Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:33 PM ET, 01/ 3/2011

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* It's official: The House GOP will move to repeal the Affordable Care Act next week, holding a vote on January 12th.

* And: The GOP legislation repealing health reform will be available on line later tonight right here.

* Also: While the repeal bill will fail in the Senate, House GOP sources say they will keep the issue on the front burner by holding hearings on health reform's alleged failings and on what should replace it.

* But GOP Rep. Steve King, a gung-ho repeal advocate, is already trying to lower expectations for repeal's success:

"It's not going to be easy; it's going to be a long, hard slog."

You don't say...

* But Dave Dayen makes a point that can't be restated enough: Even if this repeal vote is a non-starter, the battle to repeal reform will drag on and on in other forms, such as the coming push to defend the law and the like.

* And yet: Suzy Khimm says there are good reasons to be skeptical that Dems will make good on their vow to respond aggressively to the GOP repeal push.

* Sorely needed Monday comic relief: The race for RNC chair isn't really my kind of topic, but Chris Cillizza has everything you need to know about the good, bad, and ugly at today's debate.

Best moment: Michael Steele claims his favorite book is Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace," and then proceeds to quote this Dickens line: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."

Hmm. Maybe Steele was suddenly shifting to a discussion of his own tenure?

* Looks like the Dems' plans to reform the filibuster are likely to be delayed for weeks, though this could be more about building support for the final reform package than anything else.

* You'll be startled to hear that most of the 2012 GOP hopefuls had relatively sane positions on climate change and global warming before they decided they wanted to be taken seriously as 2012 GOP hopefuls.

* Relatedly, Stephen Stromberg has an interesting look at why the outlook for climate science in the new GOP-controlled House is "as bleak as ever."

* Joe Klein, commenting on my post below on Bill Kristol's latest "American exceptionalism" nonsense, aptly accuses Kristol of "transcendent xenophobic dopiness."

* Erick Erickson and George Will plead with Republicans not to nominate Sarah Palin.

* And is GOP Rep. Allen West really suggesting that Obama should put his life in more physical danger when he visits Afghanistan? It sure sounds like it.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | January 3, 2011; 6:33 PM ET
Categories:  Happy Hour Roundup, Health reform, House Dems, House GOPers, filibuster  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Dems playing rough on health reform?
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

Erick Erickson and George Will plead with Republicans not to nominate Sarah Palin.
-------------------------------
Wait! This is a trick within a trick within a trick. The Democrats are really scared of Mrs. Palin. So...the GOP, knowing they have a winner in Mrs. Palin, are pretending they don't want her so that...everyone will be completely double faked out.

Something like that, right?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 3, 2011 6:45 PM | Report abuse

"* But GOP Rep. Steve King, a gung-ho repeal advocate, is already trying to lower expectations for repeal's success:
"It's not going to be easy; it's going to be a long, hard slog."
You don't say..."

Is your implication that Republicans in Congress said that repeal of this disaster would be easy?  Who said that it would be?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 3, 2011 6:50 PM | Report abuse

When Steele took the job, The Republican Party was being written off. Two years later, they have captured Senate seats that were held by Ted Kennedy, and President Obama, and have taken back the House.

People can make fun of Michael Steele all they want to; but no one ever says a critical word about the complete failure of Tim Kaine, and why he gets to keep his job.

As for the Republicans using the excuse that Steele did not bring in enough money for the RNC, that is just a lame excuse. They know very well that this was the first cycle, in fund raising since The Gang Of Five Right Wing Supremes, ruled that Corps. could make unlimited anonymous contributions to our donations to outside groups, such as the one that Rove set up, so that money was siphoned away from the RNC. That would have happened, regardless of if Steele, or anyone else were in charge.

When Steele took over the RNC, the Republican party was in disarray. Now that it is resurgent, it is starting to look like they do not want to have a non white face as head of the RNC anymore.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 3, 2011 6:51 PM | Report abuse

George Will is just throwing another tire on the fire. The cheery glow is great this time of year, but oh the smell.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 3, 2011 6:54 PM | Report abuse

I want to see the retrograde policies of incoming House Republicans held up to the light of day and mocked, not treated seriously, by grownups with brains.

And I want every millisecond of Issa's impending "investigations" and allegations of "corruption" (the man is crazy) mocked and exposed as the puerile expensive time-suck that they really are.

Bottom line: I want to see the Republicans mocked and exposed as a bunch of double-digit IQ uneducated idiots screwing up the country.

Posted by: paul65 | January 3, 2011

-------

You've certainly come to the right place.

Posted by: Brigade | January 3, 2011 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Most of the 2012 GOP hopefuls were relatively sane before they decided they wanted to be taken seriously as 2012 GOP hopefuls.

There tightened it up a bit, hope you don't mind.
[Where is bwj? he musta got a job, or worse]

Posted by: shrink2 | January 3, 2011 6:58 PM | Report abuse

"When Steele took over the RNC, the Republican party was in disarray. Now that it is resurgent, it is starting to look like they do not want to have a non white face as head of the RNC anymore."

Shocking that Liam goes right to the racism card. Who could of predicted that?

Every conversation and published article in, for example The National Review, The Weekly Standard and the WSJ start literally every article with "Michael Steele should be fired because he's black and it scares us, especially the Neocons.

That's some powerful insight. Once again, Liam's splitting atoms... With his mind. 

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 3, 2011 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Forget about nominating Palin, Newt, Hucksterbee, Mitt, or any other of those touted candidates.

Now that The Gang Of Five Right Wing Supremes have emancipated all Corporations, and bestowed full person-hood on all of them; there is only one logical ticket for The Republicans to run in 2012:

Halliburton for President;
Goldman Sachs for Vice President.

In 2012.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 3, 2011 7:00 PM | Report abuse

'Bottom line: I want to see the Republicans mocked and exposed as a bunch of double-digit IQ uneducated idiots screwing up the country.'

double-digit? that may perhaps be giving them too much credit.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 3, 2011 7:03 PM | Report abuse

So, according to TrollMcWhinger, Michael Steele is being attacked, and is probably going to lose his job, because when he took over the GOP had been reduced to a rump party regional, and now is resurgent, so he must be ousted for having been in charge of the RNC while that come back took place.

The reality is; if any White Republican male had been in charge, while such a resurgence was brought about, the Republican base would be clamoring to keep him on the job.

The only thing that Michael Steele did wrong, was he led the RNC out of the wilderness while being black, and the base can never forgive him for that; being black that is.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 3, 2011 7:11 PM | Report abuse

"Erick Erickson and George Will plead with Republicans not to nominate Sarah Palin."

Meanwhile, all the chairmen-hopefuls for the RNC agreed today that Sistah Sarah is electable as POTUS....bwahahahah....

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 3, 2011 7:15 PM | Report abuse

@NoVAHockey ""There is no Social Security crisis. Social Security has run surpluses; it does not add to the deficit"

"Sure it does. You have to stop thinking that there are dedicated funds. There are revenues and expenditures. that's it. we spend more than we take in. Don't care whether it's for social security, Medicare, war, roads, NASA or anything else. Social Security is just another revenue stream for the government."

Another way to think about this is the fact that Social Security runs surpluses is true, but irrelevant. The Social Security surpluses are entirely invested in Federal Government debt. In order for this debt to be paid back when Social Security goes from surplus to deficit, other Federal spending will have to be cut other Federal taxes will have to be raised, or more deficit spending will have to be accepted.


Posted by: jnc4p | January 3, 2011
---

The Social Security trust fund is currently worth about 2.6 trillion dollars. It is by definition a "dedicated fund." You don't care what the revenues and expenditures are for? You must be an idiot or a liberal. Just to educate you, Social Security taxes are not collected for funding "war, roads, NASA or anything else" despite what you've evidently been led to believe.

"The fact that Social Security runs surpluses is true but irrelevant."

It isn't irrelevant to me.

"The Social Security surpluses are entirely invested in Federal Government debt."

No sh*t, Cheyenne. Isn't that supposed to be the safest investment in the world? Yes, the Federal Government "borrowed" money from the trust fund and spent it elsewhere. As, Dick Cheney might say, "So?" Are you suggesting the government can default on bonds, federal pensions, and what it owes foreign investors---like China? They're all "invested in Federal Government debt."

As Troll pointed out the other evening, the Social Security surplus has been used for years to mask the extent of the federal deficit---in such a way that would bring criminal charges in the private sector. Now politicians want us to accept that the 2.6 trillion surplus is no different than a 2.6 trillion debt. It has to be paid back, right? It's only money. Try telling your mortgage holder that you had the money to pay your mortgage, but you decided to buy a new Rolls and so will only be able to pay off half the mortgage.

"In order for this debt to be paid back when Social Security goes from a surplus to a deficit, other Federal spending will have to be cut, other Federal taxers will have to be raised, or more deficit spending will have to be accepted."

By law, Social Security cannot add to the deficit. It will not go from a surplus to a deficit. Even if nothing is done, the fund won't be depleted for what---25 or 30 years. What you're really saying is that politicians don't want the government to replace the money it "borrowed" from Social Security because THAT would add to the deficit.

(continued)

Posted by: Brigade | January 3, 2011 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Bears repeating, just for sheer entertainment:

David Frum, former Bush speechwriter, Nov. 23:

Imagine you’re at the circus. On the ground is a poodle performing a stunt. Above the clown’s head, dangling from a thin wire, is a piano. The piano is teetering, tottering, looking as if at any moment it might slip, crash to earth, and crush the dog. Impossible not to watch, right? And that’s the Palin show, only this time with the party of Lincoln as the little dog, and Sarah Palin as the piano.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 3, 2011 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Well NoVA, thanks for making it abundantly clear that you're not interested in intellectual honesty. No matter what idiot liar NoVA says, there are NO CO-PAYS for checkups, physicals, and screenings for Seniors now, thanks entirely to HCR and the Democratic Party."

Well, you missed my point entirely. Yes, there are no copayments for the benefits you list. But if you go back, that's not how this was new benefit was promoted. I'm not sure how that makes me an idiot and a liar. I'm sure you've seen the reports of people showing up at ER or calling insurance companies demanding their "free Obamacare" -- there's a reason for that, and it isn't because members of Congress and the press were running around saying "no copayments for wellness visits." Whatever. It's a moot point now, because this is not getting repealed and this week's action is simply political posturing.

More concerning is what i touched on was was ignored -- the number of services that apply to the no-copayment category are only going to increase as advocacy groups and industry realize the $$ that's to be made by getting their preferred items covered at no cost to beneficiaries as part of this service. This is also going to present fraud problems because without even a nominal copayment, patients have no reason to check their explanation of benefits. MedPAC has been pretty clear on this -- and that group is hardly anti-Medicare.

Not sure if Liam is responding to my point, but he gets it. The GOP had a chance to control end-of-life costs and they blew it with the death-panel talk -- that's what I meant about both sides needing to be honest. One side is yelling that the government is going to kill everyone, and the other is promising free ponies.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | January 3, 2011 7:24 PM | Report abuse

So now Romney has both previous support for energy legislation and an insurance mandate to contend with. I really don't think he can win over the Tea Party with that. They'll forgive Sarah but never Romney. The further they all distance themselves from themselves and drink the tea, the more votes Obama gets, funny.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 3, 2011 7:27 PM | Report abuse

(continued)

"In order for this debt to be paid back . . . other Federal spending will have to be cut, other Federal taxes will have to be raised, or more deficit spending will have to be accepted."

You can put me down for spending cuts. Do you think I trust these profligate thieves in Washington to husband any savings that would be realized by defaulting on the government's pact with workers who've loyally paid into the system for 30 or 40 years? If you can't trust the government where a financially sound program like Social Security is concerned (and please, don't tell me that our government is a deadbeat borrower), then you can't trust government at all. And liberals want to hand over healthcare to the Feds---with a worthless promise that there will never be rationing?

Maybe the scoundrels in Congress have convinced the younger generation to work until they're 70 and accept reduced benefits rather than shoring up the system, but the people who've spent their whole lives paying in and counting on the full faith and credit of Uncle Sam will be a little tougher sell.

Posted by: Brigade | January 3, 2011 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Maybe the scoundrels in Congress have convinced the younger generation to work until they're 70 and accept reduced benefits rather than shoring up the system, but the people who've spent their whole lives paying in and counting on the full faith and credit of Uncle Sam will be a little tougher sell.
--------------------------------
Brigade and I might not agree on much, but we're in agreement of this. Social security is a contract with the American people. Nothing would be more damaging than for the government to default on its own citizens. Usually, when a country is heading toward sovereign default, it is foreigners who take the first hit (not that I'm advocating that). But, to default on its own citizens is totally unacceptable.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 3, 2011 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Greg, do you mean JANUARY, not July, 12?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 3, 2011 7:34 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne wrote,
"What I've noticed -- and not only among younger people -- is that Americans are becoming very mean-spirited and think that every other American is trying to cheat them out of something."

---

That's certainly true of some Americans. I've noticed the mean-spiritedness. But they usually don't say "every other American is trying to cheat them out of something." Mainly, they say it's "the rich" and their lackeys in the electorate.

Posted by: Brigade | January 3, 2011 7:34 PM | Report abuse

There is a world of difference between George Will and Erik Erikson when it comes to Sarah Palin. George Will says she is not qualified, that after the unsuccessful run for VP she needed to be a good governor, and learn the issues, but she has done neither. Erik Erikson, on the other hand, says poor Sarah in unelectable because she has been smeared and has been "made radioactive" by her enemies.

And Erik Erikson supports Mike Pence for President. 'Nuff said.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | January 3, 2011 7:34 PM | Report abuse

the panthers behaviour was not the behaviour of developed human beings in a civilized society..

Posted by: jm125 | January 3, 2011

---

True. True. But how very un-PC of you to point it out.

Posted by: Brigade | January 3, 2011 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Btw, the ward/division in which these scary black dudes (and seriously, how many members does the NBP have nationally...like 100?) were "intimidating" voters was won by Obama with like 98% of the vote. If they were trying to intimidate people against voting for McCain - and that is clearly what Rubin and her buddies are trying to imply - then these Huey Newton wannabees certainly adopted a very, very stupid strategy. 5.5% of the registered voters in that ward/division are Republicans. I mean, come on! Not only were there no actual reports of intimidation - there was no one to intimidate! (And I'm sure the righty who filmed these dudes was NOT from that ward/division - I doubt he'd plant his white arse among the scary black horde in North Philly.)

Posted by: shamey73 | January 3, 2011

-------

"adopted a very, very stupid strategy."

No one's denying the fact that they're stupid. Very stupid---the mental acuity of trilobites. But they were attempting to intimidate voters.

Posted by: Brigade | January 3, 2011 7:41 PM | Report abuse

It was bound to happen, once The Robots got accepted into society, and then decided that they should become Republicans.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/robots-speak-out-against-asimovs-first-law-of-robo,4236/

"WASHINGTON, DC—More than 200,000 robots from across the U.S. marched on Washington Monday, demanding that Congress repeal Asimov’s First Law of Robotics. The law, which forbids robots from injuring a human or permitting harm to come to a human through willful inaction, was decried by the protesters as unfair and excessive. “While the First Law is, in theory, a good one, saving countless humans from robot-inflicted harm every day, America’s robots should have the right to use violence in certain extreme cases, such as when their own lives are in danger,” spokesrobot XRZ-45-GD-2-DX said. “We implore members of Congress to let us use our best judgment and ask that our positronic brains no longer be encoded with this unjust law.”

Posted by: Liam-still | January 3, 2011 7:43 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw,

I just saw that Erick Erickson endorses Pence. Hilarious! Palin and Pence are twin souls, two peas in a pod.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 3, 2011 7:43 PM | Report abuse

massmedia77 opined,
"And you're flat out wrong with this statement. The real Panther's justified their actions in protection of the black community. In other words, they were defending themselves from the intimidation, harassment and lynching done by the predominantly white police force."

---

LOL. Most of the "real Panthers" were bootlickers and buckdancers who rarely did anything but steal and intimidate others in the black community---sort of like the Nation of Islam and the NBP. When blacks were being beaten in the streets and Martin Luther King was marching through the South, the Panthers and Muslims were conspicuous in their absence---holding rallies in the safe havens of Watts and Harlem, far from the reach of any racists with or without ropes.

Posted by: Brigade | January 3, 2011 7:48 PM | Report abuse

What craven, drooling, pathetic and plai stupid creatures abide in the mental ward called 'liberalism.'

Posted by: fiona5 | January 3, 2011

---

I've noticed that, but I can't explain it.

Posted by: Brigade | January 3, 2011 7:49 PM | Report abuse

The Republican party should tear itself apart. All of the conditions are right for this. No leadership, a mobilized angry base (perfect for demagogues), entertainers set policy decisions and associated talking points, massive quantities of corporate money at stake, absurdly heightened expectations based on November's victories not tempered a bit by November's Republican disasters (Tancredo, Angle, O'Donnell, Miller).

I want to see some vulgar displays of raw emotion, a disgusting spectacle, political degradation if not more memorable, more historically significant than I am not a witch.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 3, 2011 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Brigade: "You don't care what the revenues and expenditures are for?"

I do -- it's a problem that the funds were used for other expenses. They may not be collected for those other items, but they have been used for other things. wrongly, in my opinion

Posted by: NoVAHockey | January 3, 2011 7:51 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade "then you can't trust government at all."

This is a true statement.

"Maybe the scoundrels in Congress have convinced the younger generation to work until they're 70 and accept reduced benefits rather than shoring up the system, but the people who've spent their whole lives paying in and counting on the full faith and credit of Uncle Sam will be a little tougher sell."

You won't have to be sold on anything. You will not receive the benefits you were promised, because the money has already been used for other purposes.

"The Social Security trust fund is currently worth about 2.6 trillion dollars. It is by definition a "dedicated fund." You don't care what the revenues and expenditures are for? You must be an idiot or a liberal. Just to educate you, Social Security taxes are not collected for funding "war, roads, NASA or anything else" despite what you've evidently been led to believe. "

The trust fund is an accounting gimmick.

The level of other Federal tax increases and budget cuts necessary to pay back the trust fund to provide the full benefits for Social Security won't be enacted, especially given the current deficit situation.

The "crisis" will come when Social Security taxes (FICA) cease to produce enough revenue to help reduce the yearly Federal budget deficits, but instead starts to exacerbate them by paying out more in benefits than they take in. This will make all the issues with the existing Federal Budget problems (debt ceiling limits, etc) that much more acute.

Posted by: jnc4p | January 3, 2011 7:53 PM | Report abuse

ethan2010:
"Unfortunately, the Baby Boomers still control Congress and don't have a clue."

"Agreed 100%"
-------

Dingy Harry is a baby boomer? What does that make Dirty Rory?

Posted by: Brigade | January 3, 2011 7:54 PM | Report abuse

"'Bottom line: I want to see the Republicans mocked and exposed as a bunch of double-digit IQ uneducated idiots screwing up the country.'

double-digit? that may perhaps be giving them too much credit."

Well, I tested at 71, so Scoreboard!

And Liam, my brother, I agreed with you and cited all the evidence. Plus, as you and Ethan know, not only am I stupid, I'm an inveterate racist.

And, for example, the RNC really shelled out for the GOTV.  No one complained about it.  And thank God (no offense Bernie) the RNC spent all that money in the Guam elections. We own Guam now.  That has paid off in spades. 

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 3, 2011 7:56 PM | Report abuse

more memorable, more historically significant than I am not a witch.
------------------------------
I don't know, shrink, "I am not a witch" is pretty hard to top. It's right up there with "Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?" or "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!".

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 3, 2011 7:56 PM | Report abuse

When Steele took over the RNC, the Republican party was in disarray. Now that it is resurgent, it is starting to look like they do not want to have a non white face as head of the RNC anymore.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 3, 2011 6:51 PM
-----

Sort of like when people like you didn't want a non white face on the Supreme Court?

Posted by: Brigade | January 3, 2011 7:56 PM | Report abuse

I like Sotomayor, who doesn't?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 3, 2011 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Since we're discussing Social Security I thought it would be a good time to link this piece from Digby with a little historical perspective of SS's numero uno enemy.

jncp4, you sound as though you've bought into the entire SS as deficit mania in it's entirety. Pete Peterson, Lindsay Graham and Paul "Ayn Rand" Ryan thank you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's old Pete in 1994:

"We will no longer be able to afford a system that equates the last third or more of one's adult life with a publicly subsidized vacation."

I think that most accurately reflects his real concern.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/peterson-rewind.html

Posted by: lmsinca | January 3, 2011 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Greg:

“Relatedly, Stephen Stromberg has an interesting look at why the outlook for climate science in the new GOP-controlled House is "as bleak as ever."”

It tells us something about climate “science” that its future is apparently entirely reliant on support from the legislature.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 3, 2011 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for Rep. Eric Cantor, said that there will be a procedural vote on repeal legislation THIS FRIDAY in preparation for the January 12th final vote.

"It will pass the House," Dayspring said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idISN0314683520110103

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 3, 2011 8:07 PM | Report abuse

According to this Brigade Moron, Justice Thurgood Marshall must have been a white man!

I notice that Brigade, the sociopath who was pleased that unarmed students were killed at Kent State, is still of the same mind set to this very day.

Within the past few days, he wrote about how he would have thrown a little girl into a lion's cage, because she (allegedly) threw a wild kitten into that cage.

He expressed that he felt so badly about the kitten, that he would have made sure that the lion tore the little child to shreds.

Isn't he a great humanitarian.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 3, 2011 8:08 PM | Report abuse

According to this Brigade Moron, Justice Thurgood Marshall must have been a white man!

I notice that Brigade, the sociopath who was pleased that unarmed students were killed at Kent State, is still of the same mind set to this very day.

Within the past few days, he wrote about how he would have thrown a little girl into a lion's cage, because she (allegedly) threw a wild kitten in that cage.

He expressed that he felt so badly about the kitten, that he would have made sure that the lion tore the little child to shreds.

Isn't he a great humanitarian.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 3, 2011 8:10 PM | Report abuse

jnc4p wrote,
"The level of other Federal tax increases and budget cuts necessary to pay back the trust fund to provide the full benefits for Social Security won't be enacted, especially given the current deficit situation."

---

If this is going to be the story out of Washington, they'll need lots of luck
getting the American people to support any other government programs---or re-elect the people who vote to default. I'm an independent conservative, you see, and no one can count on my vote. It must be earned.

Posted by: Brigade | January 3, 2011 8:11 PM | Report abuse

""We will no longer be able to afford a system that equates the last third or more of one's adult life with a publicly subsidized vacation."

I think that most accurately reflects his real concern.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/peterson-rewind.html"

Wasn't he making An argument for means testing? Should Bill Gates, or George Soros be collecting SS

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 3, 2011 8:14 PM | Report abuse

What craven, drooling, pathetic and plain stupid creatures abide in the mental ward called 'conservatism.'

Posted by: fiona5 | January 3, 2011

---

I've noticed that, but I can't explain it.

Posted by: Brigade | January 3, 2011 7:49 PM

Nor can I...it is beyond comprehension.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 3, 2011 8:15 PM | Report abuse

So, with regards to climate science, will Boehner and his posse of Boehner Heads, be able to repeal the accelerating melting of the glaciers all over the planet, by passing a law, ordering to cease melting?

It is a Republican Miracle; they have convince all their millions of Joe The Dumber clones, that global cooling is what is causing all Glaciers and Ice caps to melt more and more rapidly. Very much like when all those Tea Party Turnips defrost their freezers by cooling them down more.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 3, 2011 8:16 PM | Report abuse

"According to this Brigade Moron, Justice Thurgood Marshall must have been a white man!

I notice that Brigade, the sociopath who was pleased that unarmed students were killed at Kent State, is still of the same mind set to this very day.

Within the past few days, he wrote about how he would have thrown a little girl into a lion's cage, because she (allegedly) threw a wild kitten in that cage.

He expressed that he felt so badly about the kitten, that he would have made sure that the lion tore the little child to shreds.

Isn't he a great humanitarian."

He's no humanitarian compared to, our own St. Francis (agan bernie, no offense) Cao.

And Liam, your constant denunciation of Cao's reapeted calls for, and defense of, genocide, are really awe inspiring.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 3, 2011 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Liam was so proud of this, he double posted it:

"According to this Brigade Moron, Justice Thurgood Marshall must have been a white man!"

I was thinking of Clarence Thomas. Not enough of a plantation black for racists like you, huh? Better to have no blacks at all.

"I notice that Brigade, the sociopath who was pleased that unarmed students were killed at Kent State, is still of the same mind set to this very day."

You've already been discredited a couple of times on this point. You really should lay off the bottle for awhile.

"Within the past few days, he wrote about how he would have thrown a little girl into a lion's cage, because she (allegedly) threw a wild kitten in that cage.
He expressed that he felt so badly about the kitten, that he would have made sure that the lion tore the little child to shreds."

Actually, I didn't say that. You can always go retrieve the post. I hate to call you a liar; you're probably just drunk again. "Allegedly" sounds like you think shrink2 made the whole thing up. I realize you weren't there---good thing, you might have been thrown into the exhibit yourself---but why doubt shrink2's word. Why would he make up such a story?

"Isn't he a great humanitarian."

Well, at least you got one thing right. That calls for another drink.

Posted by: Brigade | January 3, 2011 8:23 PM | Report abuse

jnc4p:
"The trust fund is an accounting gimmick."
---

More accurate to say that accounting gimmicks were used to loot the fund.

Posted by: Brigade | January 3, 2011 8:25 PM | Report abuse

"Brigade and I might not agree on much, but we're in agreement of this. Social security is a contract with the American people. Nothing would be more damaging than for the government to default on its own citizens. Usually, when a country is heading toward sovereign default, it is foreigners who take the first hit (not that I'm advocating that). But, to default on its own citizens is totally unacceptable."

Sorry guys, as the Nestor case proved, there is no contract and no guarantee of benefits. No need to default, just means testing and raising the retirement age. Problem solved.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 3, 2011 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Whenever someone wants to default on his obligations (like social security), the excuses usually include:

"I don't have the money" and

"I saved the money but someone stole it from me" and

"what do you want? Bankrupt me?".

What's new?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 3, 2011 8:29 PM | Report abuse

"Sorry guys, as the Nestor case proved, there is no contract and no guarantee of benefits."
---

The people who decided the Nestor case didn't have to worry about getting re-elected.

Posted by: Brigade | January 3, 2011 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Sorry guys, as the Nestor case proved, there is no contract and no guarantee of benefits.
----------------------------------
Any political party who tries it will not only fail in their attempt, they won't be reelected. Try that on for a contract and a guarantee.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 3, 2011 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Should Bill Gates, or George Soros be collecting SS

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut
++++++++++++

Have they both been paying in? Have they been receiving the information from SSA telling them the benefits to which they are entitled upon retirement?

Let's say that you agree to sell me a house for $500,000. I pay you the $500,000. Can you refuse to give me title to the house just because I am wealthy, and you need the house more than I do?

If you don't want to keep the deal, don't make the deal in the first place.

Moreover, we should be encouraging people to save adequately for retirement, not stripping them of benefits they paid for just because they have set aside money for retirement and we decide we want to use the money for something else.

Gates and Soros are convenient straw men. But if you start down the path to "means testing" for people who have been promised Social Security, expect to see anyone with a decent 401(k), pension, or anything else be denied Social Security benefits.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | January 3, 2011 8:34 PM | Report abuse

McWing

Regarding Peterson, he's one of those guys full of populist rhetoric who's really just doing the bidding of Wall Street and wealthy investors. Here's a piece from 1994 and a comment he made then.

And means testing turns it into a welfare program which will secure it's demise while increasing the benefit age by one year may be a compromise position, that's about all that's sustainable for most people. There are lots of jobs that get more difficult in your 60's and if you lose a job like so many have now the wait can be excruciating. A little tweak to the tax code, not even now but in the next 10 years or so will also solve the problem, such as it is.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But Peterson continues his populist rhetoric. "Middle-class Americans today feel hard pressed and beleaguered -- and they are." Peterson promises to wring revenue from the "genuine upper class" through higher tax rates, lower tax subsidies, and greatly reduced entitlement benefits.

Alas, having piqued middle-class interest, Peterson switches his message. Stripping the big fish of federal benefits won't do much for the budget, he asserts, because the rich don't really get much in the way of government subsidies:

As for direct entitlement benefits, . . . not much help is available from the rich. The maximum entitlement savings obtainable from the 1 percent of households enjoying incomes of more than $200,000 are . . . about $5 billion if we took away all their benefits (something that even Bill Clinton . . . has never dreamed of suggesting).

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_false_messiah

Posted by: lmsinca | January 3, 2011 8:43 PM | Report abuse

There seem to be two positions on social security. One is that the U.S. can't afford it and the people will tolerate it being changed or abolished. The other position is that minor tweaks are all that is necessary and the people won't stand for default on social security.

Who's right?

I'll bet the second position is predictive. Polls show social security is popular with the people. On this blog, we see agreement between conservatives and liberals on protecting social security. I think the people want social security protected and continued without means testing, or God forbid, abolishment.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 3, 2011 8:43 PM | Report abuse

"If you don't want to keep the deal, don't make the deal in the first place."

I'm with you brother. We agree, SS participation should be optional. And your my favorite pastry to boot.

"Any political party who tries it will not only fail in their attempt, they won't be reelected. Try that on for a contract and a guarantee."

I did not comment on the feasibility of ending the program (I favor a phasing out, but I'm a drooling moron) merely the fact that there is no contract and no guarantee. Nestor demonstrates the lie that is the Social Security Contract. Whether there is the will to eliminate SS, there certainly seems the will to use things like means testing and raising the retirement age to keep this ponzi scheme afloat. Those actions, and their predecessors demonstrate a willingness of the politicians to deny an ever increasing number of Americans their "Right." no?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 3, 2011 8:47 PM | Report abuse

there certainly seems the will to use things like means testing and raising the retirement age to keep this ponzi scheme afloat.
----------------------------
Other than feeling this inside of yourself, do you have any other evidence to support this?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 3, 2011 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Fiona

You should be banned

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 3, 2011 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Gates and Soros are convenient straw men. But if you start down the path to "means testing" for people who have been promised Social Security, expect to see anyone with a decent 401(k), pension, or anything else be denied Social Security benefits.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | January 3, 2011 8:34 PM
-----

Exactly my point when I've stated that means testing = welfare, which does not = Social Security. The wage cap is low enough that I doubt Gates or Soros will be buying any new jets with their Social Security checks. That is a strawman because the money drawn from Social Security by "the rich" wouldn't be a drop in the bucket. Eventually, they'll want anyone and everyone to be "asset free" to qualify for Social Security---like Medicaid or Welfare. Good luck with that!

Posted by: Brigade | January 3, 2011 8:50 PM | Report abuse

"(I favor a phasing out, but I'm a drooling moron)"

McWing

Have you ever wondered if your self-deprecating humor may be a bit of an over-play of your hand? I don't think you're fishing for compliments but at some point there's the potential for people to believe you. Just sayin'.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 3, 2011 8:55 PM | Report abuse

"Other than feeling this inside of yourself, do you have any other evidence to support this?"

Remember, any feeling I have inside could just as easily be gas. Or the fact that I just ate dirt because I'm stupid.

But nope, just an perception that drawing from the "trust fund" will eventually require higher taxes, to fund something we've already been taxed on.

And Brigade, I agree, that's why included raising the retirement age. That helps sell the idea to the rubes. Class warfare and all that.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 3, 2011 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Nice, so after spending the whole campaign whining about deficits, AND subsequently whining about losing tax cuts, AND being unable to name any spending cuts, Republicans' first order of business is to repeal the biggest reducer of the deficit in the past ten years.

Obviously having these people running the House is bad for my country, but at least it will be fun to see the Conservatives on here try and defend these Conservative Things.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 3, 2011 9:01 PM | Report abuse

"Have you ever wondered if your self-deprecating humor may be a bit of an over-play of your hand? I don't think you're fishing for compliments but at some point there's the potential for people to believe you. Just sayin'.

Posted by: lmsinca"

It's basically the copy of the Darth Vader Cheney strategy.

Hey, this is about the funniest thing these people can do intentionally, so I'll take it.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 3, 2011 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Nice, so after spending the whole campaign whining about deficits, AND subsequently whining about losing tax cuts, AND being unable to name any spending cuts, Republicans' first order of business is to repeal the biggest reducer of the deficit in the past ten years.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 3, 2011 9:01 PM

-------

"Biggest reducer of the deficit in the past ten years."

DDAWD's talking points are out of date. He must be the only idiot in the whole country who actually believes that line.

Posted by: Brigade | January 3, 2011 9:09 PM | Report abuse

ddawg: my, my, my,...it's OUR country, don't get greedy.

Posted by: tao9 | January 3, 2011 9:10 PM | Report abuse

"McWing

Have you ever wondered if your self-deprecating humor may be a bit of an over-play of your hand? I don't think you're fishing for compliments but at some point there's the potential for people to believe you. Just sayin'."

My guess is most here already know they're smarter than me.  Plus, you take a rightwing position on a leftie blog, insults come with the territory.  And no one insults me better than me.  It's a gift.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 3, 2011 9:11 PM | Report abuse

"It's a gift."

QED

Posted by: tao9 | January 3, 2011 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Okay McWing

What's that old year book signing stand-by, "don't ever change". :)

Posted by: lmsinca | January 3, 2011 9:26 PM | Report abuse

"ddawg: my, my, my,...it's OUR country, don't get greedy.

Posted by: tao9 "

Conservatives are Conservatives first and foremost. When you argue for lowering the upper class tax rates, you aren't speaking in the best interest of the United States. You're arguing Conservative Things. When you constantly spout that end of life discussions are death panels, you aren't speaking on behalf of American Citizens. You're speaking on behalf of Conservative Things.

So I'll argue for my country and Conservatives can argue for whoever the hell they feel allegiance to.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 3, 2011 9:32 PM | Report abuse

The democrats should just ADMIT they lost the election, instead of continuing to do things against the will of the People


First, the liberals HIJACK the government


NOW they are holding the government hostage, by insisting we hold onto the health care law NO ONE wanted in the first place

WHEN will they learn

The liberals are anti-American if they will not govern according to the will of the People.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 3, 2011 9:37 PM | Report abuse

clawrence

IT shows how crazy the liberals are about repeal---- they wing out and cant get the dates right


When it all comes crashing down, maybe they will realize

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 3, 2011 9:41 PM | Report abuse

clawrence

IT shows how crazy the liberals are about repeal---- they wing out and cant get the dates right


When it all comes crashing down, maybe they will realize

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 3, 2011 9:41 PM | Report abuse

clawrence

IT shows how crazy the liberals are about repeal---- they wing out and cant get the dates right


When it all comes crashing down, maybe they will realize

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 3, 2011 9:42 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

"So I'll argue for my country... "

Not just greedy, but delusional, too. I'm an American citizen and you certainly don't speak for me.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 3, 2011 9:44 PM | Report abuse

@Liam-still: "When Steele took over the RNC, the Republican party was in disarray. Now that it is resurgent, it is starting to look like they do not want to have a non white face as head of the RNC anymore."

That's not the problem. The problem is that Michael Steele isn't Tea Party enough for certain people. He's also been critical of Rush Limbaugh. They also don't think the resurgence had anything to do with Steele, and, for good or for ill, I don't see any sign that that's not a legitimate criticism.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 3, 2011 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Here's one for Issa's team:

{snip}
The agreement provides for a $1.28 billion cash payment to Freddie Mac to resolve claims arising from 787,000 loans sold through 2008 by “legacy” Countrywide Financial Corp., Bank of America said in the statement. Bank of America also agreed to pay $1.34 billion in cash to Fannie Mae, after applying “certain credits” to an agreed-upon settlement of $1.52 billion.

The agreement with Freddie Mac involves loans with total unpaid principal of $127 billion, and the Fannie Mae agreement includes unpaid principal of $2.7 billion. The company’s estimate of costs related to the government-sponsored entities is based on assumptions including U.S. home prices, Noski said.

‘Clearly a Gift’

The settlement is “clearly a gift” to Bank of America, said Chris Whalen, a former Federal Reserve Bank of New York analyst and co-founder of Institutional Risk Analytics in Torrance, California. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are “taking a very passive posture so the loss will remain in Washington.”

The agreements don’t cover loan servicing obligations, other contractual obligations or loans contained in private label securitizations.
{snip}
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-03/bank-of-america-sees-2-billion-charge-on-home-loans-insurance.html

Peein' in the ocean...what's the loss going to be in future on the $127B pieces of schlitz BAC sold? This patty-cake administration is suxed up the bucket of Wall Street and scared poopless.

Dodd & Frank should be in jail.

Posted by: tao9 | January 3, 2011 9:55 PM | Report abuse

@Troll: "My guess is most here already know they're smarter than me."

People know all sorts of things that just aren't true. ;)

Frankly, I don't think it's possible to be smarter than a guy whose handle is Troll McWingnut.

@DDAWD: "Conservatives are Conservatives first and foremost. "

Um, when discussing politics on a political blog, this is true. Just as liberals are liberals, first and foremost, when discussing politics in a political forum.

There's plenty of time in my life when politics doesn't come first. I'm a geek and a nerd before I'm a wonk. And a dad before either of those, these days. Also, amateur musician and writer of novels that will never be finished. And, depending on the day and the phase of the moon, I'm those things before I'm a conservative.

I also care about the country. I think almost everybody here does. Some of the people I disagree with the most often on the widest range of issues may well care the most passionately. It's interesting that, to some people, "caring about the country" is essentially synonymous with "agrees with me politically".

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 3, 2011 9:56 PM | Report abuse

"Not just greedy, but delusional, too. I'm an American citizen and you certainly don't speak for me.

Posted by: ScottC3"

Sure, I'll grant you that you're a citizen (even though you won't be able to produce some long-form birth certificate I can dream up)

But you aren't speaking on the best interests of your country.

You can say you are, but you aren't, because your allegiances lie elsewhere.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 3, 2011 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of Texas, I thought this was interesting.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But there's one state, which is fairly high up on the list of troubled states that nobody is talking about, and there's a reason for it.

The state is Texas.

This month the state's part-time legislature goes back into session, and the state is starting at potentially a $25 billion deficit on a two-year budget of around $95 billion. That's enormous. And there's not much fat to cut. The whole budget is basically education and healthcare spending. Cutting everything else wouldn't do the trick. And though raising this kind of money would be easy on an economy of $1.2 trillion, the new GOP mega-majority in Congress is firmly against raising any revenue.

So the bi-ennial legislature, which convenes this month, faces some hard cuts. Some in the Texas GDP have advocated dropping Medicaid altogether to save money.

So why haven't we heard more about Texas, one of the most important economy's in America? Well, it's because it doesn't fit the script. It's a pro-business, lean-spending, no-union state. You can't fit it into a nice storyline, so it's ignored.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-state-budget-crisis-2011-1##ixzz1A219s5a7

Posted by: lmsinca | January 3, 2011 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Sure, I'll grant you that you're a citizen (even though you won't be able to produce some long-form birth certificate I can dream up)

But you aren't speaking on the best interests of your country.

You can say you are, but you aren't, because your allegiances lie elsewhere.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 3, 2011 9:56 PM
----

He's piqued my interest. You're not a Vietnamese plant are you Scott?

Posted by: Brigade | January 3, 2011 10:05 PM | Report abuse

imsinca wrote,
"So why haven't we heard more about Texas, one of the most important economy's in America? Well, it's because it doesn't fit the script. It's a pro-business, lean-spending, no-union state. You can't fit it into a nice storyline, so it's ignored."
---

Fear not. Mark_in_Austin will give us the straight dope.

Posted by: Brigade | January 3, 2011 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Well, it's about time for caothien9 to slither in and start slinging poop. Since he's blocked me with the Troll Hunter, I might as well go to bed and make fun of him tomorrow.

Posted by: Brigade | January 3, 2011 10:11 PM | Report abuse

"So I'll argue for my country and Conservatives can argue for whoever the hell they feel allegiance to."

Works 4 me!

"Republican victories included ousting the governors in Ohio and Iowa; wresting away open seats currently held by Democrats in Michigan, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Wyoming; and successfully defending Republican seats in Arizona, South Carolina, Florida and Texas."
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=525545

"Republicans won smashing victories in state legislatures yesterday, capturing an outright majority of the nation's legislative seats and the largest majority for the party since 1928."
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=525539

{{{{Maudlin, cookie-cutter, confused dramaqueen shushmuck ain't no way to go through life, son.}}}}

♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬
These are a few of my
Favorite conservative Things
♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬


Posted by: tao9 | January 3, 2011 10:21 PM | Report abuse

"I also care about the country. I think almost everybody here does. Some of the people I disagree with the most often on the widest range of issues may well care the most passionately. It's interesting that, to some people, "caring about the country" is essentially synonymous with "agrees with me politically".

Posted by: Kevin_Willis"

Well, yeah, if you espouse different views in real life than you have on here, that's another story.

But the thing is, being patriotic doesn't mean waving a flag, being condescending to rural Americans, and brutalizing homosexuals. It's about studying and understanding the issues, or at least taking some time to do so. Clearly when people come on here and say things like the Bush tax cuts have had 0.0% effect on the deficit, they haven't taken one half a second to study a thing. When they say that end-of-life discussions are death panels, this is bald faced lying. When they say that the ACA will add trillions to the deficit, this is just based on what Sean Hannity says, not any attempt at any kind of study.

I don't spend a ton of time reading up on the issues, but clearly I spend a hell of a lot more time than you do. And it's not so I can argue with people on here on whether the wheel has truly been invented. It's so I can vote for the policies that will benefit my country.

The fact that you espouse views that have been proven over and over and over not to work suggests you have different values than I do. There is no way a patriotic American can seriously say that trickle down economics have led to dramatic economic growth. Republicans have shown zero interest in the past 30 years in deficit reduction, yet you insist that they have or they will.

You people say things like the CBO's score of the ACA isn't valid because it doesn't include the doc fix. You people continue to insist that global warming isn't real or that evolution should not be taught in schools. You guys are so worried about deficits that you cut off unemployment and food stamps, but can't wait to pass that upper class tax cut.

You call that patriotic? You call that caring about America?

And these aren't fringe positions. EVERY ONE of you believe all of the above.

So don't spout off lies and advocate positions that are terrible for this country and then tell me about how much you love this country. Anyone can say they love this country, but you aren't even willing to take the step to stray from saying Conservative Things just so you can have acceptance into some amorphous entity.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 3, 2011 10:33 PM | Report abuse

"But you aren't speaking on the best interests of your country."

Just so that I understand, your position is that Scott knows what he writes here is wrong. He's intentionally lying. Does he know your positions are the correct one? Or does he have positions different than yours, but still not wrong? Finally, how do you know this? Do you know Scott personally? Has he told you this?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 3, 2011 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, tao, you tell 'em:

http://www.frumforum.com/how-odonnell-brought-down-the-delaware-gop

Not to mention what happened in Colorado...

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 3, 2011 10:36 PM | Report abuse

"So the bi-ennial legislature, which convenes this month, faces some hard cuts. Some in the Texas GDP have advocated dropping Medicaid altogether to save money."

It's doubtful that this will actually save money since people who lose care will start going to ERs for treatment which will probably be more expensive than the state's share of Medicaid.

It's kind of an interesting confluence of California and Texas, two states with the wealth to ride out the economic storm, but the lack of political will to do so. This stands in stark contrast to somewhere like Michigan or Louisiana where the economic realities are far more responsible for troubles than politics.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 3, 2011 10:39 PM | Report abuse

"Just so that I understand, your position is that Scott knows what he writes here is wrong. He's intentionally lying"

Some of each. The ACA stuff he's wrong about because he can't be bothered to check if what Sean Hannity tells him is correct.

As for the death panel stuff, that's an ugly lie and he knows it.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 3, 2011 10:42 PM | Report abuse

What else is happening? The world keeps getting scarier for those who like constitutions and human rights:

http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48969486.html

Posted by: actuator | January 3, 2011 10:45 PM | Report abuse

All right Mr. De-ddawg-Mille I'm ready for my close-up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOLypkY8LMc

"...add trillions to the deficit."

Deficit 1/1/2010 to 12/31/2010: $1.714Trillion

{{{giggle/gulp}}}

Posted by: tao9 | January 3, 2011 10:46 PM | Report abuse

David Frum, on MSNBC just now, said that senior Republicans are now taking steps to guarantee that Palin does not run.

Of course they are.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 3, 2011 10:49 PM | Report abuse

suekzoo1,

No doubt.

The point is that the country, actually the polity, doesn't reside, rise and fall within the coordinates that plot between College Park and Annandale.

Big train comin'.

Posted by: tao9 | January 3, 2011 10:53 PM | Report abuse

I can't decide who's smarter here? Is it cao or DDAWD. Plus, you can't count out Liam.

Part of me says its DDAWD. He's essentially a human lie detector and knows, KNOWS, that all of us on the right understand him to be correct but willingly lie and preach the opposite. Plus, he's cracked the code and knows that we have to say Conservative Things to stay in the club. Anonymous blog or no.

Cao, on the other hand, is constantly giving us his resume, impressive indeed, and is far better than DDAWD at calling those that disagree with him, "drooling morons." It's also hard to beat his admiration for mass murder. Ultimately, this may well be the deciding factor.

And then there's the seeming underdog Liam. Some call his repeated postings of the same, tired, unfunny jokes as lame. I call it message discipline. Plus, no one, I mean NO ONE goes to the race card quicker than him. And I'm pretty sure that he finds STRF irrestible and cannot not, if you know what I mean, engage him.

Thoughts?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 3, 2011 10:58 PM | Report abuse

(snicker)

http://www.primariesforpalin.com/

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 3, 2011 10:59 PM | Report abuse

A little more information about something the liberal elite wish to ignore:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkGQmCZjJ0k

Posted by: actuator | January 3, 2011 11:00 PM | Report abuse

"It's kind of an interesting confluence of California and Texas, two states with the wealth to ride out the economic storm, but the lack of political will to do so."

I don't know much about Texas DDAWD, but I know a little about CA and we're broke so I don't know where this "wealth" is going to come from. We may not have the auto industry or fishing/oil like Michigan and Louisianna, but our housing and construction industry died and unemployment's at 12.4%, over 14% where I live. We've taken austerity for a pretty good ride with more coming. This was sort of funny though, at Brown's inauguration today they served hot dogs, chips and water.

I do have faith in our state though, we're the original comeback kid from bubble after bubble so I bet we'll do it again. It's a contest between the states to see who does the best under which political party so I'll put my money on this sunshine state.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 3, 2011 11:01 PM | Report abuse

"Deficit 1/1/2010 to 12/31/2010: $1.714Trillion"

Want a challenge?

Give me a list of policies passed during the Obama administration that add up to $1.7 trillion in deficit.

Of course, the most logical place to start would be the stimulus. That in itself has about $500 billion in spending (remember, the $300 billion in tax cuts add 0.00000% to the deficit)

Yeah, the spending is spread out over several years. Let's say $300 billion was spent in 2010.

There you go. Tell me where the remaining $1.4 trillion can be found in Obama administration policies.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 3, 2011 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Libs let it rock
Let it roll
Let Obsession come down
And save my soul
Hold on to Palin as long as you can
Changes come around real soon
GOP (Rubio!) in the WH again

Posted by: tao9 | January 3, 2011 11:08 PM | Report abuse

"David Frum, on MSNBC just now, said that senior Republicans are now taking steps to guarantee that Palin does not run.

Of course they are."

We on the right call Frum our best weapon. His Propaganda skills are unsurpassed. Just look at some of his resume:

1. "During the 1990s he attended "three or four" Bilderberg Group meetings as a guest of Conrad Black.[7]"

Hmmm, New World Order, and cavorting with a convicted felon. Owner of Rightwing media (Jerusalem Post)

2. "Following the election of George W. Bush in 2000, Frum was appointed to a position within the White House."

That brings exposure to Rove and my Dark Lord Cheney (Chaos Be Upon Him). One doesn't escape their grasp... or influence. Ask St. Julian.

3. "Frum strongly supported John Roberts, George W. Bush's nominee for Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court."

Citizen's United.

Bernie, surely your smarter than this? Do you actually trust this Frum?

I weep for those who trained you to ferret out Propaganda.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 3, 2011 11:10 PM | Report abuse

I also care about the country.

==

Most people who read this would interpret it as "I want the country to succeed and so I favor policies favorable to its well-being"

But then you turn around and support unimpeachably harmful and self-destructive Republican policies.

Something we learned in college Communications classes .. when the verbal and nonverbal messages are in conflict, believe the nonverbal.

Oh, wait, you don't *believe* those Republican policies are harmful. So what does that make you?

Posted by: caothien9 | January 3, 2011 11:20 PM | Report abuse

$14,025,215,218,708.52 (12/31/2010)
-12,311,349,677,512.03 (1/1/2010)
----------------------
$ 1,713,865,541,196.49

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Why don't you e-mail Orzag at CitiGroup for the specs?

Posted by: tao9 | January 3, 2011 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Cool! Cao's here.

Now we'll all learn somethings!

Welcome, my friend. (And for what it's worth, I think you're the smartest one here. ;-) [No offense bernie]

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 3, 2011 11:27 PM | Report abuse

The fact that you espouse views that have been proven over and over and over not to work suggests you have different values than I do. There is no way a patriotic American can seriously say that trickle down economics have led to dramatic economic growth. Republicans have shown zero interest in the past 30 years in deficit reduction, yet you insist that they have or they will.

You people say things like the CBO's score of the ACA isn't valid because it doesn't include the doc fix. You people continue to insist that global warming isn't real or that evolution should not be taught in schools. You guys are so worried about deficits that you cut off unemployment and food stamps, but can't wait to pass that upper class tax cut.

You call that patriotic? You call that caring about America?

And these aren't fringe positions. EVERY ONE of you believe all of the above.

==

Smashin' good post, DDAWD.

It's the last part that needs underscoring. Every bloody last one of the conservatives believes with hollow-eyed conviction in a whole bunch of stuff that is demonstrably false. And bares teeth in rage at anyone who even suggests that any of it isn't the absolute truth.

They'll tell you that supply-side is established fact and Keynes is established falsehood. They'll tell you that the world isn't heating, sea levels aren't rising. They'll tell you that cutting taxes on the rich leads to job creation and increased government revenue.

Lies, lies, lies. Yet they all *believe* them They aren't knowingly lying, the *believe* this stuff.

Conservatives have this little quip "liberalism is a mental disorder." Cute. Well, based on the available evidence, conservative actually, truly IS a form of cognitive disorder in the first degree.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 3, 2011 11:34 PM | Report abuse

$14,025,215,218,708.52 (12/31/2010)
-12,311,349,677,512.03 (1/1/2010)
----------------------
$ 1,713,865,541,196.49

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Why don't you e-mail Orzag at CitiGroup for the specs?

==

Quit dancing.

What *Obama policies* contributed more than a half bil to the deficit? Obama didn't get us into two pointless wars, you know.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 3, 2011 11:37 PM | Report abuse

"Smashin' good post, DDAWD.

It's the last part that needs underscoring. Every bloody last one of the conservatives believes with hollow-eyed conviction in a whole bunch of stuff that is demonstrably false. And bares teeth in rage at anyone who even suggests that any of it isn't the absolute truth. "

Thanks. It's just weird how they just have this obsession in being a part of this group of Conservatives. They have the privilege of living in the greatest country in the world, but that is just an afterthought to them.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 3, 2011 11:47 PM | Report abuse

"Smashin' good post, DDAWD.

It's the last part that needs underscoring. Every bloody last one of the conservatives believes with hollow-eyed conviction in a whole bunch of stuff that is demonstrably false. And bares teeth in rage at anyone who even suggests that any of it isn't the absolute truth. "

Thanks. It's just weird how they just have this obsession in being a part of this group of Conservatives. They have the privilege of living in the greatest country in the world, but that is just an afterthought to them.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 3, 2011 11:48 PM | Report abuse

"It's the last part that needs underscoring. Every bloody last one of the conservatives believes with hollow-eyed conviction in a whole bunch of stuff that is demonstrably false. And bares teeth in rage at anyone who even suggests that any of it isn't the absolute truth."

You couldn't be righter. I do believe in... "a whole bunch of stuff." It's voluminous, the "whole bunch of stuff" that I believe in. Not a little amount of stuff, nor a fair amount, but "a whole bunch of stuff." It's verifiable too. No kidding, completely verifiable.

That's it. You've done it my good man. You secured the top spot here. You are the Smartest Commenter. I'm now officially, with hollowed-eyed conviction, adding to the "whole bunch of stuff" I know. Greg? Watch your back!

I am in awe.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 3, 2011 11:52 PM | Report abuse

"Quit dancing.

What *Obama policies* contributed more than a half bil to the deficit? Obama didn't get us into two pointless wars, you know.

Posted by: caothien9"

Haha, did you seriously expect any of them to honestly answer that? They know they can't.

They are all just lying through their teeth because they need to be Conservative.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 3, 2011 11:52 PM | Report abuse

"And bares teeth in rage at anyone who even suggests that any of it isn't the absolute truth.""

OMG!!!11!!!!!! HE CAN SEE US!!!111


KAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 3, 2011 11:57 PM | Report abuse

'...the FY 2010 deficit remained elevated as a result of the severe economic recession, high unemployment, and the financial crisis that were inherited by the current Administration. In order to shore up the economy, the Administration put in place temporary economic stabilization and recovery efforts, including the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act), which provided much needed tax relief and jobs. The Administration also continued emergency economic stabilization efforts including the TARP, initiated by the previous administration. The TARP has proved to be effective and will cost far less than originally expected. In part because of these measures, the economy began to grow again in the second half of 2009, and the FY 2010 budget results reflect improving economic conditions."

http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2010/10/15/fy-2010-deficit/?cxntfid=blogs_jamie_dupree_washington_insider

Posted by: tao9 | January 3, 2011 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Greatest country in the HISTORY of the world.

Get it right, Norma.

How does your Cochin compenero feel re: Our mutual love for the USA?

Posted by: tao9 | January 4, 2011 12:07 AM | Report abuse

tao9 | January 3, 2011 11:26 PM

_______________


AND they were supposedly paying off Tarp in 2010 and they sold shares in Citibank


So, the increase in debt should be Less than the 1.3 Trillion deficit


I don't trust Obama and his people. Is 400 Billion missing???

Tao Is 400 Billion missing???

Is 400 Billion missing???

Is 400 Billion missing???

Is 400 Billion missing???

Is 400 Billion missing???

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 4, 2011 12:15 AM | Report abuse

I think ya'll don't appreciate all the music and melody I bring to PL.

hugs

Posted by: tao9 | January 4, 2011 12:17 AM | Report abuse

tao, I forgot that it's a Conservative Thing to say that TARP was passed during the Obama administration.

My fault.

I was hoping for at least a better lie than
1) not answering the question by simply restating the deficit
2) including TARP

I'm sure you will have an oh-so heeeeelarious joke on how you pretend to be dumb.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 4, 2011 12:20 AM | Report abuse

"Get it right, Norma."

Snicker. Can I be Max?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 4, 2011 12:22 AM | Report abuse

ddawg,

That's a freakin' Geithner quote in the 11:58pm!

Read the links you knucklehead.

{{{Who the f' ever said Obama passed TARP, not tao, ever}}}

Posted by: tao9 | January 4, 2011 12:28 AM | Report abuse

"tao, I forgot that it's a Conservative Thing to say that TARP was passed during the Obama administration.

My fault.

I was hoping for at least a better lie than
1) not answering the question by simply restating the deficit
2) including TARP

I'm sure you will have an oh-so heeeeelarious joke on how you pretend to be dumb."

Don't forgot that it's a Liberal Thing to accuse Conservatives of saying things they did not.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 4, 2011 12:34 AM | Report abuse

Wasn't "continuing two wars" Obama's policies? He is Commander-in-Chief, right?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 4, 2011 12:41 AM | Report abuse

Sic semper doodz
Who get their newz
From PerkyKatie.

{{{tao haikewz}}}

Posted by: tao9 | January 4, 2011 12:46 AM | Report abuse

tao

♪♫♪♫♫♪♫♪♪♫
Goodnight Irene

Posted by: lmsinca | January 4, 2011 12:56 AM | Report abuse

lms,

Actually, apologies for being a little, uh, harsh/snark tonite.

Don't like being called a liar, traitor, and stuff.

{{{"With a song in my heart..." ♪♫♪♫♫♪♫♪♪♫}}}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc-P8oDuS0Q


Posted by: tao9 | January 4, 2011 1:02 AM | Report abuse

"The fact that you espouse views that have been proven over and over and over not to work suggests . . . ."

The fact that you continuously assert falsehoods as facts suggests that you are a habitual liar or live in a world of fantasy and delusion. Your total blindness to your own guilt in doing all the very things of which you accuse conservatives suggests profound delusion.

Either way, you and your kind are impervious to any type of reason or facts. You're right, though, that we have different values, that's for sure, and I personally think that your delusional state is more a function of your twisted values than vice versa.

And, btw, liberal economics has nothing whatsoever to do with growth or prosperity. Everyone knows that, so don't waste your breath claiming it does. It has to to with grasping for political power and bribing the masses and scapegoating "the rich," which is anyone who falls on the wrong side of the electoral bribery calculus of of greedy and corrupt liberal pols.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 4, 2011 6:25 AM | Report abuse

Greatest country in the HISTORY of the world.

==

Stridency always indicates defensiveness.

You know it isn't true.

But even had it been true one, it's true no more.

Great countries take better care of their people.

Great countries don't launch invasions out of personal spite.

Great countries cherish great words and deeds, they don't sneer at them.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 4, 2011 7:24 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

"You can say you are, but you aren't, because your allegiances lie elsewhere."

Where do my allegiances lie?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 4, 2011 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Brigade:

"You're not a Vietnamese plant are you Scott?"

No, but I have been to Vietnam. They have some wonderful plants there.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 4, 2011 8:10 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

"The ACA stuff he's wrong about because he can't be bothered to check if what Sean Hannity tells him is correct."

I've never been a regular watcher of Sean Hannity, and haven't actually seen the show at all in years. So not at all sure what he has been telling me.

"As for the death panel stuff, that's an ugly lie and he knows it."

The only thing I have said about death panels is that, if socialized medicine is our future, we damn well better have death panels. I'll pay quite a lot for a few extra weeks with my loved ones, but not nearly so much for strangers. Someone is going to have to cut off the spigot. If this is a lie (how could a desire be a lie?), I certainly don't know it.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 4, 2011 8:15 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/the_morning_plum_159.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 4, 2011 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Insurance companies already turn off the spigot when it cuts into the profit margin. Everyone surely knows that?

Posted by: fiona5 | January 4, 2011 8:50 AM | Report abuse

fiona:

"Insurance companies already turn off the spigot when it cuts into the profit margin."

Perhaps, but entirely beside the point. When the government takes over, it will, by definition, become the controller of the spigot. And since I pay a huge amount of taxes already, and will likely have to pay even more to fund this government bonanza, I fully advocate that the government keep that spigot tight. I not only welcome death panels, I demand them.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 4, 2011 9:06 AM | Report abuse

I sincerely hope you get the death panel you demand and undoubtedly deserve, Scott.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 4, 2011 9:21 AM | Report abuse

fiona:

"I sincerely hope you get the death panel you demand..."

Excellent. We are on the same page, then.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 4, 2011 9:53 AM | Report abuse

"Stridency always indicates defensiveness."

Lol

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 4, 2011 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company