Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 3:31 PM ET, 02/ 9/2011

What do House GOPers with Muslim constituents think of Pete King's hearings?

By Greg Sargent

GOP Reps. Dave Reichert of Washington State and Richard Nugent of Florida both preside over districts with Muslim communities in them. They both have backgrounds in law enforcement.

So you'd think they'd have something to say about Rep. Pete King's plans for hearings into the radicalization of Muslim communities. After all, those hearings are heavily premised on King's claim that law enforcement officials privately think it's a big problem that Muslim Americans are not helping with efforts to foil terror plots. Reichert and Nugent represent constituents who are likely angered by the hearings and may even feel indirectly targeted by them.

But after 24 hours of trying, I have not yet been able to get either Reichert or Nugent or their offices to comment on King's crusade. Their spokespeople both promised to get back to me with a response after I asked for one yesterday. Neither have, though I'm hopeful that they will soon enough.

This is not meant as a "gotcha." You'd think Reichert and Nugent, as Republicans with backgrounds in law enforcement who also represent Muslim constituents, could contribute something genuinely valuable to this debate.

Nugent, for instance, was Sheriff in Hernando County, Florida, which is home to a Muslim community where a bullet was fired into a mosque after September 11th. Sheriff Nugent beefed up patrols to protect it. He was also tangentially involved in the arrest of a man suspected of raising money for terrorists. So you can bet he'd have interesting things to say about King's claims about the alleged non-cooperation with law enforcement of ordinary Muslims, as well as about the wisdom of King's hearings in general.

As best as I can determine, we haven't yet heard any comments on King's hearings from any House GOPers who represent sizable Muslim constituencies, let alone from Nugent or Reichert. But it seems like a potentially fruitful line of inquiry. I'm going to keep trying, and I'll update you if I have any success.

By Greg Sargent  | February 9, 2011; 3:31 PM ET
Categories:  Foreign policy and national security, House GOPers  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Ben Nelson on the individual mandate: "We need to find an alternative"
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

As I said yesterday;

Peter King has now put himself in the same class as that idiot pastor who was going to burn copies of the Koran.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 9, 2011 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Peter King has now put himself in the same class as that idiot pastor who was going to burn copies of the Koran.

Nah. That pastor was harmless, largely a media creation. King is in a position of authority -- much more dangerous.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | February 9, 2011 3:52 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne, I am replying to your earlier questions to me.

And what is the "moderate" position on the other issues I mentioned:

Protecting Social Security?

*Old age benefits should continue to be run as an insurance and not a welfare program. This will require some combination of a higher payroll tax base, a higher payroll tax rate, a continued stepping of the full retirement age, and/or means testing, provided that no one's actuarial benefit is ever less than the appreciated value of their contributions.*

Marijuana legalization?

*MJ should be decriminalized and regulated and taxed like tobacco and alcohol. Gradually other recreational drugs should be introduced into the scheme until the back of the drug trade is broken, preferably before the perpetual War on Drugs breaks us.*

Raising taxes on Rich Americans?

*Personal income tax should be reformed. Other taxes, like APT, should be investigated. Corporate taxes should be reformed. A reformed system would tax Americans more until we are no longer the world's cop, and would put more burden at the higher end of the income scale, because that is where the money is and that is where the money flows. A disproportionate amount of federal tax expenditure flows to the very wealthy. I need only point to the interest on the national debt to make that point. A very few banks, insurers, and sovereign wealth funds are collecting enormous sums from us.*

Global warming?

*Exists. Humans can contribute less carbon and methane to the atmosphere, and also prepare for the removal of human habitation from coastal regions. Or simply wait until there are no options. I think moderates would favor slow and steady preparation, easing the ultimate dislocations. I could be wrong.*

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 9, 2011 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Greg, real quick, how did you decide to choose WA 8th as a place with lots of Muslims? Bellevue? Mercer Island? Microsoft's bedroom, is that it?

Posted by: shrink2 | February 9, 2011 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Bin Laden must love guys like Peter King. It must make his recruiting job much easier, when he has someone, to point to, in the American Government who is discriminating against the entire American Muslim community.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 9, 2011 4:05 PM | Report abuse

The Detroit suburbs have a large muslim community. Also true outside of Chicago. I know personally that VA has a large and vibrant muslim community. We have plenty repub reps.

Keep on it, Greg! I am amazed the Repub leadership is all gung ho for a hearing for which the sole purpose is to demonize a whole group of people. I mean it may play good with Rush Limbaugh and the like, but electorially I can't see how it helps them at all.

Posted by: Alex3 | February 9, 2011 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Looks like Napolitano agrees with King!

"Napolitano said in testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee. The danger… has shifted — instead of coming almost exclusively from people sent from other countries to carry out attacks, it now comes primarily from westerners who are being recruited by terrorist groups… Al-Qaeda and its allies are continuing to recruit Americans to carry out attacks, she said.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49163.html#ixzz1DUH8v48C

The hearings are about the potential radicalization of American Muslims. It's not clear to me - as it is to Greg - that the hearings are "heavily premised on King's claim that law enforcement officials privately think it's a big problem that Muslim Americans are not helping with efforts to foil terror plots."

It is also not clear that the constituents of Reichert and Nugent "are likely angered" by these hearings.

This is pretty simple. Napolitano and King understand that Al-Qaeda and its allies are continuing to recruit Americans to carry out attacks. That topic seems worthy of congressional hearings.

Posted by: sbj3 | February 9, 2011 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Then, wbgonne,you posted:

Well, the problems being addressed were lack of health care availability and rising costs. By all measures, the public option/expanded Medicare would have addressed both. And 70% of the American People wanted exactly that. Not to mention that the public option was proposed as the compromise position, giving a government plan the chance to compete against private insurers on a limited basis. And the opposition to the public plan was based solely upon a reactionary ideological antigovernment philosophy.

So by what definition is that position "moderate?"

*I take it you meant that moderate opposition to a public option or national medicare was based sole on reactionary ideology. I do not believe it was based on any ideology at all, but on the observed mechanics of a Medicare insurance scheme in which recipients prepaid premiums for forty years before requiring service. Even with that prepayment, the system is struggling.*

*There is plenty of evidence that a universal health plan coupled with clinic care that is result based rather than piecemeal service based is 30-45% cheaper than what we have. Most of our trading partners do not have national insurance or socialized medicine but they all have universal coverage. San Francisco has implemented some 45 clinics on a neighborhood basis in a public private partnership that works very well. I can find links for both, but my point here is that moderates saw no advantage to expanding a near broke Medicare system into a current paid insurance scheme, and none from a federal public competitor, either, compared with the scheme laid out by Wyden-Bennett. W-B had the significant advantage of moving away from employer provided insurance, as well. But I already said that.*

Wbg, it is usually a poor debate strategy to characterize opposing views with ad hominem attacks. We lawyers prefer to say that arguments we would rather avoid are "irrelevant." :-)

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 9, 2011 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Peter King's Collective Guilt Claims; is the quickest way to alienate more and more American Muslims. It is disgusting; and of course SBJ; The Faux Libertarian, is clearly eager to unleash his inner Joesph McCarthy.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 9, 2011 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"It is also not clear that the constituents of Reichert and Nugent "are likely angered" by these hearings."

LOL!

SBJ3, try this on for size:

I think we should hearings on all people involved SBJ3's religion! I am busy right now looking for members of his religion who will say that other members are willing to carry out terrorist attacks and not tell the police!

To boil it down for you, you cannot paint an entire religion one color. If a catholic blows up a building, one doesn't assume we need hearings on all catholics.

If you don't understand that, I can't help you.

Posted by: Alex3 | February 9, 2011 4:23 PM | Report abuse

sbj, King is vowing (he's changed his tune) to call law enforcement officials to testify to precisely that claim about Muslim non cooperation.

does that count as focusing the hearings on it?

Posted by: sargegreg | February 9, 2011 4:27 PM | Report abuse

mark:

""A disproportionate amount of federal tax expenditure flows to the very wealthy.""

Disproportionate to what?

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 9, 2011 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't EVERY Congressional District have Muslim constituents? Even Wyoming's At Large District:

http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2009/11/14/20local_11-14-00.txt

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 9, 2011 4:30 PM | Report abuse

lolol

Hey Greg, you gotta put this in your roundup for the night.

http://gawker.com/#!5755071/married-gop-congressman-sent-sexy-pictures-to-craigslist-babe

haha.. What a tool.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | February 9, 2011 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Mark, I admire your patience, really.

"Most of our trading partners do not have national insurance or socialized medicine but they all have universal coverage. San Francisco has implemented some 45 clinics on a neighborhood basis in a public private partnership that works very well."

Most people find this kind of thing is very hard to hear. Sheesh, maybe I am a moderate. It is a scary thought.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 9, 2011 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Virtually nobody cares about this subject. America is very fortunate there is a vast ocean between it and the Muslim source countries. Our outlaw "immigrants" from land connected, third-world nations are a major headache but think how disasterous it would be if the U.S. were connected to a large Islamic nation.

It's too horrible to even think about. America would be crawling with Islamo-psychos instead of Mexicans.

We are exremely fortunate, indeed.

Posted by: battleground51 | February 9, 2011 4:35 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: "sbj, King is vowing (he's changed his tune) to call law enforcement officials to testify to precisely that claim about Muslim non cooperation. does that count as focusing the hearings on it?"

I have two responses. (1) If it's true, then it's a problem that should be investigated. (2) It doesn't count as "focusing" the hearings unless that's the primary focus of the hearings!

Napolitano didn't testify on what you say King is "focused" on, did she?

Posted by: sbj3 | February 9, 2011 4:38 PM | Report abuse

mark:

""A very few banks, insurers, and sovereign wealth funds are collecting enormous sums from us.""

Because they are lending enormous sums to us. Are you suggesting that banks, insurers, et al should be lending to the US government for free? That, afterall, would be the effective situation if the government set out to claw back through taxes from these people/institutions what they were paid in interest. In which case, why would anyone lend to the government anymore?

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 9, 2011 4:39 PM | Report abuse

http://www.montanamuslims.org/

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 9, 2011 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Disproportionate to what?

Fair question, Scott. I hypothesize that the bulk of the national debt has been accumulated since WW2 on defending the entire world. The domestic borrowing from Social Security began during WW2 - after all, SS had no place else to put the money. But in recent years, we have been borrowing from institutional investors and foreigners. The interest on that debt is paid from current revenues [at least as a bookkeeping notation].

When I hear the argument from you that progressive taxation redistributes wealth downward because more is taken from the rich and paid to the poor I counter [in my head] that far more wealth is redistributed "upward" because of the actual spending priorities of the federal government. To me, a very few people, proportionately, are the major beneficiaries of big bucks federal spending. The aforementioned investors, the major corporate farmers, the major defense subcontractors, our shipping industry, our airlines, the big highway contractors,... you get the picture. If this image I have is accurate, I am more comfortable with a progressive tax system. That is because I think a few wealthy people benefit from federal largesse to the tune of very great sums. Disproportionately to what the middle class gets for its taxes, I think.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 9, 2011 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Scott, as to your second point, income taxes are always only a fraction of net income, so "claw back" is not the right metaphor. Skim back, I would buy.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 9, 2011 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Some European countries with lax, immigration laws are in true danger of eventually becoming majority Islamic. The natives there are just now coming out of their socialistic stupor and smelling the camel dung.

It may be too late for them because once you open the Pandora's box of third-world, mass immigration, there's no good solution for the social chaos caused by it.

Most Americans are wise to this. It is why the Obama endorsed, outlaw "immigrant", mass amnesty bills have crashed and burned every time the Obamacrats have tried to ram them through Congress.

Posted by: battleground51 | February 9, 2011 4:50 PM | Report abuse

mark:

Much to say on this, but not enough time right now. I will respond later tonight on the Happy Hour.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 9, 2011 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"Old age benefits should continue to be run as an insurance and not a welfare program. This will require some combination of a higher payroll tax base, a higher payroll tax rate, a continued stepping of the full retirement age, and/or means testing, provided that no one's actuarial benefit is ever less than the appreciated value of their contributions."

I disagree. I think that modest care for the elderly should be provided by government as part of the common welfare.

"MJ should be decriminalized and regulated and taxed like tobacco and alcohol. Gradually other recreational drugs should be introduced into the scheme until the back of the drug trade is broken, preferably before the perpetual War on Drugs breaks us."

Agreed.

"Personal income tax should be reformed. Other taxes, like APT, should be investigated. Corporate taxes should be reformed. A reformed system would tax Americans more until we are no longer the world's cop, and would put more burden at the higher end of the income scale, because that is where the money is and that is where the money flows. A disproportionate amount of federal tax expenditure flows to the very wealthy. I need only point to the interest on the national debt to make that point. A very few banks, insurers, and sovereign wealth funds are collecting enormous sums from us."

Agreed.

"[Global warming] Exists. Humans can contribute less carbon and methane to the atmosphere, and also prepare for the removal of human habitation from coastal regions. Or simply wait until there are no options. I think moderates would favor slow and steady preparation, easing the ultimate dislocations"

What does that mean in practice?

Posted by: wbgonne | February 9, 2011 4:53 PM | Report abuse

More and more of The Egyptian people are demanding an end to Despotic rule.

"CAIRO – Thousands of state workers and impoverished Egyptians went on strike Wednesday after weeks of anti-government protests cast a spotlight on corruption and the wealth amassed by those in power in a country where almost half the people live near the poverty line.

The protests calling for President Hosni Mubarak's ouster have been spreading since Tuesday outside of Cairo's Tahrir Square, where they have been concentrated for the past week. On Wednesday, demonstrators also gathered at parliament, the Cabinet and the Health Ministry buildings, all a few blocks from the square. Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq was working out of the Civil Aviation Ministry on the other side of the city because his office was blocked by protesters.

For the first time, protesters were forcefully urging labor strikes despite a warning by Vice President Omar Suleiman that calls for civil disobedience are "very dangerous for society and we can't put up with this at all." His warnings Tuesday were taken by protesters as a thinly veiled threat of another crackdown.

Strikes erupted in a breadth of sectors — among railway and bus workers, state electricity staff and service technicians at the Suez Canal, in factories manufacturing textiles, steel and beverages and at least one hospital.

"They were motivated to strike when they heard about how many billions the Mubarak family was worth," said Kamal Abbas, a labor leader. "They said: 'How much longer should we be silent?'"

Egyptians have been infuriated by newspaper reports that the Mubarak family has amassed billions, and perhaps tens of billions of dollars in wealth while, according to the World Bank, about 40 percent of the country's 80 million people live below or near the poverty line of $2 a day. The family's true net worth is not known.

"O Mubarak, tell us where you get $70 billion dollars," dozens of protesters chanted in front of the Health Ministry."

Posted by: Liam-still | February 9, 2011 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Scott

""Are you suggesting that banks, insurers, et al should be lending to the US government for free?""

You must mean like this?

""What have we learned so far from the disclosure of more than 21,000 transactions? We have learned that the $700 billion Wall Street bailout signed into law by President George W. Bush turned out to be pocket change compared to the trillions and trillions of dollars in near-zero interest loans and other financial arrangements the Federal Reserve doled out to every major financial institution in this country. Among those are Goldman Sachs, which received nearly $600 billion; Morgan Stanley, which received nearly $2 trillion; Citigroup, which received $1.8 trillion; Bear Stearns, which received nearly $1 trillion, and Merrill Lynch, which received some $1.5 trillion in short term loans from the Fed.

We also learned that the Fed’s multi-trillion bailout was not limited to Wall Street and big banks, but that some of the largest corporations in this country also received a very substantial bailout. Among those are General Electric, McDonald’s, Caterpillar, Harley Davidson, Toyota and Verizon.""

http://schuylerthorpe.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/federal-reserve-loans-3-3-trillion-dollars-to-banks-in-shadow-op/

Posted by: lmsinca | February 9, 2011 4:56 PM | Report abuse

"I take it you meant that moderate opposition to a public option or national medicare was based sole on reactionary ideology. I do not believe it was based on any ideology at all, but on the observed mechanics of a Medicare insurance scheme in which recipients prepaid premiums for forty years before requiring service. Even with that prepayment, the system is struggling."

In my opinion, that had almost nothing to do with it. The opposition was insurance and health care industries buttressed by antigovernment ideologues ("death panels"?) they and other multinationals sponsored.

"There is plenty of evidence that a universal health plan coupled with clinic care that is result based rather than piecemeal service based is 30-45% cheaper than what we have. Most of our trading partners do not have national insurance or socialized medicine but they all have universal coverage. San Francisco has implemented some 45 clinics on a neighborhood basis in a public private partnership that works very well. I can find links for both, but my point here is that moderates saw no advantage to expanding a near broke Medicare system into a current paid insurance scheme, and none from a federal public competitor, either, compared with the scheme laid out by Wyden-Bennett. W-B had the significant advantage of moving away from employer provided insurance, as well. But I already said that."

I have no problem experimenting with different health care delivery mechanisms. I encourage it. However, I think health care is a fundamental human right in America today and, as such, it should be the government's responsibility to provide it.

"Wbg, it is usually a poor debate strategy to characterize opposing views with ad hominem attacks. We lawyers prefer to say that arguments we would rather avoid are "irrelevant." :-)"

I honestly don't see any ad hominems there but, then again, this is the internet not a courtroom anyhow.

Posted by: wbgonne | February 9, 2011 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Mark:

One final point:

Whatever the merits of the positions you espouse why do you characterize them as "moderate"? Moderate in comparison to whom?

Posted by: wbgonne | February 9, 2011 5:05 PM | Report abuse

The moral of the "free" enterprise story is this. Tax payers lend to plutocrats for free, plutocrats charge taxpayers when they lend the money back. This is called quantitative easing, yes, the Fed is buying its own securities back (on the "free" market) from Wall Street firms. Someone earlier disputed the idea that QE was a supply side strategy, I had to laugh. Are tax cuts for the rich demand side too (sure, they'll stimulate demand on Rodeo Drive, where Hosni Mubarak owns property), how about offshore profit tax holidays and "free" trade deals?

Posted by: shrink2 | February 9, 2011 5:07 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne, as far as I know, the Tea Party does not hold any seats in Congress. None in the Senate. They aren't a third party any more than the Blue Dogs are.

As for their positions, I'm not arguing whether their positions are or aren't mainstream. But there's no denying that the party itself is not mainstream. And I think that's an impossible hurdle to overcome when running for President. Maybe that's not fair, but if Green wants to push policy, they need seats. Yeah, they can rabble rouse, but that can only go so far.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 9, 2011 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"More and more of The Egyptian people are demanding an end to Despotic rule."

This could be a beautiful thing. Or it could get very ugly.

"protesters were forcefully urging labor strikes despite a warning by Vice President Omar Suleiman that calls for civil disobedience are "very dangerous for society and we can't put up with this at all." His warnings Tuesday were taken by protesters as a thinly veiled threat of another crackdown. Strikes erupted in a breadth of sectors — among railway and bus workers, state electricity staff and service technicians at the Suez Canal, in factories manufacturing textiles, steel and beverages and at least one hospital."

See how bad unions are?

Posted by: wbgonne | February 9, 2011 5:10 PM | Report abuse

"Some European countries with lax, immigration laws are in true danger of eventually becoming majority Islamic."

Man, I'm not going to be able to sleep tonight knowing this. What happens after they takeover Europe? Wait, I live 20 minutes from Dearborn Michigan which has one of the largest, if not the largest, Muslim population in the Country.

By the way, if you google "Dearborn Michigan", google suggests a couple of additional search terms, specifically "sharia law". Which leads to some great blogs that battlegroudn will love.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | February 9, 2011 5:10 PM | Report abuse

I still think it is very strange that liberals, like Sarge Greg-Adam Sewer, who profess their love and devotion to all things homosexual, are also 100%, pro-Islamic when homosexuality is an abomination in the Islamic faith and carries the penalty of death in some Islamic nations.

Now, on the other hand, if a Christian person dares to look cross-eyed at a homosexual, the liberals go ballistic with frenzied screams of "homophobia", "hate speech", and "bigotry".

It's some sort of liberal, bizarro world hypocrisy that defies understanding by normal people.

My theory is that many liberals/homosexuals despise Christianity even more than they fear Islamism. America is overwhelmingly Christian but Muslims make up a tiny minority. Therefore, liberals/homosexuals take up the Muslim cause because they think it will cause distress to the Christian cause.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" as the saying goes.

Posted by: battleground51 | February 9, 2011 5:13 PM | Report abuse

"wbgonne, as far as I know, the Tea Party does not hold any seats in Congress. None in the Senate. They aren't a third party any more than the Blue Dogs are"

I think there are a few actual Tea Partiers in Congress )or maybe just state govs, I'm not sure) but, you're right, most of them came in through the GOP. But even that was something of a hostile takeover where the TPer entered the GOP primary and defeated the Est Repub. I would be happy if the Green Party played even that same kind of role within the Democratic Party by moving it Left.

"As for their positions, I'm not arguing whether their positions are or aren't mainstream."

But surely that is relevant.

"But there's no denying that the party itself is not mainstream. And I think that's an impossible hurdle to overcome when running for President. Maybe that's not fair, but if Green wants to push policy, they need seats. Yeah, they can rabble rouse, but that can only go so far."

You are probably correct, unfortunately in my view.

Posted by: wbgonne | February 9, 2011 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Gotta run. Thanks for the fine discussions.

Posted by: wbgonne | February 9, 2011 5:23 PM | Report abuse

"But surely that is relevant."

Yeah, but that's not the point I'm making. If you think that Green is more policy mainstream than Dem or GOP, then clearly being policy mainstream is far from the only consideration.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 9, 2011 5:24 PM | Report abuse


Why does battleground hate the Constitution? What is it about the First Amendment that troubles him so?

It must be hard in that noggin of his trying to twist Jeffersonian ideas into McCarthyism.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | February 9, 2011 5:43 PM | Report abuse

@shrink2 "The moral of the "free" enterprise story is this. Tax payers lend to plutocrats for free, plutocrats charge taxpayers when they lend the money back. This is called quantitative easing, yes, the Fed is buying its own securities back (on the "free" market) from Wall Street firms. Someone earlier disputed the idea that QE was a supply side strategy, I had to laugh. Are tax cuts for the rich demand side too (sure, they'll stimulate demand on Rodeo Drive, where Hosni Mubarak owns property), how about offshore profit tax holidays and "free" trade deals?"

I would actually argue that QE isn't a supply side policy, it's monetarist.

"Some supply-siders advocate that monetary policy should be based on a price rule. The aim of monetary policy should be to target a specific value of money irrespective of the quantity of money that must be created or withdrawn by the central bank to achieve this target. This contrasts with monetarism's focus on the quantity of money, and Keynesian theory's emphasis on real aggregate demand. The important difference is that to a monetarist the quantity of money, specifically represented by the money supply is the crucial determining variable for the relationship between the supply and demand for money, while to a Keynesian adequate demand to support the available money supply is important. Keynes famously remarked that "money doesn't matter"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Mind you, I'm not arguing against any of your assertions about who it benefits. The fact that the Fed lends to the banks at 0% and then the treasury borrows from the banks at a higher rate is pure crony capitalism designed to subsidize the banks (or if you prefer allow them to "earn" their way back to health).

But I believe the standard definition of supply side economics involves arguing for permanent reductions in marginal income tax rates (not targeted tax cuts based on specific activities like cash for clunkers or installing energy efficient windows) and "tight money" which QE is definitely not.

Posted by: jnc4p | February 9, 2011 6:19 PM | Report abuse

SBJ,

Remember this?

DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis report titled: "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment"

By your logic, we should expect an investigation by King into conservative radicals too.

Posted by: Beeliever | February 9, 2011 6:38 PM | Report abuse

wbg asked:

Whatever the merits of the positions you espouse why do you characterize them as "moderate"? Moderate in comparison to whom?

Compared to the "left" positions posted here and compared to the "right" positions posted here, wbg.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 9, 2011 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Obviously (to me and battleground at least), violent Islamic conquest is not protected under the First Amendment:

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=207415

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 9, 2011 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Therefore, liberals/homosexuals take up the Muslim cause because they think it will cause distress to the Christian cause.

It's some sort of liberal, bizarro world hypocrisy that defies understanding by normal people.
-----------------------------------------------------
You should not talk about bizarro world, skipsailing. You are floating some bizarro business yourself. I would also advise you against assuming you know what normal people understand, since you only have a nodding acquaintance with the normal world.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 9, 2011 6:43 PM | Report abuse

We are all Egyptians now!


Nighty night.

Posted by: wbgonne | February 9, 2011 6:47 PM | Report abuse

all, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/happy_hour_roundup_183.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | February 9, 2011 6:49 PM | Report abuse

jnc, I suppose those fine distinctions matter, but who benefits is the distinction and the criticism I am making of the Bush/Obama administration.

Demand/stimulus methods feed the workers/consumers money borrowed from the tax base, they are supposed to spend it to support production, keeps people in their houses, consumer demand supports jobs, etc. Supply methods fuel the rich with even more money, again borrowed from taxpayers. The rich, when flush are supposed to run that money into new jobs, aggregate it into finance capital to fund startups, "create" wealth and so on. Problem is today, well, everyone knows what the problem is. The rich have better ideas about what to do with the free money they borrowed from the future taxpayers of America.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 9, 2011 7:04 PM | 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