Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/buzzmachine/~3/iKEWCVHCbA0/
The country is resembling the great divides between 2004 and 2008 that broke out over Iraq. This was not supposed to happen, given the fact that Obama once talked about bringing both sides to the table, and that the Iraq war is not as contentious as it once was.
Instead, I think the reason why Obama is proving one of the most polarizing figures in memory is not the usual suspects — the Tea Party, latent racism, the Koch brother conspiracies, etc. — but rather the persona of Obama himself. He has a strange, three-step habit that has the effect of turning off both opponents and his base supporters: (a) the initial audacity-of-hope call for civility, working across the aisle, and bipartisanship in melodic cadences; (b) followed by an unleashing of a Chicago-style assault on his opponents with a wide array of martial imagery (e.g. “hostage takers,” “gun to a knife fight,” “get in their faces,” get “angry,” “kick ass,” etc.), general derision (“moats and alligators,” “back seat,” “punish our enemies”), especially aimed at the affluent (“corporate jet owners,” “millionaires and billionaires,” “those making above $200,000,” “fat-cat,” “at some point” “made enough money,” spread the wealth, redistributive change, unneeded income, etc.). That has the psychological effect of making it nearly impossible for those targeted and caricatured to eventually work out a deal with the president.
Keep reading this post . . .
In New Jersey, where the last Democrat governor (while he was a US Senator) had a girlfriend who just happened to be the head of New Jersey’s largest government union, where the property taxes are the highest in the nation, and where the state faces a $10+ billion budget gap and the real debt may be as high as $176 billion, government union bosses have spent millions of their members’ money fighting the reforms Governor Chris Christie has been pushing.
To his credit, Christie has not backed down from the fight–even going so far as to call the state’s teachers’ union (the New Jersey Education Association) a “political thuggery operation.”
Now, however, government union bosses are banding together to attack Christie by filing a joint lawsuit against the taxpayers State of New Jersey.
According to the Wall Street Journal:
Public workers, rather than Democrats, have been the Republican governor’s greatest foil. He gained national attention after calling on teachers to accept salary freezes and blaming the state’s financial woes on workers’ compensation packages, which he mocked in town-hall-style forums across the state.
Now, most of the state’s public unions are forging a united counterattack.
They plan to file a lawsuit as early as this week challenging the changes, including the elimination of annual pension cost-of-living-increases, union representatives said. The suit would be on behalf of at least 500,000 teachers, firefighters, police officers and other state and local workers.
“It’s being done strategically,” said Bill Lavin, head of the New Jersey Firefighters Mutual Benevolent Association. “The governor has tried?and the [state] Legislature to a lesser degree?to divide and conquer, to separate one from the other. The idea is to find what we have in common versus what separates us and file together.”
Of course, if the unions prevail in their joint assault, it will be the taxpayers of New Jersey that are left footing the bill. But, in New Jersey, that’s nothing new.
[* NOTE: If Democrat Rep. Mike Doyle [PA] and the Vice President Joey Biden have the audacity to�call tea partiers “terrorists,” then turnabout can only be fair play.]
________________
?I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.? Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776
The country is resembling the great divides between 2004 and 2008 that broke out over Iraq. This was not supposed to happen, given the fact that Obama once talked about bringing both sides to the table, and that the Iraq war is not as contentious as it once was.
Instead, I think the reason why Obama is proving one of the most polarizing figures in memory is not the usual suspects — the Tea Party, latent racism, the Koch brother conspiracies, etc. — but rather the persona of Obama himself. He has a strange, three-step habit that has the effect of turning off both opponents and his base supporters: (a) the initial audacity-of-hope call for civility, working across the aisle, and bipartisanship in melodic cadences; (b) followed by an unleashing of a Chicago-style assault on his opponents with a wide array of martial imagery (e.g. “hostage takers,” “gun to a knife fight,” “get in their faces,” get “angry,” “kick ass,” etc.), general derision (“moats and alligators,” “back seat,” “punish our enemies”), especially aimed at the affluent (“corporate jet owners,” “millionaires and billionaires,” “those making above $200,000,” “fat-cat,” “at some point” “made enough money,” spread the wealth, redistributive change, unneeded income, etc.). That has the psychological effect of making it nearly impossible for those targeted and caricatured to eventually work out a deal with the president.
Keep reading this post . . .
Source: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/08/03/286890/nation-exposes-alec-prison-labor/
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/buzzmachine/~3/PhphJfdC9yU/
The United States Government and its presstitute media have wasted time and energy creating hysteria over a non-existent "debt ceiling crisis." After reading the "news" in the Ministry of Propaganda and witnessing the stupidity of the US government, the rest of the world is struck dumbfounded by the immaturity of the "world's only superpower."
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Decline-and-Fall-of-th-by-paul-craig-robert...
wbradleyjr1 Source: http://current.com/community/93374770_the-decline-and-fall-of-the-american-empire.htm?xid=RSSfeed
Source: http://michellemalkin.com/2011/07/29/new-obama-motto-yes-we-spam/
Go on an NR cruise, of course. Get complete information at www.nrcruise.com.
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273465/re-what-do-next-etc-jack-fowler
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/HYt4y2GP8M8/
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/buzzmachine/~3/lcKglyzVPr8/
Because a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) is the only type of budget reform capable of binding future Congresses, it is disappointing that the pending debt ceiling bill does not contain the Boehner bill?s requirement that a BBA be approved by Congress and sent to the states.� However, there is some good news for BBA supporters in the bill (the Budget Control Act of 2011 or BCA).� It contains not just a requirement that both houses of Congress vote on a BBA ? the sole focus of most press reports ? but also an incentive for Congress to approve a BBA.
To understand the incentive, it is necessary to clarify some confusion about the relationship between 1) the bill?s BBA provisions ? providing for a debt limit increase of $1.5 trillion this winter if the BBA is approved by Congress; 2) the spending cuts of up to $1.5 trillion to be recommended by a special Joint Committee ? resulting in a debt limit increase of up to $1.5 trillion if the cuts are approved by Congress; and 3) the $1.2 trillion in across-the board spending cuts triggered automatically if #2 fails ? resulting in a debt limit increase of $1.2 trillion this winter.� Reliable sources on the Hill have confirmed that, while Congressional approval of a BBA is a substitute for the Joint Committee cuts in the sense of enabling the $1.5 trillion debt limit increase, that substitution would not eliminate the automatically triggered cuts.
Some BBA supporters would have preferred that passage of a balanced budget amendment eliminate the triggered cuts, in order to give Democrats the maximum incentive for coming around to support the amendment.� Nonetheless, the BCA was specifically designed to incentivize Congress to choose action ? approved cuts or passage of the BBA ? over the automatic trigger.� Action is preferable because it provides the extra $300 billion in debt limit hikes necessary to see the Administration through the election if the economy and thus revenues continue to falter, and because the trigger contains substantial cuts to cherished programs.
While the vast majority of Congressional Republicans need no incentive to vote for a BBA, most Democrats currently oppose the amendment.�� The hope for BBA supporters is that moderate Democrats can be turned around through a combination of public pressure ? numerous surveys show that a large majority of American support a BBA ? and a preference for wishful thinking ? specifically the hope that the BBA won?t get the required approval of 38 states ? over immediate, hard choices about what cuts to make.
The requirement that constitutional amendments be approved by two-thirds of each house is a steep obstacle, but it?s hardly an insurmountable one.� In 1995, a balanced budget amendment got broad bipartisan support in Congress, breezing to passage in the House by a 300-132 margin and failing in the Senate by just one vote.
Interestingly, a united GOP could, intentionally or not, increase the probability of Democrats opting for a BBA by cutting off the other option for Congressional action ? that is, by blocking approval of the $1.5 trillion in cuts in the Joint Committee or in the House.� Whether the increased odds of BBA passage are worth the loss of the Joint Committee cuts depends on what sort of BBA gets out of Congress.� The BCA does not address the details of a balanced budget amendment.� But I will: a good balanced budget amendment is one that would cap federal spending at about 18% of GDP, require super-majorities in Congress for tax increases, and mandate a balanced budget fairly quickly, say five years after ratification.
The BCA gives supporters of a balanced budget amendment at least two months ? a BBA vote is mandated sometime between this October and December ? to translate broad public support for a BBA into the sort of political momentum that would make it difficult for moderate Democrats to vote against the amendment.� Regrettably, the BBA did not take center stage in this summer?s debt ceiling debate until shortly before the House voted on it as part of the Cut, Cap & Balance bill.� As a result, the momentum-building process for the BBA got a late start.� The time between now and October gives BBA supporters plenty of time to erase the disadvantages of a late start.
In sum, while the BBA provisions in the Budget Control Act fall far short of our legislative ideal ? a requirement for Congressional approval of a BBA with both spending caps and a super-majority requirement for tax increases ? they are better than what?s been described in most press reports and offer some modest hope to BBA supporters.
Finally, I note that while constitutional budget reform is likely the most reliable approach, some permanent quasi-structural reform has already been achieved this summer with the establishment of a new normal for debt ceiling increases.� Until now, the debt ceiling increases that enabled and fueled today?s out-of-control budget deficits were essentially automatic ? devoid of debate and largely unopposed.� I suspect that will never be the case again, thus ensuring a different budget playing field in the years to come.
Cross-posted at the Committee for Justice blog.
Source: http://www.redstate.com/curt_levey/2011/08/01/debt-deal-the-balanced-budget-amendment/
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/buzzmachine/~3/ExoRamw13kg/
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, has spent the better part of this year criticizing his Democratic colleagues for failing to produce a budget, something they shamefully haven’t done in over two years. Well, assuming this final debt deal passes, they’ll be off the hook for another year and a half. The final bill “deems” budget resolutions for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, sparing Democrats the indignity of having to vote on and pass an actual budget. More here.
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273380/deemed-budgets-andrew-stiles
Senator Roy Blunt (R., Mo.) says he’s for the deal, quipping that it may not be “the best possible deal,” but that it’s “the best deal that’s possible.”
He’s not worried that the super-committee will lead to tax increases, both because he doesn’t think the House (where he was once majority whip) would vote for any and because the baseline the committee will be working with will keep them from being able to use tax increases to raise much money. (He cites today’s Wall Street Journal editorial on this point.)
Keep reading this post . . .
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273381/senator-blunt-deal-ramesh-ponnuru
Source: http://michellemalkin.com/2011/08/01/introducing-the-democrat-crappy-meal/
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/Lsrvuugv-8s/
Here’s the deal ? I think we should hold out till after August 3rd because I think August 2nd is an imaginary deadline.
I likewise think the super committee is going to raise taxes ? and raise them in a big way.
Also, I’m convinced the GOP is lying to itself on this plan.
All that said, we’re not going to get a better deal now. The GOP is scared of its own shadow. At least, however, at least . . . at least we may get some real entitlement reform.
Lastly, the tears of the left on this are delicious. For that alone, I want to support this deal. But because of the foregoing reasons, I can’t support this deal. However, it could be worse.
Were I in Congress, I’d vote against it. All that said, I think this is it, so we might as well get used to it. Just keep track of who on the right votes against it. They’ll be the real heroes.
If we get lucky, it goes down and we fight on. Just don’t hold your breath on that one.
And, in a moment of personal honesty, I have a hard time disliking something Emmanuel Cleaver calls a “sugar coated Satan sandwich.” That sounds so delicious.
Source: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/08/01/so-whats-the-deal-with-the-deal/
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has, according to his spokesman, “signed off on the debt-ceiling agreement pending caucus approval.” Reid told reporters earlier that he hoped a vote in the Senate would be possible as early as this evening (A GOP source counters that this is not in the cards). Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) tells reporters that she hasn’t seen all the details of the final proposal, and couldn’t guarantee her support, or the support of her caucus. “We all might not be able to support it, or none of us may be able to support it,” she said.
Clearly, a significant chunk of Pelosi’s caucus is outraged. Progressive Caucus chairman Raul Grijalva (D., Ariz.) said the proposed deal “trades people’s livelihoods for the votes of a few unappeasable right-wing radicals, and I will not support it.” Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver (D., Mo.), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, called it “a sugar-coated Satan sandwich.” The two chairmen have scheduled a joint-press conference on Monday to call on President Obama to raise the debt ceiling by invoking the 14th amendment.
Keep reading this post . . .
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273247/reids-pelosi-hesitant-gop-looking-votes-andrew-stiles
Some very little known facts of great leaders throughout history!
By NASSIR GHAEMI
When times are good and the ship of state only needs to sail straight, mentally healthy people function well as political leaders. But in times of crisis and tumult, those who are mentally abnormal, even ill, become the greatest leaders. We might call this the Inverse Law of Sanity.
Consider Neville Chamberlain. Before the Second World War, he was a highly respected businessman from Birmingham, a popular mayor and an esteemed chancellor of the exchequer. He was charming, sober, smart—sane.
Winston Churchill, by contrast, rose to prominence during the Boer War and the first World War. Temperamental, cranky, talkative, bombastic—he bothered many people. During the "wilderness" years of the 1930s, while the suave Chamberlain got all the plaudits, Churchill's own party rejected him.
When not irritably manic in his temperament, Churchill experienced recurrent severe depressive episodes, during many of which he was suicidal. Even into his later years, he would complain about his "black dog" and avoided ledges and railway platforms, for fear of an impulsive jump. "All it takes is an instant," he said.
People who are chronically a little depressed -- gloomy, grumpy, low energy -- have "dysthymic disorder," a condition with its own risks of job and family problems, as well as episodes of major depression. Melinda Beck has details.
Abraham Lincoln famously had many depressive episodes, once even needing a suicide watch, and was treated for melancholy by physicians. Mental illness has touched even saintly icons like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., both of whom made suicide attempts in adolescence and had at least three severe depressive episodes in adulthood.
Aristotle was the first to point out the link between madness and genius, including not just poets and artists but also political leaders. I would argue that the Inverse Law of Sanity also applies to more ordinary endeavors. In business, for instance, the sanest of CEOs may be just right during prosperous times, allowing the past to predict the future. But during a period of change, a different kind of leader—quirky, odd, even mentally ill—is more likely to see business opportunities that others cannot imagine.
In looking back at historical figures, I do not speculate about their relationships with their mothers or their dark sexual secrets, the usual stuff of "psychohistory." Instead, I base my diagnoses on the most widely accepted sources of psychiatric evidence: symptoms, family history, course of illness, and treatment. How, then, might the leadership of these extraordinary men have been enhanced by mental illness?
An obvious place to start is with depression, which has been shown to encourage traits of both realism and empathy (though not necessarily in the same individual at the same time).
"Normal" nondepressed persons have what psychologists call "positive illusion"—that is, they possess a mildly high self-regard, a slightly inflated sense of how much they control the world around them.
For the rest of the article go to the link provided:
kennymotown Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/buzzmachine/~3/EAkK6VNnu7E/
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/XiELhg-Mwm8/
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/buzzmachine/~3/PhphJfdC9yU/
As I called it. John Boehner now has the votes to pass his plan.
Harry Reid just declared that the only compromise that will pass will be his plan. “The only compromise there is — is mine,” he said.
Harry Reid will take John Boehner’s plan, insert all the Democrats’ demands, and send it back to the House daring the GOP to kill “the Boehner Plan.”
The Democrats will line up to vote for it.
It will pass.
I do believe someone predicted this would happen.
Congrats, House Conservatives.
During his press conference with Mitch McConnell a few minutes ago, John Boehner said, as Andrew has noted: “We are going to be able to come to some agreement with the White House and end this impasse.
He also said that: “We are dealing with reasonable, responsible people who want this crisis to end as quickly as possible and I think we will.”
Keep reading this post . . .
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273204/age-reason-washington-kathryn-jean-lopez
Entitlement?
I PAID cash for my Social Security insurance! Our benefits aren't some kind of charity or handout!
Congressional benefits--premium federal health care, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days--now THAT'S welfare!
And they have the nerve to call my retirement an entitlement!
letsliveinpeace Source: http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/30/283759/there-will-be-no-recovery/
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/buzzmachine/~3/iNGlBhFJjSA/
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/buzzmachine/~3/EAkK6VNnu7E/
The House is expected to vote between 6:05 and 6:10 on the redesigned Boehner plan. We’re hearing there will still be between 10-20 Republican “no” votes.
House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) just wrapped up a rare floor speech urging passage of the plan. “I stuck my neck out a mile to try to get an agreement with the president of the United States” to no avail, Boehner said to a smattering of boos from Democrats. His remarks that reached a fiery crescendo when he condemned the White House for refusing to put a plan on paper. “Put something on the table! Tell us where you are!”
Keep reading this post . . .
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273160/vote-looms-daniel-foster
With Boehner getting more affirmatives on a new plan that will have a Balanced Budget Amendment component, outside groups start with their tentative early endorsements. Here is the Club for Growth, an early naysayer on the Boehner plan:
“The Club for Growth has long supported a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution as a condition for solving our debt crisis. We strongly believe that a Balanced Budget Amendment is the piece of the puzzle that puts us on a path to fiscal responsibility and fundamentally reforms our broken budget process. If this new bill accomplishes that goal then the Club for Growth will withdraw its opposition to the Boehner plan and will not key vote against it,” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola.
Keep reading this post . . .
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273093/tentative-endorsement-kathryn-jean-lopez
Here’s my column today on Reagan, Lincoln, and statesmanship.
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273103/speaking-reagan-rich-lowry
The vote may be postponed, but the Boehner plan gets a new endorsement, from new American Conservative Union chairman Al Cardenas:
Under the Obama Administration, we have endured an unprecedented growth of government and federal spending. Now, Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling and raise taxes to pay for failed economic policies. That is reckless, irresponsible and unacceptable.
Keep reading this post . . .
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273025/acu-supports-boehner-plan-kathryn-jean-lopez
Source: http://michellemalkin.com/2011/07/26/the-little-rock-jihadist-gets-a-life-sentence/
It seems like the entire Capitol Hill press corps is camped outside the speaker’s office. Folks are swarming everything, from the shadow of an aide to the scurry of an on-the-fence member.
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273034/mad-house-robert-costa
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/buzzmachine/~3/ExoRamw13kg/
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/C4AEGez20ws/
Source: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/07/27/281371/herman-cain-apologizes-to-muslims/
Source: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/27/281140/surface-infrastructure-costs-trillion/
The Kristol fans want to know how our hand improves if we reject the Boehner plan. First, it is worth pointing out what Bill Kristol noted back at the first part of July:
?It sounds as if it?s heading towards a deal,? Kristol said. ?It?s not a deal that I?m going to like I suspect, and think I it?s going to be a bad deal for conservatives and Republicans but I think they?re intimidated,? Kristol said. ?The president has been running around talking about corporate jets and the rich, and how the sky is going to fall unless Republicans cave. And I think they?re getting ready to cave in a pretty big way on Sunday.?
Basing it on what Republicans leaders have said publicly, Kristol forecast that defense spending cuts, tax increases and other cuts would be dressed up to be more than they really are in the end. And that would lead to a conservative revolt against Republicans.
?So great, we have a Republican House, and they are going to agree to the huge defense cuts, tax increases, phony spending cuts and increased debt,? Kristol said. ?I think there will be a huge rebellion among conservatives in the country if Republicans sign on to this deal.?
That’s pretty much what we’re going to get. And it is going to come in the form of a super committee. If nothing else, holding out for scrapping the super committee to avoid massive tax hikes is a better plan.
I dare say that suddenly Boehner could get more support if he scrapped the super committee now.
But more so, good policy is good politics. This Boehner plan is terrible policy ? made more so by the fact that it is the third GOP plan to no Democrat plans and the GOP is continuing to compromise with itself instead of the Democrats.
Lastly, it is not for these outside groups to govern. It’s for them to say what is and is not conservative ? to point to what the right thing is and let the elected guys decide how far away from true north to drift. When the GOP deviates from conservatism to lock in high growth rates of government, conservatism loses. And that is exactly what the Republicans are doing. Boehner’s plan presumes the size and scope of the federal government will not go back to historic norms ? norms that existed until Barack Obama became President.
Yes, I think the deal will improve. I think the deal will improve even if the only improvement is dropping the super committee. But more so, I think the GOP is being driven by fear and until they overcome that fear they will be in no position to negotiate with the Democrats. Their first step, however, is to stop negotiating with themselves. After all, as Kristol and others are so readily willing to point out ? the GOP only controls one house of one branch of the federal government.
Source: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/07/27/but-how-does-your-hand-improve/
Source: http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/27/281041/america-outgrew-europe-in-the-mid-19th-century/
One of the most remarkable aspects of American Atheists’ lawsuit to remove the World Trade Center Cross from the September 11 Memorial and Museum is their allegation that the Cross has actually made the plaintiffs physically ill:
The plaintiffs, and each of them, have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer damages, both physical and emotional, from the existence of the challenged cross. Named plaintiffs have suffered, inter alia, dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish from the knowledge that they are made to feel officially excluded from the ranks of citizens who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack and the lack of acknowledgement of the more than 1,000 non- Christian individuals who were killed at the World Trade Center.
Keep reading this post . . .
Source: http://michellemalkin.com/2011/07/27/the-creepy-enablers-of-wu/
Two things stand out about the current battle. First, a key player has admitted that we are in a stalemate. Second, the president has issued an empty threat. That is why the United States is now on the verge of a massive downgrade–of its credible deterrent power, that is. In other words, the United States is now mere inches away from losing a war. Not that Obama actually cares that much about “winning” in Libya.
So President Obama’s leadership has now put America’s security and prestige at substantial risk in more ways than one. This applies, by the way, whether you think the intervention in Libya was a good idea in the first place or not. I know we’ve all got other fish to fry right now. Still, the fact that America is just a short step away from actually losing a war seems like it might be worth a moment’s consideration. All of which puts me in mind of a popular riddle: If American power fell in the desert and no-one was around to hear it, would it really have fallen at all? You bet.
Keep reading this post . . .
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272811/headed-massive-downgrade-stanley-kurtz
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/news/gop-senator-debt-ceiling-deal-may-...
WASHINGTON — A Republican senator says there's a real possibility that Congress will fail to agree on how to raise the federal debt ceiling before the nation's borrowing powers expire next week.
Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania says "it's increasingly possible we will not have raised the debt ceiling by Aug. 2."
Toomey is pushing a bill to require the government to first pay interest on its debts, Social Security benefits and military payrolls if that happens. Toomey and other conservatives say there is no need for the nation to default on its debts if the deadline is missed.
Senate Democrats seem unlikely to pass his bill.
Read more: http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/news/gop-senator-debt-ceiling-deal-may-...
****************Holy S**t*********************
GOP Sen. Pat Toomey(Penn) just on TV with a plan to pay piece meal bills, If the debt limit is not resolved by Tues.
This may sound reasonable but the message is we’re getting ready to go into default if we don’t get our way. THINK about this a plan to FAIL!
Why is it that this congress is willing to default on debt? Something that hasn’t before I hear everyone talking about WE need to put aside politics ( in an ideal world yes) and find a way to resolve this now but that’s just what the POTUS did less than a week ago. Why did they change (GOP) their minds once the DEMS made concessions? Until yesterday, I wasn’t too worried thinking ” America is not going to default and risk the catastrophe that would follow if we get a credit downgrade.” now I’m not so confident. The GOP has some real radicals in its ranks—they care more about making the POTUS look bad than about you having food on your table.
jackhole Source: http://current.com/community/93360474_gop-senator-pat-toomy-prepares-to-fail.htm?xid=RSSfeed
Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/26/great-news-downgrade-could-come-as-soon-as-friday/
Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/26/debt-ceiling-remix-dance-on-the-ceiling/
I’m getting beat to hell and back by conservatives for insisting the GOP hold the line on Cut, Cap, and Balance. Even here at RedState, I’m getting accused of “ideological intransigence.” Yeah, here at RedState. There’s a first time for everything.
People want a deal. People want John Boehner’s deal. People are upset with me for not liking John Boehner’s deal. People are telling me, “They only have one house, Erick. You can’t expect them to not compromise. They control nothing.”
I’ve said all along I expect a deal and a compromise. Here’s the problem and I need you to understand this from perspective, whether you agree with me or not.
See, I worked to send people to Washington, DC to solve problems, to make things right, to fix the things that were broken, and to send power back to the states. They are not doing that.
We all saw Democrats go to Washington in 2008 and take the whole thing. They controlled everything and they made everything worse. They passed a stimulus bill that killed or ruined hundreds of thousands of jobs in the private sector while growing the government. They increased dependency on the federal government. And then they passed Obamacare and socialized American healthcare. But it doesn’t fully take effect until 2014. We saw Democrats willing to lose their positions to lurch the nation left.
So we sent to Washington an army of conservatives to Washington to defund Obamacare and stop the White House. And now they’ve gotten there and have refused to fight. They promised and put in writing that they’d cut $100 billion from the federal government budget in 2011 and they ultimately cut only $38 billion. The Congressional Budget Office, when it was done scoring it, said they really were only cutting about $500 million and it would cost more money that it was worth it to actually cut those dollars.
So they said, “But we”ll stand firm on the debt ceiling. We’ll hold the line.” Everybody gave them a pass and said, “Okay, hold the line on the debt ceiling.”
Now here we are the week before the deadline. John Boehner laments they should have done it sooner, but he refused to do it sooner. The Speaker has prevented the Republicans from submitting legislation to ensure we would not default so that he would have leverage over his own members to force them to take a deal. And now they are dealing.What is their deal?
Their deal creates another committee to look at spending ? the 18th in the past 30 years. These 18 committees have never done anything except raise taxes. Their spending cuts are put off a decade and future congresses ignore them.
Boehner’s spending caps are easily waived as they’ll be rules, not laws. And they punt.
A lot of you are emailing and getting on twitter saying to take the deal. Take the compromise. Why should we compromise? That’s what we always do. Even when in the majority we compromise. The Democrats didn’t compromise on healthcare. But you people want to compromise. Republicans, whether in the majority or minority, are always compromising in favor of bigger government and imaginary spending cuts.
To make matters worse, why the hell are the Republicans the ones coming up with the plans if they only control one house of one branch of the federal government? Why are they doing it? We’re on the third damn plan. They aren’t even compromising with the Democrats. They are compromising with themselves.
The Democrats are holding their line. The GOP is splitting conservatives. The Democrats are saying “Raise the debt ceiling. Don’t cut anything.” And Boehner is saying okay and putting in cuts that take affect in year eight of ten so none of them will be around to be held accountable. Why?
The GOP came up with Paul Ryan’s plan. They passed it. They took bullets. The GOP put him in a witness protection program and dropped it like a hot potato.
So then the GOP passed Cut, Cap, and Balance and the Democrats beat them up and again accused the GOP of killing grandma. The leadership was lukewarm to it and never fought for it. And immediately after voting for it, the leadership said, “Now, let’s move on to the third plan.”
Are these all just symbolic votes? If so, I’d rather some substance. This symbolism is getting the GOP killed with nothing to show for it.
Why the hell are we on our third plan when the Democrats haven’t even come up with one plan? They haven’t even passed a budget in over 800 days. We’re in this mess because Harry Reid, in December of 2010, refused the raise the debt ceiling so the GOP could own the problem. The GOP fell into the trap with eyes wide open.
And the Republicans are falling for it yet again.
And now I’m being accused of thinking this is all a game even by long time RedState readers. I do not think this is all a game.
I know the credit rating is going to be downgraded and I don’t want it to happen. You people who want the deal are so worked up in emotion that you are ignoring all the facts. Here are the facts:
1. S&P says we need a deal of at least $4 trillion in cuts to avoid a credit rating drop.
2. Neither Boehner nor Reid get us there.
3. The only plan that gets us there is Cut, Cap, and Balance and the GOP is running away from it as fast as they can. The GOP already passed it and it just four votes shy of a majority in the Senate.
No one wants to fight. “No, we’ve already had that vote. It can’t pass the Senate,” they say.
There will be no default on August 2nd. We know it will not happen. How do we know? Because we have more money coming in each month than is needed to pay principle and interest on our national debt. And we have had multiple prior occasions where we have gone passed the deadline and the world did not suddenly end. It is all political rhetoric. Shame on you for succumbing to fear.
Barack Obama does not want to be remembered as the President on whose watch the nation defaulted. His leverage goes away on August 3rd and the GOP holds all the cards. We won’t default. We can improve our negotiating position.
The GOP could hold the line. And because they won’t hold the line, they are tanking our credit behind a bunch of smoke and mirrors. If the Democrats blame the GOP when the credit rating drops, the GOP will damn well deserve the blame if they stick with Boehner’s plan.
They could at least fight to turn the tide. They could at least hold the line.
Source: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/07/26/in-defense-of-holding-the-line/
Source: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/07/26/280100/mcdonalds-calorie-decrease-happy-meals/
Late last year, I posted a memo of sorts to anyone who might have listened. At the time, the issue at stake was the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts. As I thought back on that post, I saw editors from the NY Times offering their insights on Obama offering the “truth” while Boehner “did not.” �I saw the buildup in the mainstream media as the left, hiding behind their bogus claims of objectivity, used words like “reason” to describe Obama, and “attack” to describe Boehner’s reaction. �It is clear that we are at a cross-roads of sorts again, and unfortunately, it is not clear that our own Republican Party is aware of what is expected of them. More than ever, the need to stand firm and reject an inch of movement is what is called for.
I considered writing a new memo espousing the same reasons as before as to why compromise is not always the answer and in fact, is being used as a tool by the progressives to slowly encroach on our lives by chipping away at our liberty, bit by bit.
In the end, I decided I did well enough before and that it bears repeating.
I have grown weary of hearing the calls for bi-partisanship. The calls for ?reaching across the aisle? and ?bucking your party.? And yes, I?m even tired of that sacred word that hushes the most stubborn of partisans: Compromise. Compromise in terms of leadership or lack thereof. Compromise with ulterior motives and double-speak. Compromise that hurts our country, indeed our world.
To some this is counter-intuitive and in stark contrast to the common wisdom put forth by much of the media. But the truth is, moderation & compromise have a dark and sordid past when it comes to governing nations. It gave us ?The Great Society,? which ensured generations of poor on welfare and the end of the need for a father. It gave us the ?New Deal? & Medicare, which are quickly bankrupting our country. It gave us the Munich Pact and the Gaza Strip. It empowered North Korea to acquire nuclear weapons and is on a steady path to do the same with Iran.
Some would say it gave us the Constitution and the Emancipation Proclamation, but that is only partially correct. In order for the founders to compromise with one another they had first to establish that they were immovable in their stance against King George. For him there would be no compromise.
In order for Lincoln to bring the States back into Union, he had to stand his ground firmly and go to war with his own countrymen rather than ?negotiate? or be ?bi-partisan.?
It is not compromise in and of itself that has begun to wear on me. It?s the misuse of it?s purpose. Compromise does not exist for the purpose of mindless moderation. It does not exist to create friends that would otherwise be enemies.
Compromise is a tool for coming to a common understanding, but there must be foundational common interests first. If there is not, then there is nothing to negotiate if your interests are too much in contrast with one another.
Compromise presupposes that there is something you are capable of or willing to give up, which at times needs to not be the case. It assumes that you can get what you want out of the other side without giving up so much that it destroys that which you were trying to protect.
At times, it is best not to compromise at all ? to look at the opposition and determine that, not only do they not have anything to offer, but you don?t have anything you?re willing to give up.
In point of fact, you can?t have compromise if you don?t have some aspects of your position that cannot be compromised. To paraphrase Etienne Gilson, there cannot be tolerance without dogmatism. To put it another way, if I?m offered by a murderer to be killed with either a gun or a knife, I?ll choose to not be murdered.
Take note GOP leadership: This is not time to think about the political ramifications. �This is not the time to balance against what others might say about you in a campaign speech or television commercial. �In short, this is not the time to think about yourselves.
This is the time where you show us why we haven’t given up on you. �The time where you force the Obama administration to own the crisis that they have made. �Any claims to an�inheritance of this problem have completely lost credibility. �It’s time for the rude awakening that the left is trying to delay, to finally and at long last happen.
It is time for you to do the right thing. �It is time for you to stand up for us.
Stand your ground.
Hold the line.
No compromise.
Source: http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2011/07/25/again-no-compromise/
I don't care how many financial schemes you come up with or how you justify your piece of pie, but ENOUGH is enough!
Time for the rich to wake up, before we start eating YOU!
There is no article to read, the post is the article and your place to post about the topic of your shrinking piece of the pie.
Please leave your thoughts and related articles on this post!
kennymotown 
With 1 billion cars worldwide and traffic congestion set to double in 20 years innovative, new vehicle designs are important to staying ahead of population growth. Most urban centers today have been designed around cars; however, design group Terreform1 designs concept vehicles specifically to fit within cityscapes.
Which of the vehicle designs in the Terreform segment do you think would best fit into your city and why?
Be sure to check out current.com/urbanmobility for more news, community discussions and upcoming videos about Urban Mobility.
DominicBlackwellCooper 