appeal2reason,

You might want to actually readtheposts before going off your little partisan attack.

If you did, you will note that what the? elected to insult me, thus she got the reaction she deserved. She is known partisan hack with a nasty knee-jerk hate for anything not liberal and I stand by everything I wrote.

Her past comments on the oil industry and anything on taxes has been uninformed and juvenile, but that did not stop her from inferring or declaring anyone who did not agree with her attacks must be "lunatic right fringe" or some other negative label that highlights her personal bias. of course, let's not forget her constant whine that anyone who sees things differently than her MUST be victims of FOXnews!

Now, the fact that I can manipulate and create highlights, bold, use caps, etc., means nothing more than I want to emphasize words and thoughts. If you and anyone else sees it as more than that, than Iwouldsuggest it is only your mental model showing itself.

I have no idea what you are referring to on the "bush employment|" comment.

One more thing, appeal2reason : Didyou ever think of minding your own business?

Just saying.

Face it, what the? ----- you are the kook on this blog!

Your blind defense of all things Obama underlines your inability at independent thought and your ability to worship at the alter of Obama regardless of the facts. You are so, so sad!

As is always the case, you gravitate quickly to personal insults and a scorched-earth
methods when your arguments fall short. I take it back --- you are not sad, you are pathetically sad.

Yiouare a partisan hack-progressive nut with little understanding of the issues you to discuss (your attempts at the oil industry and taxes in general shows a less than zero sophistication of the subject matter).

We all get it: what the? blindly adores Obama and all those who do not agree with her are to be attacked.

The rest of us with a brain understand Obama for what he is: a thug Chicago Dem machine politician who lies!

note: "buts" was a typo of "bullets"

By any definition of safety, having buts cross a border and bounce off of your courthouse qualifies as NOT safe! As do the bodies, fights, etc.

what the?,

Let's start with your bringing up Gingrich: be clear, he is an idiot who does not realize his time has past. As candidate he will have zero effect on the 2012 election (though as an"influencer" he could affect it).

Next, of course the borders are more secure than, say, 20 years ago. Whoever, they are NOT secure, and Obama tried to mislead us into thinking they were so he could pander to his partisan crowd in a campaigning speech that he tried to disguise as a policy speech.

Obama lied ------- period!

Cowgirl up and get over it. Obama is not perfect, he is not a savior --- he is just another thug Chicago politician, and as a politician he lies! Remember the old joke: how do you know a politician is lying? His lips are moving!

I am surprised you are so intent on trying to use Clintonion aspects (ie what is "is") to your argument. After all, as I recall (no, I will not supply a link!), you called Bush a ''liar" over the wmd charges in Iraq. Yet, the entire g20 (and the top 28 intelligence services in the world) said he had them, we KNOW he used them earlier on his own people, and in fact we did find 55 gal barrels of nerve gas after taking Iraq. Yet, there you were screaming "Liar!", as opposed to questioning the competence of our, and the world's, combined intelligence services.

Pretty partisan-convenient for you, wouldn't you say?

So you see, it is correct to call Obama a liar during his speech last week as he was clearly trying to mislead by playing to his audience, and he IS a politican, meaning he lies by nature.

By the way, you are aware there are websites out there that detail Obama's lies, to date, right? They are not racist or overly partisan as they were there for Bush, too.

Sorry, but when Obama (or any other politician) makes statements like the folioing in front of a large aprtisan audience during a campaign stop:

" Under their leadership, we have strengthened border security beyond what many believed was possible." , and

"El Paso is one of the safest cities inAmerica",

He is de facto stating the border is secure.

I sent this yesterday, but I guess it didn't make it through:

WT Wrote: "No. I think some on the right are intentionally lying about this
WT Wrote: ......I do take exception with the statement that Hutchinson "slipped" her legislation in unbeknownst to everyone. She didn't do this by herself, there were other members of congress supporting her amendment too.

WT wrote: "Anon ONE is not a "dude".

Anonymous Wrote: "Great posts, dude!

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

Isn't an accusation about lying what started this whole discussion!!!!

When I made my comment about semantics and definitions I was only talking about the fence issue. When I read the information about the border fence I can see how comments that politicians make can be misleading - whether intentional or not.

that's why I spent so much time reading the GAO report and what Obama actually said. It's also why I thought Anonymous made the comment that Obama was lying. When I heard that Obama said, "The fence is basically complete" that is counterintuitive to me when I see the GAO talk about ~129 miles being completed, or 44% of the border being "controlled" or "managed". Obama was using the definition that the Republicans put in place - although he didn't explain it very well. Once I read the definitions of a "completed" fence I see why politicians are saying what they are saying - doesn't mean I agree with them, just that I understand what they say.

If I put a fence around my backyard and told someone it was "basically done" I believe they would come to my house expecting to see an "almost" completed fence, Not something that only surrounded half my yard (44%).

Your comments about Palin, Limbaugh, Huckabee, et al, are all worthy discussions, but not at all what I was commenting on. I only meant the fence issue.

I do believe politicians "slip" things in all the time. Whether it was at the direction of others is not known. However, I can see where Repubs figured out this was a "money pit" and Hutchison adding this amendment helps get out of a tough spot.

As to your comments to anonymous,(Anon ONE is not a "dude") I have purposely never given any personal information out, but I am a dude.

To Anonymous: Thanks Dude

Oops! Anonymous | May 18, 2011 2:02 PM was me!

Anon:

"If you listened to his speech on that day, you would know that is was crystal clear he was NOT referring to some vague spin on a previous bill ---- he was stating that the border was secure and the fences was complete!"

Actually, I did listen to his speech. This is probably going to send you right over the edge, but here is a link to Obama's speech in El Paso from the El Paso Times. Read it. Obama NEVER SAID THE BORDER WAS SECURE. Never. He said the fence was basically done, which is true. He said apprehension of illegals, drugs and guns had improved and crime was down. But he NEVER SAID THE BORDER WAS SECURE. Read it and show me where he said this if you believe it to be true:

http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_18033313

So it appears you are wrong on both counts. What is true you deny, and what he didn't say you insist was said. There is absolutely nothing that can please people like you, you exist in a separate world of your own making. I'll stick with reality.

Anon:

"Yes, I do believe Hutchison "slipped" the wording into the 650 page bill - this kind of stuff happens in Washington all the time."

Ok, I'll concede this if you say this is a common occurrence. Seems incredible to me that one person can sabotage an entire bill and no one notices or complains, tho.

Here's the history of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 as I know it: The Act authorized 700 miles of fencing be constructed along the 2,000 mile U.S./Mexico border. All 700 miles was suppose to be double-layer fencing. The Texas ranches along the border complained about the double-layer fencing plan to Hutchinson, they didn't want this type of fence put up on their land. I don't know why, I'm not a rancher. But they got together and complained to Hutchinson. She acted in the interests of these constituents. She sponsored the amendment but had the backing of some Democrats in Congress also, so she didn't act entirely alone. So out went the double-layer fencing requirement in 2007; instead the DHS was allowed to put up whatever type of fencing they wanted. At that point, the use of double-layer fencing all but ceased except for two or so miles constructed later.

I don't know the "whys" of a lot of the story, but that's outside the scope of this discussion anyway. That's the history of it, it's easy to find anywhere. So Obama was not lying about the fencing being completed, it has been completed as legislated by the Bush administration's Secure Fence Act. Now Congressional Republicans are complaining about it being inadequate, so you have to appreciate the irony. This is what Obama was ridiculing in his comments about the moat and alligators. He wasn't ridiculing the Americans who live along the border, he was poking fun at the congressional Republicans who got exactly what they legislated and are now criticizing Obama for it. If more has to be done from here, it will require another act of Congress and more money being appropriated for it. Good luck on that in today's political climate.

But you did hit on the bigger issue of Obama's messaging problem. This is what I think it is, and it isn't pretty: I think Obama has a hard time making himself understood by a large portion of Americans because he assumes Americans are more intelligent than they really are. Seriously. He's a bright guy, he knows the history of all this stuff and how we got from A to B and what went wrong. His mistake is that he gives Americans credit for being this informed as well, and it's just not the case.

You said that in El Paso Obama had the perfect opportunity discuss the Hutchinson wording. He probably assumed they already knew, after all, he was in TEXAS, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson is THEIR REPRESENTATIVE! Wrong assumption. He underestimates how low-information and reactionary many Americans are, especially those in the southern states who are mostly conservative anyway. And if he had discussed the history of the fence and brought up the Hutchinson Amendment, the message would have been lost in the right wing screaming about how Obama was blaming Bush again and not taking responsibility. It happened on this very blog when I first posted the history, some bloggers went directly to "What the is blaming Bush again!" This is precisely what Obama is dealing with, it's a no-win for him either way.

In other words, what the? firmly states that anyone not liberal who does not agree with her is a liar!

How open minded and tolerant you aren't!

Anon ONE:

Forgot. Maybe I've already made this clear in other ways, but regarding your question:

"My belief is the fence issue is as much about "semantics" and "definitions" as it is about actual fence posts and barbed wire. agree?"

No. I think some on the right are intentionally lying about this, just like Sarah Palin intentionally lied about "death panels" in Obama's health care bill, like Rush Limbaugh intentionally lied about the IRS coming to your door if you didn't buy health insurance, like Mike Huckabee intentionally lied to a right wing radio audience that Obama was raised in Kenya by his father and grandfather and was thereby influenced by the Mau Mau Rebellion, like Newt Gingrich intentionally lied by saying the key to understanding Obama was understanding "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior", like Michael Mukasey intentionally lied by saying the information that directly led to OBL came from water boarding, and on and on ad nauseum.

Sorry, these aren't honest mistakes or semantics. These are deliberate lies. And there's a lot of them out there.

what the?,

Don't be such a thin-skinned apologist for Obama.

If you listened to his speech on that day, you would know that is was crystal clear he was NOT referring to some vague spin on a previous bill ---- he was stating that the border was secure and the fences was complete!

That is a clear lie, and it was intentional.

I spend a lot of time in the southwest (NM & AZ ---- very little in TX,and almost non in Ca.) In fact, I was in S AZ a few weeks ago when the nutcase lefties decided to begin their movement to breakaway from AZ and make the 51st state (good luck, wackos). Therefore, the following comments apply to the places I spend a lot of time at.

The illegal immigration issue, which includes not only folks looking for some honest work, but also the drug smuggling and the people smuggling, is crippling those areas and creating clear and present dangers for many of American citizens living directly on the border. They are spending money (their own), they are paying for schools and hospitals, they are running (literally) into illegals in the middle of the night on their land ---- it is basically a 3rd world environment. to make matters worse, the fed gov't not only isn't really helping but is getting in the way.

Bush did a crap job on the border, and Obama is doing an even a worse one. As was previously posted by others, one of the few powers of a President is the enforcement of laws, and at that Bush and Obama fail miserably.The rules of engagement are arcane and are a detriment to the border patrol and the legal citizens, so it really doesn't matter how many add'l agents Obama hires.

Bottom line? We can sit here comfortably in Naperville, and DC, and other places far away from the border, sipping our chardonnay and eating our brie, and pontificate how our nation was built by immigrants and we should be more open to just letting people ion across our borders, but if you actually went down there to see it firsthand
you would understand that our leaking border is a national security issue AND an individual citizen safety issue.

Remember: We have control of only 44% of it!

Anon ONE:

Now, regarding the fence: as I said the the other blogger, let's not change the subject to if the border is "secure". I'm specifically addressing all the posts on here insisting Obama lied in saying the fence was complete. Whether that fence is working in keeping the border secure is a separate discussion.

Here's one of my sources for this:

Under the Secure Fence Act, the federal government was instructed to complete "at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing" along a total of about 670 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border before the end of 2008. (Secure Fence Act of 2006). However, in December 2007, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) successfully attached an amendment to the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act that effectively gutted the two layer reinforced fencing requirement by giving DHS the discretion to construct other types of barriers to count toward the 670 mile total. (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, December 26, 2007). As a result, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in January 2009 that only 32 miles of double-layered fencing had been built, and that DHS had no intention to significantly add to that total. (GAO Report, January 29, 2009).

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=20955&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721

So your source claims Hutchinson "slipped" this amendment in unbeknownst to Congress and President Bush? So she is the evildoer who ruined the fence? Maybe so, but Congress passed it and Bush signed it. Did neither read the legislation they signed? This is like Michelle Bachmann complaining how the Obama administration "slipped" funding for Obamacare into the health care reform bill. Nobody slipped anything in; if these people didn't read the legislation and know what they were approving, they weren't doing their jobs.

Maybe some folks are misreading Stana's comments, but 129 miles where "preventing or stopping an illegal entry at the border" is not the same as saying only 129 miles of fencing exists. And this conclusion totally ignores the following comment about the other 744 miles. I saw this comment by the GAO someplace else earlier, and I didn't jump to the conclusion that Obama was lying. But my intent wasn't to discredit Obama, either, and that's clearly the intent of many making these claims.

The Secure Fence Act authorized about 700 miles of fencing be constructed. That fencing has been constructed; it is in place. The Secure Fence Act has been completed. If Congress and Bush made a mistake in 2007 by repealing the double-layer fence requirement, that's not Obama's doing. Take this gripe to Hutchinson and Bush. When Obama took office, he completed the fence as it was legislated by the Bush administration. If Republicans are complaining now that it is not adequate in stopping illegal immigration, then Congress will have to pass another act and appropriate more money to add to or redo the fencing that is there. But to say the fence is only 5% or 10% complete is blatantly false, like this one:

http://nation.foxnews.com/border-fence/2011/05/10/obama-claims-border-fence-basically-complete-its-only-5-finished

The Republicans under the Bush administration are responsible for the Secure Fence Act legislation; they wrote and enacted it. I'm not holding Bush personally responsible, and neither is Obama. Obama is holding the Republican administration that legislated the Secure Fence Act responsible, and this is obviously where it lies. If they are unhappy with the results of their legislation, they have only themselves to blame.

anonymous One on 5/16 at 9:06,

Great posts, dude! you succinctly nailed the point that the internet,like each of us, is built on a priority system that HAS to be influenced by our own thoughts and mores (ie our biases).

I also like your following post at 9:56. I agree that a President really has limited powers outsie of defense and laws (the rest is Congress), and due to politics those same Presidents regularly ignore the laws they are bound by the Constitution to defend. Your example of both Bush and Obama failing at our borders is SPOT ON.

I oft read wt? as so blindly defending and pushing her partisan liberal agenda that she does not really take the time to comprehend that there even are two sides (or more!) to every story. She spends so much effort attacking those who either don"t establish themselves as a progressive liberal (she does not seem to accept a basic Reagan Democrat) OR who don't agree with her completely. If you fail her test, you become some kind of a far right psycho, and she is clear in her direct statements and her condescending statements that she finds Republicans to be almost human, but subpar in both intellect and ability to thnk and emote. I think she has even once mentioned that some of her neighbors and almost friends are Republicans.

Basically, I find fault with all elected officials and do not really respect any opf the parties, but I "read" that wt? fails to see the foibles of the left AND is an uber-partisan who cannot see past her own biases to even understand ANY other viewpointbutthat of the left.

:)

The GAO has printed that the U.S. only has some control over 44% of the border.

They also said it is less than 10% complete.

In his speech last week, Obama not onlysaid it was complete, he said it was secure.

Rather than tell th truth and give us facts, the self-proclaimed "healer" instead
went on to deliver smocking, partisan attack on the GOP which included references to moats, etc.

Anyone with a clear mind and not a partisan hack understood that Obama was intentionallylying, NOT mis-speaking, and was engaging in hos 2012 campaign and not running the country as a leader.

Fini.

I threw in my two cents about google. Now I wanted to add to the fence discussion. Here are some excerpts from two articles from Terence Jeffrey. Before you "google" him to find his slant I am perfectly willing to concede he is a conservative writer - often concluding that conservatives are right and liberals are wrong, etc. etc. etc.

But, what he writes seems to me to be a good synopsis of the fence discussion. He rightfully puts blame toward Bush, but points out that Kay Bailey Hutchison (Republican) "slipped" (his words) wording into a bill in 2007 that made for a unique way to describe completion of the fence. He also quotes Richard Stana from the GAO who said the following: "In March, Richard Stana of the Government Accountability Office told the Senate Homeland Security Committee there are 129 miles of the 1,954-mile-long U.S.-Mexico border where the Border Patrol can prevent or stop an illegal entry from taking place at the border itself -- and another 744 miles where it can stop an illegal entry only inside our territory at "distances of up to 100 miles or more away from the immediate border."

So if someone only took Stana's comments they could easily conclude that the fence is only 6.6% completed (129 / 1954). Using this ONLY as your basis one could conclude that Obama mis spoke about the fence being completed.

Once you understand Hutchisons revision to the "completed fence" definition you understand why Obama said what he said.

Jeffrey writes: "President Obama should now apply the lesson of Abbottabad in securing our border.

The Constitution not only gives Congress the duty to defend the nation, but also the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign nations" and "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." It not only gives the president the duty to defend the nation, but also stipulates "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." President Obama is not faithfully executing the laws that make it illegal to breach our border and bring contraband into the United States.

President Bush also did not faithfully execute these laws. As a consequence, hundreds of thousands of unidentified illegal aliens cross into our country each year and massive quantities of illegal -- and deadly -- narcotics are smuggled into our neighborhoods and communities.
http://cnsnews.com/commentary/article/jeffrey-apply-lesson-abbottabad-us-borde

Jeffrey also writes: "When Obama spoke in El Paso, Texas, yesterday, he claimed that (1) the federal government has now "basically" completed the border fence that security minded Republicans wanted built and (2) El Paso and other border communities are "among the safest in the nation."

"They wanted a fence. Well, the fence ... is now basically complete," said Obama. "Maybe they'll need a moat," he added. "Maybe they want alligators in the moat."

"El Paso and other cities and towns along this border are consistently among the safest in the nation," said Obama.

Later in the article he gives us information about what Hutchinson pulled: " Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, slipped language into the 614-page omnibus spending bill enacted at the end of 2007. This language essentially repealed the Secure Fence Act. It said: "Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location."
http://cnsnews.com/commentary/article/jeffrey-where-obamas-border-lies

Congress (politicians) in general run a majority of what happens - Bush is no more to blame for the fence issue as Obama is to blame for $4 gas. I guess if you blame a President for something simply because it happens while they are president that's your prerogative. To the anonymous claiming that Obama lied during this speech you should make your case against "El Paso being among the safest in the nation" I would say this was more of a whopper than the fence being completed.

Anonymous | May 15, 2011 1:13:

He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors -- Thomas Jefferson

So what the? agrees with me that the border fence is less than 10'% complete and Obama lied!

Anon:

"Not to be difficult here, but google is just the search engine - the articles you find there are either reputable sources or not - looking toward the source of the info you find there is the only way to determine how reliable the info is. Google in and of itself is not a source, so arguing against it is rather silly."

I have never claimed Google is a "source", and I'm not arguing against it. I'm arguing with legitimate sources of information found using that search engine. You should try doing this sometime to verify some of the stuff you hear before buying into it. We consume information just like we do other goods. Too many of us don't seem to care that want we're consuming is crap.

To all:

O ye of little faith!

Obama lied, huh? Does Jim DeMint lie for Obama too?

None of you Anons know where your information comes from, or you won't share the source, so I asked a blogger on a different site who made the same claims you did where he got the information that the fence was only 5-8% completed. And this is the link he gave me:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37025

This is an article written by Senator Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina about a year ago, 5/17/2010, called "Finish the Border Fence Now." The all caps in this portion of DeMint's article are mine for emphasis. Open thine eyes, and behold:

“Four years ago, legislation to build 700-miles of DOUBLE-LAYER BORDER FENCE along the Southern border was supported by then-Sen. Barack Obama and signed into law by President Bush. Yet, only a fraction of THAT FENCING is in place today.

According to staff at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), only 34.3 miles of DOUBLE-LAYER FENCING HAS BEEN COMPLETED along the Southern border. Most of that fencing, 13.5 miles, is in Texas, while 11.8 miles are in California and 9.1 miles of DOUBLE-LAYER FENCING are up in Arizona.

The lack of DOUBLE-LAYER FENCING can be traced to a 2007 amendment that ELIMINATED THE DOUBLE-LAYER REQUIREMENT and allowed the DHS the option to put other types of less effective fencing in its place. It was lumped into a massive, omnibus-spending bill that PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNED INTO LAW on December 26, 2007.

THAT'S WHEN CONSTRUCTION ON THE DOUBLE-LAYERED FENCE ESSENTIALLY STOPPED. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’s investigative arm, reported in early 2009 that only 32 miles of double-layer fencing had been built."

DeMint says that of all the fencing installed since Obama took office, only 2.3 miles of it has been DOUBLE-LAYER FENCING. So here is your 34.3 mile number that critics use. The 34.3 miles of fencing DeMint is referring to is just the DOUBLE-LAYER FENCING that Bush originally approved in 2006, then rescinded the next year in 2007. Once the 2007 amendment authorized the Department of Homeland Security to install other kinds of less effective fencing, the double-layered fencing all but disappeared. Why did Bush rescind the double-layer fencing order? Perhaps the double-layer fencing that he originally approved was too expensive to put over the entire 700 miles?

The point is, the fence has been completed per the Bush administration's order, a total of over 700 miles of it. But only a small fraction of it is the DOUBLE-LAYER FENCING that DeMint wants, because the Bush administration down-graded this requirement in 2007. Obama came into office in 2009 and allowed the plans Bush put into place to be completed. Obama did not change the Bush plans one iota. So if the fence is inadequate in stopping the flow of illegal immigrants, keep in mind this isn’t Obama’s doing. It would be the exact same fence if Bush were still in office.

Go on and read DeMint's entire article, it's good and makes very succinct points about the virtual fence that flopped. This too was authorized by the Bush administration and was a multi-million $ boondoggle, but I won't go into that now. Suffice it to say the Bush administration got conned by some smooth talkers and the virtual fence is dead. So what DeMint is clearly saying here is only the DOUBLE-LAYER type of fencing has been shown to be an effective deterrent, and all the other fencing the DHS erected instead should be replaced or reinforced with double-layer fencing.

So Obama was not lying, he was correct: The Republicans got exactly the fence they wanted, the one that was approved during the Bush administration. The Republicans wanted a double-layer fence, so this was approved in 2006. Then the Republicans wanted the double-layer fence requirement scuttled in 2007, and this too was done. Now they're complaining because what they chose is inadequate, and they want millions more taxpayer money spent to replace or reinforce it. Where are these additional millions going to come from? They keep saying we're broke!

Seriously, people, you have no excuse for knowing this. You lived during it, and even if you don't remember it, it is SO EASY to find this information. Shame on all of you for being so lazy.

anon,

I watched/listened directly as Obama delivered the words himself, so it did not require any spin by any taking head of any kind.

Hey.google is soooooocool and such a great bastion of truth. I goggled our state rep the other recently and found out she used to be a professional basketball player.

Booyah! Of course, she is about 5 ft (tops) and when I asked her about it, she said it was in error. But Hey! It's ongoogle, so she must be wrong.

I get it!

According towhatthe?, the fence issue.like everything else under Obama,is Bush's fault!

]Such accountability!

Sorry, but Obama lied to us the other day, pure and simple.

Update on the torture debate:

John McCain gave a speech before the Senate today refuting former Attorney General Michael Mukasey's statement that water boarding led to the capture of OBL as false and calling for Mukasey to retract his statement.

"Many advocates of these techniques have asserted their use on terrorists in our custody, particularly KSM, revealed a trail to bin Laden, a trail which had gone cold in recent years but would now lead to his destruction. The former Attorney General of the United States, Michael Mukasey, recently claimed, and I quote "The intelligence that led to bin Laden began with a disclosure from KSM who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included water boarding. He loosed a torrent of information, including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden's.

That is false. With so much misinformation being fed into such an essential public debate as this one, I asked the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta, for the facts. And I received the following information:

The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was water boarded 183 times. We did not first learn from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the real name of bin Laden’s courier, or his alias, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the man who ultimately enabled us to find bin Laden. The first mention of the name Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, as well as a description of him as an important member of Al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country. The United States did not conduct this detainee’s interrogation, nor did we render him to that country for the purpose of interrogation. We did not learn Abu Ahmed’s real name or alias as a result of water boarding or any ‘enhanced interrogation technique’ used on a detainee in U.S. custody. None of the three detainees who were water boarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts, or an accurate description of his role in Al-Qaeda."

Watch the entire speech here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/john-mccain-to-bush-apologists-stop-lying-about-bin-laden-and-torture/2011/03/03/AF10AnzG_blog.html

The Bush apologists are being outed for the opportunistic glory grabbers they are, and this time by one of their own. Like Jon Stewart said recently, the Bushies "are like the Winklevoss twins of bin Laden. If you COULD have killed bin Laden, you WOULD have killed bin Laden."

While at the keyboard I will add something to the oil argument that g8 missed:

The oil companies make about 7 cents per gallon of of gas sold, yet our government makes between 40 and 65 cents on each one!

Now, WHO should we be pounding on this one?

I only needed to turn on my TV and listen to the Pres say the border fence is completed (then go on to make several mediocre jokes about it).

The fence is about 5-8 % complete, and per the stats from the gov this week the border is about 44% under control.

WTF is Don Smith?

anon,

Giving your preoccupation with attacking the GOP and insisting anything they do that you disagree with is a lie (for examples: see your posts of| May 5, 2011 4:10 PM and May 6, 2011 9:09 PM), why aren't you railing about Obama's whoppers from yesterday?

anon,

First:
I AM an accountant! That is how I know that valid, pure numbers cannot be “twisted”. I also know that it is nearly impossible outside of fraud to materially twist public co financial statements in the current environment, especially in the area of taxes. Looking for bogeymen in every nook and cranny, especially bogeymen that are always guys in suits, is classic class warfare, man.

Bottom line: The numbers I proffered are pure and accurate with no secretive guys in suits meaning meant to defraud or ruin your life.

Now, if these were economist numbers, and not those from the accountants………

Second:
So, you don’t mind 10% returns as long as they do not affect you OR you don’t have to pay for them? What?

You apparently don’t mind the severe increase in food prices of late ---- but don’t you pay for them, too?

You don’t seem to mind the severe increase in clothes costs lately, but don’t you have to pay for them, too?

Of course, those products are not on the hit list of the Democrats and their far left handlers, are not used to paint the GOP as demons, and therefore are not force-fed to us every night in the news, and are not part of the talking points handed out each morning, right?

You do understand that the whole point of a business is to create and sell product and/or services, and in doing so make a profit, right? It is not really up to you or me to decide which things we like best. or need most, and therefore should be given to us for less. Your stance on this borders on something I would expect to hear in Venezuela.

IF they were gouging us, it would show itself in obnoxious profit margins ---- and they are not! I will disagree with you in that IF they hit 50% margins, I would assume they are either gauging us OR they are running their company into the ground via no internal/external investments. In that case/suspicion, I would review their financials to see the history of their spending (ir research, drilling, G&A, etc) to determine if it were true.

The point, my friend? ALL profitable activities make their profits on the backs of someone, so why are you so hot to trot about only Big Oil (aside from the leftist stance)?

Having said all of this, you are incorrect in thinking we never agree: I am wholly in support of putting mucho blamo on the politicians, of all parties and all administrations, when it comes to energy!

I do disagree with your posted stance “..I simply choose NOT to put the blame on only the current administration as so many of the talking heads seem to want their followers to believe.”. I mena, where were you when Bush was being skewered by the talking heads, eh?

My reason is that we are now under the Obama admin, as such he is the relevant leader, and as such he is the name used ---- kind of a “Pres du jour”.

Any idea how clumsy it is to write, every time, “I am disappointed in the lack of an energy policy first ignored by Nixon, than missed by Ford, than screwed up by Carter, then put on a backburner by Reagan, then forgot by Bush, then apparently non-existent under Clinton, than mishandled by Bush, and now used for other political purposes by Obama to push a world-power agenda”?

wt?

Slow down and breath before you react and think you have some prosecutorial tidbit!

Let me elucidate: I believe what I actually hear coming from the “horse’s mouth”, not from a third party! The video clip from the Smith show was offered only in that you, I, anyone could hear the words coming directly from the mouths of others. I couldn’t give a rat’s butt about what some guy named Smith thinks of what was said.

Given that, I think we both KNOW that the left was merciless on Bush over gas prices. I believe many have recently been pushing the benefits of high prices now (We can disagree ---- that is fine), but we BOTH must acknowledge that at the very least, the left has been soft, even given Obama a pass, now on the high gas prices.

I also watched several other programs and have discussions with neighbors and local politicians (usually leaving me feeling like I need a shower!). It is a regular “talking point” for many of them to state high gas prices is a GOOD THING!

Now, here is a great big surprise for you: I also think it can be a good thing! Now and then!

If we are serious about decreasing our energy usage, pretending there is a magic solution out there (besides nuclear) that is somehow just waiting to be implemented is a loser’s game. However, affecting demand via pricing is a valid tool. In the same breath, though, I think two other things need to happen: First, Obama and the Govs need to seriously look at, and adjust downward, their general fund taxes on oil (and use it instead as a inviolate fund to research energy), and Second, the obnoxious amount of gasoline “mixes” needs to be regulated downwards (as that is a major driver of summer prices).

One more thing: Don Smith is not “my man” ---- I never heard of the guy until I went searching for youtube and inet stuff per your request (as I know you believe and invest in anything you hear on the inet!). I wasn’t even sure he was “real”, but the clips are “living doc”. Thus, you did the work so you mail him!

I will be interested to see if he responds, as I always suspect that talk show people don’t like to be corrected!

gr8d84f8:

I FOUND IT!!

It looks like your man Don Smith got it wrong:

The CBS segment originated from an article in the July 14 issue of Time by Amanda Ripley called "10 Things You Can Like About $4 Gas". The summer of 2008 was the first time the national average approached $4/gallon, in some states like California it actually went above $4. This article appeared in Time when Bush was in office. Here it is, the article is dated July 2, 2008:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1819594_1819592_1819591,00.html

Harry Smith presented it on the CBS Early Show in a segment called "5 Things You Should Know About . . ." which addressed various topics. I couldn't find this before because I was looking under Harry Smith. It's actually listed under Priya David, the correspondent who presented the piece. They reduced it to 5 (actually David added a sixth) to fit the segment and it aired on July 16, 2008. This is the clip Don Smith used:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/16/earlyshow/main4264742.shtml

Maybe I've found the source of Don Smith's confusion. Click on the above link and the date above the title reads April 14, 2009. I don't know what that date means, since the video aired in July of 2008. But perhaps that's why Don thought it aired in April of 2009 and used it as an example of media bias during the Obama administration. If it hadn't been for the Time cover in the story, we would never had known, because none of the footage was dated.

So Don is wrong, but I can see where he didn't intentionally try to deceive. Still, someone should clue him in that what he is broadcasting is false. In April of 2009, the national average for a gallon of gas was $2.09, nowhere near $4/gallon like it had been the previous summer. It looks like Don was too eager to find fault and did not do his homework. That's what happens when someone who is not a true journalist tries to act as one.

If you don't want to email him, I will. Up to you.

gr8d84f8:

I have an AMAZING bit of information for you regarding your link to the Don Smith Show. I hope this makes you think twice before believing everything you hear verbatim.

I checked out the facts Don Smith was claiming. Yes, Dem politicians did blast the Bush Administration over high gas prices when they hovered between $3-$4 in 2006, 2007 and 2008. At the time, these were the highest gas prices ever recorded. In summer of 2008, before Obama was elected, the national average for a gallon of gas approached $4/gallon. When Obama was inaugurated in January of 2009, the national average had dropped back to $1.87 gallon, before beginning its climb back up. So it is correct to say that the cost of a gallon of gas has doubled since Obama took office, but the Dems were also correct to say the price of gas doubled under Bush, too.

Here's where Don Smith's claim gets interesting. I checked out the clip he showed of Obama telling the guy with 10 kids to get a hybrid van. That did happen recently as Don said, it was last month (April). Then I tried to find the date of the Harry Smith Early Show clip: 5 Things you should know about gas and why even $4/gallon gas can be a "good thing".

I knew Harry Smith had left the Early Show on December 31, 2010, so it had to have been recorded in 2010 or earlier. I looked EVERYWHERE for it, googled it, checked Youtube and the cbsearlyshow.com. I found references to some other Harry Smith "5 Things You Should Know" segments, but not the one on gas that Don Smith showed.

So I went back to Don Smith's clip for clues. Watch the video at the 3:54 point. A woman is talking about how less driving results in less air pollution, therefore less illness. Look at the Time Magazine cover in the background. I recognized the cover because we've subscribed to Time for a couple years, and I remember getting this issue with Mark Twain on the front, "The Dangerous Mind of Mark Twain". So I went to Time.com. THAT ISSUE CAME OUT THE WEEK OF JULY 14, 2008. July of 2008 was during the Bush administration, not the Obama administration.

So some of the clips Don Smith shows were in response to the high gas prices when Bush was in office, NOT Obama. It's hard to tell when these clips originally aired, none are dated like the Fox News clips he shows. But this certainly indicates Don Smith is not telling the whole truth in his report, at least one of the clips he used did not air when he claimed it did. That changes the narrative somewhat, don't you think?

If you or anyone can find a broadcast date for the Harry Smith 5 Things You Should Know About Gas segment, that should throw some additional light on this. The liberal media Don Smith slams is not as biased as he would like his viewers to believe.

anon,

I find your comments to be narrow and somewhat intolerant and I will address them in order of difficulty.

First, the easy one: I did not reference a website in my post to you. I am assuming you mean the one I referenced in my post to what the?, which had absolutely nothing to do with the oil companies or gas prices. Is this true? If so, I believe I was upfront and forward by labeling the video a product of a conservative talk show guy. However, I really don’t care if something comes from Mao or Stalin or someone in-between, as long as I can see and hear the video, I am agnostic as to who/where it came from. As our President said, words matter (especially when I can hear them directly).

Second, the tougher one to address --- that of the oil companies. You begin your argument by stating they are making billions.

As I posted, this is a true statement, but you than go on to ignore the concepts of “return on sales” economies of scale and of sheer mass. These are imperative concepts to understand! You than proceed to ignore absolute data by declaring it is twisted by both the oil companies and me.

Say what? How can hard numbers be twisted? I understand they do not fit into your personal narrative and dogma, but twisted? Really? Are you part of the P.S. system where 2 + 2 can be 22 or 4? Let me repeat: the data/numbers exist, they are accurate, and they are a given. Get over it ---- you have been mislead by your dogma on this one.

Now, as to mass/scale/return, etc. ---- these concepts matter! Though the oil cos make billions, they also sell hundreds of billions. I would submit that making an 8 or 10% return on your sales after paying 40% in taxes is more than civil and does not constitute greed of and by itself. To punish them simply for being huge is not a capitalist value. If you look closely at other industries you will find that the oil industry is not nearly as lucrative as most new industries. You seem to have a problem with the 8-10% return for Exxon, yet you apparently have no problem with 25% returns by high tech companies (hey! if they would just pay more taxes and get those returns down to, say, 8-10%, we could all have a new state-of-the-art laptop each year, and an Ipad2, and…..). Assuming one of your three jobs is for a business, I will bet that if you dig deep into the books you will find that, over time, there is a high probability that at least one of them (if not all three) have experienced 8-10% returns in the past. Have you addressed this thievery with the principles?

You state there are no shortages of oil. When it comes to the word “shortage” concerning petrol, you need to be very careful. There are three views of oil: in the ground, transported oil, and refined oil.

I agree that there is no shortage of oil in the ground (I do not know how much you know of the industry, but the measurement of the sheer existence of oil in the ground is determined by market price). However, the fact that some of the largest reserves in the world remain untapped (yes, I mean in the U.S.) creates geographic shortages of sorts as we need to get more and more of our oil from the ME (who control pricing via a cartel ---- nothing to do with oil cos). Also, refineries are also a major issue as there have been no new ones for decades, there really aren’t many here in the U.S., they are running at something like well into the 90 percents of capacity 24/7, and they DO need to be shut down regularly for maintenance. When that happens, you have REAL shortages. When you combine all of this and add in speculators, and cos trying to make profits, it can and does get dicey.

Your statement that “..there is a shortage or any other factors outside the control of these Corporations and/or speculators - so no matter who you care to blame (it is most likely a combo of both), greed is at the root of it.” expresses a severe naivety as to the subject matter since we are trying to discuss a global product being sold in a world market controlled by a pricing cartel and working at odds with local politics. To ignore any of these variables (and others) results in a severely flawed analysis assuming one really wants to address the subject itself and not the politics of the subject!
You are grossly incorrect on your assumption on the speculators. They buy/sell based on immediate markets and their understanding of geopolitics, weather, etc., and the affect of those items on the commodity in question. They really don’t care about actual events 10 years later ---- they bet on the zeitgeist of the current and how it can/will affect the future. Thus, said announcement of drilling and exploration would, in fact, cripple them.
Basically , I read your attitude as one of “I have it tough, I am alone, thus someone has to be blamed and I want my piece”. I do get it.

So be it. I support the free market and capitalism, I believe if we find someone who broke the law they will be fined and/or jailed, and you are not alone. We are ALL in this boat right now, but I find your willingness to NOT blame our politicians, INCLUDING our President, for any of this labels you an ideologue. Until your narrative includes ALL of the players and variables, you will be destined for disappointment.

As far as energy, we are decades from an alternative energy that can actually be used en masse to supply our energy. Wind and sun are niche at best (and will never be much more). Nuclear works very, very well (re France) but our lobbyists in the U.S. are too strong and our politicians too weak to allow it (gosh! Did you see what happened in Japan! Not in my backyard!).

Given the extent of the natgas, coal, and oil here on American soil, we can easily supply our needs for a century using good old carbon-based fuels. Of course, than the world might not like us as it would indicate we are refusing to roll over for the third world (and others)

Gotta run ---- getting ready to land.

anon,

You might wanna to look a little closer at the data. Example? Here in SD 203, the teachers retiring last year, this year, and next will pull in about $4,000,000.00 in pensions based on current pension calculations and the actuarial tables, plus full medical (not medicare crap).

You can find similar scenarios in many public sectors, including cops and firemen. It is NOT limited to the few politically connected. Now, if your argument is based on those who have been retired for awhile and were not part of the rules currently in effect, then I defer to you. That is the sad past, but is not, ans was not, a good reason to create such a class-system of public employees being made rich (not comfortable --- rich!) on the backs of the tax-paying public who are not rich (and in many cases are supplying their own retirement).

Other data for you to look at? Well, if I were you and wanted to be informed and NOT be a blind tool for talking points, I would research the top 10 donors list for the last couple election cycles and see who is giving to whom and how much. You might be a little surprised.

what the?,

I will touch this sticky wicket. I went to youtube, and found a clip from the Don Smith Show. I understand he is a conservative talk fellah and you will ignore him but regardless video is video.

The clip showd the talk back in 06/07, when gas under Bush went into the $2.33 range, and at Obama’s election when it was $1.87 and all the talk was how bad it all was.

Then, it jumps to 2011, and shows clips of various sources talking about the good thing about high oil prices at over $4. It includes the clip of Obama making fun of the guy with 10 kids, etc. Most of the talk is on the Early Show with Priya David and Harry something or another. I remember well the CBS stance in 06-08, as I watch CBS regularly, and CBS was definitely on the "high gas prices will ruin the country" bandwagon.

I have also heard various talking heads on differnet shows refer to the savings of lives with there being less traffic accidents as people drive slower and less (not on the roads I travel! How about all those +100 mph arrests on rt.59!) and there being less air pollution. Basically, it is all talking points as the elected idiots get ready for another election cycle (and we will bandy about behind them in our ignorance).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdScVerrBU

anon,

Can you explain why it is you think the oil companies make too much money? Or how it is they are ripping us off? Or why it is a republican thing only? Can you speak specifically to the “…those oil industry subsides” comment? I know these are great talking points from the liberal left, but can we share a little about exactly what they all mean?

I ask because I went and looked at some data on Exxon (biggest U.S., right?) The results are astonishing.

In 2010, Exxon paid 21.6 bil in taxes on 53 bil in EBIT ---- a tax rate of 41%! Their profit after tax was 30 bil (a big number, no doubt) on revenues of 342 bil ---- a return of 8.9%.

In 1q 2011, Exxon paid 8 bil in taxes on 53 18.9 in EBIT ---- a tax rate of 42.3%! Their profit after tax was 10.6 bil (another big number, no doubt) on revenues of 102.3 bil ---- a return of 10.4%.

I don’t know about you, but I do NOT find these returns very high , and I DO find the realized tax rate to be pretty damn high. In fact, if you compare the tax rates to about any other company you can find, you will see that you will have to search very, very hard to find rates that high anywhere in America.

The return on revenues, even at 10.4% , is not inspirational (especially when you compare it to any technology company).

The subsidies you refer to, I believe, are the $4 bil that has been bantered about over the past 10 days in the news and by a lot of talking heads on the left (Bechel can’t say it enough, nor can Colmes). Let’s be clear: that 4 bil is nothing more than the normal breaks that has been in the code since the 30s, and they are mostly available to any company paying taxes.

Now, if your argument applies to ALL corporate “welfare”, I understand it better (though I would most likely disagree as I understand that there is no such thing as “taxes” on a corporation since they will, eventually, just pass any costs on to the consumer ---- me and you ----- thus effectively making any taxes on them taxes on us!).

It is my opinion that much of what you are saying, and much of what I hear and read on the oil industry, is based on a few drivers:

1)The oil companies are HUGE, so even when their return as % is normal to low, we see a great big number and either freak, or feel cheated because we are hurting and want a piece of it

2)The oil companies are seen as Republican tools (just as the field of Law is seen as a Democrat tool), so the left tries to hammer the right with it at any perceived opportunity (regardless of how negatively it affects the country as a whole --- and yes, I do understand that the Right uses the Legal thing to hammer the left).

3)All families are hurting in this economy, and anything that could drop prices to us is seen as a good thing.

None of this is meant to excuse illegal activities, absolute greed (though “greed” needs to be defined for us to have a valid debate). etc. It is just meant to add some color and perspective.

I will also throw in here that I also hear a lot about the pricing being caused by the big, bad speculators. I would suggest there is some truth in this as speculators forward buy & sell commodities based on their belief of where the pricing will be in the future. By performing this buying & selling, they establish new demand parameters , thus affecting supply, thus affecting pricing.

Now, here is the rub: These speculators make their investments based on their view of the future, which for the past 4 months has been based on a demand exceeding supply scenario. In short, these speculators are betting that the U.S. will NOT extract and use its own natural resources (natgas, oil, clean coal), thus demand will continue to outpace supply in their scenario.

The best way to fix this? Obama should immediately announce that the U.S. will aggressively seek to supply and use its own resources ---- the speculators will be driven into the ground. Of course, he won’t do this as it would anger his left constituency, but guys ------- he can’t have it both ways!

gr8d84f8:

"You remind me of all the blind followers of the left (in this case) who were so loud about the high, crippling $1.86 gas prices under Bush who are now saying the $4.oo prices now under Obama are a good thing!"

Who's saying that? I haven't heard ANYONE say that $4 plus gas is a "good thing". Do you have the names of these idiots?

Anon [5/5/11, 4:10],

Gosh, where do I start with your rambling rant of the self righteousness partisan lefty?

First, I am not a GOPer. Your partisan-left mind has again betrayed you (so sad). Independent thought is a good thing, you might want to try it.

Second, I don’t have any financial ills ---- but our country DOES! It is in a crisis.

Third, where do you think the jobs come from for those union (and non-union) people to work and make money to pay bills? THEY COME FROM CORPORATIONS! Duh! Let me add that I don’t believe we are addressing unions as a whole, but public worker unions. Please stay up with the group.

Fourth, you might want to do a little (tiny, tiny bit?) of research to find out where the billionaires are spending their money. It is clear by your tissy fit that you will be stupendously surprised by the money from the very, very rich going into the Dem pockets. You specifically might want to see where a fellow named Geo Soros is spending his.

Fifth, we can agree on the politicians I find them all repulsive until proven otherwise whether they are Dems or GOP. You, however, seem to want to give the Dems a bye or something given your unwarranted and unfounded immediate assumption that I am a GOPer and that only the GOP gets cash from the very rich. That is very narrow minded of you.

Sixth, if YOU ever decide to open your mind and quit being a blind follower of the progressive left (with all of their distinct talking points), I think YOU will discover that there is, indeed, more than one side to every story. I think you will also find that your absolute and blind obedience to the Dem party is misguided (as it would be to any party).

You remind me of all the blind followers of the left (in this case) who were so loud about the high, crippling $1.86 gas prices under Bush who are now saying the $4.oo prices now under Obama are a good thing!

Seventh, define rich before you toss out simplistic slogans like “Are union members getting rich? Nope.” Given that there are legions of PUBLIC union employees around the country with pensions worth $2,000,000.00 to $5,000,000.00, I would go out on a limb and say “YES! IN SOME CASES THEY ARE GETTING RICH!”

Dude, wake up and get a backbone and quit projecting your bad feelings and lack of effort and thought onto others. It is spring, get happy for the first time in your life!

what the?,

As i said, we are now discussing price.........

Sorry, what the?, but you are just plan wrong.

The Dems in Mass are doing nothing different than the GOP in WI or OH. You are trying to split hairs to cover your obvious hate fro the GOP, but the facts are working against you on this one.

The short story is that wherever you look, whatever you read, whoever you talk to, ALL sides of the political spectrum with the exception of the extremely progressive left understand there is a physics problem with public unions right now, and we need to fix it fast.

Is the GOP going too far or too fast? I guess tat is a matter of opinion and degree. however, given that even the Dems in Mass are on the bandwagon, it is kind of like the old joke: We all know what they are, and we are now just discussing price!

The best message from Mass. also clamping down on union power is that it shows that the fight over the collective bargaining power of public unions isn't a partisan assault on unions ------ it is a fiscal requirement to protect taxpayers from the runaway financial demands on the public unions.

Bully taw!

Anon,

It is clear the word "partisan" lies outside your wheelhouse. Next time I will try to use only one-syllable words so as to not confuse you.

what the?,

I agree. The union could make it very uncomfortable for politicians in Mass this summer.

gr8d84f8:

Actually, the MA bill just ends collective bargaining for HEALTH CARE, not everything except wages like Wisconsin's bill did. Wisconsin's bill went way beyond what was necessary for a budget, it sought to bust unions entirely. Massachusett's bill does not, it leaves everything else the unions have intact.

Still, I see your point. This time the Dems are restricting union power, even if it's just on heath care, and it seems that the MA unions didn't see this coming either. They are not happy.

of course, your partisan little mind did not even ALLOW you to realize that the "idiots" in Mass. are Democrats.

Hey, question:

How come all those who moaned, groaned, and attacked on this blog over the actions in Wisconsin and Ohio are so silent today?

I speak of the vote late last night in Massachusetts where they voted 111-42 to strip public sector unions of their collective bargaining powers.

Could it be that all of the alleged outrage over Wisconsin and the Gov's actions was
just more partisan hacking?

Hmmmmm?

Medicare was developed with the intent to assist, especially for those who could not afford it in elderly life.

The subsidies will not cover the entire cost --- thus my comment “…The premium will be the same $15,000 a year on average that Medicare is projected to spend under the Obama health law.”

This means that the Obama program either
A )has the same problem of covering cost,
B) requires further tax increases that they are hiding from us,
C) is just plain lying to us, or
D)there really will be cost containments, which will be there for either the Ryan plan or any other plan, thus actually covering more/all (especially for those with less).

I do not think just stopping payments, or dictating the value of a service, represents cost control. It does represent an eventual breakage to the system, though. This is more than evidenced by the effect it has on insurance rates (medicare pricing, and the true-ups at year-end, drive costs through the roof

Yes, we can do better.Our difference on this is philosophical: You distrust the private sector, I distrust the public sector (politicians) more!

Addendum:

wt?, you might want to read the article "Why the 2025 Budget Matters Today" in today's WSJ.. I t has a little too much "inside baseball" stuff, but the first few paragraphs gives a good view of why SS is affecting us today.

wt?,

That is one of the better sites for a quickie explanation.

I agree that it is the politicians who screwed up SS, not the program itself. However, part of that screw-up is the excess they put into it AND the lack of oversight in terms of matching the program to its original intent.

Part of their neglect, probably the biggest part in my opinion, is that given its status as a pyramid scheme.

Really what else can you call it? It was developed with a promise based upon demographics of a 17:1 ratio of workers to beneficiaries, and this demo will very soon be 2:1. This is the very definition of a pyramid scheme!

To further complicate the charge, they have avoided changing the retirement age to more closely align with life-spans (up at least 10 years since the program was started --- in fact, since just 1965 the span was 70, now it is almost 80).

Your example is not appropo as the promise of an investment is nothing like a mortgage or other loan (IMHO). One is a debt, the other an investment vehicle. I understand that you see the raiding of the surpluses that was put into law by the Dems a a loan, but it isn’t really. It is just a promise ---- there is no “lockbox”.

In fact, the original intent of SS was to be a type of “insurance” vehicle to provide ADDITIONAL comfort in retirement/old age, not be the entire enchilada. I do think we will have some increases in SS tax, but I also think it is unfair to dump on the alleged “rich” to cover it instead of reforming the system itself.

Do you REALLY think it is fair to not only keep the 12.4% SS tax in affect way beyond the current 107k or so (to ad infinitum), but to also accelerate it for those “rich”? The current admin wants to do just that for those making over $200k by adding a .9% Medicare premium an those excess “rich” earnings along with adding it on to previously immune earnings, such as interest, dividends, and capital gains (an effective 3.8% brand new tax). All of this on what was originally developed as an insurance/investment idea, and not a welfare program!

Don’t be so sure about SS --- the NYT (see 3/24) posted that this year , 2011, the SS system will pay out more than it receives in payroll taxes!

As you may know, this was not supposed to happen until 2016 according to the CBO. Per the NYT, analysts have long tried to predict the year when Social Security would pay out more than it took in because they view it as a tipping point — the first step of a long, slow march to insolvency, unless Congress strengthens the program’s finances. Not a very good sign, wouldn’t you say? This means that the cash flow issue you posted as not being here until 2037 in here now, in 2011!

Bottom line? I am fully in favor of the following;

A)gradually increasing the retirement age by up to 10 years over the next, say, 25 years?

B)making sure there are zero changes to anyone currently retired and in the SS system

C)making sure there is an immediate buffer period (such as the 55 year old cutoff) for those close to retirement as they have no time to really adjust

D)increasing the amount of earned income (not Interest, dividends (already taxed twice), and cap gains) subject to SS & Medicare taxes but ONLY if the benefits received by the higher payers is allowed to rise (again, I don’t see these programs as originally being meant as welfare) and ONLY if they make fundamental changes to the programs themselves, first..

Let me go even further ---- if the Fed gave me a personal choice to stay in SS or to take an actuarial-calculates lump sum and put it into an IRA-type vehicle now, I would jump at the lump sum and opt out of SS. This would cost the taxpayers less (much less) and would help drop the future-projected deficits.

#:)’

If memory serves me correctly, economies collapse when the debt hits 90% of GDP.

The US will arrive at 90% in 3 more years at current spending levels.

What the future looks like is a dramatically lower standard of living.

Added comment on the Ryan Medicare plan is that beginning in 2022, his plan offers a choice to the consumer: they can select from a group of private health plans and a premium will be paid to the plan they choose. The premium will be the same $15,000 a year on average that Medicare is projected to spend under the Obama health law. As I already wrote, there will be more for the oldest enrollees and poorest enrollees and less for the youngest and richest, all inflation adjusted..

what the?,

I am a little surprised at your attitude on Ryan’s plan (.re:Medicare).

In reading Ryan’s plan, he creates a means test for the premium support that he has replacing Medicare. This means that the “poor” and truly ill would receive more in subsidies than the “rich”.

Thus, the Ryan plan would ultimately be better (ie progressive) for the needy as it delineates twixt rich and poor! IMHO this would probably make it closer to the program that was originally intended decades ago.

On a broader note, I know you are much more suspicious of the State-level politicians than I am (I put them in the same quagmire as the national ones!). However, given our status as a Republic I believe they are in a better position to develop procedures that take care of their citizens. Also, at the State level the vast differences in geographical economics would inherently be accounted for.

U R right ------ these are not normal times.

I believe we are at a time when we are at the precipice of potential disaster (JOMO).
I just heard that the current IMF projections are for the China economy to surpass that of the U.S. in 2016!

Thus, I personally see a need for immediate and significant change (not a campaign slogan, like Obama's). In the 90s we referred to this as the 'burning platform". We cannot pay for everything for everybody all the time as the money does not exist (I know we disagree on this ---- once I get to terra firm a I will try to forward some data).

The waste are is a good one to concentrate on, but the idiots we elect each year give it lip service but that is it (including Obama and his ignoring of his own commission).
I know of no one who supports the waste inherent to the military (ie thePentagon), but to date no one has really taken it serious enough to include it in the budget process (which is one of the methods private biz used to decrease waste).

what the?,

You"re coming around! I don't trust ANY politicians and wont until we have term limits. Until then, I take all of them strictly on the actions I see and hear.

I am traveling right now, so I will write in smaller batches and hope they post.

This one is on SS ~~~ the debt markets work a little differently. The fact that SS is not funded and is based on a pyramid scheme causes the lenders out there to include that fact in their lending. QE2 is creating a flood of easy,fast money right now, but as it tightens we will see a run-up in debt costs as the lenders demand more and more return to compensate for the additional financial risk. thus, it is actually a "clear and present" danger as it is a known and quantifiable amount. This means that even now, as we post, the SS scheme is,and has been, affecting our debt costs (and our overall national debt). As we get closer to the crossing point, it will bury us.

Also, depending on the data you accept,SS goes neg prior to 2030.

I find the the most recent posting by What the ? in her analysis of what politicians are thinking hilarious. In particular, the repeated reference to normal times. For example, she writes in normal times a politician would not try to break a union. Hey What the ?, leadership is in great part adherence to core principles. You do not cater to government employee unions in "normal" times and then change your colors in I sould suppose "abnormal" times. But then again based upon your history, you demonstrate little knowledge about the kind of character that is required of leaders. Keep carrying the flag for Obama as you are a articulate and keen champion of whomever you think is your leader. Thick or thin, right or wrong you can always be found cheering for any failure.

Anon ONE:

Forgot: it's the McDonald's lattes we like. I'll take either a vanilla or caramel.

Anonymous you've been going on and on about how great Ryan's plan is But the sad fact is that it won't. it's a Republican power play to get rid of or cripple social programs simply because they benefit the Democrats politically.
in response to your claim that the U.S. gained jobs in Bush's last year in office that's just laughable. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed 3.5 million jobs in 2008. Sure the losses continue into Obama's term, but trend slowed dramatically and even reversed by 2010. more numbers: following the Bush tax cuts of 2001 the economy lost jobs every quarter until mid 2003. by contrast, the economy was gaining jobs every quarter in 2000, BC's last year at the helm.
My argument is that Republicans are hypocritical and even sociopathic in their approach to the economy. Ryan's plan calls for a further reduction in tax hikes for the rich. How he can do this yet ask the most vulnerable in our society ask to make concessions is just cruel. To make the argument that we don't have the money is just plain wrong. If we have a fair tax system and a sensible spending plan we can pay for those programs easily. If we taxed all money earned for social security instead of having an income ceiling, the program would be solvent for decades to come. If we did that, we could even cut payroll taxes for everyone from the current 7.6%. businesses would benefit too. Everybody wins, except the truly greedy.

Anonymous. You call yourself well-read. Ever read Dickens? how about Steinbeck? If so, do you want to return to the crushing poverty and social inequalities described in Oliver Twist and The Grapes of Wrath?" I don't. I'm willing to pay a fair amount of taxes for the good of the country. even if someone else benefits. how does that make me greedy? You. though, seem to have no problem telling millions of Americans _ your neighbors, co-workers- to sign away their future so that we can solve the dieficit problem on their backs. That's just wrong.

Anon ONE:

Your specific accusation was that I had stated that "ALL Republicans/Conservatives were stupid". I never said that, and everything you show here proves it.

It's true, a lot of folks on the right don't know the difference between communism and socialism, or at least act like they don't. I pick on them because I've yet to see anyone on the left call Obama a "socialist, communist, Stalinist, Nazi, Marxist, fascist, etc-ist". I've seen these exact comments on this blog. European countries today are very socialist but not communist. Marx was a socialist, Hitler was a Nazi, Stalin was a communist, and Mussolini was a fascist. Neither fascists nor the Nazis liked the communists very much, in fact, Hitler detested them. Which is why I gotta shake my head when I see a Tea Partier carrying a sign that says "Obama is a communist Nazi". Hitler would be turning in his grave if he had one.

The only thing people who lump all these together know is that these terms don't describe the U.S., so they're going for the Obama-is-foreign-he's-everything-except-us fear angle. Works for them.

And I admitted to saying that Rush Limbaugh's listeners were stupid, and they're not all conservatives, but the majority are. Same with the Tea Partiers. By the way, the 2009 study you refer to as bogus has been pretty well established since then.

Regarding my mother's quote, I used it to reply to a blogger who was name-calling, so I think your interpretation of that is a little skewed. Which is why I said you'd be reminded that I give as good as I get.

I don't dislike all conservatives/Republicans. I'm just continually amazed by a lot of the stuff I hear from them.

i don't think the GOP is backing off of the Ryan plan at all! Under the guise ofhionesty.perhapsoushould be honest then and admit the extent of your partisan viewpoint, wt? ----- you effectively have a knee-jerk negative response to All Things GOP!

The Ryan plan is a clear case of fortitude if for no other reason than the fact that anyone who has ever even remotely approached the taboo subject of "touching" entitlement programs has basically been runout of office.

I will repeat what I have already written ---- there is no money to pay for this stuff!!!!!

Defense is a constitutionally required activity (though the waste is not), and the alleged "rich" don't even come CLOSE to paying for this crap.

SS and Medicare/aid have always been pyramid schemes. We are now on the shores of the Rubicon, and only drastic and severe actions will ensure anything
is there for us going forward.

The question has been oft-posed: do you want 100% of nothing, or something less (say, 65%), of something?

The answer to this is what I refer to a a no-brainer!

Now, you feel differently. I get it. On a twist to what you are so fond of saying, perhaps you are brainwashed by the evil GE/NBC cabal of opinion-developers who are working so hard to create a totalitarian system of governance guided by a centralized world-control of individual country mechanisms.

|:>)

Keep in mind that Ryan's plan pays the debt down by 4.5 trillion in ten years, while Obamas Does only 2 trillion (these are non partisan numbers --- the "advertised" numbers are 6.5 for Ryan and 4 for Obama).

Tax breaks are needed to stim the economy ---- then, as the economy truly gets stronger, you can raise taxes (see Reagan years --- many forget he cut taxes to stim a recession/ malaise, than raised them once the economy was REALLY on track. In fact, many forget RR gave back almost exactly 50% of his cuts over thought years!) it has worked several times before ( in fact, very time), yet the current Keynsian moves with QE are a waste. Forget the theory, let's go with practice!

As I said, Ryan having the rocks to actually put such changes to the third rails in writing is a great start ---- now if they all would only negotiate!

Happy Easter.

Again, the issue is NOT the deficit!

It is the national debt. As the
Prez would say, "say it one more time-- the national debt!).

As I said I am quite learned in finance &. Econ, and the debt IS in the process of ruining a great country. All politicians are responsible, all paries. it actually is. a situation of being bankrupt, but most don't kno it yet (like an earlier post of a dead tree --- it doesn't know it is dead for years).

It takes a lot of fortitude to actually present a START To solutions like Ryan did, thus I am interested.

IT IS A START!

I will catch the Stewart lInk later. -- gotta run!

Now the negotiatins begin, but only if ALL sides really admit to a problem first and are willing to make changes secod (kinda like a 12 step program!)

wt?,

ONE more thing!

On a lighter note, I have learned to never sit in the front row! It is a lesson that started in Catholic grade school, reinforced through various "jobs", and if there was any doubt try sitting up front for the old Gallagher shows or the Blue Man Group.

However, for Ryan he had no real choice: when your President calls/asks, you humbly say "yes" on such issues/ THAT is why is was plain old bad manners by Obama.

i would like to add that it is not suffering to accept changes to a program that is, for all practical purposes, dead on arrival.

The math is simple is simple ~ SS & Medi are in dire straits with huge actuarial deficits (what, around 35 trillion?) that are not on the books.

These programs, without changes now, will be gone soon.

Thus, I fully believe we need to do so now, and Ryan's proposal is a great start (and note he does not claim originality on this as many, many before have identified the fix,but no one before Ryan had the gonads to prpose it).

I would prefer to have a changed, and maybe even somewhat dimished, program than none at all. I appreciate your concern, but I am well off and truly want to see these programs saved for the future rather than have them lost because no politicians had the intestinal fortitude to change them, and by changing them save them!

Anon ONE:

You're really ranting and rolling now!

I don't believe I've ever said all Republicans are stupid. I have said in the past that I thought the TEA PARTIERS were stupid. Appearing in public with signs that say "Don't steal from Medicare to support socialized medicine" and "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" pretty much confirms that. And I have said that Rush Limbaugh's listeners were stupid. But I don't remember making that comment about all Republicans.

And you're positive that I LOVE Clinton, are you? Well, the only time I remember having discussed Clinton on this blog, I didn't refer to him in such amorous terms. In fact, I found the post. I wrote:

"I don't detest Clinton either, but I agree his behavior made a mockery of the Presidency and embarrassed our country." (Open topic, July 9, 2009)

"Not detesting" isn't the same thing as loving. In fact, I'm not feeling any love in that comment at all.

And you're wrong, I never said that Republicans/Conservatives would be working at McDonalds serving my kids coffee on their way to their high paying jobs. I found the post in the archives. It was made on the "President's broadcast stirs up school controversy" thread on September 3, 2009. I said this about the people who were keeping their kids out of school to avoid seeing Obama's pep talk on the value of education:

"And if some folks are actually going so far as to keep their children home from school to avoid exposing them to the democratically elected leader of the free world then fine, let them keep their kids home. My child will get the message that education is valuable and that taking personal responsibility for one's own education is an attribute. Those who keep their kids from hearing this are teaching them that ideology is more important than education, that if you don't agree with what's going on in school, it's ok to just blow it off and not go. And that's ok, too. This country needs a good base of low educated workers. If we have more Americans working our yards and counters at McDonalds, then that may keep some of the illegals home!"

And in another post:

"PLEASE keep your kids out of school and away from such radical ideas [the president's education pep talk]. My kids will need one of your kids to serve them their McDonald's Cafe Latte on the way to their six figure job!!"

Go back and revisit the entire exchange if you care to. You'll be reminded that I give as good as I get.

Which brings us to your diatribe. Not only was I right that you don't know squat, but your memory stinks too.

wt?,

You might want to relook the definition of bankrupt. Though we are mtg our bills (at least until the debt limit fiasco resolves itself), the level of debt to GDP is getting astronomical and will appraoch 100% in just a couple of years. The issue is debt.NOT deficit!

If you REALLY think everything is fine. well,.............

As far as Ryan goes, I am well read, well schooled, and have studied his plan in detail, and I like it so far. We can agree to disagree on that. As far as Ryan v Obama, the difference is that Obama isPrez while Ryan is just a congressman. Obama(and his followers) said he would be above the fray and fix the disharmony, but he is prving to be just another thug politician. As long as we all know and accept that, all is good.

Now, to me: I don't know how loud to say it! I am well aware of econ, etc., and an well schooled on theory and practice. As has already been posted, I understand that in recessions, and in order to drive growth, tax cuts are required and Keynesian methods do not work (the proof is around us as we speak on the Keynesian effect). You see it all as a rich v poor thing, and I disagree with you.

It will be tough to cut defense right now as we are in 3 wars. Once they wind down (if ever), I expect some cuts. HOWEVER, lets all not forget that defense is the single largest role of the Fed gov (not SS, medicare, or ANY social program). Our ability to be free, not under the rule of aother nation, etc., is our #1 freedom. Also note that the Def budgets about 700-800 bil, but the deficit is 1.5 trillion.

Why? Bad policies and bad leadership (at least 6 years worth). Also note that the QE programs have devastated the value of the dollar, thus creating even another type of "tax" for us all, especially the poor and middle class.

Appeal2,

Uh, your data is bad on jobs, recessions, tax cuts, et.al. You may want to recheck it.
Sample? GWB had an increase of almost 300,000 jobs in his last 4 months in office per Wiki (while the first 26 months of Obama. Have had a loss of over 3 million jobs or so). You might also want to from up your grasp of recessions, tax cuts and increases, and other basic Econ stuff!

The beauty of practice is that it is something that actually happened! Hard to argue with.

By the way, a little factoid is that BC increases the national debt --- he did have a small projected surplus in his last year that disappeared prior to any GWB policies.

Your comments about my self-interest reflect your own personal greed and short
term views.

My point is that even though it has a negative effect on me personally, i still support the changes because they are best for ALL in the LONG RUN. I am controlled by no one. Are you really so dense you can't see the simple numbers in front of us all?

Bad manners is bad manners. Obama exhibited bad manners in his very subpar speech.

Appeal2,

Of course there are rackets in the TEA party, just like there are radiate in the Dem party and in the progressive movement ( why else would they champion the bias of low expectations?). That should not be used to identify either group as a whole, though.

If it was, then I would guess you would also say that the far left, and unions, are misogynists and child abusers based on their actions up in Wisconsin over the week end, right?

In short, one can always find an individual, good or bad, that does or says or believes something you dont agree with. We should not paint everyone else with that same brush just because it fits your narrative. If we did, just look at some of the company our President has kept and how we would look at him using your theory of association! A matter as simple as W. Ayers over the weekend again defending his bombings on the Larry Elder show!

Wt?,

Thanks.

I have a pretty good handle on the issues of taxes & the Ryan "P to P". That is why I pointed out my situation and the fact that I still support it despite it's neg affect on me personally.

A few observations: first, we are bankrupt. Despite your comment that we are the richest nation on earth, we also have possibly the largest debt at 14.3 trillion. Thus, many of us will lose a little to not only stop the growth, but behind paying it down. My only concern is that those in, or very near, to retirement, not be affected. The rest of us will have time to react (including extending outworn life to more closely match the current life expectancies).

Second, change the moronic legal interpretation of the SS laws that mandates you lose SS if you don't accept Medicare. In this way, the states can take over the Medicare programs and supplement rates for the individuals who may use either Medicare or private insurance. Combined with true, real competition in the open market my experience with capitalism is that it will improve pricing greatly over both the current programs and Obamacare as I read it.

Third, the fact that we know how it all started means we can avoid making the same mistakes ( the old learn from history idea). Instead of a complex new program of serpentine rules and bureaucratic bumbling and power (ie Obamacare), solve the old problem with simple laws ----- no insurance license unless all are eligible, no one can be dropped once the check is cashed, etc.

It all gets down to the simple FACT that we do not have the money to continue a series of social programs that tries to do everything for everybody all the time. Yes, some will (and in many cases should) suffer more than others.

Dan D.:

Glad you changed your mind! Just a few thoughts as well:

1. Just read that US companies have cut 3 million jobs in the US over the last ten years and moved 2.4 million off shore. That is the result of our economic policies that discourage job creation in the US.

It's also a result of our free trade agreement. Ross Perot was certainly right about that "giant sucking sound" of American's jobs going elsewhere. The only way to combat this is to have a U.S. labor force that will work for the same slave wages and under the same conditions as those in third world countries do, which brings us to:

2. We are becoming a third world country, not a European socialism country (by the way Portugal and Greece are as well). As a third world country, you cannot afford to provide social programs. Instead, you do like they do in Kenya and let the poor starve to death. It is ironic that you can only have a safety net if you have a prospering economy.

Is this what you prefer? Do you want America to become like India, Mexico and Kenya? Would you prefer to see Americans living in the squalor that the working poor in these countries do, with open garbage dumps and raw sewage running in the streets, untreated disease, malnutrition and beggars everywhere? Do you want to see the Christian Children's Fund running commercials asking people to sponsor an American child for only cents a day so our kids too can have food, clean water and a chance at an education? America's safety nets have kept us from becoming like this. Remove the U.S.'s social safety nets entirely and Europe will replace us as the shining beacon of civilization.

4. How to fix Social Security? I repeat again. Do what Chile and Australia did. Borrow $10 trillion, give the people what they paid and should have earned and get out of the business. Create safeguard just like 401k to not let people spend this money. Then the first dollars received should be exempt from taxation until you receive your investment back. Then everything is subject to tax and if you don't make that much money, you do not not pay much tax.

BORROW $10 trillion? I thought the deficit was our country's biggest threat. Adding another $10 trillion to the deficit to buy people out of social security is not going to happen. How bout some realistic options?

A couple of thoughts.

1. Just read that US companies have cut 3 million jobs in the US over the last ten years and moved 2.4 million off shore. That is the result of our economic policies that discourage job creation in the US.

2. We are becoming a third world country, not a European socialism country (by the way Portugal and Greece are as well). As a third world country, you cannot afford to provide social programs. Instead, you do like they do in Kenya and let the poor starve to death. It is ironic that you can only have a safety net if you have a prospering economy.

3. The comment about taxation and wealth by region. I agree. When income taxes were first implemented, people paid on their net income. EVERYBODY ITEMIZED. So if you paid $5,000 in health costs, you deducted these costs. If you paid $1,000 in sales taxes, you did not pay income taxes on these amounts. This was the rationalization of the mortgage and property tax deduction.

The one flaw to Reagan's 1986 tax changes is that he changed this concept by eliminating certain deductions and lowering the rate. For people in Arkansas, this was a major benefit. Not so much for New York where taxes and costs are substantially more. Almost to the point that the change in the tax code promoted lower cost areas.

4. How to fix Social Security? I repeat again. Do what Chile and Australia did. Borrow $10 trillion, give the people what they paid and should have earned and get out of the business. Create safeguard just like 401k to not let people spend this money. Then the first dollars received should be exempt from taxation until you receive your investment back. Then everything is subject to tax and if you don't make that much money, you do not not pay much tax.

I marvel at how people defend bankrupt programs that we will need to end as we continue to decline.

Marilyn Davenport, a California GOP and tea party person had to apologize for putting the president's face on a picture of a chimpanzee.
No racists in the tea party. yeah right.

Anonymous,you raise three issues that leave me shaking my head.
First, refer to "a little thing called practice" referring to the economy taking off when taxes were cut. That's really wrong and only a half truth at best. Reagan's tax cut was followed by a recession in 1982. I remember oil refineries, steel mills and factories closing all over the country. remember "Allentown" by Billy Joel? A perfect anthem for the Gipper's first term.Reaganomics blew apart in 1987 with the great crash. the Dow went down over 30 percent in one day. Clinton raised taxes. remember the right howling about "the greatest tax increase in U.S. history?' I remember the 90s as being a pretty good time economically. I know you like to blame the 2000 recession on him, but even so, he left us with a surplus when he left office. Which brings us to George W. Bush. First thing he did in office was slash tax rates on the highest earners. The result was seven out of eight years of job losses in the millions. At its worst this country was losing 800,000 jobs per month. He fought two wars off the books. Hundreds of billions were spent but did not see the light of day until Obama had the honesty to include them in the budget. And again, at the end of Bush's second term the Dow was crashing and people were panicking.
Second, you say Obama never had 60 votes in the Senate. It took months of GOP challenges before Al Franken was seated. then Joe Lieberman went on his power trip. then the Blue Dogs like Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln played politics with no thought to what they were doing to their country or their party.
Third. you say Ryan plan hits you upside the head. then why support it? Why align yourself with a party controlled by people who act contrary to your interests? It's a neat rick that they have you believing that cutting their taxes somehow will help you. they're just using you. We can solve the budget problem. In fact we had it solved. That surplus was projected through 2010 when BC left office. If we had just maintained the fiscal policies that got us there instead of blowing them up we wouldn't be having this debate.

By the by, wt?,

Read pages 34-36 of the Path to Prosperity. You will see farming and energy at least addressed.

Hey, did any of you catch the union thugs in Madison booing the Star Spangled Banner this weekend?

I admit that the more we see of Obamas leadership, the less we like it as a nation.

Of course Bush came up ---- necessary to highlight your partisan hypocrisy.

Oh, the irony! Our pols skewer S&P, etc., for doing a lousy job of ratings during the financial collapse. Their reaction? They tell the pols their debt is getting too risky!
Bam!!!

As I alluded earlier, you might want to actually research the "rich" with the IRS database. You will find that the extra taxes would only cover about 5-8% of the annual deficit, thus meaning a whole lot of other cuts need to be made quickly (see Ryan).

Also note that we would need to tax those over 350k/yr at about 83%' and those between 250 k and 350k at around 69% to come close to covering just one year of
current deficit.

by the way --- still waiting for Obama to put anything serious up for cuts.

The point? We need to cut a lot of stuff!!!!!

ALL social programs need change,from retirement ages to overage to everything.

YES ---- I think we also need cuts in defense spending. However, I would do this ONLY after entitlements have been cut. Why? Because history tells us we will stop at defense if we begin there.

Gosh, what? --- your blind partisanship is whackier than I thought?

Did you forget that Libya is Obamas war?

Did you forget that it is GOP-types that are trying to take on the ethanol fiasco? Farm subs? Of course some also still support them. Personally I don't trust any politicians.

Having said all that, it is a negotiation, pure and simple. My preference? ALL of Ryan's PLUS cutting deeply into the programs you list, plus others. IF they actually redo the tax code. (see Ryan), possibly go to a flat rate (or flatter rate), avoid any "fair" or vat taxes, it should begin us on the way to fixing an economy that, like a dead tree, doesn't yet know it is dead!

[note:as I type, I see the market is crashing over the general downgrade of the economy!]

Appeal2,

First per your two questions:

-deficits do matter in terms of the GDP (a little like leveraging in a business environment). Thus, any blanket statement like they don't matter is naive regardless of who utters it.

-the data is clear and in abundance; cutting marginal tax rates and business taxes does, indeed, increase revenues to the fed. Now, I understand the Keynesian theory says otherwise, and a certain U of C past prof supports it. The difference is that we luckily have a little something called practice, and the practice heavily supports this statement. Whether it was JFK, or RR, or Clinton, or Bush, the economy picked up and money flowed to the fed when rates are cut DESPITE the loss of numerous write-offs and such. Of course, there is appoint somewhere where there will be diminishing utils on tax cuts, but we have never even approached that territory.

A to your general statements---- we have unsustainable levels of debt that are projected to grow to levels that represent bankruptcy!

THAT is what loses jobs, takes away piece of mind, and which will crash the instability of Obama care. I know of no one who wants SS, Medicare, Medicaid to disappear (overnight or otherwise). I DO know many who want it limited per our own financial limitations. Wishing we had all the money for everything is nice, but it is naive and wrong- minded.

I fully support changes to the retirement age for SS. IMHO, it is inane to not support it (after all, the current age was set how long ago? What was the life expectancy then?). I also support the change to allow a person to NOT lose SS when they refuse Medicare. As far as Medicare ---- why not allow the states. To determine how/where to spend the money? If I recall correctly, we are a democratic republic, right? There are supposed to be limited fed rights, correct? Do you really think the states. Can screw it up worse than the fed has?

As far as the rich (whoever they are---- no one seems willing to define them on this blog), you might b mildly surprised to find out exactly what the rich a paying In Taxes versus history. The only tax rate worth discussing is the effective rate, not the marginal rate. The effective rate includes the effects of write-offs, deductions, etc. As we type, the alleged "rich" are paying their biggest proportion of taxes in history.

By the way in full disclosure: I just did my taxes and my income is about 40k an I am a little under 55, so all the changes proposed by Ryan basically whack me upside the head. I still think they are the right start/direction for our country and I support them.

Second disclosure: IF we decide we need to soak the rich, we need to both define them and regionalize them. I do NOT think 250k means rich. Try telling that to a nurse and fireman in NYC with 4 kids -- they make on average over 250k and are probably living a little comfortably, but still scraping and will not be able to fully pay for college for 4. Also, that money goes a lot farther in Arkansas than it does in NYC!

:)'

What the?,

You state the Republicans never needed a reason to show disrespect to Obama for two years.

Ummmm....... pot?

Kettle?

Black?

As I recall, the left side of the political spectrum spent well over 8 (6 months of primary. 8 years of office, 2 years of Obama) showing utter disrespect to Bush. Go back and read your one posts, oh hypocritical one. Further, look at the comments said and written by wags and Dem pols (can anyone say Nancy?)

Your accusations fall on weary ears--- weary of your hypocrisy.

The Obama speech last week? It was an opportune time for leadership, and we got a partisan thug running his campaign for reelection. Inviting Ryan, sitting him up front, and engaging in a partisan little tissy fit was, indeed, bad manners at best.

Of course, since you get your political stamina from a comedienne, I would not expect you to recognize bad manners.

So you lefty guys who hated Bush so now set your bar that low? Your stance is that Bush did it so it's okay?

Sad.

Obama said hecwould change the dynamics, the way of things, that he was above the fray. Oops!

Sorry, what the? ---- he is just a thug Chicago politician trying (ineffectively) to be a good thug.

Anon:

"Obama showed a complete lack of respect for Ryan, so he reaped what he sowed. Having Ryan sitting front and center, than spending so much time belittling his program strictly so he could campaign to his most-left constituents, was bad manners at best."

As if the Republicans have ever needed a REASON to show disrespect to Obama; they've been doing it non-stop for over two years. You may call Obama declaring a firm stand on an issue "bad manners"; I call it showing some spine.

I'm assuming it's this part of the speech you objected to:

“A 70 percent cut in clean energy, a 25 percent cut in education, a 30 percent cut in transportation, cuts in college Pell Grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year. That’s the proposal. These aren’t the kinds of cuts you make when you’re trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget. These aren’t the kind of cuts that the fiscal commission proposed.

Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. And I don’t think there’s anything courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill.”

That's not right, and that's not going to happen as long as I'm president."

Whoa, that certainly ended THAT conversation, didn't it? The Republicans got upset over Obama simply stating the obvious; that the GOP "budget" was really a social agenda. Obama sounded like a parent setting straight a child who tried to pull one over on him. And as proof of this the Reps reacted like children, blustering and whining and complaining. Jon Stewart usually sums these things up best:

"Seriously guys, grow some sack! It's like, 'Hey that Kenyan Socialist Muslim whose word I take that he was born in America -- is so mean to us!"

I enjoyed seeing the Republican's own BS roll downhill and hit them full in the face. I hope to see more of it.

Let me ask appeal2, etc:

What do you call it when someone you don't adore as a deity sez something as senseless as "....spending cuts through the tax code"?

Really, guys ----- even a middle school student knows this is a revenue statement, not a spending one.

Try scrubbing your minds clear of your bias and simply read/hear the actual words used .

As Obama has said---- words matter.

Respect is earned through both actions and respect for others.

Obama showed a complete lack of respect for Ryan, so he reaped what he sowed. Having Ryan sitting front and center, than spending so much time belittling his program strictly so he could campaign to his most-left constituents, was bad manners at best.

It has been written before for you far-left partisan lemmings: there ain't no mo money!!!!!

Talking about being brainwashed by the alleged news, here you guys are repeating all of the Dem talking points from CNN, CNBC, FOX over the past two days---this or that program is too small to matter, that or this one is too big to change, so any change a non-Dem calls for must be a political/social change!

you guys are such followers.

something needs to be done.

I too heard the president's speech and came to a much different conclusion than my anonymous friend. for one, the first words out of Ryan's mouth were " I missed my lunch for this?" Just another example of a total lack of respect for president Obama. Second, the GOP is back to their same, senselessly cruel argument that the budget has to be balanced on the backs of those who can least afford it. Cutting things like head start, PBS and other similar programs is like a bankrupt parent believing he can keep his house if he cuts out his kids $1 a week allowance.

I heard possibly the most asinine comment ever by a US President the other day:

".... Spending cuts from our tax code"

Huh? I can only think of a few Reasons why Obama would say this:

1)he is arrogant enough to think we are all stupid enough to believe it

2)he is too dumb to understand the difference between spending and taxes (revenues)

3)he thinks we just aren't listening

4)some of all of the above

No matter how you cut it, he apparently thinks it is more important to capping then to lead

I just don't think mst politicians understand how dire the debt issue is.

They are lawyers, not accountants, thus I can understand their ignorance on subject matter, but I cannot excuse their partisanship and lack of ability o get help from people outside of DC. Simply put, the more a party has unanimous votes the brighter we can see their partisan light.

The debt is in the process of destroying the US ---- just look at the meetings this week w/ china, brazil, etc. The dollar is under attack for good reason.

NOT decreasing the debt RIGHT NOW is not an acceptable option. Any politician who tries to get in the way should be moved out. ASAP.

Note: This post copied from another thread.

Dan D: Regarding your frustration with this blog, I share your pain (finally, something we can agree on!). But please stick around, there's still so much to discuss and so much drama on the horizon, namely the debt ceiling. And we haven't even addressed the elephant in the room--the budget deal and near government shut down. I like your Elton John example. You're right, the crux of the issue is that people will always act in their own best interests. I bet when Elton was a young man looking at a career in banking, you couldn't have dragged him out of the UK. At that point he was benefiting more from their socialist structure than he was paying in. He had all his needs met--the UK educated him, provided medical care so he grew up healthy, etc. But the instant he's worth millions and facing the prospect of paying in more than he'll ever get back, he's outta there. That's gratitude for you. But this is what people do. So hold that thought and apply this standard of behavior to the problem of health care for the elderly. This behavior is precisely why expecting seniors to pay the market rate for their care won't work and would actually exacerbate the health care crisis. Let me explain. Seniors are the most expensive demographic, and the majority are on fixed incomes, so they have the least discretionary income. Seniors are high maintenance but low in resources. You believe that people should pay for their own services, and if older people have more medical costs, they should pay higher insurance premiums. If senior's insurance premiums actually reflected the cost of their care, their premiums would be astronomical, probably several times that of younger people. Not too many seniors would be able to pay these rates. If seniors had to make a choice between paying their insurance premiums or paying for food and shelter, food and shelter would win. Seniors would drop their insurance because doing so is in their immediate best interests. So what happens when they have a medical crisis? They call 911 and end up in the emergency room. And since it's against the law to deny anyone life-saving medical treatment based on their ability to pay, they will get the care they need anyway. And if they couldn't pay astronomical insurance premiums, they sure won't pay an astronomical hospital bill. So the hospital will jack up their prices on you and me to pay for it. This is precisely the mess we're in today. I didn't see Ryan's budget as solving this problem, but making it worse. You say then the government could put a lien on senior's assets to get paid back after their deaths. That would be effective IF the seniors had assets, but many don't. You may want to look into what percentage of senior citizens have nothing to their name but social security. They no longer have savings or own property. 2010 data shows that "almost 70 percent of beneficiaries depend on Social Security for 50 percent or more of their income. Social Security is the sole source of income for 15 percent of beneficiaries." Read more: http://www.disabled-world.com/news/seniors/social-security-checks.php#ixzz1JWRcO 7qa My 94-year-old father-in-law is in this boat. He sold his home over two decades ago to live off the equity, and that's pretty much gone. All he has is SS, Medicare, and he lives in a HUD supported rent reduced senior citizen apt. building. He has no other assets, we help him out when needed. Ryan's voucher program would be useless for him, there is no way he could pay for any kind of insurance, especially a market value one whose price would reflect his age and medical history of prostate cancer, skin cancer and glaucoma. You and Ryan may "want" seniors to pay the price for their medical care, but in reality, very few would or could. Having an ideology is fine, but it is self-defeating to adhere to beliefs that have been shown to not work when applied to the real world. The human drive of self-interest is why Ayn Rand, despite her life-long rhetoric against socialism, altruism and the welfare state, lived off of social security and Medicare when she was dying of lung cancer. No kidding, the hypocrisy blows your mind. Rand chose personal survival over ideology. Self-interest was why Bush threw out his free market, small government and personal responsibility ideology in favor of a government-controlled, socialist, bailing-out-the-irresponsible solution when he was faced with the reality that sticking to his ideology required him to jump into a deep, dark chasm of a second Great Depression. Self-interest will trump ideology just about every time; it's what people do. So in order to find solutions to our current problems, we really need to put aside ideology and look for workable, read world solutions. Ryan's budget plan was great at adhering to his ideology, which is why so many Republicans loved it, but in practice it would have been a disaster. I saw the failings in it, there were massive gaps of logic in his plan that were glaringly obvious. I don't dislike the Medicaid block grant idea as you claimed; it would just have to specify how much these block grants would be. A block grant that doesn't come close to meeting state's needs would be worthless. As a governor, I would feel very uncomfortable about supporting such a plan without knowing the dollar amount I would be getting.