1. End deficit spending by cutting some of the billions spent in the last 2 years.

2. Modify the crap healthcare bill Rham Rodded through with no amendments and no debate. Overcome the lies that were fed to the electorate about transparency and bipartisanship that Pelosi and Reid fed the population.

3. We cannot scrap the healthcare bill as much as I think it would be a good idea, it can only be replaced.

4. It does not matter if Obama was, is, or was not born in the US. He is already president. Move on people. If you don't like him vote him out in 2012.

This is frigging great! Now who gets the blame for the next violent act? Not the Repubs..... He forgot, it was not about Göbbels, it was about Alinsky.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/201...-get-much.html

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/201...-get-much.html

note the crowded room behind him... :rolleyes:

Where Did The Stimulus Money Go? You might be surprised where it didn't go..

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/vi...ulus-go--15610

What a tool.... :lol:

http://gawker.com/#!5755071/married-...raigslist-babe

What is it with the governmental leaders in New York? Is NY just a sexy state? Are NY men just extra-horny? David Paterson, Elliot Spitzer now this guy...makes me wonder if there is something in the water...

This is as good a place as any - didn't feel it deserved a new thread ...

While just 1 percent of Americans are millionaires, 66 percent of senators are millionaires, as are 41 percent of House members.
Link

Also, The Top Ten wealthiest senators ...

John Kerry, D-Mass.
Average net worth: $238,812,296

Mark Warner, D-Va.
Average net worth: $174,385,102

Herb Kohl, D-Wis.
Average net worth: $160,302,011

James E. Risch, R-Idaho
Average net worth: $109,034,052

Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
Average net worth: $98,832,010

Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.
Average net worth: $94,870,116

Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
Average net worth: $77,082,134

Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J.
Average net worth: $76,886,611

Bob Corker, R-Tenn.
Average net worth: $50,717,522

Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine
Average net worth: $28,612,527
Link

John Kerry? You mean that same guy that tried to register his sailboat made in another country in an effort to avoid paying taxes on it? That guy?

http://www.bostonherald.com/track/in...icleid=1269698

Rhode Island is another country? :eek:

HAAAAAAAAA.... I meant county (in another state). My bad.:p:

I knew what you meant, it just tickled my funny bone. ;)

The Bozo's we elected to office....


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58923.html

This whole debt ceiling debate is asinine brinksmanship. If (when?) they fuck this one up, it's going to end up costing us way, way more. And, naturally, there has been approximately zero discussion of the role military spending plays in the whole situation.

Nate Silver breaks it down: GOP's no-tax stance is outside political mainstream

He goes on to point out that, if the average Republican voter wants to solve the problem with 26-74% split of tax increases to spending cuts, and the average Democrat wants 46-54%, there's more disparity between Republican voters and Republican politicians, who're refusing to settle for anything less than 0% tax increase / 100% spending cuts (26% difference) than between Republican voters and Democrat voters (20% difference.)

Fareed Zakaria put it nicely the other day on Fresh Air. Paraphrasing, this is a financial problem being debated in ideological, almost fanatical terms. In religion, there are absolutes that it is very hard to find a middle ground between: how do you find a fair compromise between Christianity and Islam?

But this is economics, numbers. You can split the difference.

well said.

Really good post, gvidas.
I hadn't seen it talked about in those terms before.

I love this image from the article you quoted.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...e3-blog480.jpg

John Boehner appears to be having problems similar to what Gingrich suffered at the hands of Delay, Armey, et al. Gingrich worked out a compromise with Clinton that worked. So they crucified Gingrich. Boehner remembers history. Extremists (ie Cantor) have already made Boehner back out of what was looking like a solution. He remembers what extremists did to Gingrich.

It looks like Mitch McConnell's plan has a chance of going through. Fucking politics as usual. It averts a crisis, blows a political punch (at Democrats this time), and doesn't solve anything in the long run... :facepalm:

from your link
Sad, but spot on accurate - IMO.

The Dems ran Congress for quite a number of years now. Completely. When they got Obama into office they really ran up the credit cards, raised taxes, and Rhammed unpopular programs through the Congress that have now broken the bank. In the end, regardless of what happens, they will take ownership for the failure of this economy. Republickins have plenty of blood on their hands, but no one will forget, it has been the Demoncrats who have been in control.

The debt was no big deal under Carter and before. Reagan came along and increased military spending and cut taxes, increasing the debt by unprecedented amounts. Bush I continued the path of Reagan, but slowed the growth of it a little. Then Clinton came. He started off with a big debt, but the economy was on fire then, and he ended up with a balanced budget when he left office. Bush II started his term with huge tax cuts followed by two expensive wars and ended up with a big expensive bailout just before he left office. Now Obama is increasing the debt a lot with his continued spending on the wars and the stimulus spending. At the same time Republicans have blocked tax increases.

The debt has been going on for a while and it's not a one party is to blame kind of a deal. In my opinion, the Republicans have contributed more to the debt in my lifetime, but right now it's taking off like crazy under Obama. Something needs to be done and the fair thing is to share the pain equally.

What would happen if we taxed all income at the same rate, regardless of how it was derived?

You, personally, would wind up paying significantly more in taxes. So would I.

Democrats ran congress but Republicans blocked any attempt for a compromise on the budget deal.

Ran up the credit cards? Or increased the deficit each year less than Bush and his $750 billion and rising unfunded Iraq war that was kept off budget so it would not count towards the annual deficit, nearly $1 trillion tax cuts for the wealthy and not offset by spending cuts and a $1/2 trillion medicare prescription drug reform program?

Raises taxes? Which taxes were raised as opposes to middle class and small business tax relief in the stimulus bill?

Unpopular programs? You've been watching too much FOX News.

Rarely watch it, except for Stossel and occasionally O'Reilly.

Congress controls the budget. Not the president. Demoncrats have been in charge of both houses of Congress until last year. So far since Obama has been in office they ran up the credit cards with no plan to pay for it.

Congress has not passed a budget amendment for 27 months. Who was in charge during that time?

I agree. The key word being "equally".

And Republicans walked out on a budget deal that was at least a start in the right direction because it involved some tax increases. If Republicans play this intelligently they could come on top, but that seems to be something they haven't been able do as of lately...

Agreed.

Equally means the richest should be paying more than 15% in taxes. But that reality has been spun into a myth called tax increases. Reality, paying their fair share means no more welfare to the rich. Since the soundbyte myths work, the rich will still get a welfare - taxes at numbers at or below 15%.

The real deal on the debt debate
Read more:

This is a great read.

I watched some news programs last Sunday trying to understand the debt ceiling. As usual,much finger pointing to the other side.

From what I understand, if the debt ceiling isn't increased there will be no money to pay debts. If it is increased the government can borrow money to pay it's debts. What I do not understand is where this borrowed money would come from? From or who would the government borrow money or do they just make more? Steal more? ah-hem...I mean take from peter to pay Paul. I thought peter was broke too.

This is who they have borrowed from in the past. If you have a mutual fund, they may have borrowed some money from you, depending on the kind of fund you might have.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...es_by_year.gif

Thanks glatt.

SOoo. Off topic but relates to your comment. I am wondering, in light of the economics of the moment, if company profit sharing at a 3/1 match shouldn't be considered at this time.

OR Maybe if there was a loss, I wouldn't be losing my own contributions.

On Topic.

Just looking at the table, I see borrowing from the federal reserve has gone down by 5% from 2007-2008 and foreign borrowing has increased 3% in the same time frame.

I could be wrong, but I am thinking this is the case because there wasn't any money in the federal reserve outside of making money and raising the taxes on SS and raising the retirement age. Doesn't the government borrow (spend ) 40% of whatever is generated already. I understand the need not to default on debts but I think the government needs to also make some cuts in spending as well.

If you can swing it, it's usually a good idea to tighten a belt and save, especially if the company is going to match some of it.

I've been wishing I could have a crystal ball. Lots of uncertainty right now. I'm actually not sure that Washington is going to get this thing fixed. I mean, they are fucking politicians, but they aren't insane, are they? If they default, I'm afraid it's gonna be real bad. Crystal ball, tell me, is it time to cash everything in for gold and start stocking up on guns and ammo?

If I could, buy gold, I would.

I think I can swing contributions. I do need to get my state exemptions up from zero. That was an oversight. I can put half of what I would save by increasing my exemptions, pay into profit sharing and come out with the same net check.

That said..

If they let it default then they are insane. If they are playing scare tactics to get the constituents riled up, to see who can push their own agenda further, then they are morally flawed. Why do they talk out of both sides of their faces.

They make a media circus out of something so crucially important.

I wouldn't. I saw yesterday that gold is selling for $1600 per ounce, an all time high. Should have bought it a couple of years ago.

It seems politicians always fight to the very end to get the political edge and then a plan gets passed at the last second. I'm hoping that is just a pragmatic approach to a very difficult political environment by experienced politicians (McConnell's deal shows this very well IMO).

The idealists are the ones that scare me. I'm starting to think many of the tea party republicans actually believe that defaulting could be a good option.

As annoying as it is, I'm beginning to believe this how the game has to be played for politicians. Or at least that strategy has been the most successful for politicians for past 50 or so years.

Exactly. They are the wild card, and they could hurt us all very badly. Everyone else is predictable. I think they aren't even sure what they are doing or how far they are willing to go.

I heard some commentator saying that this week is the week where everyone is going to put forward their plans that will never pass so they can point to their plans come election time and appease their base. And next week is when they finally put this thing to bed by making deals. But I'm not so sure the Tea party people are going to make a deal next wheek when they are supposed to.

It'll be time to buy lots of stocks in a couple of weeks.

True dat. I have a relative who deals in gold professionally, and he is a very happy man right now.

What Sheila Jackson Lee and Eric Cartman Have in Common

http://biggovernment.com/chartsock/2...ave-in-common/

Neither side cares about the country, they only care about the next election and holding on to power.

I did find it interesting what Obama said and how he voted on the last attempt to raise the debt ceiling.....

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...t-limit-when-/

Yea, God Damm right we have a failure of leadership. And it is Obama's failure.

It is annoying but I am more annoyed with myself for expecting direct answers to questions.

This is why I do not watch the news. (except during elections)

I thought we discussed this part already ... Wasn't TARP successful?

Well....

Since I'm not in either category, I like that cartoon! :)

Didn't someone just get done debunking the existence of the first group? I seem to fit in the 0% who carries their fair share of taxes as well.

I just heard Boehner say that he has the same responsibilites as the president.

heh.

this after weeks and weeks of begging the president to do Boehner's job for him, to present a package that can pass the congress. I actually feel bad for Boehner, I don't think he's in a position that is survivable. I think he's been boxed into a corner by the walls of reality--that the debt ceiling must be raised--pressed into this corner by the mindless mob with pitchforks and torches demanding changes, big changes, and right now, to the whole structure of the business dealings of the country.

Sadly, these are two different problems. Both important, but one is VASTLY more acute than the other. The debt ceiling must be raised. The alarm over the budget deficit has already been raised and I have no doubt that there will be plenty of sausage made on that score.

But, people, let's put the fuse out on this powder keg **FIRST**, ok?

mercy, I frequently disagree with your politics, but your analysis here is tragically correct.

Fucking fuck.

We are heading for the shitter and both side will have to take a big bite of that sandwich at the next election.

ftfy

This is always fun to say but not true at all. The Democrats are bending on budget cuts as Republicans are bending on tax increases. Your people, the Tea Partiers are the ones forcing brinkmanship games. You are getting what you are demanding and bitching about it.

Are these the same revisionist a-holes who came up with the 'slavery wasn't really that bad, it was really lifetime job security' bullshit?

At least the Holocaust deniers try to pretend it didn't happen instead of stating that it was 'not that bad'.

As Bruce says, he lived it and UG has read it. Lincoln had words about people who spoke about slavery with no empathy, safe from the knowledge that it would never affect them.

If Lincoln could get a look at what has become of his party.........(the wildly inappropriate comment to follow has not made it past my decency filter)

It's the same mindset that blames Obama for high unemployment, at the same time that they endorse cost-cutting measures that cause federal, state, and local layoffs.

I will concede that the absolute modifier "only" makes this statement untrue. Clearly those elected officials who are in a position to make substantive decisions care about many things, including, and perhaps even near the top of the list, what is good for the country. Also very high on the list is an ACUTE awareness that every word and action coming from them (and doubtless many that don't come from them) will be used in the next election. Not just the next election but in all the daily power plays that make up the lively social economy in our federal government. Not only will their words and actions be fodder for hostile opponents, but so will their silences and inactions. Many will justify their choices with the maxim "you cannot govern unless you have been elected".

They all are considering this, that they cannot do anything for the good of the country unless they're in office. First things first.

I agree with you Griff, that Boehner's caucus is being destructively and disingenuously uncooperative. I think most of them have deceived themselves that they're standing on principle and that their position is supported by facts. This is my understanding of how they're able to justify their actions. I think their principle is uselessly oversimple and their facts are pretty much made of hot air. Neither their claims to be supported by the republican voters nor their math about what's to be spent and how.

In the meantime, I think the whole nauseating theater is causing actual harm--a further erosion of the public's faith in our government. We elected them to lead, to act and GODDAMMIT to cooperate. Right now, I see little of any of that, and the Rs are in the lead, but it's not a one horse race.

FYI, They are not "my people"....