing reading your posts. You are one of the really intellignet posters here that actually knows what they are talking about, how to spell (or, at least how the spell checker works) and use proper grammar.

I have almost no respect for the elected GOP now. The exception to the contempt I hold most elected to is Mitch Mcconnell. He went out on a limb to offer a real compromise and he is taking fire for his actions. For the record I know longer consider the Senior Senator from Kentucky to be a R.I.N.O. I don't agree with him on everything. I hope John Boehner will follow his example.

Matthew:

but because of why you said it and the motives you have attributed to Ira and MB.

Matthew, I appreciate your kind words and respect your opinion, and have taken it to heart. But with all due respect, you only assume you know "why [I] said it." I have not attributed any motives to Ira or MB. They have to answer for themselves as to their motives, just as we're all answerable for what we say here.

The solution will be a raw exercise of power in an endgame that is still uncertain. Right now, it's looking like the Republicans will exercise their power and prevent an increase in the debt ceiling. If that happens, it's not "posturing." It's using your power to accomplish something you believe in very deeply. If politicos can't do that, then why bother being in the game in the first place.

Y'see, this is why Conservative Republicans have already lost and they don't even know it.

Firstly, this isn't a "game", it's the future of the United States of America. Most of us realize that, not the GOPTP

Secondly, Conservatives are simply on the wrong side of the people. Most Americans want the debt ceiling raised. Most Americans want the debt issue settled separately. Most Americans want a balanced approach including both spending reductions and revenue increases.

Thirdly, the radical Conservatives are playing with fire--BIG fire that will cause real damage. They may think they make reality what they wish it to be, most of us know otherwise.

Finally, if Republican follow through on this threat they are done in the next election. Done.

Maybe then rational Republicans can again have a voice in their own party. That's the only good that could possibly come of this.

Prediction: Now that I am ignoring Mixed Bag, he and his crew will start loudly whining about my calling him a liar without "proving" it.

Somebody buy these clowns some silk hankies please . . . we running out of tissue.

Anna Molly, your assumptions are based on your perception of income. For the vast majority of people that don't live on the coasts in high cost urban areas, 75k is a great income. I do the tax return of my best friend in my home town. He owns a muffler shop and his wife is a teacher with two college kids. Their gross income is 86k a year. He owns a very nice home on an acre of land, Harley, summer home in Wisconsin, Yukon truck and a very nice lifestyle in a very low cost area. Because of his mortgage deduction, child dependent deductions, work credits, child credits, education credits, property tax deductions he actually pays less than 2 thousand in federal income taxes which is less than he pays in Illinois state income taxes. I am not surprised at all that the spread is wide at 75k and 250. I think it starts to narrow and look more progressive when taxpayers hit Amt.

David, I think you misread most Americans and their short term political memories. I don't think anything involving the debt ceiling will impact 12 election as it will be totally forgotten by then good or bad by either party. I thought Clinton was toast after being such a lying scumbag ethically and morally regardless of his political accomplishments and no one really cared as most people vote for a president by saying am I better off now than we he was elected. The same thing will happen with Obama although I think he has a few additional albatrosses around his neck. Many people will vote against him for obamacare regardless of whether it's a good thing or not as it clearly will cost those with insurance or good benefits more in order to cover everyone else and that hits peoples pocketbooks. That's already starting. Second too many people have a visceral negative reaction to the welfare state including many independents so he will lose nc, Virginia and possibly Florida for that reason in the next election. Doesn't matter whether we should do it or not, people don't like seeing their neighbor sitting in the home they couldn't afford not paying their mortgage and using the system to live in the home for free for 2 years. That backlash has already begun here in Illinois as popularity for the modification programs has ground to a halt. Aging whther Obama is at fault is irrelevant as he is the current poster child for the welfare state and people will see him that way. Obamas only chance at victory in 12 regardless of this battle is economic improvement. People don't care if the government shuts down as look at Minnesota where the democratic governor thought that using class warfare would work and it doesn't. Improvement in peoples personal economic security is his only chance and that's tough to create with tax increases in the middle of the recession. Regardless of what John a stated, I will go with the mckensie study that says we are in for a gradual reduction in our aggregate standard of living which will be bad for both political parties and will cause massive political swings with the unrest it causes. I suspect Obama will fall the victim of voter disgust in 12.

Quit praying...

Why would I pray that happens? That's where your emotional passions cloud your thinking. I would always prefer being better off as a country and personally than hoping some politician won or lost. Obama can be president forever I could care less if this country returns to fiscal prosperity. You really need to change your posting name because based on your inability to actually listen and learn, I really would hate to see what you look like.

I am SO sorry the truth offends you and causes you to babble so much Kirk; maybe you shouldn't make the statements you make if having their inaccuracies displayed upsets you so much.

Listen up = I will type slowly because it seems you can't read fast:

YOU SAID -

I suspect Obama will fall the victim of voter disgust in 12.

This is YOUR contention and thus your state of mind; you cite NO authority which supports such a statement, yet you present it as an absolute fact, when in truth it is only YOUR OPINION.

In truth, many, and I believe most (my opinion) do NOT agree with your statement at all. Therefore, YOU must be predisposed in that regard and thus "praying" that it will happen against the current indicators that it will not.

GET IT? Well WE do!

Again, to use YOUR words, "Why would [you] pray that happens?" You will have to tell me since only you have that answer.

Can I make this any more clear or simple?

You really need to change your posting name because based on your inability to actually listen and learn, I really would hate to see what you look like.

Just curious, Kirk. What does the last part of that sentence (1) have to do with the first part, and/or (2) add to the discussion? Perhaps it's this:

That's where your emotional passions cloud your thinking.

You just might be just as your name says. Read my quote the word suspect means I knew it was my opinion and never said otherwise. Truth never offends me and when I am shown to be wrong I will stand up and admit it. You just have failed to even once provide one fact to refute any of my conclusions some opinion and many factually supported because you asked me to. You refuse to open your mind to possibilities. No idont pray that Obama loses. I pray that our economy improves whoever is in office. Actually all indicators show Obama in deep trouble especially with the electoral college. The most recent poll has him losing to everyone besides plain and bachmann. From an electoral college standpoint, he needs Penn, Florida, Ohio all states in which he is woefully behind at the moment

all indicators show Obama in deep trouble especially with the electoral college

Do tell. And may we ask to which "indicators" are you referencing?

Whichever they may be, what do these indicators show about Congress, specifically the House, Boehner, Cantor, McConnell and the several Republicans who have announced and are running for President? What do these alleged "indicators" show about the President's desire to close tax loopholes, remove capital gains status of hedge funds & directors, abrogate subsidies for "big oil", raise taxes for large corporations, and raise tax rates for those earning in excess of $250,000/yr.?

Certainly you were not attempting to post a biased, one-sided, less-than-true picture of the situation were you? You assure us you don't do that.

In reality and in view of the above facts, who is the one who truly refuses to "open your mind to possibilities" that there may be a different perspective?

FYI: On this blog, Kirk, we generally refer to that as deflection.

Stupid, since I am the only person in this two person discussion providing any info, I can't deflect myself. Do you read anything besides your soros funded web sites. Read yesterdays wall street journal or this weeks time magazine and maybe recent news can educate you. Yes, indicators are called polls. And yes those same polls show disgust with congress including the GOP. Not much different than how people hated propel and Reid. These same polls do show people in favor of certain tax increases but those same polls show that these same people and more want significant spending cuts. They want both and I am in the same camp. Very few are for raising taxes on large corporations just closing loopholes. I have already tried to explain to you why that's just a tax on you but you don't seem to listen.

Since you never provide any facts to support your views or to refute mine not sure how I could be open minded to your thoughts. But did it ever occur to you that's why I visit a left wing blog like this and read Newsweek, time etc, left liberal magazines to learn about opposing views? You should try it sometime, you might actually learn something

Anna Molly, couldn't agree more although typing on my iPad is difficult so it should have said see what you are thinking not look like. That ending made no sense and even if it was an attempt to be snarky. But stupid is an amazingly difficult person to debate as all he wants to do is call me names and say I am wrong over and over ha. It's like arguing with my children when they were young and had what ever they wanted stuck in their head. If I told them there shirt was on backwards all they said was no it's not. That's what debating stupid is like.

Stupid, a book you should read is Reckliess Endangerment on the mortgage crisis and the greed that caused it. It takes no prisoners from both political parties. Maybe a source that doesn't politicize it for you is more palatable for you. That way you can open your mind to the possibilities that greed, corruption and looking out for your rich is not limited to your views on political parties

I did not want to take up anymore time on this matter next week so I'm posting this here. This will be my last post on this matter...

I will not address the remarks made by Mr. Walker to Yellowdog - Mark D at 1.142 of this thread. That is for him to do. I would, however, suggest that you all read it so you can grasp the essence of the man.

At the same post Mr. Walker goes on to say:

“Now comes Ira, an outraged Jew. How dare I not accept his definition of a holocaust?”

‘Apparently, if you don't share Ira's definition of holocaust you are, ipso facto, a holocaust denier. That's insane. He is an expert on the holocaust because he is Jewish”

“Ira's sole credentials in this matter turn on his being a Jew. That's a choice he made and it does not confer on him any special powers - none.”

Actually David, aside from the fact that I am Jewish, my credentials also include both a Masters and Doctoral Thesis on The International Military Tribunal for Germany, more commonly known as the Nuremberg Trials. David, any time you would like to debate the Holocaust, on or off line, please, fire off an email. We of course will be talking about the Nazi initiated genocide of 12 million non-combatants who were systematically exterminated by the Nazi’s in an attempt to rid the world of all vestiges of the Jewish people and their culture. There are many horrors that occur during war, on both sides, affecting non-combatants and civilians, however, the term “Holocaust” has the world-wide acceptance as being the “Final Solution”, the genocide of 12 million people at the hands of the Nazi’s. May I suggest you read President Obama’s remarks made during his visit to Yad Vashem for further proof.

Some here have said that my motives for being so adamant in posting rebuttals to Mr. Walker was to detract from the real issues of the day. It was a conservative ploy. I couldn’t and shouldn’t be trusted. Several posters have said that they just don’t give a @!$%#, some have told me to stop whining and buy a pair of big boy pants.

Actually, Nash, after some reflection, you had it right. You said to either accept or not accept Mr. Walker’s explanation. That’s just something I just cannot due. You also said that my outrage was a personal matter. That, Nash, is spot on.

Please, go the Yad Vashem link posted below and search at The Central Database of Shoah Victims' Names:

Link: http://www.yadvashem.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_9E?first_name=&last_name=&location=

Type in the name: Lapczynski

Location: Poland

Most of the names you see there on pages 1 through 3 are my relatives, my grandparents, aunts and uncles and cousins. Click on their names and see how they died. For more information, look below to related information and click on BIALYSTOK. It will make you sick to your stomach. So, as it turns out both my sensitivity and outrage are extremely personal.

Finally, some housekeeping issues. My real name is not Ira Lapin. I took that name out of respect for one of the finest men I have ever met who, regrettably, died way too young. I am not Groucho Marx or anybody else contrary to the accusations and perpetual lies posted here by people who have attempted to have my account suspended for having duplicate accounts. The fact that I am still posting on FR proves that these accusations are just not true but these same people continue to post these accusations for motives unknown. Michael Thompson had an excellent explanation as to why they do it in one of his posts today.

If we can’t address bigotry and racism in a small “community” like FR, how are we ever going to address it in the real world? I understand you think that mine and Mixed Bag’s posts were a distraction. After reading the above, I would hope you changed that opinion. Does anyone think that unless the President reads the daily discourse of political events on FR or the same identical, indistinguishable replication of posts from day to day, he may not be able to make any decisions on that day? It’s a blog, one of thousands on the internet, and your posts make good conversation and give an interesting perspective. It’s not life or death and for the regulars on here, no one’s mind is going to be changed.

Me, I volunteer my time to my local food bank and as an advocate for veterans and the homeless. You get to see first hand and personal the realities of the problems caused by BOTH parties as well as, on occasion, making a real difference in people’s lives.

Instead of sitting on your collective asses arguing about that state of the world, go out and make a difference. Volunteer your time and actually change the conditions in your community.

Kirk:

Your post 1.183:

since I am the only person in this two person discussion providing any info...

See my post @ 1.132 citing unbiased authority contradicting your printed contention;

Your response to that citiation:

AGain not as stupid as you think, your link is not on point.

followed up with your "observation"/opinion

Since you never provide any facts to support your views or to refute mine

Ergo, you come to this public forum to spout the Republican National Committee talking point platform planks, apparently anticipating that everyone will agree and accept them as truth and fact, and become disgruntled and confused when you encounter anyone who 1.)does not agree and unthinkingly accept your propositions as you write them, and 2.)produces both authority and logical evidence and arguement that your professed beliefs are just plain wrong. It is obvious to EVERYONE who reads our exchanges that you simply can not recognize nor accept true, substantiated facts at variance with your stated position(s) so your ONLY recourse is denial. You have shown this throughout our exchanges, regardless of how you want to attempt to spin it.

The truth is that you make unsubstaniated statements which are simply not accurate and you post your biased opinions as fact and become upset when they are not blindly accepted by those who read them. Now, do you want this contention "proven" and backed up with "facts?" I'll give you a couple of examples in addition to the ones I've copied above and are found throughout your posts herein:

Truth never offends me and when I am shown to be wrong I will stand up and admit it.

... indicators are called polls.

and then refuse to either present the accurate poll numbers or cite a link where they may be accessed;

"I am not a member of any tea party and I am not a wingnut."

and on, and on and on.... then proceed to indicate otherwise by your posted statements!

There have been only a couple of statements I have been able to find in all your posts over the past week which had any accuracy at all - One of your statements I can agree with, you said, "...embelishing to the point of absurdity is not helpful." but then you proceed to embelish to the point of absurdity. That shows everyone one of two things.

your emotional passions cloud your thinking

is the probable situation in your case in my opinion.

You may become frustrated, but frustration is a two way street; you frustrate others just as they sometimes frustrate you. The sooner you recognize that, the better off you will be in posting to public forums. Meanwhile, your own words will be used in many instances so be careful what you say, think before you say it, say what you mean, be sure what you say is accurate, and do not resort to personal attacks; EVERYTHING or ANYTHING you say may come back to bite you.

Have a good life.

This thread sure descended into oblivion.... why did posters spend soo much effort in trying to convince one another of one person's true intentions (or why one person got hurt)... shhsshhh gives me the hibijibis.

This really should be the last time on this thread that we go off tangents into Mt. Kilimanjaro, rather than discussing the debt ceiling. You guys take a chill pill... we are are definitely not here to discuss anyone's personal feelings but politics - it's a contact sport. Deal with it, it was 50yrs ago, and will still be after we are all long gone.

Stupid, I am not frustrated as I have 4 kids and teaching them even as adults is frustrating. You just have preconceived notions like me that prevent you from truly listening to me. No you didn't provide any unbiased response you provided a link that had no relevance to what we were discussing and I explained it to you. Remember I am the guy that gave you the evidence that there was no depression in 86-87 like you claimed. Whether you like it or not the country did very well under reagan just as it did very well under Clinton. It doesn't matter if your GOP or a democrat you can't run from those basic facts and I know it's something you don't like to face. But see I can accept it because I accept the facts. I am not some GOP wing nut as I have voted democrat many times and even voted for John Anderson in 1980 so you can label me all you want. As for polls, I told you to look at Saturday's wall street journal and then
Last weeks time magazine(certainly liberal enough for you) so how hard is that to check out the polls. Sorry but most polls show Obama with 39 percent approval rating and losing the electoral college because that comes down to a few swing states.

If you think my past statements are inaccurate prove it. I have certainly proven yours. If you would just open your mind to possibilities maybe we would get along.

You just never stop spinning do you Kirk!?!?!?

So you blindly - AND wrongly - still wish to profess there was no economic recession &/or depression in the later 1980's even in the face of the authorities I gave you to check out. Here again (may want to actually read them this time:)

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms.....

You also may find this enlightening: www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1983/02/art1esc.htm....

and there are many others (because it is the truth!)

Yet with such truth in the discussion, YOU continue to try to deny these facts and insist "the country did very well under reagan...." That, my friend, is pure and simple obstinance and makes it appear that you have a sever comprehension problem; not meant to be derrogatory, just a fact. In addition, your unfounded contention: "Remember I am the guy that gave you the evidence that there was no depression in 86-87" is plain fantasy on your part. To continue to insist you are correct when all the authority and evidence shows otherwise (not to mention that many of us personally remember it, as I discussed with you before) lets the entire world know you are simply acting bull-headed and have blinders on.

The sad thing is that no matter how much or how often you continue to deny the facts, or attempt to spin them to fit your positions, it will not make them true and you will NOT be successful re-writing history. I know it is something you don't like to face, but the truth is: YOU ARE JUST PLAIN WRONG! If not, prove it.

Not as Stupid ~

Kirk has evidently forgotten the S&L bailout beginning in the mid to late 1980's and lasting into the mid 1990's, necessitated at least in part -- although not totally -- because of Reagan's policies. Although Reagan was in large part responsible for the S&L crash, the recession itself was dumped on Bush 41. Even the First Gulf War couldn't save Bush, who became famous for breaking his pledge for "no new taxes." This period brought us, among other things, the 1988 collapse of Neil Bush's Silverado Savings & Loan, ultimately costing taxpayers more than a billion dollars (which was real money at the time), and also the "Keating Five" scandal. The Reagan/Bush recession also brought us Bill Clinton, who rode to Washington on the famous slogan, "it's the economy, stupid."

Kirk clearly needs to read more about this before he makes such authoritative statements that fly in the face of the facts. He could start here:

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

There are those who say that the bailout climate originating during this period was contributory to our recent financial disaster:

Some commentators believe that a taxpayer-funded government bailout related to mortgages during the savings and loan crisis may have created a moral hazard and acted as encouragement to lenders to make similar higher risk loans during the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.

So I think it's an overstatement to say, as Kirk does, that the economy did "well" under Ronald Reagan. Reagan may have escaped the consequences of his own actions, but George H.W. Bush eventually paid the price for the regulatory failures and the bailouts that ironically benefited his own son, among others.

I think it IS fair to say that those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.

Thank you Anna Molly!

Of course you are absolutely correct; I think Kirk simply chooses to be obsinate. Actually, I believe I know what he intended to say, but DIDN'T say, which is that there was "economic expansion" under Reagan, - but he tripled national debt to achieve it (leading in to our current deficit woes) and had to reverse himself on his tax cuts for the wealthy before leaving office. Kirk has chosen to only use the positive aspect of "economic expansion" for a talking point to spin history to reflect reaganomics as "good" (while any of us who lived through it KNOW trickle down is NOT good!)

Typical Right Wing tactic to attempt to mislead the public; but all of his statements to the contrary, I do not believe he can admit error. Perhaps in HIS mind he has "proven" his points, but the effort would result in a failing mark in debating class.

That is okay = WE know the truth (as do the majority of voters I believe.)

Stupid and Anny Molly, Please Stupid stop with the right wing tactic crap as its getting old. I never accuse you of being a left wing looney do I? I dont have any right wing tactic play book etc and I have no game plan. I guess its a matter of interpretation and what rose colored glasses each of us look through and the definition of a recession. Both of you sort of gave in a little and recognized I was correct but want to interpret the data within the political views you hold. Stupid, you actually admit there was an economic expansion during Reagan--most people would view that as meaning the economy did very well which it did. Anna Molly said the S&L crisis came under Reagan which it did but the impact was felt under Bush which is true. If you look at all the GDP data, during Reagan's time, the economy grew substantially and the country did very well--which both of you now admit. Obama would love to have 3-4% GDP growth in 86-87 during the so called depression Stupid mentioned. Come on guys, we can talk about the impact of his policies but during his time in office, the economy did very well. As for his policies, you both are being inconsistent with each other. Anna Molly wants to say that Reagan's policies caused the recession during Bush's tenure (which is what I had told Stupid many posts before) but Stupid wants to say that Carter's policies had nothing to do with the recession that began at the end of Carter's presidency and ran through the first couple of years of Reagan's term. I bet you both hold Bush accountable for the recession during Obama's tenure but dont want to hold Clinton responsible for the internet bubble and recession at the beginning of Bush's tenure. Come on guys lets be reasonable and consistent and not wear the rose colored glasses. Since I spent 20 years providing this data to lenders and rating agencies while discussing my own employer's performance during the economic cycles, it appears that I was never corrected nor told I was wrong about these conclusions. I get the impression from 20 years of doing that, that I was certainly in the majority in thinking through the economic cycles and what caused them although we never discussed politics it just was an objective strictly financial view.

Stupid, there is nothing but positive when we have economic expansion so not sure how you spin that history. Yes, the deficit tripled during Reagan in order to assist paying for that expansion but dont forget he had a democratic congress that was creating and approving of that spending budget and the gross dollars of that deficit is less than one year's deficit under Obama. I am not sure thats a path you want to go down. Its also not true that Reagan gave tax cuts for the wealthy as his tax cuts (as opposed to Bush's) were across the board and are credited with spear heading the economic expansion. Read the Wall Street Journal, the Laffer study or any economic study from that era and it will show that tax cuts do create additional revenue just as his did, Clinton's did at the end of the 90s with his huge capital gains tax cut and Bush's tax cuts really did increase revenue. I am not saying I am against revenue increases to help fix our deficit issue but lets start from the facts instead of democratic platform talking points. It has nothing to do with trickle down as I hate that phrase and its totally misused by both sides. It is true that investment capital that provides the greatest return with the most after tax cash flow will be reinvested and create more jobs. It is true that the middle class and lower end wealthy who keep greater amounts of after tax earned income, spend more, consume more hire more landscapers, remodelers, day care providers etc that creates more jobs. There isnt an economist in the world will tell you differently so the trickle down class warfare stuff isnt really helpful to the debate. The real issues we are debating are more on the edge, how much debt can we afford to help expand the economy without impacting our standard of living. How much money can we take from the wealthy and at what income levels do we take it without impacting investment, consumption and behaviorial changes. Most studies show that once total tax rates are above 50% the incentive to invest is eliminated which regardless of what you say, will impact the economy.

Stupid, as for who WE is, the polls seem to be saying otherwise as Obama has a 39% approval rating and 61% of the people feel he is doing a bad job with the economy. I happen to be in that majority but you keep acting like I am happy about that trust me I am not.

B.S.!

Son, you are so far right of base and inconsistent (not to mention illogical and inaccurate) that there is absolutely NO point in me continuing to attempt to have a discussion with you. YOU ARE JUST PLAIN WRONG on so many facets I think it is hopless to continue with you. Sorry.

Obama has a 39% approval rating and 61% of the people feel he is doing a bad job

You spout this talking point as fact when I just looked at yesterday's approval poll showing that the President's rating has dropped to 41% approval with 44% disapproval. My info comes from Gallup and from Harris. Did you get your numbers from Rupert Murdoch or the Republican National Committee? I can not carry on dialogue in that nature. In my opinion you are just too far gone - despite your insistence to the contrary - to open your eyes to truth.

Also, FYI: your illogical spin and attempted justification/rationalization of Reaganomics does not hold water either; you are WAY off base in that regard too.

But, hey - keep spinning. You are making the RNC feel better (particularly in the face of the latest quarterly fundraising info demonstrating the President's true approval and appeal - in real numbers!) and you never know... there may be some who actually ARE stupid as you would like to believe who will listen and be influenced by you. BUT REST ASSURED, I AM NOT ONE OF THEM!

P.S.

Want a dose of truth to go with your rhetorical spin? Try this on:

President Obama Job Approval

Polling Data

PollDateSampleApprove Disapprove Spread

RCP Average
6/24 - 7/17
--
46.3
47.5
-1.2

Rasmussen Reports
7/15 - 7/17
1500 LV
45
54
-9

Gallup
7/14 - 7/16
1500 A
44
49
-5

Reuters/Ipsos
7/8 - 7/11
1173 A
49
46
+3

Quinnipiac
7/5 - 7/11
2311 RV
47
46
+1

FOX News
6/26 - 6/28
912 RV
46
46
Tie

CBS News/NY Times
6/24 - 6/28
979 A
47
44

+3

Golly Gee Kirk - I don't see "39%" anywhere, from ANY polls!

But Keep On spinning/spouting - I know you just can't help yourself; but STOP praying our President will not be successfull.

Stupid, I am over 50 years old so I probably couldnt qualify as your son. Actually you are correct in that his latest approval rating is 41 in one poll but I think I meant to say 49% disapproval rating which is another. They seem to be all over the board with Fox News I just saw with a higher approval rating than you have at 46%. Wow I guess that means the Fox people are spinning and making him seem more likable than he really is. So it appears I was off this week by a whole 2 points, you got me and I will admit I am wrong as that really changes things dont you think. A 41% approval rating isnt a majority or a WE as you keep saying. AS for the 61%, I just looked it up again. It again depends on what poll you look at because many are higher and some are in the high 50% range but its how whether they approve Obama's handling of the economy not his overall approval rating. It is growing it says as independents get more fed up with both parties and Obama. Come on stupid, would you drop this RNC stuff so we can actually get past your chip on the shoulder? I dont understand why you are so bent on saying I am wrong over and over when you and AM just admitted that economic expansion and GDP growth took place under Reagan. If you want to blame him for the recession that took place under the first Bush, I dont care but factually you already agreed. You keep trying to saying I am plain wrong when I am not factually. You might interpret or have explanations that fit your political views but I am not factually wrong.

A Clean, Simple Bill:

Not much was accomplished yesterday at the White House meeting on the debt ceiling. The meeting lasted only 1 hour and 19 minutes. Evidently, after being beaten to a bloody pulp by both Republicans and Democrats alike, Eric Cantor did not say one word in the meeting. But alas, nothing of substance was accomplished.

I have to wonder, how can it be that both Wall Street and Main Street have come to the same conclusion: We must increase the debt ceiling. It is abundantly clear that failure to pass a debt ceiling bill will cause world-wide financial chaos, we become a country who reneges on it financial obligations, interest rates increase creating an even larger debt, seniors and military families may not get paid, yet John Boehner can’t get the Republican votes to pass a clean, simple bill.

I read that 2/3 of Americans polled want a bill that included BOTH tax increases and spending cuts. Yet Boehner and Cantor continue to be opposed to tax increases and they are willing to risk a second economic crisis by supporting a failed conservative ideology. Now how dumb is that? That is putting party first, America second.

The question is not who owns this problem: we all do. The real question is, how do Boehner and Cantor survive to fight another day? The answer is simple: Capitulate to President Obama. And that indeed is what will happen. Later Boehner and Cantor will fight each other.

Ahhhh!

Thanks Jody! I needed that! ;o)

Jody: Very well done. Excellent summary of the week that was.

Jody and Ron:

Two great posts to end a really bizarre week. I am waiting to see what President Obama has to say today. I guess the GOP/TP is going first this morning in a few minutes.

Spin city here we go. I am sitting on my piano stool so I can keep up.

Thank you and you're welcome. There was so much good material this week that quite a bit was left on the cutting room floor.

Jody- y' got my vote. Bravo! Keep 'em coming.

Good grief, Jody, re-reading Obama speeches must have impaired your reading comprehension skills

"Despite months of negotiations, the two sides remain at odds on fundamental fiscal policy issues," S&P said in the statement.

Chambers added in the interview that even if the parties agree to raise the debt ceiling, it may not be enough to avert a downgrade. Chambers said the country must implement a plan to reduce the annual budget deficit by roughly $4 trillion over 10 years, which makes the debt manageable over the long term.

The threat of the downgrade is because the DEBT IS TOO HIGH. Raising the debt ceiling with no guaranteed cuts will make the debt HIGHER.

If the debt goes higher and there are no guaranteed cuts, they drop our credit rating.

Here is something you will not read in your "bible"- Obama is a disaster. Unemployment is 9.2%. GDP is anemic. Spending is out of control.

Which one of his speeches promised those results from his policies?

Jody, yet another outstanding wrap-up, interesting and well-written. Thanks so much.

Ron, you got right to the marrow of the matter.

Most Americans want this mess resolved, and with clarity and dispatch.

The right keeps chanting the mantra that last year's election was about the deficit and debt. It wasn't.

Election day exit polls instead showed voters were motivated most by three top issues:

1. The Economy

2. Jobs

3. The perceived "breakdown" in Washington, with pttey politics ruling rather than practical effort to solve problems.

Only 22% of voters then credited the Tea Party with influencing their ballots. That number has remained relatively consistent since. But 56% of voters said the Tea Party position made no difference to them at all.

Will those from the GOP now attempting to find their way out of a political wilderness regarding the debt ceiling remember those numbers? They should - it creates a massive comfort zone if they do the right thing and resolve the impasse. Conversely, the more the GOP looks to be obstructionist, risking not only this nation's well-being but that of the global economy, the more those numbers (and especially the third key issue of 2010) loom as a dire threat.

As for President Obama's role in this affair, he has taken a more direct and steadfast leadership role. As the writers here observed, he has stuck to his "process" pattern of setting the policy objectives and then letting Congressional officeholders actually craft the details. It may be that he will indeed have to set down a comprehensive proposed bill, much as Franklin D. Roosevelt did in 1936-37, when Republican Congressional resistance had caused a renewed economic downturn.

There is far too much at stake to allow a small, disaffected splinter group, the Tea Party contingent, to drive the discussion or set the agenda. They have already done so by making the debt and deficit the centerpiece of this legislative year, already betraying the trust voters had put in them to pursue more vital matters. But they should not have the clout to further dismatle and disable the American government or wreck it entirely by their intransigence. They don't have the numbers. The great majority of Americans who support the President's policies have the numbers.

Grand slam home run this week, Jody! Your vacation left you energized for the weekly wrap-up.

I will confess to having a pink gun on my gift "wish list".

Jody and Ron

Home Runs

Thanks

and a vote from me too - what a great synopsis of the week - you rock!

David Walker:

This sort of treatment of select posters by the right wing lynch mob on this board is nothing new. Last year, I went from being 'a respected, smart guy who was good to debate with' - the words of the right wingers themselves, not me - to a socialistic, possibly suicidal, possibly homicidal, definitely dangerous, probably dead broke and living on my parents, and quite probably also physically ugly and pitiable creature in the space of only two days - again from the posts of the very same right wingers and not mine.

The point is that if you post things that are inteliigent, but run counter to their guiding ideologies, they are threatened by it. And there are some arguments on both sides of the ideological divide to which there are no valid responses. And because they believe they have to post something instead of just leaving it out there, that is when they collectively decide they've had enough of you and one speculation leads to another speculation, which leads to one vicious attack after another until your fate is that of Simon in Lord of the Flies.

The bottom line is simple. Get out of here and stay out of here. As a veteran of it, I promise you, you will be much, much happier never interacting with the JoannaSmiths, Bill from Fairfaxes, No Joes, and Mixed Bags of the world.

Jody - for a guy that doesn't have a lot of time, your recap is FANTASTIC.

It is well written and concise. Than you for providing this.

No Jo, I thought Obama's is telling Repbulicans let do a grand plan of 4Trilion package. And Republicans are saying what?

The bottom line is simple. Get out of here and stay out of here. As a veteran of it, I promise you, you will be much, much happier never interacting with the JoannaSmiths, Bill from Fairfaxes, No Joes, and Mixed Bags of the world.

To Michael Thompson and David Walker - the 'ignore Author' button on this blog is the BEST feature that has been installed (to get to that button, you click on the [!] and then a drop down menu appears, which one of the options is [ignore this author]). You can put all of the 'usual suspects and antagonists' on IGNORE and you will instantly see the difference. You really should NOT let these 'ususal suspects and antagonists' drive you from the board because they have no sense. Your voice is just as important as theirs. Just because they choose to use theirs for nefarious means does NOT mean that you cannot use yours to post the truth.

When you do employ the 'ignore Author' feature, you can then see how many posts are being put up by these posters to clog up the blog and change the conversation, and these posters are very prolific. It also makes it easy to see their modus operandi - if you cannot refute or debate, just throw out mean, nasty 'prose' to change the conversation.

Now, when I am reading this blog, it is a pleasure because I do not have to scroll through all of the 'crap' that these posters spew day in and day out. I can see the postings of OTHER right-wing posters who actually have something substantive to say and whom are willing to debate in a civil manner.

So, there are MANY options available to you on this blog. I sincerely hope that you employ them.

NsDFL:No Jo, I thought Obama's is telling Repbulicans let do a grand plan of 4Trilion package. And Republicans are saying what?

Obama tells others to do a lot of things. Maybe he could tell his own party to come with a plan, seeing they still haven't bothered to do so.

Micael T:

Have not seen you in a while my friend and miss ya.

Touche' - Well said and good advice.

I have stopped trying to have any conversations with the right. Just not worth it. They do not want a dialogue, just look at the crap up there today. They want to pound people over the head with talking points, debunked lies and if you counter them with facts that call you names and spend the next two weeks with personal attacks.

You are 100% correct as is David W.

Michael As a fellow that misses what you used to put up I would advise both you and David to simply use the Ignore author Feature of Newsvine. That way we get to get you'll posts and you'll get to keep your sanity. Win Win

Jody, super job keeping all this stuff on the front page, lest we forget.

$86 million!

To all Democrats with few dollars to spare but desire our President to stay exactly where he is -

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

Job well done.

We do want dialogue but more importantly we want the President or the Democrats in the Senate or House to produce a plan to cut the deficit. Where is one?

Chambers added in the interview that even if the parties agree to raise the debt ceiling, it may not be enough to avert a downgrade. Chambers said the country must implement a plan to reduce the annual budget deficit by roughly $4 trillion over 10 years, which makes the debt manageable over the long term.

The threat of the downgrade is because the DEBT IS TOO HIGH. Raising the debt ceiling with no guaranteed cuts will make the debt HIGHER.

_____________

I think most can agree that the debt is too high. There are different plans to reduce it some favoring all cuts or others looking for a balanced approach that includes revenue increases.

Plan A - Grand Bargain

Wasn't plan A to cut the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years? Why didn't the GOP agree to raise the debt limit and agree to the $4 trillion? Is it really that everything (cuts) are not spelled out exactly and presumed to be fake cuts or is it simply that the GOP refuse to accept any tax increases?

Plan B - McConnell plan

Isn't plan B to have the president authority to raise the debt ceiling and cut $2.4 trillion over three installments. Perhaps a hybrid plan can emerge with McConnel and Reid working together that includes specified cuts and some tax increases.

Wow Michael Thompson, I haven't seen you in a long time. Welcome back!

Good to see you Michael!

I would disagree on one small item is your post - leaving is EXACTLY what the right wing nitwits are hoping for...

Notice how the rapid animals are hunting in packs these days?

Better idea is what IR said, there's an 'ignore author' feature here and you should give it a try!

Not having to wade through thier manure makes this place a whole lot more enjoyable!

I always enjoy this end of the week Blog! The messy luv fest that occurs when you guys start rubbing body parts and expanding your cranial activity to include more then 3 working receptors! As Bill Cosby once said during his "Noah" routine "Whos going to clean the mess up down there"

Senator Orrin Hatch said the poor and middle class should do more to shrink the debt, not the rich. Now that is rich, isn't it?

Thanks, Sen. Hatch your right it's the poor and the worker bees who scrap by couldn't be you and your rich pals fault the economy sucks. No you are absolutely right it's all our fault! Thanks for pointing that out, could please remove that boot from our necks now, we'll good we promise!

Orrin Hatch the wannabe Tea Bagger! Good Luck with your reelection prospects Orrin too bad you not far enough to the right for your TP friends!

Michael Thompson, Charlotte, NC-

Hello, Michael.

Did you actually read David Walker's remarks, and read the quote I posted from the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham H. Foxman?

Mr. Foxman's quote directly addressed two of the points David made, and associated both ideas with anti-Semitism.

You and I have had our dust-ups Michael, but I wouldn't have thought you could ever accomodate anti-Semitic doctrine in order to agree with a blogger who otherwise shares your political views.

That's not what you're doing, is it?

John A, "the great majority of Americans who support his policies he has the numbers'" I would generally assume that a great majority must be at least 60% and since his approval ratings are below 40%, can you explain your conclusion. I disagree that anywhere close to a majority of Americans agree on any of his fiscal views and policies unless you know something hidden. As for the Tea Party, I agree with you that they make up 20% of the right but dont forget you have 20% of your loony left that is made up of socialists, Jeremiah Wright types, anarchists, communists basically most of San Francisco (just kidding) in which the left needs to ignore too. Most of us are in the middle with differences on various social issues and methods of achieving similar goals.

As for leadership, sorry but even the left has criticized Obama's leadership style. Did you read Newsweek probably over a year ago and a more recent Time article and of course the Wall Street Journal as mentioned it over and over. He is nothing like FDR or even Reagan and Clinton. Both of those took firm positions and led by example, never attacking and lecturing with condescension as Obama does when he is politicking or at news conferences. Obama never stakes a position and tells his party get it done. He leaves it to congress and acts like he above the fray until they need him and then tries to step in and arbitrate. That only works if you have the respect of all parties and he doesnt even have the respect of his own leaders like Pelosi and Reid so that style is a waste of time. Sorry your never going to get a consensus on his leadership style.

I dont understand why you posters and then Michael Thompson mentions the right wing lynch mob. Count the number of people and posts on this one page from a left progressive view point and how many of you gave each other collective hugs on absolute brilliance and then how many people from this right wing lynch mob. What do you think the percentages are? Damn its almost 80/20 in favor of the left view point. As one of the minority on here who would welcome a respectful debate with you Michael and others but lets be careful who is part of the mob and who gets beat up and who gets paid to be the hitmen or women

Jody....well done, you hit it out of the ballpark....again. Thank you

Jody, I really missed your wrap up a week ago. This one was really good. I missed the bit on Branstad's claim that not failing as badly as he projected is somehow success. Did you see where he tried to fire the Work Comp commissioner because the Association of Business and Industry requested it? And ADMITTED IT on live radio?

I particularly liked this part of your post;

Boehner, Cantor and friends claim Americans don't want any increase in taxes. They really should look at the polls because 81% of Americans want a surtax on millionaires; 68% want the Bush tax cuts to expire on incomes exceeding $250,000; 56% say corporations should pay their "fair share". Even more telling--61% say that tax cuts for business will not create jobs but will instead be spent for dividends and bonuses; only 4% of Americans believe that tax cuts for corporations will create jobs. The only people buying what the GOP is selling are the party loyalists who sit around and drink tea.

I only disagree with FR on one item this morning--"no losers." The data above clearly shows the GOPTP has lost on the debt ceiling issue.

@Yellowdog

There is no plan I know of that actually reduces the debt. Even the Ryan plan simply reduces the rate of growth and hopes that growth in the economy will reduce the debt as a percentage of GDP. As I mentioned above an economist from the University of Maryland was on CNN last night saying that $4T is just the start. Further cuts are needed. I don't like it either but the simple fact is that we are not paying for the government we want, and the demographics are against us.

On the $4T cuts, no one has come up with specifics. Independent commentators point out that Obama has the same problem with Democrats in the House that Boehner has. They will not accept any cuts to Medicare or SS. So to raise taxes for example the Republicans would lose maybe 25 to 30 members and need Democrats to make up the majority. On the other hand Democrats would not go along with such a deal if it included cuts to Medicare and so the Grand Bargain would fail. It's ideology on both sides because we all know we need revenue increases and entitlement cuts.

You lefties are laughable. When you are running out of puppets, you are like Jeff Dunham and pull another puppet out of the box and he talks with the same voice (person). Too hilarious!!!!!!!

Alan, NJ.

Good catch if I incorrectly typed debt. Correct we are talking about reducing the deficit (yearly) so as to not keep increasing the overall debt.

My point is why did the GOP reject the cuts $4 trillion or 400 billion a year for ten years? Was it not enough, do they hope to get more? If they are interested in reducing the deficit and adding less to the debt why not increase revenue as well. I believe you prefer tax reform vs. tax increases but why doesn't the GOP (I understand you are Indy) see that cuts alone isn't the solution. I'm glad to see that although I may not agree with your plan (deeper cuts) you at least see increased revenue as part of the solution.

The purely idealogical politicians will kill us. Travelling for my job passed a farm the other day and it had an outhouse sitting out front. It was nearly twenty feet tall and broken into two parts each with individual doors to enter. It looks like the guy made it out of hunters perch with wood cladding. Top half was labeled Politicians bottom half underneath was labeled Voters.

I dont understand why you posters and then Michael Thompson mentions the right wing lynch mob. Count the number of people and posts on this one page from a left progressive view point and how many of you gave each other collective hugs on absolute brilliance and then how many people from this right wing lynch mob.

Kirk, the point is that there is a concerted effort on this blog to CHANGE THE CONVERSATION. I personally do not care one way or another what people post, but when we have people who are posting the same debunked and discredited drivel day in and day out KNOWING FULL WELL that what they are posing is debunked and discredited, there has to be a way to filter out the 'noise'.

As an example - Just YESTERDAY we were talking about the debt ceiling, and because some poster(s) did not like what David Walker said about Eric Cantor, we had a full thread and a half of people bashing David Walker calling him an anti-semite.

Now what does that have to do with the debt ceiling, which is the topic we were talking about?

The short answer - NOTHING. It was a means to CHANGE THE CONVERSATION.

I am not playing that game with those posters and I have them on ignore. I am interested in those posters that have sometrhing valid to say about the debt ceiling negotiations - left and right - so that I can make up my own mind or I can challenge those posters that I do not agree with.

Of course, after these people don't get their way, they end up collapsing posts, misusing the 'No value' flags. They think that those flags are there as a 'I disagree' vote when it is not.

but why doesn't the GOP (I understand you are Indy) see that cuts alone isn't the solution.

Ideology or stubbornness. I don't know.

David and Michael,

I know you are both quite effective at fighting your own battles; but this is for the NEW posters or lurkers who are trying to discern those who post FACTS or well thought out opinions. And in all honesty, to get some steam off my chest for the recent 'gang' warfare that's been occurring on this site:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/02/5031846-first-thoughts-mayday-mayday

The above is a thread from last September. And I think it is an EXCELLENT example of what Michael is stating and what I stated yesterday. Some of the regular Republican posters on this site engage in scurrilous tactics and then turn around and project THEIR behavior onto many of us on the opposing bench.

Please pay close attention to comment #11 and subsequent posts. Read carefully as Mixed Bag and nojo commence their feeding frenzy. I don't even think it was Shark Week on TLC,...but they just can't HELP themselves. They perceived a weakness and they went for it, All In.

We've all engaged in some nasty back and forth; but this thread and what we've witnessed by MB and Ira this week are TYPICAL of their behavior. But again, please formulate your OWN opinions based on your own interpretation of what transpired.

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

I posted the below this morning; but it bears repeating here, too:

Ira

Let's get something straight, we all know you are Groucho and as Groucho you went on a jihad against me and my friends. Suddenly you've found yourself in a position of situational ethics and you seem to want to play the Juda card against someone who isn't anti- Jewish and anti-Israel. I'm not biting. You may fool some of the people; but I've been around long enough to recognize you by your DEEDS and not your words.

A friend posted this comment on his wall today:

The operational definition of "evil" is disingenuity, knowing what you are saying is a lie, that it will hurt other people, perhaps benefit you & you say/do it anyway. Who is lying to you and why are they doing it?

I think this pretty much sums up the 'game' you and others are trying to play here. I think you're going to have to bottle crazy somewhere else,...we're not buying your elixir here.

Let's get something straight, we all know you are Groucho and as Groucho you went on a jihad against me and my friends.

Uh oh, It looks like the jig is up Groucho... er Ira! Thanks for the info Clara. That will come in handy later.

BTW Nice post.

Thank you Jody for a magnificent summary of the week's events. No one does it better! Mighty entertaining

this week as well, your wit is unmatched here and that is not easy to do in a lengthy treatise. BRAVO!

The operational definition of "evil" is disingenuity, knowing what you are saying is a lie, that it will hurt other people, perhaps benefit you & you say/do it anyway. Who is lying to you and why are they doing it?

Grand Slam GF!

About time someone sends the graffiti thugs back to the starving artist sales... where they belong!

Clara-

Thanks for the link. It certainly brought back memories.

My own personal favorite comment came from dangerfield:

"Civility is a two-way street. Common courtesy is in short supply on both sides here, but the majority sets the tone."

Indeed, dangerfield.

And we've seen that the majority here can even tolerate, accomodate, and rationalize anti-Semitic doctrine...provided that the doctrine is included in remarks that are part of an assault on a conservative politician, and are being launched by one of the "usual suspects".

Thanks again, Clara.

Feisty, It Friday and you are on a roll. Keep it up.!! I am starting a book of my favorite" Feisty Quotes"

See you later today at DDI

Clara, Thanks for the background check post.

I am starting a book of my favorite" Feisty Quotes"

For you Northstar, I'll even autograph it! ;o)

Indeed, I'll see you over @ the DDI! Been a wild week and it's time for a couple of cold ones...

Just ask Floyd! lol

Great wrapup, Jody! As always. Reading your wrapup is more informative, and certainly more fun, than reading the news firsthand. Thanks for that!

Pietro, thanks and I would love to move to having a respectful discourse and you and I have done fine. But you do realize that the same drivel as you say that comes from certain posters on here come from the left. Some of it factual but usually inflamatory with no factual back up. You know what I am talking about from Fiesty and Navy and to some extent John A. Many of you use facts and we all try to use facts to passionately defend our positions but lets face it even facts can be embellished or used in a slanted conclusion. But I get tired of the group hug dynamic here which is silly everyone telling someone else how brilliant their conclusions are rather than just debating. The constant progressive talking points dealing with class warfare, evil corporations, tea baggers, gender politics etc get very old especially never backed up by fact or said just to inflame. I agree when Pat, Beverly, Navy, Fiesty or John A post the same ole drivel every day and then tell each other how intelligent, brilliant each other are, it gets very old when none of it ever is done with the intention of actually creating solutions to any of the issues that in front of us and debating with intellectual curiosity, critical thinking skills and maybe just maybe an open mind to something said by someone with a more conservative fiscal view could hold a grain of truth. Not everyone who doesnt think Obama policies are leading us to fiscal prosperity thinks that poor, orphans and grandma should be kicked out on the street with crumbs reserving a special place in hell for us.

Jody,

I am so sorry to have co-opted your space for more drama! UGH!

I did want to tell you that this week's wrap up was AWESOME! You rock!

To all of you who remember me fondly:

Thanks for the kind words, but it is doubtful that I will ever post here regularly again - in fact I don't post on any political board regularly anymore. I've discovered that I spend a lot less time being irritated as I go about my daily business that way.

To MB:

I honestly have no idea what the specifics of this particular situation is. I simply saw something that seemed like deja vu when I was browsing through this morning. From my own experience with you, it does not surprise me that you seem to think that you are the reasonable one in this episode. I can't really speak to the truth of that or not, but I can say that you have always appeared to try to fit into the role of 'guy who tries to present a reasonable facade to all of the loathsome trolling and calls out anyone of the opposing side while never saying a thing to those on his own side when they do it because he indirectly benefits from the shark swarm.'

I've said it to you before and I'll say it again. If you want to be an ethicist, then you must point the finger just as harshly at the people with whom you agree ideologically as you do those with whom you do not. I am not saying that you have to do this, but if you choose not to do it, then drop the pretense of being an ethicist. Being an ethicist isn't a particularly pleasant thing to be. You simultaneously draw the ire of your opponents and when your side does support you, that support tends to be lukewarm at best - especially when compared to the support given to those who remain constantly loyal and on message.

So yes, I could always understand your hesitation to engage the truly despicable like ITM and CU Farley and No Joe, No BO. If you called them out on anything, no matter how ludicrous or outlandish their words, you might have been given the dreaded label of RINO, which, to the right, is about on par with 'socialist' or 'sewage dweller.' I wouldn't wish what happened to me on you, so I can understand your reluctance in that regard to.

After all, if someone is watching the piranha feed, it's basic instinct to step away as calmly and quietly and possible and avoid their gazes. It's less instinctive to stand up and say, 'cut the crap.'

So I don't know exactly what happened with David Walker. All I can relate to him is what happened to me and tell him that he might just be happier leaving. I know that ultimately I was and am.

To the guy who said that the right wing can't be a lynch mob because there are more left wing posters:

Lynch mobs were never large. Lynch mobs were small packs of people who had enormous impact on larger populations because of the fear they generated - mainly the type of fear that I just described in my reply to Mixed Bag. The lynch mob accomplishes its goals in two ways:

1.) It cows the target population because the rest of the target population doesn't want to experience what the target of the lynch mob just experienced.

2.) It cows the the remainder of the population, (those who were presumably already on the lynch mob's side ideologically, but didn't actively participate in the lynching), by providing a demonstration of what can happen to them if they step out of line. It takes a lot of courage to stand up to a mob if you inherently disagree with the mob's ideology. It would take an extraordinary amount of inner strength to stand up to a mob if you happened to be on the opposite side of the ideological divide from the target. It is far, far easier just to look the other way and said nothing, which is what usually happens.

And the truth is that in the end, not much really happens. Usually the target either goes away or, after a few weeks of the shark swarm, starts to lash out in escalating fashion to the point where the lynch mob's initial personal attacks seem somewhat justified to the 'average observer.' In either case, the target of the lynch mob has been diminished as a voice in the community, which is essentially what the lynch mob wanted in the first place.

But your misconception is that a group has to be larger than another group to accomplish this. They don't. A few posters can easily do it as long as they are willing to engage in a series of escalating, vicious personal attacks that presume everything about just about every facet of the target's personal life. Most of it is wild conjecture. Occasionally, they stumble upon something that has a grain of truth to it and once the target reacts in a hostile way to that particular post, the remainder of the attack is focused on that one thing and the lynch mob escalates it past the point of all reason until, in the eyes of the community at large, the target is destroyed.

The wild boys in Lord of the Flies didn't outnumber the others. Originally, the only ones in it were Jack's fellow choirboys. Not until they killed Simon. After that, almost everyone who was in the 'reasonable' group immediately went over, leaving Ralph alone.

That is more or less how it works. And it's a tactic that works just as well today as when Golding described it in vivid narrative form over 55 years ago.

Thanks, Michael. You've been missed.

PS. Ironically, the only 'friend' Mixed Bag has on his newsvine page is nojo,...birds of a feather and all that, right?

Your assessment of MB's 'brand' is spot on and you've obviously seen through the BS facade that he hides behind in a tranparent effort to be erudite. Once you start looking for substance,...it's glaringly absent. I now have him and a handful of others on ignore. They just aren't worth the effort or time. And if you had been around about three weeks ago,...you'd certainly have seen their TRUE colors. It simply wasn't pretty at all.

Without speaking to this exact issue or the person invovled. Very, very well said Michael Thompson with your observation from "Lord of the Flies".

It reminds me of a show, I believe it is still on Nightline on Fridays or some ABC show called "What would you do," where actors act out incidents amongst unsuspecting people and tape the results. The premise is usually that an actor treats another actor cruelly and they see who stands up for the victim or target.

Always interesting to see how people react and have them discuss later on why they did or didn't help.

Feel free to stop by more often.

Pietro, thanks and I would love to move to having a respectful discourse and you and I have done fine. But you do realize that the same drivel as you say that comes from certain posters on here come from the left. Some of it factual but usually inflamatory with no factual back up. You know what I am talking about from Fiesty and Navy and to some extent John A. Many of you use facts and we all try to use facts to passionately defend our positions but lets face it even facts can be embellished or used in a slanted conclusion. But I get tired of the group hug dynamic here which is silly everyone telling someone else how brilliant their conclusions are rather than just debating.

Kirk - there you go with the 'it's not FAIR!!' whining again.

First of all, like I told you when we first crossed swords, you have to have a THICK SKIN to be on this blog. If you do not like what Navy or Fiesty or Beverly post, then REFUTE IT or be quiet.

Really.

Your sensibility for 'what is fair' is what is giving you the most grief on here.

Do I think it is fair that MY tax dollars are being used to fund the TSA, that does absolutely NOTHING to secure the flying public?

Do I think is is fair that MY tax dollars are being used to pay haliburton to provide air conditioning in Iraq, with a markeup of over 2000%?

Do I think it is fair that the JAS1's, the No Joes, the Bob (numbers) (both of them), and now you, are on here with the CONSTANT debunked talking points touting them as truth?

NO, I do Not.

However, I DO defnd your right to post things that are not factual that you have to defend.

I even defend the right of JAS1 to post their stupid drivel daily because I WANT everyone to see them for the partisan hacks and shills that they are.

I WANT No Joe to be on here with her HOURLY hateful posts against the President. This way you can make up your own mind as to if you want to believe a person I think is a liar - or not.

That does NOT mean that I have to read their posts, or listen to them whine (like I am listening to you).

If you do not like what US Navy posts, then either refute what he posts or put him on ignore (I have outlined how that can be done more than once today).

Ifyou do not like what Feisty is posting, then put her on Ignore and MOVE ON.

You REALLY need to do something about your constant whining about 'it's not fair!!' because it will wear thin on the posters on this blog and you may find yourself on the business end of the Ignore button.

That's a friendly warning for you, Kirk.

Michael Thompson-

If you can't call out anti-Semitism (as defined by the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League), you have nothing to say to me about my behavior.

Since you're identifying with David Walker, I'm assuming that you agree with the remarks I've referred to. If you haven't reviewed the remarks, then I suggest you do so.

They are readily accessable on David Walker's Newsvine page, or on my own.

I'll even put them on this thread if you specifically request it.

If you don't respond, I'll consider your silence to be acquiescence, OK?

This was a pretty good recap of events, but I have to disagree with your editorial of one point:

"National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Action of 2011". It over-rides state laws that limit who may carry loaded, hidden weapons (terrorists, the mentally ill, felons).

The summary from Opencongress org:

Official Summary

2/18/2011--Introduced.National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 - Amends the federal criminal code to authorize a person who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state, and who is not prohibited from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm under federal law, to carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) in another state in accordance with the restrictions of that state.

Pietro -

I gave up on Kirk some while ago. He never posts anything that is genuinely substantive, he tends to use smear tactics (such as repeating regularly that he has shown Navy to be a constant liar - we know that's actually a complete lie), and dealing with him is a total waste of time. I cordially invite you to join me with the "ignore" button.

Michael T., it is good to see you back.

Clara, not a problem, your comment was perfect.

To everyone who took time to say kind words about my weekly wrap, thank you. I appreciate that you appreciate.

Pietro, you are correct. I do refute what they say and get no response and I guess my problem isnt fairness or whining as you call it but probably my obviously failed attempts at getting them to enter into debates. You are interested in discussion and debate they are not (which is fine and not necessarily a bad thing) and would prefer to just have a one way discussion. Thats not debate and you are correct I need to give it up. Its not a matter of ignore because they are the paid employees that are used to get the passions flowing its the others that are here using their statements to flame or debate.

I dont think any of things you state are fair--not sure if you were looking to me to state the obvious or not. Life isnt fair and no matter what the republicans or democrats do, life, income etc will remain unfair in most people's minds and their interpretation of fairness. Is it fair I wasnt borne a NBA basketball player? No but I dont begrudge that person making millions off their talent but where most progressives on this board differ, I dont think its fair to reach into his pocket and take more than 50% of his income. I dont think its fair that regardless of wealth equality, half of the taxpayers in this country dont contribute to the ownership. I dont think its fair that wealthy seniors feel they are entitled to retain social security as it is and make our children and grandchildren have a lower standard of living as a result. I have a list of unfairness and my whining is no different than the progressive whining about their perceived list of unfairness. But your advice is good and I will attempt to take it

John A, thanks for being so open to debate. Instead of calling me out on never posting anything substantive why dont you take the time to prove that. Pietro just told me to have a thick skin for people like you and I guess his advice doesnt work both ways. If you are a historian and genuinely interested in learning, is it so hard to listen to people with differing views and opinions and find out why they may?

Okay, MB,

I really feel like I've just wasted an hour or more of my life at your request.

Just verify something for me here. The entire genesis of this accusation that Walker is an anti-semite was him saying with no context whatsoever that he would like to beat up Eric Cantor? And Spanky subsequently making hay of that in the subsequent post?

If that is really where this entire thing started, I am severely ticked that I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Saying that something is anti-semitic just because they want to beat up Eric Cantor because happens to be Jewish is like saying someone is racist just because they want to beat up James Harrison because Harrison happens to be black.

It is one of the stupidest jump-the-shark moments I've seen in months and that is saying a lot.

Jody, Michael Thompson, Clara, Pietro, John A., John B., Fesity, Navy, Job1, Fielden, and I'm doing this from memory, so excuse me if I missed your name:

First to Jody: Thanks for such an excellent wrap. A great deal has happened this week, more than I remember.

For my other - dare I call you friends - I have felt that I could easily handle the likes of the bomb-throwers - water balloons; their outrage - crocodile tears. Oh, the pain!!! How awful it is to watch such strong, articulate men reduced to sniveling victims. Still, it is nice to know that there are good people at your back. Thank you.

Some times I forget about the tactics of the right. With no intellectual strength to support their positions, they resort to incredibly vile tactics. I have been involved in political campaigns with these people. I'm old enough that I should not be surprised, but I am. still wonder about people who steal yard signs, who deface private property, who spread outright lies, and who resort to tactics that would embarrass a 5-year-old.

This is a new era for me. I still marvel at cell phones, with cameras yet that can send a photo to the other side of a planet in seconds. I have never sent a text message. I don't have a Facebook page and I have no idea how to tweet/twitter/whatever, dude. But, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the right wing crazies have already found the value of abusing them. Groucho and Ira are the same person? What's that about? Sanitizing posts? What's that about?

As far as the "ignore" feature, well, I actually know about that. I used it for JoAnna Smith. Her posts were simply worthless. I had thought about others, but these days, if I want to ignore them - and I do - I simply scroll past. I don't vote to collapse posts. Unlike the right-wingers who think that collapsing the truth makes it go away, I subscribe to the notion that it is good to see how crazy right wing posts can be.

In any case, I thank you again. Have a great weekend, a great July, and be ready to welcome a brand spanking new debt ceiling.

David:

The one thing that I will say to you regarding some of your comments is that there is a clear delineation between the intent behind the Holocaust and the intent behind the bombing of Dresden.

The Nazis, from the point that the reached the decision to implement 'The Final Solution' forward, had the clear intent to wipe Judaism from the planet. That is distinctly different from the bombing of Dresden. While the loss of life at Dresden was tragic, it was done to stop an aggressive power who had already attacked all of the nations involved in it save for one.

The attempt to exterminate the Nuba tribe in the Sudan. The attempt to wipe out the muslims in Bosnia. Those are clearer parallels to what happened to the Jews at the hands of the Nazis. But there is no human tragedy in the history of the world that matches the scale of what happened during WWII.

I am not just talking about body count. I am talking about the intention to destroy all vestiges of a culture that had been here since Biblical days.

I do not think you are an anti-semite at all. I did not get that from your initial post about Eric Cantor. But I do think you seriously need to think of the context of things when considering world events. Dresden and the Holocaust are not the same thing.

We can agree to disagree about that.

Michael Thompson:

We have no disagreement on this issue. However, I maintain that a holocaust is a holocaust, and I look to Webster for that definition. That said, in the book Firestorm, the Bombing of Dresden, 1945, it appears there were some elements present such as you describe. Dresden was largely undefended and the Allies were sending a message. I cannot say I necessarily disapprove of what happened. WWII had to be ended. Still, that was a holocaust.

As I explained in an earlier post, having grown up in the S.F Valley, I knew several adults Jewish adults who had those horrible tattoos. I have known Japanese who were interned. I know of the horrors of war. At no point in my posts have I ever remotely downplayed the horrors of Hitler's pogroms. (By the way, you could have mentioned the Turkish genocide; perhaps Pol Pot.)

While I am not a historian of the caliber of John A., I do know a few things about history. I am most assuredly not a denier. We'll just have to agree to agree.

Michael Thompson-

The comments about money being Cantor's "true god" and the "30 pieces of silver" quote made no impression on you?

When said about the highest-ranking Jewish lawmaker in the history of the House Of Representatives?

Or any Jew, for that matter?

Particularly in light of what the head of the Anti-Defamation League has to say about those two particular themes as part of "the fundamental basis for anti-Semitism?

You objected to only the remarks about the Holocaust?

All of David's comments that began with his initial remark about Cantor, in their totality, suggest a far different conclusion to me (and others) than the one you arrived at, Michael.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree as well.

I apologize for wasting your time, Michael.

I hope you're able to see that, from my perspective, I feel I've wasted my own time as well...but for entirely different reasons.

His initial post, from what I can find, occurred on July 12, when he said would like to beat the crap out of Cantor. Spanky subsequently made some snarky comment about that comment being anti-semitic, which didn't make any sense at face value to me, but it seems as though you guys ran with it.

As far as '30 pieces of silver' and 'money being his true god' when applied to Cantor being anti-semitic, no, it didn't immediately strike me that way because, well, frankly I had no idea until today that Cantor was even Jewish. I thought he was pretty much typical me-first, yuppie scum.

And, further frankly, I almost never know what religion someone is and hardly ever care if I happen to find out. Someone could worship Lovecraft's Old Ones as far as I am concerned if they could figure out how to convince the selfish of the world that they have some degree of responsibility to help pay off the debt we all owe.

Taking $3.59 a year from the minimum wage earners at McDonald's isn't going to get it done.

So, yeah, I guess you see something in Walker's comments about Cantor that I don't. I don't think it was all that smart of him to engage Spanky's initial nonsense with anything more than a simple 'lolwut?,' but he did, so here it stands.

But respectfully, Michael...most Jewish people DO care.

I believe that's why there IS an Anti-Defamation League to address and identify examples of anti-Semitic speech and behavior in this society.

As I said, I suppose we just have to agree to disagree.

Thanks for at least reviewing the record.

David Walker -

Please do all of us a favour and put Ira Lapin, Mixed Bag and Spanky on ignore. They are NOT contributing ANYTHING to this conversation we are having here, and you are wasting your time trying to 'appease' or 'placate' this situation with these three. As you can see, they have again succeed in getting everyone OFF TOPIC with their inane silliness.

Let's get back on topic.

Let's FOCUS on what we are talking about here. IN this particular thread, it is about Jody's recap of the week, not what Ira's or Mixed bag's faux feelings are about NOTHING.

That's funny, Pietro.

Particularly since I've been doing a far better job ignoring you than have done with me.

How many times have you typed the words "Mixed Bag" today, or otherwise referred to my remarks?

lol

As I've said...you're a funny guy.

Just not intentionally so.

David Walker:

Yes you can call me your friend. You and everybody on this board has a right to their opinion. I also do not collapse posts. I like letting the stupid present their case and the public make up their own minds.

People are starting to see the GOP/TP for what they are and their personal attacks instead of civil dialogue is being noted. They pretty much know who is lying on this board and who is not. They are starting to understand how the right wing pack animals on this board operate calling people names, saying stupid things that just are not true period. Just look at the responses above.

The RWNJS are losing their arguements because they cannot support anything with proven deeds or facts only failed rhetoric and opinions (which are not facts) and so they then say stupid things like we have proven you to be a liar when they have not even addressed the issue to begin with, offer no facts to support their claims other than their opinion attacking another opinion trying to present that as fact. This is right out of the Karl Rove Manual attack the other side and blame them for what it is that you are doing.

People are wakingup to what is going on and they are speaking out in the streets. The GOP/TP continues to turn their backs on the American people and they do not like it, and some are now fighting back.

This will come to a head and it is not going to be pretty. A lot of innocents are going to get hurt in the process but he!! that is exactly what the GOP/TP is praying for.

Navy, unfortunately for you the evidence doesn't back you up. Did you see the wall street journal stating that Obama made up the 80 percent poll in which people favor tax increases? Let's focus less on demonizing the GOP and do what's best for this country and our kids so let's reduce the deficit and debt left for our kids and grandiose by cutting spending and tax increases? What spending cuts are you supporting navy? For your kids, what spending cuts are you advocating?

I don't know about Navy, Kirk, but I did not see any alleged story as you state; Further, if it in fact does exist, and you found it in Rupert Murdoch's tabloid, it probably should be taken with a very large grain of salt since it is now public knowledge about Murdoch's reporting procedures. But, as I've stated repeatedly in discussions on the other threads, you are again putting forth the proposition that you are providing "proof" of your contention when, in truth, you have provided nothing of substance to substantiate your position - just your personal opinion(s) [which we all know to be very right-wing leaning.]

Looks like you are again correct Navy. Seems to me what you stated has just been proven! That is my opinion. I am with you on this.

Stupid, you want to focus on the comment to Navy about the 80% but thats already been debunked by more than just the Wall Street Journal and if you cant believe that source, I am sorry I cant help you anymore. The more important aspect of my post though was to stop demonizing the GOP and who cares at this point what you think about them as its not going to change so lets discuss what we can get behind together to turn this ship around. Dont you want your kids and grandkids to not be saddled with such debt? What spending cuts are you behind Stupid or Navy? I am not going to waste time calling you names, lets just figure out whats best for our kids so what are you behind Stupid?

To quote one of your favorite people (I presume)

"Now there you go again..."

You seem to be spouting Kirk. "...the 80% ...thats been debunked by more than ...the Wall Street Journal..." Well WHO??? I have not seen anything of the sort, yet you are posting this as an absolute fact without authority, citation, nor any indication of what the "more than the Wall Street Journal" may be. Where - besides WSJ, RNC, Rove or FOX - are you getting this information?

It appears US Navy's post is absolutely correct!

The RWNJS are losing their arguements because they cannot support anything with proven deeds or facts only failed rhetoric and opinions (which are not facts) and so they then say stupid things like we have proven you to be a liar when they have not even addressed the issue to begin with, offer no facts to support their claims other than their opinion attacking another opinion trying to present that as fact. This is right out of the Karl Rove Manual attack the other side and blame them for what it is that you are doing.

It certainly appears he is spot - on and called it correctly to me!

I think the White House already admitted it was wrong. Check the most recent first read article as someone else already pointed it out. Sorry Stupid, see I am not as dumb as I may look ha. Obama was quoting some poll that starts with an O and combined tax increases and spending cuts or something. Both Time magazing and WSJ provided actually polling numbers by party. On the current state of affairs, you can check out the most recent Gallup poll, with voters saying they would vote for any Republican candidate 47% and Obama 39% and in a head to head he loses to Romney by 3%. In the electoral college its much worse because Obama tends to have wide margins in Cal, NY and Illinois where he will win those states no matter what and he is in big trouble in all the swing states at the moment. Stupid, I am not trying to pick a fight, you just need to realize that not everything that the paid posters like Navy put on here are correct. They want you to believe it so they are spinning you.

You keep trying to paint me in this Fox crap which is hurting your credibility. I get all my information from WSJ, Newsweek, Time, local news, MSN etc. I wouldnt know a Rove website if it came up and bit me in the ass.

President Obama Job Approval

Polling Data

PollDateSampleApprove Disapprove Spread

RCP Average
6/24 - 7/17
--
46.3
47.5
-1.2

Rasmussen Reports
7/15 - 7/17
1500 LV
45
54
-9

Gallup
7/14 - 7/16
1500 A
44
49
-5

Reuters/Ipsos
7/8 - 7/11
1173 A
49
46
+3

Quinnipiac
7/5 - 7/11
2311 RV
47
46
+1

FOX News
6/26 - 6/28
912 RV
46
46
Tie

CBS News/NY Times
6/24 - 6/28
979 A
47
44
+3

President Obama Job Approval

Polling Data

PollDateSampleApprove Disapprove Spread

RCP Average
6/24 - 7/17
--
46.3
47.5
-1.2

Rasmussen Reports
7/15 - 7/17
1500 LV
45
54
-9

Gallup
7/14 - 7/16
1500 A
44
49
-5

Reuters/Ipsos
7/8 - 7/11
1173 A
49
46
+3

Quinnipiac
7/5 - 7/11
2311 RV
47
46
+1

FOX News
6/26 - 6/28
912 RV
46
46
Tie

CBS News/NY Times
6/24 - 6/28
979 A
47
44
+3

v
BUT, HEY = KEEP SPINNING KIRK
Do you do that to influence the public, or just to try to convince yourself?

Stupid, you do realize that your not helping your own arguments right? I was not spinning and I had his disapproval numbers off by a 10 on mistake but you are correctly pointing out that his approval numbers are below 50% and as you said it was 41%? Did you see any of these that showed an approval that was in the majority? Go to Gallups web site and see how he fares in the election? Stupid, I am not spinning and this information doesnt help your cause. This doesnt support anything you Navy, or John A have constantly been saying which is the majority of the people are on our side or are with us. You just proved and if you keep digging you will find that the majority of the people on the fiscal economic issues facing us are not on your side.

Make you a deal Kirk:

You stop fibbing and spouting RNC garbage, and I will stop accusing you of lying and spinning.

Again, I provide you with facts--google it man how hard is it for you to do that and all you can do is flame its sad

Quoting Kirk-2957282:

I am not spinning

Lie

I provide you with facts

Lie

all you can do is flame

Lie

you want to focus on the comment to Navy about the 80% but thats already been debunked by ... the Wall Street Journal and if you cant believe that source, I am sorry...

Spin

voters saying they would vote for any Republican candidate 47% and Obama 39% and in a head to head he loses to Romney by 3%.

Spin

Navy, unfortunately for you the evidence doesn't back you up

Lie

I don't think anything involving the debt ceiling will impact 12 election

spin and prayer

I do refute what they say and get no response

Untruth!

Quoting John A:

I gave up on Kirk some while ago. He never posts anything that is genuinely substantive, he tends to use smear tactics (such as repeating regularly that he has shown Navy to be a constant liar - we know that's actually a complete lie), and dealing with him is a total waste of time. I cordially invite you to join me with the "ignore" button

Spot-on, John. I am with you!

Stupid, are you just dense and maybe we should just agree to move our separate ways because you clearly dont really want to have any open discussion. Lets go back down your list and I can give you some clear hit you between the eyes evidence.

1) I provide you with facts--Gallup polls go to the web site and it will show you the most recent poll showing Romney winning by 3 over Obama--How is that spin? Go to any website that provides historic GDP data--How is that spin? Go to the IRS.gov web site and see the breakdown of the income tax revenue and who pays it in this country. How is that spin? I have shown you data like this over and over and all you say is lie and spin. Were you the little kid whose mom said your shirt is on backwards and you just said no its not even though it was?

2) All you do is flame and you call that a lie. Go back to all your responses and count up the number of times you accused me of being some RNC this or some name calling rather than providing any substantive reply. Go and count how many times I did that to you and see who is flaming and who isnt. Now go look at Anna Molly's responses to me and you can see how an appropriate debate takes place. She never accused me of anything and challenged some things I said, we agreed on some were respectful the whole time. You could learn from her

3) the 80% quote by Obama has been debunked including the white house press room. Sorry not everything Obama does is anything but spin himself. By the way, who cares they all do it so not sure why you are bothering sticking up for this because I dont really care that Obama did it, but Navy just needs to admit it sometimes its OK

4) I already showed you the Gallup poll

5) this stupid prayer thing is getting out of hand. Did you want the worst for this country when Bush was in office just so he would lose? If you did your one sorry person. I would be very happy to have Obama in office and win in 12 if that meant the country and its fiscal policies were on the right track. Get over it as I want whats best for all of us. The polls show Obama is losing in key electoral states, you cant change the current polls. But there is a long way to go, Obama has proven to be an excellent politician and if the GOP put someone like Palin, Bachmann, Perry they will probably lose to Obama. This isnt about prayer its about where the polls and approval ratings for Obama are currently at. You said yourself he had a 41% approval rating. Do you realize that means 59% disapprove and he would get killed in the polls?

6) Sorry but John A has no credibility on this issue because he was worse than you at refusing to debate. I suspect he is another paid employee for this blog because as soon as I refuted his facts and said college history book theory doesnt change what happens in the real world, he started calling me a GOP thug etc. In other words he was using the classic left wing Saul Alinsky method of destroying someone personally or attacking their character when you cant really debate the facts. In fact, Stupid you have a little of that in you. When you feel cornered and lose on the facts, you prefer to call me some names rather than admit you were wrong. Thats right from the Clinton handbook.

7) Stupid, lets use one example of me refuting you and getting no response. We talked about taxes and you cited a quote and numbers showing there are $1 trillion of taxes available from closing loopholes. I explained to you that had no relevance to what we were talking about and you claim that as refuting me. When you cite a page that discusses the value of all deductions including eliminating the deduction for mortgage interest, charities etc that has nothing to do with closing loopholes on corporations and the wealthy. In fact, I am all for closing loopholes and simplifying the tax code, but what you provided wasnt relevant to our discussion.

Medicare is not bankrupt any more than Social Security is.

_______________________________________

Barry said this week he didn't think August SS checks would go ou without a debt limit increase. If SS can't pay its obligations without borrowing from the Chinese, that sure sounds like it's bankrupt.

Ah. But who made it that way, and who needs to pay the stolen money back before there are any discussions about cutting benefits?

I must say, joe, that even you aren't making that tired old argument with much enthusiasm anymore.

I ask you Navy what world do live in?

The President said this week that he could not guarantee SS checks unless the US could borrow more. Why do think that is? Either the program does not have the money or the President is

a) Lying

b) Attempting to scare seniors

c) All of the above

Joe seems to have forgotten who passed Medicare Part D (unfunded).

I believe Congress passed Medicare Part D.

They always seem to forget that a big part of the current deficit/debt is directly due to the mismanagement of the previous administration. No matter how was elected president they would be paying off the same debt from the Bush Administration as we are now.

They will continue to deny their role in the mess and keep on trying to pass it off to President Obama.

These guys have no shame or moral fiber at all. Just more talking points and the same old debunked lies. Well the American People are no longer buying it. They know who is responsible for what and they are now blaming the right people - the GOP/TP as it should be.

Neither Social Security nor Medicare is bankrupt! Social Security is solvent for the next 20+ years, Medicare maybe 4 or 5 + years. The problem is that the money in the accounts has been borrowed and used for financing the Bush tax cuts and off budget wars and national disasters rather than paying down the national debt! The resulting problem is that the federal government needs to be able to borrow money in order pay back some of the borrowed money for all the checks to go out on time!

The GOP wants to mess with Social Security and Medicare so that they will not have to start paying it out of general revenues... which would mean general revenue increases.

They always seem to forget that a big part of the current deficit/debt is directly due to the mismanagement of the previous administration. No matter how was elected president they would be paying off the same debt from the Bush Administration as we are now.

Big Deal. You think every new Administration get to start from scratch? This Administration was elected in part because of the financial mis-management of the previous one. You really think that President Obama would be sitting in the WH if the Bush Administration presided over a time of peace and prosperity and John McCain could have run on more of the same? Why do you think the slogan "Change" resonated so well with the electorate? This is the current Administration and it's their job to deal with the current fiscal crisis.

White Collar:

I believe Congress passed Medicare Part D.

Yes, that would be the Republican-run Congress and Republican White House under George W. Bush.

The same folks who are now trying to act like they have no idea where all the money went.

"Just more talking points and the same old debunked lies. Well the American People are no longer buying it. They know who is responsible for what and they are now blaming the right people - ..."

Right you are, Navy, and THAT is what keeps the cacaphony going on here day in and day out from the same posters, and all the Hannitys out there over and over and over and over......

DBO:

Nice posts this week. You have a great week end and keep them coming.

Yes, that would be the Republican-run Congress and Republican White House under George W. Bush.

The same folks who are now trying to act like they have no idea where all the money went.

Yes...the VERY SAME folks...

108th Congress, H.R. 1 - Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003

McConnell, Boehner, Cantor...hell, even Paul Ryan...

ALL OF THEM voted IN FAVOR of Medicare Part D!

Navy Disabled: They always seem to forget that a big part of the current deficit/debt is directly due to the mismanagement of the previous administration.

That is so true. Look at the problems the new President will have in 2013. 10%-ish unemployment. A dollar that will have the value of Monopoly money, $16 trillion in debt, $1.5 trillion dollar deficits. 1.5% GDP growth. It will be quite the mess the new President will have to clean up after the mistake named Obama.

DaNoid:

Kudos on your post. Hit them where it hurts, with the TRUTH. We all know how the right responds to the truth, they "Cut and Run" screaming mommy they are telling the truth again.

Cant wait to hear what the tax n spend low life [OBAMA] has to say, more lies Im sure.Cutting spending is the only way out of the fiscal problems we now face. Dont try to put this on Bush or anyone else. This is Obama and the dumbocrats baby from lack of leadership, big bailouts that were a joke, and a general disregard for the wants,needs and rights of the american people[OBAMA CARE]. I have not heard one thing from the dumbocrats that even tries to help the budget issue,but the rebublicans/tea party people at least have ideas and and possible solutions. Not tax n spend like the dems have always done. WAKE UP and see Obama for what he is. WORTHLESS

disabled retiree: You lost me in your first phrase. You might have a cogent argument, but when you decide to malign the President of the United States, you lose your argument. You might consider that in the future. Have a good Friday.

WAKE UP and see Obama for what he is. WORTHLESS

Wake up and see Obama for what he is...President of the United States.

Wake up and see Obama for what he is...President of the United States.

disabled retiree, nice rant. Sorry it is hard to disconnect GW from the two wars, the trillion dollars they cost, the bailouts were started on his watch (remember?) and the Chinese Credit Card Bill he left us. Sorry this mess was already started when Obama arrived. Enough with the lets bash Obama crap!

Those numbers might be disconcerting, Frosty, except you actually then need to compare them with the current approval ratings in Congress for the Republicans:

AP-GfK Poll - "Overall, please tell me whether you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling their jobs."

1/5/11 - 1/10/11: 36% Approve, 61% Disapprove

3/24/11 - 3/28/11: 31% Approve, 66% Disapprove

5/5/11 - 5/9/11: 32% Approve, 66% Disapprove

6/16/11 - 6/20/11: 29% Approve, 68% Disapprove

That is the most intelligent post I have ever seen from you. No lies, no name calling, no "I think I'm cute" quips. Nothing coming out is something you should consider.

By Eugene Robinson, Published: July 14“Eric, don’t call my bluff.”

"Those words suggest President Obama has had it up to here with the preening and posturing of Republican “negotiators” who won’t negotiate. Who could blame him?

Obama’s warning to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor came at the abrupt conclusion of Wednesday’s talks about the debt-ceiling crisis. The unamused president asked whether Ronald Reagan would have put up with such time-wasting nonsense, then uttered another memorable line: “I’ve reached my limit. This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this.”
By “this” Obama meant Cantor’s insistent demand that the president accept a short-term hike in the debt ceiling, which would mean Congress would have to vote on yet another increase before next year’s election. Republicans know that Obama has ruled out this option. When Cantor raised it again Wednesday, and again, and again, the president lost his patience and went all commander in chief.
Obama’s frustration came as House Republicans refused to make a simple choice: Either they could give up their patently unfair and unreasonable demand that a deficit-reduction deal include absolutely no new revenue; or they could give up their equally absurd demand that any increase in the debt ceiling be accompanied, dollar for dollar, by budget cuts. That second option would necessarily mean only a modest hike in the ceiling.
Hence Obama’s display of presidential pique.
Let’s review why the little game Republicans are playing is so dangerous. If the debt ceiling is not raised by Aug. 2, the United States government faces default. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, a man not given to hyperbole, said Wednesday that the result would be a “huge financial calamity” — and the wound, he noted, would be entirely self-inflicted.
“Fairly soon after that date,” Bernanke said, “there would have to be significant cuts in Social Security, Medicare, military pay or some combination of those in order to avoid borrowing more money.”
Contrary to popular impression, going into default would not be just a matter of stiffing the autocrats in Beijing. Less than a third of the $14.3 trillion national debt is owed to foreigners — roughly 10 percent of the total to China. The biggest chunk, about 40 percent, is owed to U.S. individuals and institutions. Another 25 percent or so is owed to the Social Security trust fund, the U.S. Civil Service Retirement Fund and the U.S. Military Retirement Fund. In a sense, we would primarily be stiffing American retirees, including veterans.
In a larger sense, though, it doesn’t matter whom we owe. Choking off the government’s ability to borrow would cause an unimaginable cash-flow crisis — at least $306 billion in bills for August against just $172 billion in revenue.
The most hopeful sign is that some Republicans, at least, understand that their refusal to give an inch, even as Democrats show a willingness to compromise, means the GOP will be blamed if Social Security checks don’t go out on time. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned that the party’s “brand” could be destroyed.
Indeed, a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday bears McConnell out. The survey found that 48 percent of voters would blame the GOP in the event of default while 34 percent would hold the Obama administration responsible. Even 20 percent of Republicans would point the finger at their own party. The business community — both Wall Street and Main Street — is increasingly nervous.
What’s needed at this point is a way for House Republicans to climb down from the ledge on which they’ve marooned themselves. Obama has offered them a ladder — about $1.7 trillion in budget cuts with no offsetting revenue. All they have to do is approve a big enough increase in the debt ceiling to avoid having this same fight every few months. They refuse.
McConnell has offered a plan that would essentially let Obama raise the debt ceiling himself — taking the political heat — with no mandatory budget cuts. House Republicans say no.
It would be satisfying to stand back and watch Republicans take the plunge. This must have occurred to Obama as he told the smirking, eye-rolling Cantor to bring it on — but the president ended the meeting by telling congressional leaders he’d see them again Thursday.
Obama will continue to offer Republicans sensible ways to refrain from committing a shockingly unpatriotic act of economic vandalism. The unfortunate fact is that if they blow themselves up, they take the rest of us with them. "

He even stutters when he type.

lmao......Ben you beat me too it!

Hey Feisty,...

That bait gets them EVERY time!

PS. I think you're CUTE! And hysterically funny,...

Thanks GF!

Did I mention you're hot yourself WW?

Envy is oozing out of their every pore this morning... lmao!