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 