The American Spectator

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.1.11 @ 6:16AM

(Music hook up, relax while you are reading)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg1k_G6fRpQ

The deal cut behind the scenes and behind closed doors and behind the public's back was a deal that only Bernie Madoff could have concocted and appreciated. Yet, the facts are the deal was done by our elected officials who appear to be Bernie Madoff clones. After watching this fiasco I actually believe they could teach Bernie Madoff a thing or two. In fact, if Bernie Madoff had their guile and nerve, he could have stolen a trillion, not the 50 billion he stole from suckers. Well, we are all suckers now.

The first part of the Ruling Class collaboration that Bernie Madoff would love concerns the alleged spending cuts. The spending cuts are all back loaded which means they will never occur. Backloading cuts inside the beltway is a time honored trick that simply kicks the can down the road. That's right, the so called spending cuts are a political illusion bought to you by the Ruling Class magicians entrenched in both parties. Watch my hands, not my mouth, there's nothing up my sleeve and that includes spending cuts. There won't be any at all. Not even a dollar.

The second part of the Ruling Class collaboration that Bernie Madoff would appreciate are the so called triggers which would allegedly cut entitlements. However, a new Congress can just blow them off after the initial anemic alleged cuts and that's precisely what's going to happen. Like Obamacare itself, some of the triggers have been pushed off into 2013. God help America in 2013.

Also, the cuts from the triggers concerning Medicare would be foisted on the doctors and insurance companies. That's an unfunded mandate on the business class and that is precisely what makes it palatable to the political class. The facts are that those cuts will lead to rationing because doctors and companies will opt out of Medicare and it won't reduce spending one cent. The rest of the trigger will be cuts associated with defense and those cuts are going to happen anyway with the troop withdrawals from the Middle East. In essence, it's another con laden strategy inside a masterful con job.

The same Bernie Madoff thought process goes with the so called Bicameral Commission. Any political group or event with the prefix “Bi” goes nowhere inside the beltway unless it's intended to foist new taxes or further choking regulations on the public. It will all be sugar coated with alleged tax rate adjustments but after all is said done this cowardly method of avoiding responsibility will lead to higher taxes and more revenue for federalism. That's been the intent of each debt commission so far under Obama and that's precisely why their collective recommendations went nowhere. After the 2012 elections they will vote in higher taxes and more regulations. They didn't need a Commission for that, it just looks neat to have one.

In essence, Bernie Madoff should have run for office. He would have made a masterful politician because the U.S. Congress is full of liars, con men and thieves and Bernie Madoff would have been welcomed with open arms inside the U.S. Congress and felt right at home. In fact, there are many members of Congress who would feel right at home associating with the convicted felons in prison. That leads to a thought.

Why not let the convicted felons like Bernie Madoff out of prison and let them run for elected office? In fact, why not let them run the country without an election? We could do worse and in fact we have done worse.

Bernie Madoff must be steaming in prison watching these con artists run the country and they are running it into the ground and not being indicted. In essence, the debt plan should be named “The Bernie Madoff Debt Plan to Nowhere” because that's where we are headed financially as a result of this continued deception.

It was a waste of time and did not amount to a band aid. Soon the wound will be gushing again.

In the meantime, Bernie Madoff should get a front cover on Time Magazine for setting the tone of the decade. Then again maybe the Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion and the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz should get some notice too. No heart, no courage and no brains exemplify this plan. The Ruling Class is destroying the Yellow Brick Road

oldfart| 8.1.11 @ 6:44AM

great post - we can only hope Reid gets a cell next to Bernie.

mames| 8.1.11 @ 3:16PM

GOP - slow death

DEMs- quicker death

Margie| 8.1.11 @ 4:25PM

Third party~ certain death.

rdman| 8.1.11 @ 5:00PM

Election 2012... Voters become "Term Limiters"

Margie| 8.1.11 @ 5:18PM

Now THAT'S the way we do it!!

mames| 8.1.11 @ 10:46PM

Time for the Jeffersonian sprinkling.

Anthony| 8.1.11 @ 4:07PM

Reid, yes, but how about Dodd and Frank, the real cons behind the ultimate ponzi scheme, brought under the CRA?

Cosmo| 8.2.11 @ 2:44AM

Great post by Bill...He's a better writer than the
AmSpec guys....
The deal is a scam...Boehner sells out America..
176 GOP cowards fold....Only 66 have the courage
to oppose this atrocity...

Melvin| 8.1.11 @ 7:27AM

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Moodies say, "In order to avert a rating reduction, we would have to trim no less than 4 trillion from the debt ceiling?"

Clint| 8.1.11 @ 9:10AM

The Big Government Ruling Elite Say" Let's Fool The Voters Again"

"Major ratings firms -- namely Standard & Poor's and Moody's -- have said even if the country raises the debt ceiling and doesn't default, there's a strong likelihood that the triple-A bond rating will be cut to double-A unless a budget can be crafted that results in $4 trillion in savings, the result of the massive debt load the country has accumulated in recent years. The nation's outstanding debt is more than $14 trillion.

A senior banking official told FOX Business that administration officials have provided guidance to them that even though a default is off the table, a downgrade "is a real possibility for no other reason than S&P and Moody's have to cover (themselves) since they've been speaking out on the debt cap so much."

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.1.11 @ 10:05AM

Slouching Towards Guatemala:

http://lewrockwell.com/reed/reed211.html
God it's wonderful – really diverting in a macabre sort of way, at least if you have a diseased sense of humor and enough Padre Kino red. Which I do. As I write the world's only delusional superflower, perennially in love with itself, navel-gazing as narcissistically as ever, ignorant, self-indulgent, gurbling like an insane relative in the attic and fondling electro-trinkets from Japan, is broke. Yes, we see a beautiful dive from the high board, two somersaults and a half-twist, into the Third World. And so richly deserved.

Congress, a collection of whores, con-men, and penny-ante sharpers from East Jesus, Nebraska, ponders the Great Question: Default now, and admit manfully to being the economic lepers everyone else already knows we are? Or raise the debt ceiling, keep spending like a spoiled Swarthmore sophomore with daddy's credit card, and collapse a bit later?

It's just lovely. The World’s Greatest Economy holding out the begging bowl to China. “Alms? Alms for the poor?” Maybe I don't have enough Padre Kino after all. Maybe there isn't enough.

On the lobotomy box, congressmen come and go, not talking of Michelangelo, like mayflies but without the brains, calling each other names. They seem to think that they are in an off-year election. I mean, it's only the future of the country. What, me worry? What if a huge cosmic flyswatter came down on Cap Hill and turned them into barely historical smears? How the hell do you start a cosmic flyswatter?

The Republicans want to protect the wars, the rich, and the military companies. The Democrats want to protect the entitlements. Well, OK, I guess killing Afghans matters more than feeding Granny in Spokane. Unless of course you are Granny. Who really cares? I mean, how many “defense” contracts does she have?

Delta Zelda| 8.1.11 @ 7:30PM

You truly have a way with words and you do NOT have a diseased sense of humor. Sounds to me like you are one of the realists that everyone else calls a cynic. There are a lot of us with the same diseased sense of humor. Try not to let the fatherless ones get you down.

Oldefarte| 8.1.11 @ 11:37AM

The rating agencies have been proclaiming THAT for the last six months [you're just now discovering same?]. A monor agency has already downgraded our debt!

Clint| 8.1.11 @ 12:56PM

We Tea Party Patriots Can Read Too.

It was Egan-Jones,Two Weeks Ago.

So Why Back The Democrap & RINO-CINO, " Let's Fool The Voters Again." Charade ?

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here & Now.

Stand & Fight.

Margie| 8.1.11 @ 4:27PM

You're no patriot, you're a punk.
Patriots don't look to destroy other people or the only opposition party we have.
You're a fool.

Clint| 8.1.11 @ 5:44PM

Get Bent RINO-CINO Margie.

Jack in Wi.| 8.2.11 @ 1:02AM

Mr. Babbin talks about cutting military spending being a bad thing. It should have been done 20 years ago when the Soviets collapsed. Bring the troops home from overseas and let the world defend itself. End all foreign aid. Bankrupts can't afford charity to kleptocrats in Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan, etc. Like all empires the USA has ended up broke and getting broker.

Dave| 8.1.11 @ 11:09AM

And once again, the Republicans got locked into the big room and left without their pants.

Surprised? Not really. I've seen this tired cop show before. It's just another re-run of CYA - D.C. without the T & A.

shermbodius| 8.1.11 @ 2:40PM

Yes, I believe your correct.

Ladyditxpatriot| 8.1.11 @ 10:30AM

Great post Bill, exceeds the article by 100 fold!

Tex Expatriate| 8.1.11 @ 1:26PM

Good analysis!

Alan Brooks| 8.1.11 @ 8:17PM

But you will run another McCain for POTUS a year from now. You never learn.

Alan Brooks| 8.1.11 @ 8:50PM

"Third party~ certain death."

2012 = not death, but old age: another McCain or Dole.

massmile| 8.2.11 @ 11:35PM

The material assets of most people living in what used to be called the United States of America will soon be determined one of two ways: 1 what a person can hold on to by force of arms, and 2 what all the rest can carry at a dead run.
I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username sammyshine2002 on--a'ge'l'ov'e'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!

John Daniel| 8.1.11 @ 6:24AM

Maybe Bismark was right, "God looks out for fools, drunkards and the United States of America." Day of reckoning delayed, but merely delayed, and the fall to be that much more precipitous. Brazil is looking better and better....

Nancy in NC| 8.1.11 @ 6:30AM

I don't know which I appreciated more...Mr. Babbin's article or Bill's post (notice I didn't say enjoy for there is no joy in seeing our Nation being destroyed by the Ruling Class).

I am not as smart or erudite as either writer, but it is so disgusting to see what we have as "statesmen" these days, but of course this is nothing new in the District of Corruption...it's business as usual.

I'm a simple person with some common sense, and even I can understand this sneaky, underhanded way of snookering the American people. Both sides will spin the deal as beneficial to their parties and America.

The truth is that neither side gives one whit about what is good for the Country, but just political expediency. The idealogues will see what they want to see, the truth be damned.

Melvin| 8.1.11 @ 7:42AM

It is all about,"The Deal," Nancy. Our Republic is no adequately represented. Of course there is nothing in the Constitution that dictates the number of attorneys that may be Congressmen and Senators, but the vast majority of these, "Dirt Bag Criminals with Wingtips," as Chef Schnauzer so correctly titled them.
Almost all of the attorneys that are currently standing Senators or Congressmen never have practiced privately, they went straight from law school and right into government.
We are never, ever going to have any Tort Reform, or Medicare, or Social Security reform as long as we have this huge legal body hanging over our heads. The sitting Senators and Congressmen who are lawyers are going to look out for Trial Lawyers such as former disgraced Democrat NC Senator John, "Lotsa hair" Edwards. Who made millions off just a couple of personal injury cases.
To these Senators and Congressmen, the tax payers are looked upon as a percentage to be skimmed or taken off the top.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.1.11 @ 12:55PM

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo.....compromise

The fiscally conservative Club for Growth "strongly opposes" the compromise President Obama worked out with Republican and Democratic leaders and will include the vote in its "key vote" Congressional scorecard, it announced early Monday afternoon.

"The problems with this proposal are many, but fiscal conservatives should have obvious concerns for the lack of guaranteed future spending cuts, no requirement that a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution be sent to the states, a commission that could still recommend job-killing tax increases, and worse of all, two debt limit increases totaling over $2 trillion within only a matter of months," said Club for Growth Vice President Andrew Roth in a statement.

"As we’ve said before regarding previous underwhelming debt ceiling bills, this simply doesn't fix the country's fiscal problems. We strongly oppose it and we urge a no vote."

Michael L. Hauschild| 8.1.11 @ 9:56AM

“I am not as smart or erudite as either writer………” Balderdash, you ARE as smart and erudite; not only that, you said what needed to be said in far fewer words, and because you, like Bill are “real people” you have far more impact.

oldfart| 8.1.11 @ 6:42AM

A lot of people in first class went down with the Titantic, as well as third class. Our elected reps have been drinking the Kook Aid again. This deal is going to 'inspire' confidence in business? What the H - GE is moving more jobs out of the country, unemployment in Mexico is less than 5% and ....... Do the 'elected' get the point that the Ruling Class will throw them under the bus and in the name of 'change' and get new useful idiots in Washington?

Chef Schnauzer| 8.1.11 @ 6:55AM

Now the well rehearsed Act II - 'we must vote on this load of diapers before anyone can read it, now, now, now.' Dirt bag criminals in wing-tips. The fact is this well choreographed game is another concrete sign of the contempt that Inside The Beltway (and the dirt bag staffs) have for the people who actually produce the wealth of the nation. Another sign that the social contract has been void for years.

Melvin| 8.1.11 @ 7:10AM

"Dirt bag criminals in wing-tips," You couldn't have described em any better. I wonder how much they skimmed off the top on this one?

George S| 8.1.11 @ 7:06AM

Everyone is working hard to make a deal that neither raise taxes nor cuts spending. If that happens (and it will), both sides will pat each other on the back as they have once again successfully kicked the can further than the next election.

No matter how you wheel it or deal it, Medicare and Social Security have to be phased out. If not, then where are we going to come up with the 60 trillion (and counting) that keeps getting bigger as every baby born is due those two entitlements?

Committees comprised of political hacks are not the answer. The answer is a suicide squad of conservatives for Congress for the next 20 years who must make the tough choices in entitlement reform and then suffer the electoral consequences. Any "deals" made today are by those who are seeking to retain their seats at all costs. That's why this will be a "Historic" agreement -- historic because it will be business as usual by getting nothing done but making all the noises that makes you think something was done. All while not costing you, the voter, a single penny. But your kid will pay dearly; whicj is okay because he can't touch the current crop of Congress with his vote.

Timothy L. Pennell| 8.1.11 @ 7:14AM

I've been thinking this, for a long time. I've wanted to say it, for a long time. I just never could find a good time to put it in writing.
I'm saying it now.
Those wonderful, beautiful, brave people, died for NOTHING, as they forced that plane down to the ground in Pennsylvania, to keep it from hitting the Capitol Building.
See how those INSIDE that building, REPAY their efforts. Buy FINISHING THE JOB, that Al Qaeda started.

chuck| 8.1.11 @ 7:26AM

I would like to disagree with you, but I just can't. They died in vain, sacrificing their lives for the good of the country to save the very people who are destroying it. It makes me want to cry.

simon templar| 8.1.11 @ 10:21AM

Does anyone see the sick irony in this? Three planes targeted at the pentagon, trade center, and capital building. The first two at institutions with the highest regard by the public and the last the least.

Anthony| 8.1.11 @ 3:17PM

Very moving Tim, and I am saddened to say that you may indeed be right.
There is one small point however, it has never been ascertained for sure that that plane was headed for the Capitol. It may very well have been headed for the White House.
Who's to say what that outcome would have created? Would the destruction of the White House have caused the American left to see the folly of their destruction of our great Constitutional Republic? Or would it have been just 3 weeks or so of Kumbaya before business as usual?
Even more intriguing, how might America have responded with a President Cheney in charge and where might we be today with this current debacle?........

Anthony| 8.1.11 @ 3:39PM

P.S. Yes, I know Bush was somewhere, I think in Fla. reading to school children. Maybe the compassionate conservative might have handed the reins over to Cheney to reign? ( How'd I do Dai?)

BackToBasics| 8.1.11 @ 9:12PM

In hindsight, if the foreign terrorists, it would not work with domestic terrorists, had hit the White House, I think you are right, it would have been business as usual in a year or less.

If they had hit the Capitol building I think it would have been a wake up call for the left that would still be affecting us today. I think the Democrats would have been shaken out of what appears to be a mindless death-wish for the Republic since those who survived would have seen horrible death up close and personal; and they would NOT forget quickly. Sad but true, I think.

Pecos Pete| 8.1.11 @ 7:18AM

Congress has to vote on the deal. Will the "deal" pass both houses of Congress?

If not, then we'll find out if the world collapses because the debt ceiling was NOT raised by the arbitrary deadline of August 2.

If it passes, then on to the fiscal 2012 budget. The House has passed a budget, what will the Senate do?

In any event, only the election of 2012 holds any hope for a correction for the spending habits of the federal government.

A. C. Santore| 8.1.11 @ 9:22AM

Don't worry, Pecos Pete. The lying fakes in the administration will suddenly "find" the money to avoid "default" - because it's been there all along.

The proto-dictator will be completely unable kill his own re-election!

Melvin| 8.1.11 @ 7:25AM

"No matter how you wheel it or deal it, Medicare and Social Security have to be phased out." May Oden strike you down with his hammer. Just kidding George.
Most who read American Spectator are already very aware of Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme. Medicare, I'm not so sure about, other than it is rife with fraud.
For arguments sake, let us say both were phased out as you suggest. But there is one very large problem with that, "Out of a total of 435 U.S. Representatives and 100 Senators (535 total in Congress), lawyers comprise the biggest voting block of one type, making up 43% of Congress. Sixty percent of the U.S. Senate is lawyers. "
If these two bodies did write something new, it would be worse than Social Security and Medicare in both present day forms.
As long as there is such a large percentage of attorneys in the Senate and the House, lobbyists, special interests, and staffers who are the ones that actually write the legislation we're not going to move forward.

TrueBlue| 8.1.11 @ 2:20PM

The problem with all those lawyers in office is that when they do write something, it LOOKS good to the public, but is purposely riddled with loopholes any lawyer can drive a bus through. This is why we need less lawyers and more real people in the Legislative.

Minimum 4 years military service, and 6 years in the work force (NOT IN POLITICS OF ANY FORM; this includes Attorney General of your state) before you can serve in the federal government as an elected official. Just my opinion though.

Pelligrino| 8.1.11 @ 4:30PM

True Blue, you are onto something. You are indeed.

My former congressman was only three years out of law school at an Ivy League cesspool law school before running for the job of U.S. Representative.

Although he is now gone, his replacement is only slighty older and also an attorney. (And it is obvious that he needs this U.S. Representative job because where he "practices" law, it is a backwater)

Currently have a young 30 year old attorney (who'd have thought it?!) running for the State Senate. It is also terribly obvious that he's doing this run for office to enhance his financial portfolio.

Can we place a "cap" on law schools in the country? (to include a "cap" on law school professors and students attending?)

Yes, T. Blue, mininum of 4 years of active duty military service combined with a minimum of 8 years of work in the "real world," before any individual may be eligible for office.

Important: Double the year requirements needed for eligibility prior to running for offfice if the person running is a law school graduate.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 8.1.11 @ 7:34PM

An Ivy League cesspool? Like the one Dubya graduated from?

As for changing the qualifications for public office, you're going to need at least one Constitutional Amendment. And kill at least a few American principles along the way - like free and open candidacy for public office.

Also - most civilized countries believe that public service extends beyond the military to include working as a firefighter, EMT and other healthcare fields, etc. Why is military service the only avenue for eligibility for running for public office?

Butch| 8.1.11 @ 5:35PM

TrueBlue, if I were king of the world for a day, those would be my requirements just to vote. The requirements for running for office would be substantially more stringent than that.

bennyhavens| 8.1.11 @ 7:39AM

When Ronald Reagan was elected, the Feds were collecting $600 billion in revenue. When he left office they were taking in $1.2 trillion.

Reagan compromised with Tip O’Neil and what happened? O’Neill and the rest of the progressives spent $1.25 for every dollar that they took in.

Today’s compromise is no different. This is all smoke and mirrors. There will be no spending cuts and the debt will continue to rise.

When 50% of the population (and it is growing) is dependent on the government, nothing will change until the system totally collapses.

A. C. Santore| 8.1.11 @ 9:24AM

. . . which has been the plan all along!

martin j smith| 8.1.11 @ 7:44AM

Rest easy- are you kidding. There must be an ongoing fight to get Tea Party supporters in government to fight government. Its about 2012 and that is all. Nothing to do with our nation, voters etc--oh and its about making Wall Street --you know the guys and gals who supported Obama happy and the crony capitalists who curry favor with the G-G on high in the WH. It will be a slow process and a long one but learn on major lesson from the LEFT --KEEP ON FIGHTING AND NEVER LET DOWN YOUR GUARD.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.1.11 @ 7:45AM

Folks,
we are simply in a "structural" catch 22.
We have been for years. 50% of potential voters are on the government teat in some fashion now.
So...a candidate that offers fiscal responsibility is walking a fine line to get elected. Then if not elected, he/she cannot vote responsibility.
catch 22

TrueBlue| 8.1.11 @ 2:29PM

Meh, just use the age old political method of lying to get yourself elected, then go back on your promises and vote responsibly instead. Beat them at their own game!

Rob Roy| 8.1.11 @ 7:59AM

Another good ol' boys deal cut to ensure reelcetion rather than what is good for the country. The tea party Republicans are encouraging in standing by their promises, but the entrenched ruling class is an obstacle that is almost impossible to overcome. I fear it is too late to save our country even if we throw out the jerk in the White House. There is a lot of rot in Washington.

Teaghan| 8.1.11 @ 7:59AM

Surely none of us here are suprised by this, are we? As heartbreaking as it all is, it comes as no suprise. Will the bamster sign it?

Brian Mc| 8.1.11 @ 8:05AM

It used to be a man could pack up the wife and kids, jump into the wagon and snap the reigns...and just go. There is nowhere else to go. We are trapped in a country that is unrecognizable to the one we were given to believe existed; the one we pledged allegiance to, so many years ago, and were proud beyond words to do it, too. Not anymore. I am saddened beyond words at what liberals and the go-alongs have dismantled and terrified at what they've erected in its place. I believe my vote no longer amounts to anything. We are witness to modern 'democracy' in action and it's abhorent.

Dai Alanye| 8.1.11 @ 9:18AM

Will everyone on this site promise to look up the difference between reigns, reins, and rains? This is far too common an error, and I grate my teeth each time it shows up.

Michael L. Hauschild| 8.1.11 @ 10:00AM

Your rite, well get onit.

Clint| 8.1.11 @ 10:14AM

Yeah.

That's Wright. Wheel Git Init.

We R Collage Gradiates.

tsd| 8.1.11 @ 1:55PM

I think math is our problem...not spelling or grammar!! You need to focus on real problems and get over the little stuff!

Clint| 8.1.11 @ 2:06PM

U R Smert.

Anthony| 8.1.11 @ 3:28PM

The rains in Spain fall mainly on those who reigns, or is that plains?
Thems that reigns ain't got no brains .... will lose their reins.
By jove you've got it!!!!!!

Brian Mc| 8.1.11 @ 4:56PM

Tim Raignes would be so proud! I pride myself in not requiring spell-check; I did need that coffee, though...shoulda drunk it before posting.

John Hinds| 8.1.11 @ 9:55AM

I keep telling myself the night is always darkest just before the dawn.

George True| 8.1.11 @ 4:55PM

Some would say it is darkest right after the lights go out.

TrueBlue| 8.1.11 @ 2:31PM

Well there's problem number one, people haven't said the Pledge of Allegiance for years.

spoofproof| 8.1.11 @ 8:05AM

There is not enough money in ALL of the earth to pay for the U.S. Big Bureaucracy debt. Period. Here is a very well-done graphic portrayal of U.S. deficit-spending: http://usdebt.kleptocracy.us/

Michael Tomlinson| 8.1.11 @ 8:18AM

As a voter I’d like to make a few suggestions on how to defend our dwindling defense spending in a dangerous world by making cuts in useless spending and asking Democrat politicians and their cronies to pay their fair share and sacrifice.

1) End the State Department’s mosque refurbishing and building program in Muslim countries.
2) Withhold all funds for the UN till America’s budget is balanced.
3) Cut all NATO spending (a US European jobs and welfare program) to ¼ of its current level.
4) Cut all funding for Obama’s personal war in Libya.
5) Begin cutting all foreign aid to Muslim nations, third world dictatorships and countries we owe money to.
6) Begin targeting military bases in Europe for closure unless the host nation is willing to shoulder the expense for those bases.
7) Abolish the Department of Education’s “SWAT” team and other silliness like this.
8) Abolish the ATF and fold its duties into the FBI and US Marshal Service.
9) Cut Obama’s increase in IRS funding and staffing.
10) Cut the White House budget so Obama and his staff can share in the sacrifice.
11) Not only declare a hiring freeze for Federal employees, but dismiss across the board 10% immediately.
12) Target tax increases to rich Democrats who itemize their deductions.
13) Demand the unions repay all the money the Federal government has given them.
14) Restructure corporate taxes that are lower, but also insure Obama’s cronies like GE pay taxes. Ideally, we’d have a flat 15% to 20% without the plethora of deductions.
15) Demand Joe Biden reimburses the Federal government for all the rent money he has bilked from the Secret Service for renting a cottage on his palatial estate.
16) Start demanding publicly that Obama/Biden/Reid/Pelosi/Buffett/Gates/Soros, etc. stop itemizing their taxes and taking deductions. They should voluntarily contribute more to the government as a means of paying their fair share.

If we were to begin actually targeting the massive waste in Federal spending the country would be better for it. In fact, if we'd reform Medicare along the lines of Social Security (a mondification of the Ryan plan) fraud (that accounts for roughly half the payments) would decline markedly.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.1.11 @ 8:22AM

That's a really great comment. I hope everyone reads it.

Have you considered| 8.1.11 @ 8:51AM

MT, good post. This would be a good place to start.

Our political elite will not go along to get along with this though.

Time to start mustering primary opponents to Each and Every seat up in 2012, including Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy.

We can't change the players if we don't change the players.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.1.11 @ 9:50AM

2012 is the year to focus 100% on getting rid of Democrats. I think once they're a rump minority the GOP will move in the right direction (cut, cap and balance) and if they don't then it will be time to consider changes.

As for Cantor he has become the man who most irritates Obama and pushes for calling his bluffs. That's reason enough to support him.

Have you considered| 8.1.11 @ 11:24AM

MT, I disagree with you on this point.

It is only in the primaries that changes Can truly be made.

Ya, Sen. Bennett of UT might have been a Republican and worthy, under your formula, of reelection, but I'm glad he was replaced by Mike Lee, who I think absolutely Rocks.

Once the slate is set, then you may hold your nose in the general election and vote R.

If we keep electing the go along to get along politicians, then days like today will simply continue forevermore.

Margie| 8.1.11 @ 4:33PM

Michael,

I was going to say that I think you should run for President.
But the dopes here would probably think you're a "RINO-CINO" or some such thing.

I sure as shootin' would vote for ya!

W| 8.1.11 @ 10:10AM

Michael, excellent post. Something happens to these people we elect. All they care about is reaching a DEAL, and it doesnt matter if it is a good deal.
What if your son or daughter asked you: Give me ten thousand dollars today and I will spend it. Give me $11,000 next year and I will spend it. Give me $12,000 in 2012 and I promise to spend only $11,990. And you say, Ok, I have to borrow40% of whatever I give you, but since you promise to not spend all the money in 2012, we have a deal.

George S| 8.1.11 @ 10:11AM

Not to be critical, but those are peanuts -- we now spend 10 billion a day. The best place to start is to remove about 5 trillion in debt over the next decade by repealing ObamaCare. Don't believe any of that horse crap that it's revenue saving or job creating.

The second step is a drastic cut in corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. This will at least generate enough revenue over the next two years to pay off the stimulus. From there, we have a fighting chance to remove ourselves from the grips of our Chinese and Japanese lenders.

TrueBlue| 8.1.11 @ 2:40PM

And close all the tax loopholes and most of the deductions. Reducing the % paid won't help at all if they can just avoid paying altogether with various looholes. This would have the additional benefit of simplifying the tax code, thus removing the need for many small businesses to hire full-time accountants instead of additional employees that actually do work for the company.

Don't get me wrong, bookkeepers are important too, but I'd much rather be able to say, "Hey Larry, take care of the taxes tomorrow, the receipts are in the 'Taxes' folder on the shared drive," and then have him get back to his normal job the day after, and hire an additional worker to increase the company income, than have to pay an accountant to do the company taxes which only decreases overall profits.

MikeBee| 8.1.11 @ 8:29AM

Hate to run over this again (just did last week), but.........a CUT in spending in Washington isn't what we real people think about when we talk about cutting our own personal spending. Democrats will propose a 50% increase in the federal budget (how much money is that, total?) for next year, and Republicans will authorize a 10% increase in spending, instead. All Washington will pat themselves on the back, as they have just "cut" 40% out of the federal budget (again, how much money is that?). Cuts done; O.K., now let's turn to tax hikes, as the cuts obviously didn't work.

A. C. Santore| 8.1.11 @ 9:28AM

Zero-based budgeting!

Michael Tomlinson| 8.1.11 @ 9:46AM

A.C. this is ultimately the sane solution. Couple this with a 3 tier flat tax (5% for those below $100,000.00, 10% and 20% for those making more than $8 million), a corporate tax rate of around 25% and entitlement reform the country would be headed in the right direction.

Michael L. Hauschild| 8.1.11 @ 10:26AM

There is a "plan" being bandied about on Hannity about 1% a year for six years. You seem to have some economic credentials, is this feasible?

W| 8.1.11 @ 10:39AM

Michael, of course it is feasible. It us the plan proposed by Connie Mack and I believe Rand Paul. The budgets always project a yearly increase, usually 5 to 7 %, to cover pay increases, cost of living for SS, increased costs for military supplies, etc. To cut by 1% each year, a real cut, and not a 1% cut in the increase, would require layoffs of federal employees, downsizing and elimination of the numerous agencies, and better control over SS payments so we do not pay $100 billion to dead people. In short the feds have to do what any business or household would have to do.
But most cuts would involve stop paying $100 billion in SS benefits to dead people, and reducing the number of federal employees.

Bill S| 8.1.11 @ 8:29AM

It's still too little too late. We have about $9 trillion in spending and unfunded liabilities with only about $2 trillion in revenue. Anything less than extreme cuts all across the board is way too little. We're the next Greece. Or maybe Greece is the next U.S.

tatosian| 8.1.11 @ 8:30AM

This commission is creeping me out a little bit. 6 from each party with a majority of 7 to pass any recommendations and a quorum of 7 to conduct business. 6 Dems and a McCain, Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe or Lindsay Graham would be useless for rank and file Americans.

And from the White house (via international liberty): " The Deal Sets the Stage for Balanced Deficit Reduction, Consistent with the President’s Values...The President will demand that the Committee pursue a balanced deficit reduction package, where any entitlement reforms are coupled with revenue-raising tax reform that asks for the most fortunate Americans to sacrifice...The Enforcement Mechanism Complements the Forcing Event Already In Law – the Expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts... Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts... The enforcement mechanism in the deal exempts Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare benefits, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement."

I don't know how much of this is aimed at his psycho liberal base and how much is true, but that commission leaves me considerably underwhelemed.

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/fact.....can-people

Derek Leaberry| 8.1.11 @ 8:46AM

The truth is that the deal is a fraud and the "cuts" are only cuts of increases, the budget for next year will be larger than this year's budget and next year's budget will be about $ 1 trillion more than George W. Bush's last budget. Nothing has been won except that the two-headed big government monster will continue along it's merry way spending the country to the pauper's house.

Mike D.| 8.1.11 @ 9:03AM

Look friends. We have some conservatives and Rinos running ONE third of the US Government only. There is no way anything resembling a "good deal" was ever going to come out of this. BUT, it could have been far worse. Without the conservative rebellion and the 2010 election results you can imagine where we would be if the Communists retained the house and had unlimited power in all three parts of government for four years. Their "revolution" has been blunted and thats all that could have happened by winning the house only. We knew going in this was going to take more than one election cycle so lets stop the we are finished talk and get down to the most important work. WE HAVE to get this communist OUT OF the White House in 2012, period, first and foremost. Election target one. Election target two is repeal or at least the castration of Obamacare. If more Leftists are drummed out and some RINOS so much the better. At least we can get more responsible people in place when the brown 25 does hit the fan. This thing is a long term project and is HAS to be kept on track and watered and fed. Tea party people and conservatives are here to stay and their power is real and everybody in Dysfuntionland knows it now.. Lets get into the next election, get organized and get going. We can never, ever allow these leftists to ever gain total control as they did for two years again. We know what they are and what they will do if allowed. Lets move on and get ready for the next fight.

Drunken Sailor| 8.1.11 @ 9:20AM

Exactly Mike!
We shouldn't lose the war because we concentrated everything on this battle knowing we were undermanned and outgunned. This battle was important and considering how our hands were tied, we didn't do to badly. Is it far enough? Of course not. But we have to increase the # of conservatives in Dysfunctionland (love that term) and then we can push even harder for reform. Let's not lose sight of the big picture.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.1.11 @ 9:56AM

Mitch McConnell was right no real change will occur while Mr. Affirmative Action occupies the White House. But I'd go farther and say the same for the Senate while Democrats are a majority. We need Republicans controlling all the Federal government and then Obamacare is history as we begin the dismantling of his failed legacy.

Derek Leaberry| 8.1.11 @ 10:15AM

They'll still cower. Long term, we need Barack Obama re-elected in 2012, a repeat of 2010 in 2014(say 60 Senate seats and 280 House seats) and a resounding landslide presidential victory in 2016 by someone not with the surname of Bush.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 8.1.11 @ 7:18PM

DS, I can't go with you on the "undermanned and outgunned." I am astounded that some 80 - 90 intransigent (I know you'll say "patriotic" or "principled" - fine) House members nearly brought it all down.

Michael L. Hauschild| 8.1.11 @ 10:15AM

I hear read the old “1/3rd” argument from many sources but cannot accept it on face value. The House that we won is by far the largest repository of actual representation. The house has numeric superiority over the 100 in the Senate and the ONE in the White House; THEY HOLD the PURSE STRINGS and are answerable to far more of the electorate and answerable far more often. This is an incredible leverage, not for the representatives, but for us as the enraged, engaged and observant electorate.
The defeatist attitude present in some is forgiven due to precedent, but we all should be aware that this is the remnant of years of our chosen never looking back. Now every one of those House members is looking over his shoulder; right behind him are three Tea PARTY patriots with a fife, a drum and a battle torn American flag.

Drunken Sailor| 8.1.11 @ 11:54AM

The evidence is right before your eyes. Yes, the house holds the purse strings but if they can't even get the Senate to vote on their plans, what then?

Michael L. Hauschild| 8.1.11 @ 12:48PM

When you are in a vehicle and carrenning toward a cliff, and if you are unwilling to turn at least ninty degrees (much less turn around) the best thing to do is stop. At least the roar of the engine won't drown out talking it over.

Drunken Sailor| 8.1.11 @ 2:03PM

And when you are going over that cliff, you can't just ignore reality and say "We refuse to fall". If you can't get past second base you never will get to home plate. If you can't get a bill past the Senate it has ZERO chance of being signed by the President, no matter how "Right" you are in your convictions.

rendite| 8.1.11 @ 4:43PM

DS, except for this: There are only right now 4 U.S. Senators for every vote in the U.S. Senate who need their thinking "altered" on every bill or measure.

If we have to twist, nay, outright break or amputate their arms to get them to vote "right," we should.

This is not hard to do. It is cowardly not to do so.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 8.1.11 @ 7:20PM

Did you just physically threaten members of the U.S. Senate?

Drunken Sailor| 8.2.11 @ 9:31AM

I agree. But your not going to get the Democrats to agree to a Republican plan at this time. Like I said, I don't think this plan goes far enough but I am enough of a realist to see how are hands are tied. Doesn't mean quit fighting, just realize the odds stacked against us at this point.

Louis Jenkins| 8.1.11 @ 8:49AM

Well, they've gone an done it. McConnell has supposedly gotten a deal. Alas, they are still kicking the can further into oblivion. Entrenched aristocrasy is putting it mildly. We have to admit that expecting the Rinos and Progressives to do anything else is ignorance on our part. Go ahead House and Senate, approve the bill, and we're still headed down the path to ruin. Can't wait.

Drunken Sailor| 8.1.11 @ 9:21AM

Keep dreaming those little dreams Jack.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 8.1.11 @ 7:22PM

DS,
The vote in NY-26 was not a dream.
The vote in CA-36 was not a dream.
The Democrat winning the recall election in a State Senatorial district was not a dream.

All I'm asking you to consider is that this Tea Party tsunami you're predicting isn't happening.

Drunken Sailor| 8.2.11 @ 9:33AM

So your going to say those 3 instances outweigh all the votes the right got in the 2010 elections? Yet the left then turns and says the Tea Party has to much influence in the political process? Which is it?

Dai Alanye| 8.1.11 @ 9:23AM

If London had the slightest idea where the dollars he refers to come from he might be able to avoid such stupid comments. Does the term "fiat money" mean anything?

A. C. Santore| 8.1.11 @ 9:34AM

Absolutely fundamental error, this notion that cutting government spending is "cutting 2.5 trillion dollars out of a very weak economy."

We wouldn't be "cutting" 2.5 trillion out of the economy, we'd be adding 2.5 trillion to an already fatally-bloated federal government, and returning it to the REAL economy - not the progressives' fake government-based "economy."

A. C. Santore| 8.1.11 @ 9:36AM

Sorry. Correction. "...instead of returning it to the REAL economy," etc

George True| 8.1.11 @ 9:48AM

Jack, you have it exactly backwards. By cutting government spending, you are adding 2.5 trillion dollars BACK INTO the economy. Anytime government takes and spends money it got from the private sector (which is where ALL money comes from), it is diminishing the ability of the private sector to create jobs, which then creates prosperity by paying wages to workers, who then buy things which stimulate the economy, and who then pay taxes on that income which helps the government pay its obligations.

Anytime the private sector gets to keep more of its own money in the first place, it is a force multiplier of that money. Anytime government takes more of the private sector's money, it is a force minimizer of that money.

In any case, there will be no actual, significant spending cuts as a result of this bill. It is all just Kabuki theater, Jack.

But since you were trying to pose a thoughtful question, riddle me this : Our government is currently spending 300 billion dollars a month. Of that sum, 180 billion is the total money that actually comes in. The other 120 billion per month is money we don't have. So where, exactly is government supposed to conjure up an extra 120 billion a month? How long do you think this can continue before we see something on the order of a 30-60% devaluation of the dollar? Finally, are you okay with policies that absolutely WILL cause every American to lose 30-60% of their savings, and lose 30-60% of the purchasing power of their income?

If your answers to these three questions were stop the spending spree, one to three years, and NO, then congratulations, you just may be a tea partyer yourself. If your answers were anything else, then I suggest you enroll in your local community college to take a course entitled Economics 101.

Jack London| 8.1.11 @ 10:43AM

George, the spending cuts are going to hurt an awful lot of our most disadvantaged people.

And this idea of money going back into the economy for job creation this is false. For a start, much of our debt is held by foreign governments. A lot of other debt is held by institutions such as banks via the Fed - and let's pose the question again. Why would banks and other companies start investing the already large sums they have in jobs if the demand goes down as the cuts bite? You have not answered this.

George True| 8.1.11 @ 11:41AM

Jack, What spending cuts??? There are no spending cuts. They are making a 'cut" to the automatic increase in spending and calling it a "cut".

I just outlined how the current path will, within the next several years, cause a massive and catastrophic devaluation of the dollar. Everybody will suffer a devaluation of their savings and retirement accounts of 30-60%. Everyone who has an income, whether from a job or Social Security, will then have to get by on 40-70% of what they get by on now. When it happens, and it WILL happen, the most disadvantaged among us will be hurt the worst.

But apparently you are just fine with visiting this entirely preventable ruination upon everybody, as long as those who currently depend upon the federal government for their job, their largesse, or their income don't in any way "get hurt". As long as Barack, Harry, and Nancy can continue to pass out the goodies to the lucky minority who hit the government lottery, you are just fine with everybody else taking a devastating hit to their net worth and their income.

A. C. Santore| 8.1.11 @ 12:44PM

Right on the nailhead, George. Especially this: "As long as Barack, Harry, and Nancy can continue to pass out the goodies to the lucky minority who hit the government lottery, you are just fine with everybody else taking a devastating hit to their net worth and their income."

That's "wealth distribution" in its essence.

And "voter rolls enhancement." I almost fogot.

Ground Control| 8.1.11 @ 2:05PM

This is a stupid comment. So called "disadvantaged people" are a manufactured class of government dependents, bred to BE dependents by the very goons in government you worship. Democrats breed poor people as voting stock and use other people's money to buy their political support. This is the modern version of the "panem et circenses" of ancient Rome. It is not an economic system at all, it is a POLITICAL system.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.1.11 @ 10:00AM

We have a weak economy, because like the bufoon FDR (who didn't save capitalism, but did stymie its growth) thought he could deficit spend the nation to prosperity. Sadly, like FDR he wasn't bright enough to see that his policies were making things worse.

Paul Kotik| 8.1.11 @ 10:00AM

If Jack's economics are right, I wonder why he isn't outraged by Obama's failure to solve the Haitian problem by printing up bales of dollars and air-dropping them over Haiti. After all, that would increase demand in Haiti stupendously and in short order Haiti would be a rich country. Then Haiti could help us out of our recession by using those dollars to buy our stuff and make us rich, too!

Right, Jacko?

George S| 8.1.11 @ 10:21AM

I'm still waiting for you to explain how the stimulus failed to "boost demand for goods, services and jobs".

Jack London| 8.1.11 @ 10:38AM

It didn't fail - you'll see that when it ended the small growth we had then dropped off.

George True| 8.1.11 @ 12:04PM

The so-called stimulus failed spectacularly, Jack. It didn't produce jobs, and the only thing it stimulated was unions, government, and crony capitalism. There has never been a government stimulus anywhere in the world, at any time in modern history, that has actually worked. Even John Maynard Keynes himself, late in his life, acknowledged that he had been wrong about everything.

Rather than helping, the stimulus has been one of the things directly responsible for our economy still being on the skids. Better quit while you are behind, my friend.

Drunken Sailor| 8.1.11 @ 2:04PM

I guess all those shovel-ready jobs worked huh Jack?

Merlin| 8.1.11 @ 10:53AM

Jack,

Production is wealth.

What does the government produce with the money is removes by one means or another from the economy?

The basic issue here is so simple I can understand it.

You cannot borrow money indefinitely. Raising taxes at some point begins to reduce revenues. What is left? Solving the SPENDING problem now will be better than the solution our creditors will force upon us later.

Jack London| 8.1.11 @ 10:56AM

I'm not suggesting we ignore federal debt. But cutting it brutally without raising new revenues will be a disaster. The time to pay down debt faster is during a boom, not a bust.

George True| 8.1.11 @ 12:20PM

First of all, our government has grown into a leviathan. It is 30% bigger than it was just four years ago, 100% bigger than it was 10 years ago. It is not sustainable at its current size and expenditure.

Secondly, the way you raise new revenues is to stimulate the private sector to produce jobs, which produces taxpayers. And the way this is accomplished is to LOWER tax rates, not raise them, along with reining in job-killing over regulation by the various government agencies.

The Laffer Curve shows that when you lower rates of taxation on corporations and individuals, it causes an INCREASE in government revenues, for as long as those lower rates remain in effect. This is not theory. It has been proven empirically to be true, every time and in every place it has ever been tried.

Government has a role to play, and it has an optimal size and scope in society. When it is allowed to outgrow its proper size and cost, financial ruination is visited upon everybody, in one form or another. This is an empirical truth. It remains true whether you believe in it or not. You might as well say you don't believe in gravity. It remains in operation regardless, and you ignore it at your peril.

Jack London| 8.1.11 @ 1:20PM

It's the size relative to GDP that matters George.

There are zero credible economists who think that tax cuts generate revenue.

What stimulates an economy is demand, not fairy stories like yours.

George True| 8.1.11 @ 4:27PM

There is nothing that can be done with you, and others like you. I point out to you an absolutely empirical fact, one that is beyond dispute by anyone who cares about facts, and you simply dismiss it out of hand. To the contrary of the nonsense you just spouted, there are exactly NO credible economists who can dispute the empirically proven fact that tax cuts do, indeed, increase revenues. (Krugman doesn't count, as he has demonstrated himself to be a shill for the left masquerading as a so-called economist.)

It is YOU, Mr Jack, who evidently believes in fairy tales. You somehow believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that our government can just tax and spend its way out of the impending doom.

Here's another nugget of ground truth for you. What cannot continue, won't. If the current path is not radically altered, it will end - badly. And no amount of spouting leftist economic drivel will forestall such an outcome. And when it ends (badly) YOU will be one of the people who suddenly find their savings cut in half, and who find that their income now only buys half as much.

Jack London| 8.1.11 @ 5:11PM

Name one senior economist who has proved that tax cutting has generated more federal revenues. Name one who worked under GW Bush who can show that his tax cuts brought in more than they cost.

George True| 8.1.11 @ 5:26PM

I'm not sure what your definition of a "senior" economist is. But a few names come to mind: Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, and Ludwig Von Mises. And by the way, the Bush tax cuts resulted in a 44% increase in federal revenue from 2003-2007.

What we have is a spending problem, not an income problem. You mentioned earlier that the time to pay down the debt is during economic boom times. The problem is, that never happens. Even during the best of times, our government will spend 110% of what it takes in, without ever even discussing actually paying down any debt.

Something that cannot continue...won't. Everything comes at a cost. Nothing is free.

Jack London| 8.1.11 @ 6:23PM

Von Mises dies in the early 1970s George. Sowell and Williams are more right-wing social commentators than macroeconomists. The facts are that the Bush tax cuts did not generate more revenues and have greatly harmed our economy and continue to do so.

'Harvard's N. Gregory Mankiw, an economic conservative who served as chairman of Mr. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, has tested the hypothesis on which Mr. Bush's claim is based: He looked at the extent to which tax cuts stimulate extra growth and the extent to which that growth generates extra tax revenue that offsets the initial loss of revenue from the tax cut. Mr. Mankiw's conclusion: Even over the long term, once you've allowed all of the extra growth to feed through into extra revenue, cuts in capital taxes juice the economy enough to recoup half of the lost revenue, and cuts in income taxes deliver a boost that recoups 17 percent of the lost revenue. So a $100 billion cut in taxes on capital widens the budget deficit by $50 billion, and a $100 billion cut in income taxes widens the budget deficit by $83 billion.'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01801.html

George True| 8.1.11 @ 7:33PM

Walter Williams is former chairman and professor emeritus of the economics department at George Mason University. I would hardly characterize him as a mere 'right wing social commentator'. And what does it matter when Ludwig Von Mises died? His economic theory has been proven time and again to be economic fact.

I am familiar with the work of Mankiw. He is quite simply wrong. The fact that he once worked in the Bush administration is neither here nor there.

Petronius| 8.2.11 @ 12:40AM

Murray Wiedenbaum, Paul Craig Roberts, and Larry Kudlow.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 8.1.11 @ 7:25PM

A very thoughtful and balanced, George True. Thank you. That was a breath of fresh air in this fetid swamp of conspiracy theories, half-masked hints of violence, and rebellion and outright hate.

Jack London| 8.1.11 @ 11:08AM

I don't think you have any idea at all just how much America has been built on federal investment in science, technology, infrastructure, training and education.

George True| 8.1.11 @ 12:29PM

Jack: It is sad to think just how much MORE bang for the buck we might have gotten if government had left basic and applied research to the private sector where it belongs.

If the corporate tax rate were ZERO,as it should be, instead of 35%, there would have been hundreds of billions of dollars more available to the private sector for applied research. Government cannot even begin to do such things as efficiently and effectively as the private sector can.

Jack London| 8.1.11 @ 1:16PM

'It is sad to think just how much MORE bang for the buck we might have gotten if government had left basic and applied research to the private sector where it belongs.'

That is one stupid comment George.

George True| 8.1.11 @ 4:30PM

On the contrary, it is your pronouncing such a statement of fact as stupid that displays a breathtaking ignorance on your part.

Jack London| 8.1.11 @ 5:13PM

Sorry George but you're just ignorant here. There's a huge range of R&D that would not get funded without government investment in academia and other settings.

George True| 8.1.11 @ 5:18PM

It is truly amazing that a supposedly intelligent person could think suck a thing. Basic and applied research got done long before the government got involved. And at a fraction of the cost.

Jack London| 8.1.11 @ 5:50PM

Still talking nonsense George. And just when was this golden age of R&D? Have a look here and tell me what you see:

http://www.sciencecoalition.org/successstories

Here's a clue;

'Universities conduct the majority of basic research in the United States— 55 percent in 2008. Business and industry conduct less than 20 percent of basic research in the United States.'

'The federal government is the primary source of funding for basic research conducted in the United States, providing some 60 percent of funding. The second largest source of basic research funding is the academic institutions themselves.'

George True| 8.1.11 @ 6:37PM

You make my case for me. Government has to a large extent displaced industry in the research market. I do not see this as a necessarily good thing. Government picking winners and losers in the research field, government funding research with a political agenda, etc.

Secondly, a lot of the research conducted at universities are funded with grants and endowments from the private sector. Government is not the only player here.

In any case, just because government gets involved does not mean we make more progress faster. The directive to go to the moon within a decade by JFK resulted in a military-like program that accomplished the goal within the stated time frame. But like full scale military campaigns, it was vastly expensive and could not be sustained indefinitely. At its end, we the got the space shuttle program. The shuttle was never what it was billed to be. It was never a reusable vehicle, in the sense that it could be refueled and launched again in a few days. It had to be virtually rebuilt every time, and it too was vastly expensive. Its real purpose was to offer continuing employment for the army of 22,000 scientists and technicians who would have been out of a job at the end of Apollo.

Had things been done differently, such as offering, say 8 billion dollars to the company who could get us back to the moon, or 20 billion dollars to the company who could get us to Mars and back, we would have done much more in space by now and probably have much more to show for it, and at a fraction of the cost.

Government is not the only alternative in the R&D field. It is just the one that is generally less efficient and costs more.

Jack London| 8.1.11 @ 6:47PM

Of course there are strong links between industry and academia - that's what we are especially good at in the US. But really George you'll have accept that what companies are good at - rapid commercialisation - does not play well in long term curiousity driven research. We need a healthy mix.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 8.1.11 @ 7:29PM

George, the federal government picks winners and losers all the time. Always has.

My favorite example is the Interstate system when it was launched in the 50's. Roads won, railroads lost.

My challenge to you: How do we get the some-$2 trillion now effectively parked on the sidelines in American corporations back into play? For the sake of not quibbling, say it's only $1 trillion, say it's only $500 billion. Pick a figure. How do you get this money, already in private hands, out creating the jobs we need?

simon templar| 8.1.11 @ 12:33PM

As I said, not a clue, useful idiot, no original thinking, and nothing will move you off the island of delusion. You respond by typical liberal distraction and ignore every single point of argument or the facts presented. I tell you what. When you want to a vacation from your trolling..let me know and I will fill in for you and respond to my own comments. Your comments are such classic, old, and predictable liberal garbage that I could do your job with one hand tied behind my back and drunk. Every major advancement and technological achievement of the twentieth century and nineteenth came from the private sector. Everything from Edison, Ford, to Bill Gates. Look it up. No one denies that federal investments in the military and space exploration have brought some advancements and contributions. But to say that America was BUILT on federal investment is absolutely false, ridiculous, and a downright lie. You know I am not sure what is actually worse..you actually believing this bullshit or you knowing it really is not true and lying to promote socialism and your left wing propaganda.

Jack London| 8.1.11 @ 1:04PM

You can't read Simon - I said 'how much America is built' not that it is 100% built, which is clearly nonsense. But most conservatives severely underestimate how much innovation comes from government investment in areas such as drug development, human genome, energy and allls orts of other technology - where do you think companies like Google, Genentech, Cisco, SAS and others came from?

George True| 8.1.11 @ 5:48PM

My dear man, you are mistakenly assuming that great strides in technology would not take place without government funding. Capital for research flows to good ideas that have potential for profit. The necessary research would get done with or without government. Over the last 60 years, government has grafted itself into the process, introducing layers of inefficiency and waste.

Jack London| 8.1.11 @ 6:29PM

'The necessary research would get done with or without government.'

Show me some proof of this George. Let's take an example - say your daughter, if you have one, has a rare cancer. There is no market for a drug as it's rare. Under the free market, would she live or die?

And overall, how would funds be raised on the free market to fund university research? Now here you have to engage your brain just a little - a lot of basic academic research is not done with a commercial aim. That's why it's called basic. So who funds it and why?

Jack London| 8.1.11 @ 6:40PM

Oh and you'll be telling us soon that the Internet is a triumph of private enterprise - expect it was largely developed by US agencies and the Web came out of CERN, the biggest public science project on the planet. Good luck with finding the Higgs boson with your free market, George.

George True| 8.1.11 @ 6:58PM

Actually, I have real life experience with this very example. My cousin in Tucson had a son with a very rare liver disorder. It required him to be on medication. He was actually just fine and very healthy, but would have had to take the medication his whole life. This disorder was so rare that only a few hundred people in the US have it. It is called an "orphan" disease, as there is no profit potential in a drug company developing a drug for it, but would still be quite expensive to develop a drug.

So government got involved. The feds funded a research effort at Johns Hopkins to develop a drug. They reached a stage where they needed to test it on a live subject. My cousin's son, who was a very altruistic young man, volunteered to be the subject. Well, within 12 hours of being injected, he was swelled up like a balloon and on life support, and within 24 hours after that, he was dead.

As a result, our government and medical research departments entirely re-thought and subsequently ended their involvement in basic research intended to seek cures for orphan diseases. They also had their asses sued off by my cousin's family. Their son's name was Jesse Gelsinger. Legislation was passed called "Jesse's Law" which puts very serious limitations on what can be done in such pharmaceutical research.

My point is, even if it was my own daughter ( and I do have a daughter in her 20's who I love more than life itself) not every problem can be addressed and solved, at least not at a cost that is justifiable. I have often heard people say, "If it saves just ONE life, it is worth it". well, not always. If it bankrupts entire industries, and impoverishes millions, is it worth it to save one life? Most rational people would say maybe not.

Jack London| 8.2.11 @ 7:32AM

I've looked up Jesse's case and it is very sad. And I'm glad to see you support regulation - this isn't your usual stance in the free market. And this wasn't a 'government trial' - it was partly driven by commercial interests:

'One such case that Milstein litigated, settled in 2000, involved a young man from Pennsylvania who died as a result of participating in a gene therapy experiment. According to Milstein, it wasn’t until after his death that the young man’s parents found out that earlier animal experiments using the same techniques had also resulted in deaths, that the principal investigator in the research held a patent on the drug that was being tried as well as a 33 percent stake in the company producing the drug, and that the University of Pennsylvania — where the experiments took place — also held a stake in the company.'

http://www.law.virginia.edu/ht.....lstein.htm

simon templar| 8.3.11 @ 1:21AM

Once again, as a mentally disordered liberal, you can only fixate on your own delusions and repeat them ad nauseum. You simply ignore, distract, or downright lie about everything. I can read. You were attempting to distract from the real issue of insane government spending, borrowing, government waste, fraud, and mismanagment by directing the argument towards 'government investment'', as a justification for more and continued insane government spending and waste.

The truth is very little innovation has come from government spending. You try to present the false argument that it is huge and society could not do without it and what would result is no innovation. Government did not create nor was responsible for MOST of this countys innovations and technology..the private sector did this.

Conservatives are well aware of where innovations have originated and what a free market can produce and also very aware as to which sector of society does it better and more efficiently. We have two hundred years of examples to back it up from Franklin to Bill Gates.

Can government provide in certain circumstances assistance in this arena? Sure. But is it government research budgets that conservatives are concerned about? Hell no. You know damn well what the issue is. It is the complete failure and mismanagement, graft, fraud, and theft of 60 years of entitlement programs from AFDC to Social Security to Medicare to the War on Poverty. It is the insane regulations and policy that has strangled business. It is the intrusion into every single aspect of our lives and our first and second ammendment rights. Your elitist statism and liberal collectivist ideology is now on the ropes and each day passes more and more americans are seeing the truth. But most of all it is your unwillingness to admit your ideology is a failure and your government programs the same. You are unwilling to even discuss reforming them or doing anything to make them solvent other than tax us more..take more..and spend more.

Anthony| 8.1.11 @ 4:01PM

Hmmm, hey Jack, now that your man Obozo has shut down all that science, technology, infrastructure, training and education at NASA, can we put James Hansen out of his anthropogenic global warming misery once and for all?
Or will all that you've described now be totally dedicated to AGW and those polar bears?
Are Obozo's and Algore's propeller hats all we've gotten from our investment? That sounds about right coming from the Muslim Marxist.
Does this also mean our astronauts now have to sit at the back of the Ruskiee's space shuttle? What would Rosa Parks have to say about that?
And where's Sharpton and Jackson? Or can we send them up too, without space helmets?
If this is what the government has given us, shut the damn thing down now!!!

Butch| 8.1.11 @ 5:58PM

Let's play Jeopardy! The answer is:

". . . science, technology, infrastructure, training and education."

The question is:

Name five things not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

W| 8.1.11 @ 11:21AM

Simon, agree, except in Pittsburgh, we spell and pronounce it "jagov."

Ground Control| 8.1.11 @ 2:00PM

It's been explained repeatedly, but clearly you're too dense to comprehend simple, basic economics. Government spending does not put money in to the economy, it takes it OUT OF the economy. Government only has money that belongs to other people, TAX money, money TAKEN OUT of the economy. Cutting government spending, and consequently tax rates, allows people to KEEP their OWN money and spend it as they see fit. This is the only true economic stimulus. Government can not spend to prosperity. Government can only take away from the properity of others. You clearly know nothing at all of economics.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 8.1.11 @ 7:44PM

Oh, this is one snake I've just got to poke a stick at.
Ground Control, you state, "Government only has money that belongs to other people, TAX money, money TAKEN OUT of the economy."

Does your passion for cutting the federal budget because that money leaves the economy include defense spending? Consider a single lowly round that goes into a M-4. To pay for that bullet, someone had to be taxed. Okay, so now the Defense Department has the money to pay for that round. Assume - and it's a big assumption - the Defense Department actually received value for the money spent. The workers who made the bullet get paid, and that money circulates in the American economy. Our bullet now goes to Iraq or Afghanistan where it ends its usefulness - hopefully in the head of some Talian. Where's the benefit?

Contrast this with a car - let's even say it has a Detroit name plate. That car involves workers getting paid just like the bullet but then it - literally - circulates in the American economy.

Seems to me that your argument pretty forcefully calls for big reductions in the defense budget.

Ground Control| 8.1.11 @ 11:45PM

This is what is called a "false dichotomy." It is a formal argument fallacy. I never suggested totally eliminating taxes and your inference that I did is laughable. The US Constitution delegates powers to the US Government, and among those powers is national defense. NOT among those powers are: education, welfare, corporate subsidies, Section 8 housing, Social Security, Medicare, etc... Paying taxes at a low rate to cover CONSTITUTIONAL expenditures is not only acceptable, it is non-controversial. Your argument is vacuous, your "logic" is silly, and your conclusion is stupid.

Wayne | 8.1.11 @ 3:22PM

I bet many people have, but since you don't listen you ignored them. If you get the US out of the borrowing business, that leaves the money for the private sector. They use it to grow and hire people. See how it works, when money does not have to flow through the government?

Anthony| 8.1.11 @ 9:04AM

The shamelessly brazen world class mendacity, deliberate obfuscation, cowardice, and downright incompentence coming from both sides of the Washington ruling class has reached its nadir.
It's time we Americans took back our country from these hacks.
2012!! by any means necessary!!!!

POST American| 8.1.11 @ 9:10AM

"Understand, there's NO reason why ANY
country should be borrowing money from
anyone --least of all the US. Absolutely NO
reason. ---This ---IS----the CON."
-ALAN WATT
(devastating on target coverage online)

As we reflect on the 96% loss of value in
the US dollar since the ILLEGAL establishment
of the USURY driven, PRIVATE 'Federal'
Reserve.

As we remember their intrigue with finagling
one and all into the unneccessary, utterly
set up First World War.

As we take in anew their up front involvement
with the Bolshevik coup d'etat, and their
enabling of their cherished 'Soviet experiment'.

As we consider the KEY role in American and
international banking in the enabling of Nazi
Germany. (SEE Rep. Charles McFadden 1935'quote on this subject).

As we contemplate the now ON RECORD
truth that the FED deliberately created the
'Great Depression'.

As we reckon the awesome role of psychpathic,
EUGENICS driven, international Globalist
finance in the US taxpayer underwritten and
enabled 'RED China miracle'.

As we consider that unmentioned 1.5 QUAD-rillion in FAKE derivatives debt, or the missing 'Banker Bailouts' and sundry other TRILLIONS.

-------HAD ENOUGH?

Then think HUAC meets NUREMBERG
--the second, and FINAL chapter.

REALLY

TRULY

Dai Alanye| 8.1.11 @ 9:27AM

Has anyone ever been able to make sense of even one of POST American's comments? Perhaps I'm not trying hard enough, but the term "fruit salad" comes to mind.

Michael L. Hauschild| 8.1.11 @ 10:18AM

Have you noticed that these delusional manifestations are always rife with cap key usage?

JimP| 8.1.11 @ 10:50AM

"Ah, but the strawberries. That's where I had them...."

darcy| 8.2.11 @ 2:18AM

Caine Mutiny. Bogart. 1954.

JimP| 8.1.11 @ 9:16AM

Great thanks to the following, in no particular order, for exposing that default was a lie from the outset and that we would have money to meet the minimum payments on the debt, plus pay SS, Medicare, military payments: conservative bloggers; Rush, Mark, Sean; Charlie Gasparino for his 7/25/11 expose report; and all those I have left out. Shame on the following for attacking the House Tea Party Caucus who forced a better deal, and intentionally or otherwise, forced the debate and its reasons in front of the public: Charles Krauthammer; Laura Ingraham; The Wall Street Journal; and any and all other ‘conservative’ critics. As we now see, the “experts” and “journalists” are neither and they haven’t been doing their jobs. Gasparino’s report should have been headline news in every report on Fox since July 25th, but instead we were still treated to the insufferable pompous lecturing and criticism of the TP Caucus by Dr. K and the equally insufferable and ignorant scare mongering by Laura Ingraham last Thursday and Friday while she filled in for O’Reilly. There is no excuse for this ‘failure’ on the part of these ‘conservatives’, AND the GOP leadership in Congress who did not expose the lie of default from the beginning.

Also, special thanks to the Tea Party caucus for hanging tough, playing the ‘game’ the way it is supposed to be played, and doing your best to do what the voters sent you to DC to do.

Doctor Right| 8.1.11 @ 9:39AM

Deal or no deal, the US was NOT going to default on it's debt on August 2nd. That is a fictitious date that Obama pulled-out of his a** after unzipping his mom-jeans.

I expect the ding-bats in the lame-stream media to carry Obama's water and spread panic about August 2nd; what I didn't expect was for conservative news magazines to go along with the idiocy.

Boehner's "deal" does NOT cut spending, it cuts the increase in spending. Boehner has been playing footsy with Obama and Reid all along, as has McConnell, who does not have the stones to be Senate GOP leader.

It's high-time to start the "primary" process in the GOP and clean-out the deadwood, establishment RINOs in 2012.

Bye-bye, John! You may be the first S.O.H. to be ousted by your own Party in a Primary.

A VA voter| 8.1.11 @ 4:51PM

Please add Richmond, Virginia Representative Eric Cantor to the list of those who need to go. His missteps and deceits have been many since just January of this year.

He is completely unworthy.

Gary B| 8.1.11 @ 10:09AM

The "deal... is good if the new committee results in massive cuts to federal spending without slashing defense." That's a big if.

From a friend of mine...

Judge Judy to Prostitute:

"When did you realize you were raped?"
Prostitute (wiping away tears): "When the check bounced."

The American Public will soon reach the same conclusion.

JimP| 8.1.11 @ 10:11AM

ROTFL! Thanks, I needed a laugh after the last week of SOS from DC.

Drunken Sailor| 8.1.11 @ 11:58AM

I always wondered about that. Is it theft by deception. Fraud, or Rape. Thanks for clearing that up.

Indy| 8.1.11 @ 10:15AM

The GOP dropped the ball, all they needed to do to get immediate cuts was to carve out the stimulus spending that is now embedded in the baseline. I called many to make this point, Sessions, Ryan, Jordan, Scott and other Tea Pary Freshman...

most Americans do not understand baseline budgeting, if they did, they would be outraged this is allowed to continue, the GOP had an opportunity to make the case and didn't...why?

Gary B| 8.1.11 @ 10:27AM

Only in DC can a rescue party (the Tea Party) be blamed for the disaster (decades of uncontrolled spending by both parties).

It's like a gang of arsonists calling the firemen irresponsible. Only if you are on the dole and not paying any taxes would you agree with that picture.

Indy| 8.1.11 @ 10:37AM

I was not blaming the Tea Party by any means, Sessions and Ryan should have led the charge to strip out stimulus spending...Ryan doesn't even do it in his plan. The Gang of 6 didn't either. I'm saying that the GOP strategy and messaging is poor, if they picked one simple message and went all out to convey it to the public, they could have won significant cuts in 2012. Notice how POTUS goes after the corporate jet owners and their tax loophole which is very small in relation to the deficit / debt, but he hammers that point over and over again and will continue with that message. If the GOP picked stimulus spending as the target for their message, they could have gained traction with the public because the stimulus spending is unpopular...not to mention it failed.

My reason for calling Tea Party conservatives was to make them aware of baseline budgeting...they are rookies and may not realize what's now embedded in the baseline. I do not cast blame on them at all.

Gary B| 8.1.11 @ 11:55AM

Indy,

I'm sorry. Mine was a general comment. It was not a response to you. I clicked the wrong link.

Indy| 8.1.11 @ 12:30PM

Got it, not a problem!
I'm sure my pic is somewhere on file with DHS for having attended Tea Parties where I have met many concerned citizens. I made sure to smile for the camera.

It's easy to click on the wrong link.

Mike D.| 8.1.11 @ 10:38AM

Your exactly right, the ones who want to stop the insanity are suddenly the evil force at work here. That shows how far gone Dysfunctionland has become and how the complete loss of common sense has effected reality.

Gary B| 8.1.11 @ 11:59AM

Mike D.,

I hope the public understands this. I suspect a lot of them do, hence the popularity of the Tea Party in the first place.

We are also witnessing another example of the corrupt behavior of the rating agencies. The market's response will trump them very quickly.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 8.1.11 @ 7:47PM

I am not on the dole and I pay taxes, Gary B. A "rescue party"? Please.

I find the House members of the Tea Party not unlike the little kid having a tantrum and threatening to hold his/her breath until he/she turns blue.

Seems like it had about the same effect.

George True| 8.2.11 @ 1:19AM

"...little kid having a tantrum and threatening to hold his breath until he turns blue."

A dead-on description of Obama's behavior.

Petronius| 8.1.11 @ 10:23AM

The primary objective of all this was to halt Obama's profligacy in it's tracks and send his infantile voters to bed without supper. Ain't gonna happen as the definition of a "Law" in Washington is a piece of paper containing imperatives which are regarded according to the government's pleasure. And the duplicitous gingrich's on our side who got elected to Congress to get into the beltway horsey set would rather die than tolerate Real Americans getting Our way, and force them to manage government finances the way every honest citizen must manage his own. We have seen over half a century of off budget spending, phony book keeping, check kiting vis a vis the House post office and money laundry, failed audits, and 3 generations of oxygen thieves sponging off of fewer and fewer competent adults. Enough!! The buck must stop here or become totally worthless. The public debt of this country should be down graded because the government deserves it. And if the traders on Wall St. can't sell any more, so mote it be. If the United States is to survive and continue as the benchmark of the world we must face reality. We must abolish entitlements and grow up, or this country is finished.

patroness| 8.1.11 @ 10:44AM

Happy unB-Day Mr. President. 2012 hurry!
It IS hard to place old heads on young shoulders:(

solo| 8.1.11 @ 11:08AM

Boehner and McConnel have done one thing, for sure:

They have demonstrated that the republican party, as currently constituted, is no damned better than the statists in the democrat party.

It's all about perpetuating big government. It's all about lying to the American people.
It's all about "them" and the retention of their power and not at all about the American people.

They're lying their collective arses off--just like the democrats lie their asses off!

There are no "cuts"! Never were any "cuts"!

A "cut" in the budget is when you spend less money this year than you spent last year.
This "deal" is going to increase our debt by $7 Trillion in the next ten years--and that's if we're lucky.

The spending orgy continues and so do the lies!

Anthony| 8.1.11 @ 11:10AM

So Levin was right all along. Obozo will get $2.5 T to buy off all the groups necessary to win the 2012 election.
McConnell's grand plan is suicide.There are 3 stages, an immediate $500 B, with $500B and $1.5B coming only after congressional disapproval.
Is this the same congressional disapproval that requires a 2/3 vote of each house NOT to allow the additional debt increases to Obozo? Only the fevered minds of the Washington ruling class could devise this Rube-Goldberg sham.
A 2/3s vote from the most disfunctional and hopelessly partisan group of political hacks since the formation of our republic.
Hey Mitch, how about another great piece of legislation, one that requires a 2/3s vote of each house not to disband the congress immediately.
Now that would garner a strong bi-partisan vote, as political whores, of either stripe, would rally to preserve their fiefdom.
Enjoy while you can, the end of this folly is coming soon!!!

solo| 8.1.11 @ 11:28AM

"Enjoy while you can, the end of this folly is coming soon!!!"

From your keyboard to God's monitor screen!

Gary B| 8.1.11 @ 12:05PM

One good thing (I hope) is that the Tea Party will be able to say, "We told you so." They should start fundraising right now for primary season so they can knock off as many RINOs as possible for 2012.

They already have caused panic in DC. Their next target should be knocking Boehner off his perch.

Oldefarte| 8.1.11 @ 11:47AM

Jed's article tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but; and as he infers ['....But only a moment's, thanks to the indefatigable Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL). Sessions' staff analysis revealed that Reid "deemed" two years of budgets in to being. (It's been 823 days since the Democratic Senate has passed a budget.) Under Reid's bill, current law was extended through 2013. That meant the Bush-era tax cuts would expire and the alternative minimum tax "fixes" -- which prevents that law from doing greater harm -- wouldn't be made. In short, Reid tried to slip tax hikes costing about $3.8 trillion (over a decade) past us, and Sessions caught him at it....']........

IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS!!!!!!!

Clint| 8.1.11 @ 1:19PM

It's The RINO-CINO's Too.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here & Now.

Stand & Fight.

Oldefarte| 8.1.11 @ 3:08PM

Count to the number TWO instead of issuing worthless euphemisms, cause that's how many political parties there are in existence. The elected president in November of 2012 will be Obama or the Republican candidate. YOUR vote for one of the two will determine the ability to STAND or to DISINTEGRATE!!!!!!!

Wayne | 8.1.11 @ 3:24PM

BS.

Margie| 8.1.11 @ 4:38PM

BS to your BS.

Clint| 8.1.11 @ 4:49PM

That's Pretty Bold Talk For A One Eyed Fart Man.

Apparently, You Graduated From The Arlen Specter/John McCain "Lesser Evil" RINO-CINO School Of Bloviation.

Now, Take Your Prune Juice & Go Feed The Squirrels In The Park, Stinky.

Margie| 8.1.11 @ 5:31PM

And you graduated from the Lew Rockwell psycho school of Blame America First school of anti-semites and terrorist sympathizers.

You punks are fortunately a small minority, and most aren't fooled by you.

There's a black lagoon waiting for you to crawl into.

Clint| 8.1.11 @ 5:50PM

You Seem Very Upset Again This Fine Summer Evenin', Israel Firster RINO-CINO Margie.

Margie Got Her BS In BS & Is Goin' For Her Doctorate In RINO-CINO Doodoo.

The Tea Party Steps On Margie's Face.

Wipe Your Feet.

Clint| 8.1.11 @ 5:54PM

I Almost Forgot.

You're A Slandering Liar.

Now Tell All American Spectator Readers Where You & Your Old Man Say Practicing Jews Go When They Die, Joisey White Trash Bigot Margie.

You're Up Bigot Margie.

Margie| 8.1.11 @ 8:49PM

You're a vile creature, who's already in Hell.

Michael L. Hauschild| 8.1.11 @ 12:02PM

There was an amazing analyst on Fox News this morning who dissected the “agreement” between McConnell, Boehner and Obama.
I only heard it once but it surely will get replay.
1. The cuts are future cuts.
2. The cuts are not cuts at all but, simple non-zero reductions. Those cuts oare over ten years and even with them the deficit will soar.
3. The “leaders” rewrote the Constitution and abrogated their responsibilitys to a “majority of one” Super-Committee. Six democrats and a McCain, a Brown or a Collins/Snow will decimate the military.
4. None of the ‘triggers,” requirements or wording is law, it is only as good (?) as the current legislature and is not relevant to 2012.
5. Obama got his depb ceiling campaign slush fund.
6. The Bush tax cuts, will expire (BIG tax increase).
Now as I stated I only heard this once, and I am relating what the guy said, so check it out yourself.
If this is the case, and I fear it is, we have been sold out again, as always, and as expected.

Gary B| 8.1.11 @ 12:08PM

Tea Party members should a press conference and announce that, while they fought hard against it, this deal is owned by Obama, the Democrats and RINOs. That they renouce every detail of it and that they are looking forward to 2012 to correct it.

TrueBlue| 8.1.11 @ 2:47PM

I agree, every person that votes this down (and it SHOULD be voted down) needs to go out in public and make sure they tell people so that when the economy still flops and nothing in government changes they can shout to the country, "We tried to fight this! Vote these fools out to save our country!"

Michael L. Hauschild| 8.1.11 @ 12:44PM

http://nation.foxnews.com/debt.....al-details

tsd| 8.1.11 @ 1:03PM

Did anybody expect these elite level morons in Washington to do anything different ? ... if so read the definition of insanity. All we can do is vote the old guard (Dem and Repub) out and bring in more people who get it. They have done no more than BS us with additional debt.

Gary B| 8.1.11 @ 5:41PM

Exactamundo...

Melvin| 8.1.11 @ 1:35PM

We no longer have a Representative form of government. We have two options, civil disobedience, or outright rebellion.
Elections have become meaningless, there is no longer a two party system, but a single unit of global governance.

Janet| 8.1.11 @ 1:54PM

On saturday, REDSTATE.COM reported that the second bill submitted by Boehner was actually written the weekend before by REID AND McCONNELL'S AIDES. Doesn't that just make you proud? Just who does Boehner represent anyway? Obviously not the GOP CONSERVATIVES. We're just the suckers that get to pay for his turncoat dealings. So, there never was a second bill from Boehner......just a bill from Reid and the democrats. Thank God the 22 freshmen weren't fooled by these dealings. But it does raise the question: Did the other GOPer's know about this and did they simply go along to get along? Was this all agreed to on that famous weekend golf outing a few weeks ago? We've been screwed once again by our own people and nobody even gave us the K-Y.......I guess that's a savings. lol REDSTATE still has that article up on it's site, down close to the bottom. Read it for yourself....

sandpiper| 8.1.11 @ 2:09PM

WHICH SIX REPUBLICANS on this Super Committee? I have to know so I can order enough maple syrup for the waffles....
We have or share of greased weasels.

sandpiper| 8.1.11 @ 2:23PM

Anthony states that "It is time we took back our country by any means necessary in 2012."

Tells us the means you might consider in those "any", Anthony. The necessary means might be getting ourselves a corrupt ACORN group to round up bogus votes for whatever lame candidate we finally wind up with.

Threats such as this always remind me of a cartoon I saw once of Bozo The Clown, The caption was, "OK, I'm takin' off the gloves now. . ." as he was tripping over his big, clown shoes and sputtering mad.

TrueBlue| 8.1.11 @ 2:44PM

Never mind the fact that if the commission is composed of House Reps and Senators, what place does the President have to "demand" anything of the Legislative branch? That is NOT within his power and someone (preferably lots of someones) need to step up and put the President in his place, along with every future President regardless of Party affiliation.

Oldefarte| 8.1.11 @ 3:13PM

There's only one option [and it ain't the Democrats]!!!!!!!

Michael L. Hauschild| 8.1.11 @ 4:24PM

Let me add something else you insufferable dunce, it ain't the Republicans either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Margie| 8.1.11 @ 4:39PM

And let me add something you haughty, lying, fool:

Third party equals death!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Michael L. Hauschild| 8.1.11 @ 5:02PM

"Give me liberty or give me death."

Truth to Power| 8.1.11 @ 5:18PM

Ok. Could you take care of that?

Michael L. Hauschild| 8.1.11 @ 5:49PM

I can only have some say in the first part.

Clint| 8.1.11 @ 5:57PM

Sounds Like Victor, The Poseur Russkie Has Chimed In.

Margie| 8.1.11 @ 5:26PM

And Michael Hauschild's the ONLY one who wants it.
LOL.

Clint| 8.1.11 @ 6:05PM

Margie Can Tell Us All About Her ManCrush On The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain & McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003, TARP,
Aaaand,
"In a Senate floor speech laced with sarcasm and stings, the Arizona Republican aimed especially harsh fire at the tea party Wednesday.

McCain said the movement is "foolish" to think a balanced budget amendment could pass before the August 2 deadline. At one point, McCain read from an op-ed in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal. That article referred to activists as "tea party hobbits" – the little people who inhabit Middle-earth in the Lord of the Rings series.

McCain – 2008's Republican presidential nominee – also blasted as "bizarre" an idea supported by current GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, though McCain did not mention her by name."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here & Now.

Stand & Fight.

Margie| 8.1.11 @ 8:53PM

"A righteous man hates falsehood, but a wicked man acts shamefully and disgracefully.
Righteousness guards him whose way is upright, but sin overthrows the wicked." Prov. 13:5 & 6.

Bob Grant| 8.1.11 @ 9:32PM

Marge,

Would you change your mind if your girl Sarah decides to go third party?

martin j smith| 8.1.11 @ 3:14PM

I have NO CONFIDENCE in McConnell and Boehner.
Period. They are cowards , fools or Obama supporters or all three.

Melvin| 8.1.11 @ 3:42PM

Cowards, your calling them cowards! That is too good for the likes of those two. At least a cowards has some spine to run and hide. Boehner and McConnell don't even have the guts to to that, they just stand they're and tell us lies, because they think we're to stupid to see through they're rotten scam.
Those two miserable pukes are not even worthy of the title of Coward.

martin j smith| 8.1.11 @ 3:21PM

oh yes, we need new leadership. And one thing more the WSJ is angry that Tea Party opposition
to the so called Boehner 4.0 or is it McC ?
I can say once again that WALL STREET does not have the interests the American people at heart. Wall Street is for only one thing; WALL STREET !!!!!!!!!!!!. They do not give a crap about YOU.

Melvin| 8.1.11 @ 3:40PM

Why are politicians terrified that Wall Street won't respond favorably, because that is where most of the politicians investments are. They're looking out for themselves all the while selling the rest of us out.
The lowlife bastards sold us out with TARP, Stimulus one, and Stimulus 2. Wall Street is doing the best it has done in years while people are losing their jobs and homes and just about everything else. Politicians net worth has increased almost four percent.
Hey America how much has your net worth increased?
John Boehner is dead frigging meat, politically speaking. He is a lying, no good, scum sucking, Leftist loving, piece of dog squeeze RHINO. His word is worth whale squeeze. He's politically dead he just doesn't realize it yet.

glenny44| 8.1.11 @ 4:12PM

This nation meets the legal definition of insolvent. Liabilites exceed assets.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's time to take the beating we're due. It will only be worse if we continue to kick this down the road.
Gosh, I sincerely wish the Chicoms WOULD NOT buy anymore of our T-bills.
IT'S TIME!
glenny

Pelligrino| 8.1.11 @ 5:04PM

You know that NONE of this was serious. None of it. If anyone in Washington, D.C. was serious, we would have seen:

Pink slips (firings) handed out to the tune of 42,000 U.S. federal workers EVERY week for 12 weeks straight. (federal workers not just in the land of Dysfunction & Corruption, but in all 50 U.S. states and 7 territories)

The biggest item in any budget is personnel. If the budget must be cut, you must cut employees.

Does anyone know of any federal employees who have lost their jobs in "group layoffs" in the last three months?

Additionally: Until U.S. Capitol Hill critters and those at the White House get their fiscal house (the 'house of the nation') in order, they also receive cuts: 75% salary cut -- across the board -- to include staffers working for the principals.

Ground Control| 8.1.11 @ 5:14PM

One is tempted to wonder is Mr. "Jack London" is indeed a true believer in the fantasy of Keynesian economics, or if he is in reality an "agent provocateur." Can one really be that stupid and NOT be Barack Obama?

George True| 8.1.11 @ 6:08PM

I believe they come here not to have a real exchange of ideas, but to attempt to derail any meaningful discussion or debate.

Time and again, when you refute their flawed talking points with empirical evidence, they simply ignore the fact that you just skewered their argument, and they throw out yet another red herring. Herman Cain refers to this tactic of theirs as SIN - Shift the topic, Ignore the evidence, and Name call.

Thus, when you cite irrefutable evidence, they simply act as if it were not there. Then they go in a completely different direction by bringing up an entirely different subject. They will continue to do this for as long as you are willing to go down the rabbit hole with them. It then becomes an endless game of whack-a-mole.

A normal, decent person would admit it when they are wrong. Not so with leftists. They will never acknowledge that human affairs may in fact not work as they thought. And they cannot stand it that forums like this exist where their follies are exposed and dissected. Thus they will come here and try to disrupt and prevent any real discussion and free exchange of ideas.

Ground Control| 8.1.11 @ 11:47PM

I believe you explained it rather well. Clearly, this is their aim.

Jack London| 8.2.11 @ 7:35AM

If you are the possessor of 'irrefutable evidence' George then how come you have failed to explain why diminishing demand boosts the economy.

Aces and Eights| 8.2.11 @ 11:07AM

How does one explain a falsehood? You make no sense whatsoever. You really are not very bright, are you?

Jack London| 8.2.11 @ 11:46AM

Exactly - diminishing demand makes the economy worse. But that's what George wants - and he'd make it even worse too by cutting yet more taxes.

Aces and Eights| 8.2.11 @ 12:08PM

The economy works on supply AND demand. Cutting taxes puts more money in the hands of those who OWN it and can SPEND it. Raising taxes REMOVES money from the economy. This is fundamental economics. Government-centric economic models do not work, have never worked, and never will work, simply because you want to substitute the economic decisions of millions of people interested in improving their OWN lives, with the centralized control of a handful of people in government, and expecting that those people in government will act altruistically, for everyone ELSE'S benefit. Ludicrous. Bordering on insane. All you're really doing is giving other people's money to unaccountable politicians and bureaucrats to spend wildly for the benefit of their OWN careers. And, that's just what they do.

Jack London| 8.2.11 @ 12:47PM

Sorry to go on about this but can you cite studies that show lower taxes return greater economic growth and higher tax returns, particularly in a downturn? All the evidence I see is the reverse. Unless you think that evidence doesn't matter, only right-wing voodoo.

Aces and Eights| 8.2.11 @ 1:08PM

I don't need to cite "evidence." I have lived through it. And I have studied History (I have a Bachelors degree in History) and have studied the results of government-centric economic practice. It is not a pretty picture. Also, what you call "evidence" is nothing more than socialist propaganda and what you "see" is not real. If you really want to understand economics, I suggest you read Thomas Sowell's book "Basic Economics". It's in its 4th edition. As for "voodoo", anyone who thinks that prosperity inherently derives from government, is dealing in tarot and voodoo, and is not in touch with reality. The simple truth is, government-centric economics (socialism) can not exist without a healthy capitalist economy to steal from. Even Marx understood this and it is why he predicted socialism would follow capitalism. It would have to if it can even exist at all. All the so-called great socialist countries actually have healthy capitalist economies to subsidize their socialist programs. Whereas all the true socialist experiments have resulted in famine, massive unemployment, and tyranny. You are on the side of the devils, the destroyers of prosperity, the plunderers of wealth. You side with government. I stand with the People.

Jack London| 8.2.11 @ 1:33PM

You're getting hysterical - no one's saying we need anything more than a healthy balance between what the government can do - things like infrastructure, universal health insurance, education - and private enterprise. Perhaps you see the interstate highways as some kind of communist plot in your strange mind.

Aces and Eights| 8.2.11 @ 1:52PM

Another stupid comment from the "Jackster." I see nothing of the kind and you're changing the subject again. YOU are pushing for higher taxes, more government spending, and more debt. YOU are calling for more money to be taken out of the economy and spent on government. If government sticks to things like infrastructure (mostly at the State level), education (entirely at the State and local levels), and maintaining a court system (Federal, State, and local levels), and national defense (Federal level), and taxes appropriately to do these things, then I would be very happy. YOU want the Federal government to seize health insurance as an industry. YOU want the government to seize control of private enterprise (bailouts, TARP, GM and Chrysler). YOU want the government to spend the country into prosperity, which is an impossibility. Your approach is not a "balanced". It is government-centric and consequently highly destructive. Our current economic woes are the result of your kind of "balanced" approach. But I doubt you are capable of understanding this.

Jack London| 8.2.11 @ 2:16PM

You're blood pressure is off the scale now... We do need to stick with Medicare and it does make sense to extend it t lower ages, and private insurance will always be there, as it is in 'socialist' countries such as the UK (which are actually pretty much as capitalist as we are). If we hadn't bailed out the car makers the knock on effects in the economy would have been truly awful - this is precisely where we do need a government. And TARP, by the way, is I believe about to show a positive return to taxpayers. So do calm down.

Aces and Eights| 8.2.11 @ 2:31PM

Blood pressure? Are you serious? Calm down? From what? ??? You need help.

skip| 8.3.11 @ 11:49AM

Pop quiz

"FACT: Every dollar spent on unemployment benefits creates $1.61 in economic growth."

Who stated this FACT in the last two weeks?

Hint, it is not George True. Or Ground Control, Aces and Eights, or Simon Templar.

If still not sure, this poster posts equally idiotic comments whether referring something as simple to understand as tax policy, or savings, or investments. Or Principles of Econ 101 treatments of supply and demand, for that matter.

simon templar| 8.3.11 @ 1:44AM

My god, you are a stubborn idiot. Your liberal god, Jack Kennedy, was a believer in tax cuts and a supply sider and instituted tax cuts that resulted in the economic boom of the sixties. Did not know that, did you, Jackass?

simon templar| 8.3.11 @ 1:38AM

GT, you have a brilliant mind. Excellent commentary and critical thinking! Keep posting here.

Richard Baker| 8.1.11 @ 5:35PM

The Congress in Washington is delusional. I hear that there will be $2.1 Trillion dollars cut in 10 years. Let's see. That means out of an annual federal budget of $3.7-8 Trillion that we're going to cut about $210 Billion each year. This is being called draconian. Are these people lucid, at all?

Michael L. Hauschild| 8.1.11 @ 6:15PM

Would you vote to approve the deficit reduction plan approved by President Obama and Congressional leadership?

Not sure. I'm glad there's a plan but I need to know more. 6.84% (7,826 votes)

Hell yes! Our country's credit worthiness is on the line. 5.96% (6,820 votes)

Yes, but with reservations. They could have done better. 15.19% (17,378 votes)

No. I would like to vote yes, but this plan still doesn't do it for me. 26.79% (30,640 votes)

Hell no! Congress caved on this one.
44.41% (50,804 votes)

Other (post a comment) 0.81% (923 votes)

Total Votes: 114,391

Michael L. Hauschild| 8.1.11 @ 6:16PM

That was a Fox poll.

Naturalborn Texicanette| 8.1.11 @ 7:01PM

A quote from Madeline L'Engle's novel, "A Wrinkle in Time,"
"alike and equal are not the same."

Whether we call ourselves Tea Partiers, conservatives, or Republicans, all of us - for the most part - are against bloated government spending. Instead of getting angry with each other, let's remember who the ENEMY really is!!!

In the end, Obama and his ilk MUST GO!!!

I want American to still exist as a republic - where freedom is all - when my grand kids grow up.

Instead of turning on each other - which will ultimately divide us - lets try to work toward some like-mindedness........even though we may not all believe in exactly the same thing, we must pull together to win against the enemy in the end.

Then we can have our own family squabbles in the reassurance that America will continue to be free. (Sorry the mother just came out in me. No offense meant, just trying to make some sense of the why we seem to be throwing rocks at each other instead of the enemy.)

And by the way, thanks for educating me in so many ways thru all the different viewpoints expressed in this forum - especially between kissin' cousins!!!

A.C. Guard| 8.1.11 @ 8:03PM

Can't wait for 2012 when Obama will be sent packing along with most of the RINO's in the GOP.

Anne McElroy| 8.1.11 @ 8:50PM

The Republicans have been hanging around Nancy Pelosi too long. Now We have to pass a bill to see what's in it! What happened to the three day viewing period that was pledged to the American people by these birds? They are being played by a classic liberal ploy - "create a crisis so you can exploit it." And, again, these guys fall for it!

Glein| 8.1.11 @ 10:28PM

Who are the weasals? All Democrats and Republicans who voted for this monstrosity. McConnell, Boehner, Reid, Pelosi, Obama all cut from the same cloth. They are passing this bill and sealing the collapse of this country. Bachman is right. We are on our way to Greece but I would not want to insult Greece.

Michael L. Hauschild| 8.1.11 @ 11:01PM

Revenge is a dish best served on a cold. November cold.

POST American| 8.1.11 @ 11:55PM

----------------BOTTOM LINE--------------------

"Understand, there's NO reason why
ANY country should be borrowing money
--EVER. --Least of all the USA."
-ALAN WATT

And for those among you, the sycophants
and chumps who refuse to engage with the
awesome issue of psychopathic, unchecked,
Globalist usury ---and refuse to heed the Torah
or scripture, and cower behind that feeble
defense --"Oh, it just sees it as an abomination
within one's own family" --a little scriptural
clarification.

The Law of Moses forbids USURY as a God
mocking abomination (something out of nothing)
---and allowed it, higly circumscribed, in
relation to one tribe, and one tribe ONLY,
---the Canaanites ---their ENEMIES.

"Remember, Globalism (USURY), 'Free Trade'
(Monopoly corporate CAP-IT--ALLLLL-ism)
and EUGENICS are always intertwined.
---------ALWAYS."
-ALAN WATT
(devstating online truth)

Takes care of all those Rockefeller 'Council of Churches'
BALKING equivocations now --doesn't it?

------------HUAC meets NUREMBERG-------------

---------------The Second Chapter--------------

-----------------COMING SOON-----------------

Petronius| 8.2.11 @ 12:54AM

The material assets of most people living in what used to be called the United States of America will soon be determined one of two ways: 1 what a person can hold on to by force of arms, and 2 what all the rest can carry at a dead run.

nike shoes UK| 8.8.11 @ 2:27AM

is good