Debt ceiling deal tomorrow?
[Posted by Karl]
Sen. Maj. Ldr. Harry Reid delayed a vote on his bill to raise the debt limit to give negotiators at the White House more time to work on a compromise. (The establishment media will treat this as entirely different from House Speaker Boehner delaying a vote on his bill by one day, of course.) Late Saturday night, word of a tentative deal was leaked to the press. ABC’s Jonathan Karl had it first, but National Journal’s Major Garrett adds a twist (in bold):
- $2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years and the remainder determined by a so-called super committee.
- The Super Committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by Thanksgiving.
- The Super Committee would have to propose $1.8 trillion spending cuts to achieve that amount of deficit reduction over 10 years.
- If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification. If that doesn’t happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.
- No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee’s deliberations.
That bolded part, if true, would go some way toward mollifying House GOP Reps. like Dennis Ross (the potential cuts to Medicare and defense are likely intended to encourage the GOP to agree to something else, although there is not supposed to be a net tax hike — perhaps tax hikes on “the rich” offset by other cuts). That’s why I find myself in rare agreement with ThinkProgress that it’s more important to see the actual plan than to get riled up over leaks. Indeed, the ABC story was quickly updated to note White House pushback against the idea that a deal had been struck. The leaks may be coming from GOP sources trying to create the impression of a deal to pressure Pres. Obama to agree — not unlike what the NFL owners recently did at the end of the negotiations with the players.
–Karl
Jennifer Rubin at the WaPo is also reporting this deal as outlined by Karl, and the deal is through the ’12 election, with an increase in the debt ceiling of allegedly $2.8T.
AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:31 pmSo Boehner gets most of his proposal, and the American people get what they wanted by a 75% tally in CNN’s poll – a balanced budget amendment.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:31 pmShit, man. Double-secret probation. These guys are serious now.
Dick "Shovel Ready" Obama (daf1dc) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:32 pmThe Washington Post reports ceiling extended through the 2012 election and no balanced budget amendment.
I never believed the GOP really wanted the risk of another round of this shutting government down blame before the election.
Obama Gets Everything He Wanted
Ed from SFV (7d7851) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:32 pmI don’t think so, Ed.
AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:35 pmIf the “super cmte” can’t come up with the additonal cuts, and a BBA isn’t submitted to the States, the tentative deal seems to indicate mandatory, across the board cuts to all Dept’s and programs, including Medicare.
But, I suppose we’ll have to wait until 1300ET Sun to find out what is in the deal, after they pass it.
AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:36 pmyay Super Committee! With Super Committee America has future very very bright!
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:38 pmIt’s turtles all the way down, pikachu.
ian cormac (81c5c2) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:40 pmi don’t believe any of this until something actually comes out in the light of day…
until then, it’s all maskirovka.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:46 pmEd, AD,
The potential Medicare cuts are likely a demand of Obama. Dems will want tax hikes on the rich, GOP won’t. Dems could then say seniors and the troops are being hurst so GOP can protect the rich. Forces GOP to negotiate rather than sit on their hands.
If this is the deal, which is still a big “if” in my mind. Note Rubin’s WaPo story is sourced to the GOP. I think theyre likely close to this sort of deal and want to create impression for Sunday TV shows that this is basically a done deal to box in Obama.
Karl (37b303) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:52 pmMaybe more desinformatiya (sic,) red,
ian cormac (81c5c2) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:53 pmtwo sources briefed on the framework say the automatic cuts would hit Defense spending harder than Medicare. A Republican briefed on the framework says this will be unacceptable to many Republicans because it could force them to face a choice between accepting tax increases (if that is what the committee recommends) or automatic cuts that would gut the Pentagon’s budget.
ian cormac (81c5c2) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:05 pmPersonally (if I were Boehner), just for spite, I’d give the Prez a “clean up” on the ceiling, of $100B, and then I’d start passing appropriation bills out of the House that cut his administration to ribbons to keep under that new ceiling –
AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:05 pmand then I’d go home.
if that is what the committee recommends
I thought that the cmte was enjoined from recommending tax increases?
AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:07 pmIt’s a great deal, Lando says so, ‘pray they don’t alter it further’
ian cormac (81c5c2) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:09 pmAs well they should Karl. Since Boner delayed his bill and stuffed with goodies in an attempt to make it more attractive to the teahadi caucus, with the inevitable consequence of making the bill less likely to attract bipartisan support in the House or Senate.
Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:28 pmSo…have you ever posted here as “truthnjustice”?
Simon Jester (1bcb31) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:31 pmI think folks should ask this every time this joker posts, and keep asking. Games are games.
Simon Jester (1bcb31) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:37 pmIt would be worthless if the deal says “propose cuts”. Great, they propose the cuts, and Congress ignores them. Language of the deal is satisfied, and thus no amendment.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:38 pmI suspect someone else…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:38 pmI don’t trust them to make actual cuts. I remember in the 80s how Federal government organizations would howl and say that their budget was cut because it was only raised 10% instead of the 15% increase they had requested. Are these true cuts or just less of an increase? Will “future” cuts really be enacted or will Congress just change the rules?
While we’re at it why is a super committee making the cuts instead of Congress doing their job?
I’ve heard it before, they’ll make cuts then never make the cuts.
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:45 pmThat’s fine, Scott. Who? Its pretty clear it is one of the Previously Banned!
Simon Jester (1bcb31) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:51 pm“Debt ceiling deal tomorrow?”
Wouldn’t surprise me. And, if I know anything about Republicans they’re going to roll over like cur dogs, and give the Spend-o-crats everything they want…or pretty close to everything.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:51 pmWhile we’re at it why isn’t there a super committee working on how we are going to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment?
Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:24 pmThat’s easy, just look to the past. Permanently reduce taxes, reduce government and reduce regulations. The economy will be stimulated and unemployment will be reduced. It works every time.
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:33 pmWell having lived through the Bush economic miracle, your assertion would seem to fail the empirical test.
Specifically what regulations or government interventions are in your opinion hampering private economic activity?
Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:51 pmWhat are you talking about? Don’t you listen to the President? We’re in Recovery Summer 2: Electric Boogaloo…
Heck, his Press Secretary said that it was “indisputably true that the economy has vastly improved”…
Why would we need to do anything for the economy?
I mean, they are already acting to make energy far, far more expensive, and making it far, far more difficult and costly to do business in the United States…
WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT MAN???
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:53 pmWhile we’re at it why isn’t there a super committee working on how we are going to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment?
And here your side was claiming that the “stimulus” worked…
Well having lived through the Bush economic miracle, your assertion would seem to fail the empirical test.
When did Bush ever reduce government and reduce regulations?
Specifically what regulations or government interventions are in your opinion hampering private economic activity?
Why don’t you ask the business owners who Obama was begging to hire people earlier this year?
Another Chris (c983db) — 7/31/2011 @ 12:11 amEveryone also needs to keep in mind that this proposal doesn’t actually cut spending–the costs will continue to increase every year, and those “cuts” will end up being about 25% of what’s promised, if that.
Another Chris (c983db) — 7/31/2011 @ 12:16 amBased on what he inherited from Bush his press secretary is accurate, just one look at the unemployment numbers would show that.
Chart of the day
And blaming Obama for high gas prices is the height of idiocy.
Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/31/2011 @ 12:27 amBullsh*t. I seem to recall promises that by the end of Q3 of 2009, we’d have unemployment under 8% if we let them have Stimulus…
Hell, WITHOUT Stimulus we were told Unemployment wouldn’t get under 8% until Q3 of 2011 (guess where we’re about to be in the Q’s for this year, and guess where unemployment is).
Obama has managed to make things even worse, with more people unemployed for far longer.
Oh, and he’s managed to f*ck GDP growth. And increase gas prices. And cause food prices to increase.
So yeah, this are freaking AWESOME.
Oh, and your chart is BS, because it leaves out about a year of further job losses under Obama.
But when gas prices increased under Bush (and never hit the levels they are at now, btw) it was all his fault, right?
You really aren’t very good at this…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/31/2011 @ 12:49 am“And here your side was claiming that the “stimulus” worked…”
It worked great if your goal is to take money out of the pockets of guys like me, who aren’t asking for and don’t need handouts from the feds, and put it into the pockets of losers like GE or GM who obviously can’t make it unless they’re constantly being propped up by the government.
Only, I don’t want to do that. It doesn’t stimulate me at all.
Besides every time pols do that, a ton of the money they swipe sticks to the fingers of the pols and their bureaucrat lackeys, and I’d rather eat a heaping bowl of maggots than support them.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 1:03 amHey, everyone! Go look at the link the troll currently known as “Spartacvs” delivered! It’s perfect, actually.
I mean, a chart created and posted in February of 2010, covering the last year of the Bush Presidency and the first year of the Obummer Presidency. And ask yourself “who ruled Congress during that time”.
The troll currently known as “Spartacvs” doesn’t want anyone to pay attention to the first 6 years of the Bush Presidency where Republicans were in the majority in the House or the middle 4 years of the Bush Presidency where Republicans were in the majority in the Senate. He only wants you to look at the final year, where Democrats were in the majority in both the House and the Senate. Because the first 6 years would show a strong increase in the number of jobs, whereas the final year — when Democrats ruled the roost — showed a major reversal.
Looking at that agenda-driven graph again, what you see is a deceleration curve. What happens as you go from 60mph to 0mph? You start to slow down, you slow down faster, you slow down slower, you stop slowing down — because you’ve stopped. There’s no more slowing down once you’ve stopped.
A job-total curve would look much different. It would be “L” shaped, as in it hit the bottom and hasn’t recovered. Or, put in other terms, “Help! I’ve fallen and can’t get up!” And that’s exactly where Obama and the Democrats have gotten us.
But thanks, troll currently known as “Spartacvs” for providing such weak hackery for me to demolish. It was actually fun beating you about the head. Could you next time provide something slightly challenging, perchance? Because you’re way too easy.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/31/2011 @ 1:04 am“Congress passed the $787.2 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1), also known as the economic stimulus plan, on February 13, 2009. President Obama signed the bill into law on Tuesday, February 17.”
Positive effects: None, except to enrich their corporate pals.
That’s three quarters of a trillion bucks down the drain…and the same morons who passed this now want to “borrow” MORE money, so they can piss that away too.
It’s time we put a stop to this, any way we can.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 1:11 amOh, and Tanny, it’s not actually cuts. It’s reductions in the growth, as always with the Federal gummint. Baseline Budgeting. The baseline is currently an 8 degree upward slope, so anything that falls below that 8 degree upward slope is a “cut”.
And oh, by the way, the Democrats sent the baseline soaring upwards over the last 4.5 years, so we have a new, improved, much higher baseline to start with.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/31/2011 @ 1:25 amComment by Spartacvs — 7/30/2011 @ 11:24 pm
Comment by Spartacvs — 7/31/2011 @ 12:27 am
Contradicting him/herself.
Gerald A (9d78e8) — 7/31/2011 @ 2:05 amAh yes, the grand Kick The Can Deal of the 21st Century. Note, this allows Obama and the Dems to simply not let the “Bush” tax structure to expire in 2012.
Hello? What level of stupid is this one?
cedarhill (befb7f) — 7/31/2011 @ 3:40 am35. And we’re terrorists for asking for real cuts.
gary gulrud (1e0f30) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:24 am“The rich” in quotes? Well how would you describe the top 2 percent? The Worthy ?
This is not about cutting deficit spending (about which the Republican Party under Bush couldn’t have cared less.)
This is about doing away with Social Security and Medicare.
And nothing else.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:39 amNever let a crisis go to waste!
It was a dark and stormy night, Obama had pissed away Trillions on TARP, Stimulus, Bailouts, Clunkers, ACORNs, and DOA Re-Volts, but now the cupboard was nearly bare. The Pretender-in-Chief needed a lot more money, and damn quick, if he was going to keep his sorry ass in office and on nightly TV for another term. So, yep, it was one humdinger of a crisis sure enough, no doubt about it, and right here in River City. What to do, what to do?
The King of Pennsylvania Avenue needed 3 things: #1 more money, #2 a free pass till after the next election, and #3 a way to provoke his opponents, drive a wedge deep in the natural crack between principle and expediency, and set the toothless damn fool GOP plutocrats to squabbling with those scary TEA Party upstarts.
Shazam! The words, “Financial Crisis,” flashed across the sky! It was confirmation written in the stars to follow the Revealed Wisdom of the High Priests of Wall Street. Those gilded keepers of the Rules of Acquisition had all chanted the magic rituals which would save the world as Teh One had foreseen it from certain insolvency.
His Highness, our benevolent Master, The King of Pennsylvania Avenue will get what he wants, chapter and verse, or he vows to turn his back, queer the deal, and leave poor ol’ Uncle Sam along with all those senior citizens dependant on Social Security checks naked and penniless to be picked clean by the yellow hoard of Chinese Vultures circling menacing just overhead.
The Watchdogs of Democracy feed from the hand of the Tyrant. His Union Thugs chomp at the bit anticipating their marching orders. His pinata GOP dancing partners practice their public swoon, and the beloved country chokes on the mendacity of their elected overlords.
Big government lies and deliberate deceptions, great and small, now flourish in the land of our fathers. America’s future has been measured out in backbreaking taxes and impossible debts. While there are still brave men among us, our nation’s freedom has been mortgaged to pay for frauds, freeloaders, and false promises. Caveat emptor!
ropelight (225e95) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:45 amThis is about doing away with Social Security and Medicare.
And nothing else.
That is a lie and you are a liar.
Can you imagine how insane the leftists would be if we were actually cutting something other than defense?
JD (318f81) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:48 amJD, he left out the coup by homophobic reich wingerz. He should stick to show tunes and victimhood.
Simon Jester (1bcb31) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:56 amIt rubs the lotion
ColonelHaiku (9039f6) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:57 amon its skin or else it gets
the hose again, david
I tip my hat, Colonel. Nicely done.
Simon Jester (1bcb31) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:25 amEhrenstein Monster no like fire of truth. Rawr! Rawr! I kill all right-wing villagers. Raaaaawwrr!!!
Icy Texan (ee8942) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:28 amEhrenstein is being paid off by Soros.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:32 amobligatory ‘rearranging the deck chairs as ship sinks’ reference
Jones (e1609c) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:38 amIdiot alert!
Icy Texan (ee8942) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:47 amAh, that’s funny. Troll Boy meant to write “ill-gotten tax cuts,” and instead made the Self Revealing Trollish Freudian Slip hit parade. Right up there with “I work here is done.”
Wait a sec. You don’t suppose?
Simon Jester (1bcb31) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:49 amI know I haven’t seen it but surely one of our cable news channels and/or alphabet talking heads has reported the absurdity of ‘scoring’ spending cuts against fictious future spending that will ultimately be decided by future Congresses.
And yet still it was a difficult negotiation for the parties. I feel like such a sucker for following it anyway.
I also hope the Democrats are right about the answer to America’s problems: eliminate the Republicans, the source of all of our problems. That seems like an easy, no cost fix where the Republicans are selling austerity to save the currency. I know which one makes a better movie.
East Bay Jay (19f566) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:01 amhttp://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-government-revenues
The idea that tax cuts caused decreased revenues is a myth. A lie. Not based in reality.
Sparty – are you too embarrassed to tell us all of the names you have commented under?
JD (318f81) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:03 amEast Bay – if they go this insane over reductions in the rate of growth, can you imagine what they would have been like if we had real cuts to federal spending?
JD (318f81) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:04 amThey should pass the 2006 and 2008 (pre-“stimulus”) budgets and send to the Senate.
JD (318f81) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:06 amOpps… Government overestimated GDP during the “last recession” by 33%–New graphs.
Take a look at the graphs. Note that 2007 is the first year of the Democratic Congress (that Sen Obama was a member of).
Dem congress + Dem president = Hilarity (not)
BfC (2ebea6) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:12 amOpps… Government overestimated GDP during the “last recession” by 33%–New graphs= [www.theatlantic.com].
Dem congress + Dem president = Hilarity (not)
BfC (2ebea6) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:14 amI remember in the 80s how Federal government organizations would howl and say that their budget was cut because it was only raised 10% instead of the 15% increase they had requested. Are these true cuts or just less of an increase? Will “future” cuts really be enacted or will Congress just change the rules?
Remember that to freeze spending would “cut” the baseline budget by $900 billion per year or $9 trillion for ten years. Every time these clowns mention cuts, remember that.
Mike K (8f3f19) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:15 amUnless there are actual cuts in spending – not reductions in the rate of growth – this is bat guano. The Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. I don’t expect anything more from the Dems, lead by Pelosi (D-Botox), and Reid (D-Cowboy Poetry)
Horatio (55069c) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:15 amman that Gene Sperling
ColonelHaiku (9039f6) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:18 amjust wind him up and he can
lie for days and days
Another commission. More promises about spending cuts “over ten years”, which is always a lie; the current congress cannot bind future congresses.
The GOP caved. Again.
Dianna (f12db5) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:18 amHere are the updated graphs (perhaps this link will not be lost in moderation).
BfC (2ebea6) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:21 amIt’s not a lie and I’m not a liar.
One sings showtunes. And when it comes to “victimhood” that’s your balliwick.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:21 amAnother sorosbot accusing others of playing the victimhood.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:25 amExactly. If I were a member of Congress my bottom line would be to insist that the next year’s spending must be at least $1 less than the last year’s.
And that is a compromise position; if the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, then such a bill would be completely unacceptable, but given the reality that the Ds control the Senate and the White House it will do. Anything less than that is spitting in the taxpayers’ faces and then sending them a bill for washing them.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:27 amIf it is true, you should be able to prove it. You assoull, your burden of proof. It would be easier to just admit you made that up, but yu and yes get your jollies making shlt up.
JD (318f81) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:28 amCan you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments if the House passed the 2006 budget, or the 2008 budget, prior to the “stimulus”?
JD (318f81) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:32 amHey David Ehrenstein, where is that SSI “lock box” of yours? SSI has already been killed (actually from day one in 1934). Zombie time… Just another income tax that is laid on the “poor”.
BfC (2ebea6) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:34 amHere is a plan introduced by Connie Mack and Mike Enzi referred to as “The Penny Plan”
The Plan balances the budget by:
– Cutting total federal spending by one percent each year for six consecutive years,
– Setting an overall spending cap of 18 percent of gross domestic product in 2018, and
– Reducing overall spending by $7.5 trillion over 10 years.
If Congress and the President are unable to make the necessary cuts, the bill’s fail-safe triggers automatic, across-the-board cuts to ensure the one percent reductions are achieved.
Horatio (55069c) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:36 amJD
Not a criticism but ou could also just link the Federal historical tables – the only time revenues went down is in the aftermath of 9/11 and they quickly recovered
But the historical tables do show the true facts and also index them to growth in GDP which is another facet of the benefits of tax cuts is that people go out and buy stuff
Yeah in america people – if they had more money – might actually buy stuff
Do you remember the Democrats complaining that giving tax cuts back in Reagans and Bush II days was going to lead to the hoarding of cash which would make interest rates rise
eh, I wonder how’s that logic looking now….
EricPWJohnson (719277) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:44 amAh so poverty is a myth too. Lovely alternate universe you live in.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:46 amDavid E appears to get his jollies by buttering strawmen.
JD (318f81) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:48 amOr buggering. Damn spellcheck.
JD (318f81) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:49 am“The rich” in quotes? Well how would you describe the top 2 percent? The Worthy ?
Why are “the rich” defined as just the top 2%, and what mathematical methodology did you use to determine that was the case?
Another Chris (c983db) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:57 amYour definition of Poverty is when someone doesn’t get what they want.
So yes it is a myth.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:04 amyour anagrams are
ColonelHaiku (9039f6) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:12 amshowing David tame the beast
with some fava beans
JD #70. He does that too.
Simon Jester (1bcb31) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:12 amSSI is a racist tax. Hits the poor more than the rich. Black males live an average of 66 years so hardly collect. Whites live around 75 years.
Redistribution from the poor and minority to the rich.
Racist, David.
BfC (758d8a) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:13 amTwice on the floor of the Senate recently, Alabama’s conservative Senator Jeff Sessions has articulated the Republicans’ concerns and positions on these issues splendidly and much better than anyone else has been able to do.
But he might as well be a voice crying in the wilderness, because, including even conservatives, everybody in Congress and in the MSM is ignoring him, leading me to believe that he is the only politician who is serious about rectifying this situation, and everybody else is just playing some kind of wild ‘n crazy game.
It’s madness, absolute madness!
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:14 amhis last Tango in
ColonelHaiku (9039f6) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:17 amParis with strawman he not
believe ain’t butter
David love to throw
ColonelHaiku (9039f6) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:21 amon top hat and tails and belt
out Broadway show-tunes?
From Karl’s Jonathan Karl link:
Anyone who agrees to the first paragraph doesn’t want Medicare to survive, because Medicare won’t last long if cuts affect only providers and not beneficiaries. The last paragraph would also lose my vote.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:23 amDavid Ehrenstein is a Dingus.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:36 amDRJ
This deal is DOA as well
Its going to be interesting how this conversation debate in washington affects those who are not on welfare, medicaid/care and social security
Which is the vast numbwe of voters
the more exposure that these programs have vost them jobs and salary the more people are going to be moving towards vutting these programs – if not dare we say – eliminate them
which would be a good thing
I remember the doom and gloom when some airlines and oil companies got rid of their pensions a few years back – the end was near
not a peep and no problem with a stroke of a pen whoosh they were gone
time for a whoosh
EricPWJohnson (719277) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:38 am#82 – Your opinions are almost as irresponsible as Nancy Pelosi’s incredibly irresponsible assertion that there isn’t any financial crisis; an ostrich-sticking-its-head-in-the-sand approach to addressing these issues, imo, further evidence, incidentally, that Nancy Pelosi isn’t just insane; she is certifiable. Truly.
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:48 amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZEcSgGKfQg
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:54 amOr if you prefer —
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UJ6g2Zhwgg
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:57 amCould someone please enlighten me as to why I’m being called a racist?
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:58 amYes, Ehrenstein, it is a lie and you are a liar.
More to the point, you even know it. You just think its amusing to make these ridiculous claims because it makes you feel superior to your political opponents based on nothing but your own fantasies about what they supposedly intend to do.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:09 am==Medicare won’t last long if cuts affect only providers and not beneficiaries.==
You are so right, DRJ. There will simply no longer be providers. AARP is one of the few places which (if they had any principles, and if they were really about the mission they pretend to be) could help to get the truth out to the American people about Medicare and SS’s instability and survivability issues short term as well as long term–and why changes must be made. Yet they are among the very worst of all corrupt and greedy lying lobbying organizations that are more of a problem than the solution. Gawd, I hate AARP.
elissa (b56bbb) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:16 amBTW, I’m giving the benefit of the doubt to Nancy Pelosi by saying that she is taking an ostrich-with-its-head-in-the-sand approach to rectifying this debt crisis.
Her history shows that there is a much greater likelihood that she is a liar, who is trying to conceal and to deflect attention away from the fact that the blame for this debt crisis, for our tanked economy, for high inflation and for high employment now falls squarely on her shoulders and on the shoulders of other extremely irresponsible Democrats in Congress. Blaming Bush ain’t working anymore, and that immoral opportunist knows it.
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:16 amSteven Den Beste sums it up.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:18 am* $2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years and the remainder determined by a so-called super committee.
This is around 17-18% of the projected deficit over 10 years, going by the August 2011 figures.
The deficit for August 2011 is somewhere around $135 billion x 12 = $1.62 trillion for the year.
The rationale for this is that the real cuts would have to be in entitlements. But there’s no agreement on anything to do with that.
Well, it’s maybe more than 1/5 or 1/6 of the deficit if the economy grows. On the other hand, if it doesn’t grow it’s worse.
This bill substitutes for budget resolutions so that avoids any necessity to adjust for changes the CBO can be expected to make.
Of that say, 18% of the deficit that the bill cuts, about 1/3 is written into the bill and the rest to either determined later or set according to a formula that included entitlements..
* The Super Committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by Thanksgiving.
* The Super Committee would have to propose $1.8 trillion spending cuts to achieve that amount of deficit reduction over 10 years.
$1.8 trillion over 10 years is $180 billion a year or around $15 billion a month.
* If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification. If that doesn’t happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.
Reverse the order. If the super Committee fails across the board sending cuts go into effect unless a balanced budget amendment is sent to te states.
Of course Congress *could* send out an amendment. Can you call just anything a balanced budget amendment? Will my amendment qualify? The only thing is I won’t call it a balanced budget amendment, but with a few tweaks maybe you could justify the title.
In any case, it doesn’t have to be practical,
it might be very wrong, it might easily be worked around, it might say nothing, and it never would be ratified, especially if passage is in any way extorted and many of the the people who vote for it are not really for it.
* No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee’s deliberations.
Now here when Obama talks about loopholes, Republicans counter with tax reform, by which they mostly mean lower maximum tax rates, but that’s one thing Democrats always demagogue on.
In any case the Republican position is now – not no new taxes, but no higher percentage of GDP taken out of the economy in federal taxes.
Sammy Finkelman (d3de3a) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:19 amObama and his accomplices in the Democrat Congress cut Medicare 500 Billion dollars without a single GOP vote, and on Christmas Eve no less, or has that now become a bit of an inconvenient fact and thus relegated to the memory hole?
ropelight (225e95) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:23 amAnd that’s what makes me a racist?
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:25 amDavid, why are linking to clearly racist cartoons?
BfC (2ebea6) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:28 am“Clear” to whom?
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:28 amAnyone who calls the president Barcky the Magic Negro is objectively a racist.
JD (d48c3b) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:32 amClear to EBay and their customers (see link).
Anyway:
Social Security: Racism Disguised As Compassion?
Defenders of the current Social Security system implicitly assume that the working poor — who are more often than not racial minorities — will not or cannot take care of themselves. That, say advocates of Social Security privatization, is racism disguised as compassion.
Certainly the system does everything possible to assure low-income earners end up being wards of the Nanny State when they retire — if they live that long.
Reformers cite the case of a hypothetical 35-year-old black man named Joe, who earns $20,000 a year.
By law, Joe must pay 12.4 percent of his earnings — or $2,480 a year — into Social Security.
That’s a big chunk of his earnings, which makes it virtually impossible for him to save any additional money for retirement.
Moreover, as a low-income black male, Joe’s life expectancy is roughly 65 — meaning that he will probably die two years short of the time he might expect the government to start giving him some of his money back in the form of a monthly Social Security check amounting to roughly $1,200.
According to Cato Institute figures, had Joe been allowed to invest that $2,480 a year in low-risk investments, he would collect a payout of $2,400 monthly — twice what Social Security promises to pay.
Perhaps cruelest of all, Joe’s family and heirs won’t collect that money he was forced to pay into the system — or the interest on it. But under a privatized system, they would collect a tidy sum.
The current scheme goes a long way to explain the wealth gap between whites and non-whites.
Source: Star Parker (Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education), “Subtle Racism: Social Security Deprives Blacks of Real Nest Egg,” Investor’s Business Daily, August 11, 2000.
BfC (2ebea6) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:33 amGuess who once opposed raising the debt ceiling?
Now, some people claim that Boehner and Cantor had supported raising the debt ceiling then. I will not write anything about the veracity of that claim.
But if A is less than B, there is a clear qualitative difference between supporting raising the debt ceiling to A in the past but not to B today, and supporting raising the debt ceiling to B today but not A in the past.
Get it? Got it? Good.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:35 amEliminate Obamacare, and right off the bat we would cut what; about two trillion dollars off of the debt?
Now, that’s serious money, not nickels and dimes with a million here and a billion there.
I continue to be incredulous that, at the outset of one of the worst recessions ever, Democrats were irresponsible enough and sleazy enough to make it even worse by ramming through Obamacare. They are the party of neurotic, chronic screw-ups.
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:41 amTake the “stimulus” out of the baseline for the budget and $800,000,000,000+ could be cut annually. And that does not even count the automatic annual increases.
JD (85b089) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:46 am“Barcky”?
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:51 amAs always, cuts are put off until tomorrow, a blue ribbon bipartisan commission, or the 2nd Coming.What f____ing crap.And of course President Happytalk Bullshit Socialist Voting Present gets to keep the campaign going without interruption. This is a f___ing joke.
Wea re getting downgraded no matter what because of the level of debt.Mighht as well vote “NO” and force the issue on the do nothing hacks of both parties.
Bugg (ea1809) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:57 ambarcky was a wee little man a wee little man was he
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:57 amAs Mr. Feets so eloquently points out, barky=a diminutive word play on Barack’s name. Get it now, David? Not racist and quite a bit less insulting to the president than, say, Bushitler, no?
elissa (b56bbb) — 7/31/2011 @ 11:29 amThat “Magic Negro” thingy was contrived by the ditziest of ditzy liberals, imo.
It wasn’t “white guilt” that got Obama elected, imo. It was the ditzy idea by ditzy people that it would be cool to have our first black president, for which we can thank pop culture, which asserts that black people are cooler than white people are, you know, like the equally nonsensical assertion that “white boys can’t jump”. all to make blacks feel better about themselves taken to the extreme to justify affirmative action, imo.
What it really says is that white liberals are so neurotic that they are retarded, and their view of the forest is blocked by the trees. They are that dense, that shallow, that ditzy and that clueless. imho.
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/31/2011 @ 11:39 amElissa – don’t forget Chimpy McHitler$urton
JD (822109) — 7/31/2011 @ 11:40 am“This is about doing away with Social Security and Medicare.”
That would be a great idea, but it’s total baloney.
I would move to end those programs (phasing them out a bit at a time, so that no one gets dinged too badly), but the Republicans won’t.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 11:43 amFrom a cmment on the New York Times web site:
Harry Reid could have raised the debt ceiling last December with an all Democrat House and Senate but chose not to.
Why?
“I want the Republicans to have some buy-in on the debt,” he said. “They’re going to have a majority in the House. I think they should have some kind of a buy-in on the debt. I don’t think it should be when we have a heavily Democratic Senate, a heavily Democratic House and a Democratic president.”
A Google search reveals this is something written in the last few days and is all over the blogosphere, The original source was maybe talkingpointsmemo last December
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/why-didnt-democrats-raise-the-debt-ceiling-last-december/
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/harry-reid-signals-willingness-to-rumble-over-debt-ceiling-1.php
“Briefing reporters yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he’s glad the debt ceiling was left out of this tax package. And he was unusually blunt about why.
“That’s something that we talked about,” Reid said. “My personal feeling is that I’m not sure — and a lot of my caucus doesn’t agree on this — but I think it may be better to do the debt ceiling, raise it next year rather than now.”
Why?
“I want the Republicans to have some buy-in on the debt,” he said. “They’re going to have a majority in the House. I think they should have some kind of a buy-in on the debt. I don’t think it should be when we have a heavily Democratic Senate, a heavily Democratic House and a Democratic president.”
The tax cut bill was probably the only vehicle by which Dems could have averted a filibuster and raised the debt ceiling this year. That ship has sailed, so now the question is whether Democrats will let Republicans set the terms of the debt ceiling debate next year. Republicans have been very clear that they’ll try to use the threat of a default to force spending cuts. Reid seems awfully eager call soon-to-be Speaker John Boehner’s bluff and watch him squirm.”
Sammy Finkelman (d3de3a) — 7/31/2011 @ 11:54 amEhrenstein he no
Haiku-on-a-stick (ee8942) — 7/31/2011 @ 11:54 amracist; eats diff’rent shades of
hot dogs, loves them all
And, David, I was calling the SSI Program Racist (see the “,” comma)… The fact that you apparently support racist government programs, entertainment/mass media, and the party of Jim Crow laws–You do the math.
BfC (2ebea6) — 7/31/2011 @ 11:54 am“Could someone please enlighten me as to why I’m being called a racist?”
Standard all-purpose insult which translates roughly as “You’re a big poo-poo head, and I hate you”.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 12:07 pmActually, I would like to see the payments for Social Security and Medicare increased for most recipients, not decreased, and I don’t even qualify for either one of them.
To which I would like to add a caveat. I don’t think that elderly illegal aliens and elderly felons released from prisons should receive Social Security or Medicare ….. and certainly not monthly pension checks, too, to supplement their monthly Social Security checks like they get now, thanks to Democrats in Congress. That is outrageous. If they didn’t pay into the system, why the hell should they receive benefits? Let those deadbeats, freeloaders, criminals and parasites die, and good riddens. They are worthless. They have been a burden on the rest of us. They contribute nothing. They just steal, steal, steal for themselves.
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/31/2011 @ 12:09 pmYou’re so DEEP Surls.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2011 @ 12:24 pmWell, I’m deeper than you are Ehrenstein, but even someone as callow as yourself ought to be able to see that caling some “racist” nowadays has about as much meaning as calling someone an “asshole”.
It’s especialy amusing when members of, or supporters of, the Slaveowner-o-crat Party employ the term, but I doubt if you’re deep enough to appreciate the irony.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 12:46 pmOnce upon a time there was a bad little racism… even compared to the other nasty racisms he was a particularly mean little racism and also he was oppressive.
One day the little racism woke up ready to oppress and slur and such and it hit him with the force of epiphany. “I’m bored,” he said.
So the little racism went to Best Buy and bought an Xbox.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/31/2011 @ 1:05 pmspitzer and maher
ColonelHaiku (38526a) — 7/31/2011 @ 1:27 pmhas there evah been two more
worthless spinmeisters?
must say in contest
elissa (b56bbb) — 7/31/2011 @ 1:38 pmamong evil spinmeisters
maher stands alone
contest between two
ColonelHaiku (38526a) — 7/31/2011 @ 1:42 pmlounge lizards should be held at
the playboy mansion
Be sure to inform your pal Andrew Breitbart about that. He says calling someone a racist is the owrst thing anyone can possibly do.
What got Obama elected was the apparently mistake notion that he was a Democrat.
Tell it to Michelle Bachman.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2011 @ 2:13 pmDavid
Explain what connection Michelle has to the issue of slavery compared to Robert Byrd
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 7/31/2011 @ 2:20 pmMichelle declared that the Founding Fathers ended slavery. Consequently Robert Byrd wasn’t lynched.
She has also decalred that gayness is slavery. Therefore I must have lynched Robert Byrd.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2011 @ 2:23 pm“Be sure to inform your pal Andrew Breitbart about that. He says calling someone a racist is the owrst thing anyone can possibly do.”
I’ve never even spoken with Andrew, so he scarcely qualifies as a pal.
He might say that, for all I know, but I don’t think so.
You can call me a racist ’til your blue in the face, and it isn’t going to cause me any harm whatsover.
So, feel free, if it amuses you to do so.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 2:26 pmDavid,
where did Michelle “declare” that the founding fathers ended slavery?
What does robert Byrds active participation in the Klan leadership have to do with Michelle’s correct assessment of the path that ended slavery that was rooted in bot the declaration and the constitution – (hint a book is coming out that he was in the Klan until his death)
byrd was an active klan member, Bachmann just answered a question
Maybe there is a difference
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 7/31/2011 @ 2:27 pm“Tell it to Michelle Bachman.”
I don’t know Michelle, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she also appreciated the irony of Democrats constantly moaning about racism, considering the track record of their organization.
As I said, expecting you to appreciate the irony is a bit much, considering your limited intellectual capacity. However, I’ve noticed that even the densest individuals can sometimes be reached through rote learning techniques, so perhaps you might get it, if only you hear it a few million times.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 2:31 pm“Michelle declared that the Founding Fathers ended slavery.”
Some of them did, at least in certain areas of the country. For example:
“The first U.S. region entirely free of slavery was the Midwest, which was ordained free under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, passed just before the U.S. Constitution was ratified.”–wiki
Just not the founders in the southern states.
But, what’s that have to do with the subject at hand?
I say: “It’s especialy amusing when members of, or supporters of, the Slaveowner-o-crat Party employ the term, but I doubt if you’re deep enough to appreciate the irony.”
You say: “Tell it to Michelle Bachman.”
Which is total nonsense. It doesn’t address my point at all.
About what I expect from lefties, who are rarely capable of formulating a rational argument.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 2:48 pmDave
I think he ran away after he brought a Klansman to a who’s a racist fight
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 7/31/2011 @ 2:54 pmNo, she didn’t. That’s an outright lie by DE. And what it’s got to do with the late Senator-Klansman, I don’t know.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 3:20 pm_____________________________________________
It was the ditzy idea by ditzy people that it would be cool to have our first black president,
But a black president who was certifiably, assuredly of the left, if not even an ultra-liberal. If Obama instead had the ideology of, say, Herman Cain or perhaps even Colin Powell, a lot of the enthusiasm for the idea of electing the “first black president” would have come crashing to the ground.
I don’t think I’m being too sarcastic when I say that if the guy now in the White House were a conservative, but one who happened to be black, a variety of liberals would be pining for the day of Jim Crow.
I don’t think I’m being too flip when I muse that if black America were 90-plus percent moderate to rightwing instead of 90-plus percent leftwing (and blindly, mindlessly loyal to Democrat politicians), that a lot of liberals (of all races and ethnicities), when hearing blatantly racist remarks directed at a black president who was a Republican, or blacks in general, would look up, look down, look all around, shrug their shoulders, whistle a little happy tune, and then think of some other minority group or cause that would activate their ideological impulses.
Mark (411533) — 7/31/2011 @ 3:24 pmHere you go, Milhouse
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2011 @ 3:27 pmNo. Just Eddie Cantor
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2011 @ 3:29 pmWhere am I, DE? Nothing at that link supports your lie. And I still don’t understand what the Klansman from WV has to do with it.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 3:30 pmEhrenstein tells himself these fantasies to make himself feel better about the fact that he’s just a bile-filled and hate-filled person.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 4:01 pmThe Founding Fathers may not have abolished slavery but they laid the groundwork in the Declaration of Independence by saying all men are created equal. In addition, prior to the Convention in 1787, many “Founding Fathers” expressed opinions that condemned slavery.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 4:15 pmDRJ, Mrs Bachmann did not claim that they did abolish slavery. This is merely Eherenstein’s lie.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 4:16 pmMore about Michelle and slavery
All “lies” in your view I’m sure.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2011 @ 4:21 pmSLAVES WERE NOT CONSIDERED MEN, MORON! THEY WERE REGARDED AS LIVESTOCK!!!!
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2011 @ 4:23 pmNo, just irrelevant, to your lie or to anything else. A non-issue, manufactured out of thin air.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 4:27 pmMore lies. In no state and at no time were slaves considered nonhuman. In no state and at no time was a person entitled to slaughter his slaves, for instance.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 4:28 pmYour rank ignorance makes me want to vomit.
Racist trash the lot of you! Go suck Marcus bachmann’s dick.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2011 @ 4:33 pmI don’t think I’m a moron, David. I understand the law said slaves were considered property. But that doesn’t mean all the Founding Fathers and their successors thought they were property:
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 4:35 pmEhrenstein shows more of his best side. The sputtering, bile-filled, fantasy-filled rants where he tells the world what he thinks of anyone who dares, dares!, disagree with him.
Class act, David.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 4:39 pmEhrenstein can’t defend his lies, so he calls in sick.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 4:40 pmDRJ, your excerpt did not mention that Alexander Hamilton founded the New York city abolitionist society.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 4:40 pmI would add that it was the American Indian who was considered less than human and were most certainly fair game for slaughter.
Francis Jennings remarked that even George Washington had this take on the native,
Indians have “nothing human except the shape,” Washington wrote: “…the gradual extension of our settlements will as certainly cause the savage, as the wolf, to retire; both being beasts of prey, tho’ they differ in shape.”
And noted Harvard physician Oliver Wendell Holmes upon his return to America, observed in 1855,
Indians were nothing more than a “half-filled outline of humanity” whose “extermination” was the necessary “solution of the problem of his relation to the white race.” Describing native peoples as “a sketch in red crayons of a rudimental manhood,” he added that it was only natural for the white man to “hate” the Indian and to “hunt him down like the wild beasts of the forest, and so the red-crayon sketch is rubbed out, and the canvas is ready for a picture of manhood a little more like God’s own image.”
Dana (4eca6e) — 7/31/2011 @ 4:42 pmDavid E.is awfully homophobic too.
BfC (2ebea6) — 7/31/2011 @ 4:46 pmIt’s hard to understand why David E. believes that calling people he does not know “racist trash” helps anything he is trying to say. David does not know the race or the combination of races of people who comment here. David does not know who and how many here have spouses or significant others of another race. David does not know who among the commenters has adopted or is raising a bi-racial child or a child of another race. David’s ugliness at comment # 139 makes any other comment he ever again makes on this site totally unworthy of consideration.
elissa (b56bbb) — 7/31/2011 @ 4:54 pmAaaaaaannnddd…David Ehrenstein does it again. Like he always does, like clockwork.
Funny part is, he believes he is well educated and classy. And I find it doubly ironic he is so concerned with perceived slights, but…um…does not cover himself in glory as a role model for what he claims to believe.
Simon Jester (6db222) — 7/31/2011 @ 4:56 pmOh, Elissa, I can see you don’t know DE. He is the arbiter of class, fairness, and all else. You are supposed to be all impressed he is black, Jewish, and gay. A trifecta of invulnerability from hypocrisy.
Same as it ever was.
Simon Jester (6db222) — 7/31/2011 @ 4:59 pmEhrenstein is kind of excitable at times.
Ag80 (9a213d) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:01 pmThen he should wear a diaper.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:02 pmSPQR,
Good point. It appears John Jay founded (and was the first President of, in 1785) the Manumission Society of New York, with prominent leaders like Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. In addition, in 1777, Jay sought to abolish slavery in the New York Constitution.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:03 pmBut Simon,
I didnt understand his reasoning to bring in a Klansman when all Michelle did was to state the obvious
Where this outrage when she was decrying slaver came from I dont know why are trying to make something out of nothing
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:06 pmslavery is a failed policy of the past
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:06 pmDana, I don’t believe there was ever a time in the history of the USA when the wanton killing of an Indian was not regarded as murder. Washington’s description was specifically of the Ohio Indians who were at war with the USA, and fought savagely, without regard for the laws of war that the white men had invented.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:06 pmThe bottom line is that Bachmann was correct when she said that the founders had worked tirelessly to abolish slavery. That she claimed they had abolished it is Ehrenstein’s own invention.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:08 pmHe’s an anti-Semite too…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:21 pmOnce you get to know him, you’ll see that it is because he’s a worthless pile of sh*t…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:23 pmPlease excuse David from further participation. He’s come down with a case of the vapors and can’t hold his head up, much less show his face in public.
David's Mama (225e95) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:26 pmmilhouse,
And yet the Congress of the Confederate states passed a law declaring extermination to all hostile Indians resulting in not murder, per se; I guess we can refer to instead, as a perceived justified extermination.
“You will therefore use all means to persuade the Apaches or any tribe to come in for the purpose of making peace, and when you get them together kill all the grown Indians and take the children prisoner and sell them to defray the expense of killing the Indians. Buy whiskey….for the Indians and I will order vouchers given to recover the amount expended. Have a sufficient number of men around to allow no Indian to escape….I look to you for success against these cursed pests.”
John R. Baylor, Confederate governor of Arizona, order to Capt. Helms, commander of the Arizona Guards, March 1862
If the savage resists civilization, with the Ten Commandments in one hand and the sword in the other, demand his immediate execution.
Andrew Johnson, message to Congress, 1867
Dana (4eca6e) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:30 pmOh fu@k. Barry’s getting ready to speak to the nation again.
elissa (b56bbb) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:34 pmThere goes the Market…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:35 pmScott
But he was mocking Michelle for decrying racism and saying how we as a country (who sacrificed severa hundred thoussand to free the slaves) worked so hard to get rid of slavery
So this guy – threw a known racist who even at 90 years old was using the n word on the floor of the Senate as some kind of wierd counter weight of morality
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:36 pm“Racist trash the lot of you!”
LOL.
Proves my earlier point. Nowadays, calling someone you don’t agree with a racist usually means “I hate you. You suck!”.
And, that’s pretty much all it means.
What it used to mean was that you BELIEVED that people could be divided into groups that had various inherited traits (like loving watermelon…or whatever) or that you discriminated for or against folks because of their supposed race, irregardless of belief…but, that isn’t what it means any more.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:39 pmOh c’mon, David, lighten up. I can say without any qualifications that I like your comments, and the comments of Spartacus, too. They have a certain je na sais quoi that is so, well, so American. 🙂
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:39 pmelissa,
Hasn’t he exhausted his repertoire, yet? I can’t imagine what’s left to say other than to hurry this up so he can party with abandon.
Dana (4eca6e) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:40 pm“Racist trash the lot of you!”
LOL.
Proves my earlier point. Nowadays, calling someone you don’t agree with a racist usually means “I hate you. You suck!”.
And, that’s pretty much all it means.
What it used to mean was that you BELIEVED that people could be divided into groups that had various inherited traits (like loving watermelon…or whatever) or that you discriminated for or against folks because of their supposed race, irregardless of belief…but, that isn’t what it means any more…not to lefties, anyway.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:41 pmIf ‘je na sais quoi’ is french for foolishness and mendacity, above and beyond the call of duty, then
ian cormac (81c5c2) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:42 pmyes it fits.
Did you not notice that word “hostile”? How can one possibly get from there to imagining that there was something racial about it, and that Indians were not considered human? It was a war, and they were enemies; there was no Geneva Convention, and they did not subscribe to the laws of war that prevailed among European nations.
Milhouse (9ae5a3) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:46 pmHmmm. I seem to be repeating myself even more than I usually do.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:46 pm#167, ian, I recall from HS French that it roughly translates as “I don’t know.”
ropelight (225e95) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:49 pm“Nowadays, calling someone you don’t agree with a racist usually means “I hate you. You suck!”.
You could be right, but I’m more inclined to suspect that calling someone a racist or a hater or an anti-Semite is usually an indication that, in one’s frustration in one’s inability to come up with a valid argument, one resorts to trying to lay a guilt trip on the one with whom one is arguing, hopefully to silence them and to prevail in the argument …, but I could be wrong about that. 🙂
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:49 pm#171
You could be right too. But, if lefties are waiting around for me to feel guilty, because of something they said…they’ll be a long time waiting.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:07 pmIt’s an act of desperation, a concession that they already lost the arguement.
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:12 pmIN our case, Summit, it’s because David is black, jewish, and gay.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:20 pmWhoops, I meant #172, not #171.
Getting old…can’t keep my numbers straight any more. Senility raises it’s ugly head, etc.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:23 pmThe top 2% starts around $150,000. That’s what a pretty good computer programmer or a dentist earns. That’s middle class. When people talk of rich they think of things like yachts, huge mansions, servants etc.
Other than the fact that there’s some obsession with this top 2% in deranged liberal circles why is that “rich”? Why isn’t the top 10% “rich”?
Gerald A (9d78e8) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:00 pmBfC, could you stop using “SSI” when you mean Social Security?
AD-RtR/OS! (996bdd) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:00 pm“SSI” stands for Supplemental Security Income, and is a Federal Welfare Program for those not yet eligible for SocSec – or at least it used to be when my Dad was receiving it after being declared 100% Disabled at an age less than 62 – I have no idea what the eligibility criteria are today, but I wouldn’t doubt that it has turned into a honey-pot.
SocSec is financed (theoritcally) by FICA payroll deductions; SSI comes out of the General Fund, and is administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA).
Very good point.
Environmentalists like to talk about sustainability. Keeping those people alive is not sustainable.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:04 pmIn reading through this post (I’ve been out since 0700), I have noted that one or two of you have accused DE of being a paid Sorosbot.
AD-RtR/OS! (996bdd) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:11 pmI have it on the best of authority that this is not so, that DE has never received one thin dime from George Soros; though it has been said that George does let him kiss his arse.
AD-RtR/OS,
Your correct… I should stop using SSI. Using the wrong term for Social Security/FICA.
BfC (2ebea6) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:13 pmComment by Michael Ejercito — 7/31/2011 @ 8:04 pm
Michael, have you no compassion?
AD-RtR/OS! (996bdd) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:26 pmComment by David Ehrenstein — 7/31/2011 @ 2:23 pm
Michelle declared that the Founding Fathers ended slavery. Consequently Robert Byrd wasn’t lynched.
— Yes, she made a *gasp* mistake. Perhaps she should be lynched.
She has also decalred that gayness is slavery. Therefore I must have lynched Robert Byrd.
Icy Texan (46f530) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:22 pm— Maybe you did, in some kind of auto-asphyxiation fantasy.
No, she didn’t.
Maybe; I still don’t understand what he’s talking about with this one. The Honorable Klansman died of old age, lay in state, and was eulogised extensively and sickeningly.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:11 pmLook here, Milhouse, she said that the Founding Fathers “worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.” I like her, and this is far from important in the grand scheme of things, but what she said was not correct.
Icy Texan (46f530) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:52 pmI think Ms. Bachmann mispoke herself just a tad. If I’m counting right it was 89 years between the founding of the United States and the ratification of the 13th Amendment.
What she should have said is that SOME of the founders of this country were dead set against slavery and they laid the groundwork for getting rid of it entirely.
I think that’s a little more accurate.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 11:06 pmI just listened to her speech, and noticed a few things: first of all, despite the way she’s quoted in hundreds of places, she did not say “founding fathers”. That may be trivial, but accuracy is important for its own sake. What she did say was “the very founders that wrote those documents”. The problem is that, unless it was there and I missed it, or it was in a part of the speech before the clip I watched started, “those documents” had no referent. She didn’t say which documents she meant. As for who is a founder, she later said that she considers John Quincey Adams to be one, because he was personally involved in the founding as his father’s secretary. And he was just one of many founders who did work tirelessly to see slavery ended; that none of the lived to see their goal finally achieved doesn’t negate the work they did to get to that point.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/1/2011 @ 1:27 amIn 1776 JQA was 9 years old. He died in 1848, 15 years before the Emancipation Proclamation. Why is it so important for you to echo her people’s spin? Just admit that she made an error and m
Icy Texan (46f530) — 8/1/2011 @ 11:16 amIn 1776 JQA was 9 years old; it’s questionable how much of a “secretary” he was at that time. He died in 1848, 15 years before the Emancipation Proclamation. Why is it so important for you to echo her people’s spin? Just admit that Bachmann made an error and move on!
Like I said, I like Bachmann. I’ll tell you right now, if she is the GOP nominee (unlikely, but you never know) I WILL vote for her. Just because Larry O’Donnell & Ed Schultz say she’s made the worst gaffes in history doesn’t mean you need to deny, deny, deny.
Icy Texan (46f530) — 8/1/2011 @ 11:24 amI believe that Jr. was his Dad ‘s secretary at the time of the writing of the Constitution in 1787, which would have made him (what?) Twenty!
Remember, there are several significant dates in “The Founding”, starting with the Boston Tea Party, for one, moving through the final ratification of The Bill of Rights.
AD-RtR/OS! (0d8c81) — 8/1/2011 @ 11:32 amDavid Ehrenstein snaps now we need to wait for him to say Hitler didn’t do enough to solve the jewish problem.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/1/2011 @ 11:51 amIf Hitler had met DE, he would have hated the Jews.
AD-RtR/OS! (0d8c81) — 8/1/2011 @ 11:56 amI don’t think Ehrenstein is quite that bad of a self-hating Jew.
On the contrary, he seems eveready to play the race, anti-Semitism or homophobe card.
Just like the leaders of the Democratic party that exploit minority class distinctions like his in exchange for votes.
Icy Texan (46f530) — 8/1/2011 @ 1:24 pmDivide and conquer. Oldest trick in the book, used by the oldest political party still alive.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/1/2011 @ 1:27 pmWhy is 1776 the significant date? The USA wasn’t founded until 1788, by which time JQA was an old hand. His father started using him as a secretary when he was 11, and by 14 he was good enough that he was sent on the diplomatic mission to Russia without his father!
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/1/2011 @ 3:43 pmIf Hitler had met Ehrenstein he would smile at the useful idiot.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/1/2011 @ 4:01 pmComment by Milhouse — 8/1/2011 @ 3:43 pm
Careful, Milhouse, people might come to the conclusion that MB might actually know what she’s talking about, and then what would they kvetch about?
AD-RtR/OS! (0d8c81) — 8/1/2011 @ 4:06 pmLook, she certainly appears to be loose and approximate with facts, which makes me uncomfortable, but most people are like that. I’d have taken the care to say something like “many of the very founders who signed those documents, and their successors”; or else skipped the documents altogether, and just said “many of the founders of the USA”, which from the POV of the 21st century can certainly be understood to include the early 19th century leaders.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/1/2011 @ 4:40 pmCompared to who the Democrats think is qualified to be Vice President, she’s veritable genius.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2011 @ 4:41 pm“My Dog Spot” is a veritable genius compared to Sloe-Joe.
AD-RtR/OS! (0d8c81) — 8/1/2011 @ 4:57 pmBut, he was needed to make the head of the ticket look good.
Having a passing knowledge of humanity’s history and what humanity is capable of, it takes more than mere appeals of humanity to elicit feelings of compassion.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 8/1/2011 @ 5:30 pmLOL @ Drudgereport
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/1/2011 @ 5:39 pmBeinart almost makes it too easy,
While the details of the debt-ceiling deal remain fuzzy, this much is clear: Barack Obama may be president, but the Tea Party is now running Washington. How did this happen? Simple: This is what American politics looks like when there’s no left-wing movement and no war.
ian cormac (81c5c2) — 8/1/2011 @ 5:39 pm