The American Spectator : Cognitive Dissonance

Text Size

Cognitive Dissonance

By W. James Antle, III on 8.2.11 @ 6:09AM

The clashing and contradictory narratives driving the debt ceiling debate.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) came up with a signature phrase to describe the bipartisan deal to raise the debt ceiling. “This is a Satan sandwich, no doubt about it,” the Congressional Black Caucus chairman said. “With Satan fries on the side,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi added. Pelosi was a yes vote, perhaps confirming conservative suspicions about her dietary preferences.

Not everyone on the left was willing to have their Satan sandwich and eat it too. The New York Times editorialized that the debt deal was a “nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists.” “We have given much and received nothing in return,” lamented Rep. Raul Grijalva. “The lesson today is that Republicans can hold their breath long enough to get what they want.”

Arianna Huffington worried on MSNBC that the bill showed political compromise was dead. “”I think this is a real breakdown of our political system,” she said. In the Daily Beast, Michael Tomasky said simply, “Obama Gives It All Away.” Paul Krugman concluded Obama had “thrown all that away,” like the old Genesis song. Grijalva argued the agreement “trades people’s livelihoods for the votes of a few unappeasable right-wing radicals.”

Except the supposed “unappeasable right-wing radicals” were mostly unappeased. Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Marco Rubio (R-FL), some of the legislators most associated with the Tea Party, announced their opposition. Center-hugging Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty joined Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann in denouncing the deal. In the House, Paul and Bachmann joined such Tea Party lawmakers as Reps. Joe Walsh (R-IL), Paul Broun (R-GA), and Tim Scott (R-SC) in voting against it.

The Club for Growth and Heritage Action joined MoveOn.org and the Congressional Progressive Caucus in coming out swinging against the plan. Even Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina slammed its spending cuts as mostly illusory, except insofar as they targeted the Pentagon. ”This agreement adds over $7 trillion in new debt over the next decade and only makes small reductions in future spending,” Graham said in a statement. “We hardly address the future growth of entitlements, a major contributor of future budgetary problems.” But “the consequences to our nation’s defense infrastructure would be severe.”

Rand Paul sounded similar themes. In an open letter spelling out his opposition to the compromise, he said that the spending cuts were too small, too slow, and too backloaded. He also noted the increase in the national debt and the fact that it made it easier to raise the debt ceiling in the future. “To paraphrase Jim DeMint: When you’re speeding toward the edge of a cliff, you don’t set the cruise control,” Paul said. “You stop the car.”

While liberals saw the measure as shredding the social safety net, conservative skeptics disliked that it would leave Obamacare, the failed stimulus, and the massive federal bailouts intact. Liberals felt they gave away everything while conservatives believed they got nothing. On Twitter and in the blogosphere, many conservatives gleefully embraced Cleaver’s description of the debt hike as a sugar-coated Satan sandwich. Both sides were insistent that their leaders could have gotten a better deal.

In exchange for increasing the debt ceiling through the 2012 presidential election, the deal purports to contain $917 billion in spending cuts with no tax increases. A joint committee will meet to identify another $1.5 trillion in cuts, with at least the theoretical possibility of tax increases, or triggers will kick in some $1.2 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending, on both security and non-security related expenditures. Toss in $156 billion in reduced interest payments on the debt and the Congressional Budget Office believes it will result in $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years.

Needless to say, there remains a great deal of debate over the hastily thrown together details. In the end, the strange bedfellows’ left-and-right opposition couldn’t overcome the heroic return of Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), the lobbying of both parties’ leadership teams, and Washington’s collective sense that something must be done by midnight on August 2. The supposed non-compromise split House Democrats right down the middle and won majority Republican support. At press time, the Senate awaits its turn to ratify the deal and then try to avoid hard budget votes in the future.

So we have a debt deal that may lead to real spending cuts, even if it leaves the main driver of the debt untouched. It may sharply cut defense spending but not raise taxes. Or it may lead to tax increases in the future. Or maybe it won’t do much of anything at all, if the projections turn out to be even a little off. And it is hard to imagine Democrats and Republicans agreeing to much more.

However this turns out, it shows that both parties may have gotten us into this mess. But except at the margins, don’t expect them to join forces in getting us out.

About the Author

W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (197) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Intelligent Design| 8.2.11 @ 6:31AM

The deal made in DC accomplishes one thing: it increases the debt ceiling.

Timothy L. Pennell| 8.2.11 @ 7:16AM

That's great. Now we can get MORE Debt. MORE weight, to bury our Kids and Grandkids with.

Mike D.| 8.2.11 @ 7:42AM

I suspect this whole debt problem will destroy this country long before our grandkids ever get any of it dumped in their laps. What our grandkids will inherit will be a landscape of wreckage that ince was a great country.

CrackerHound| 8.2.11 @ 1:50PM

President Ronald Reagan:
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free".

"Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again."

God bless the Gipper...

Edward White| 8.2.11 @ 8:08AM

The “we’re broke” mindset simultaneously explains what might seem like a paradox of conservative thinking today: federal deficits are alarming and unsustainable, undermining our national credit, and yet we should NOT think about raising taxes.
If you have a bad-but-fixable debt problem, tax increases are a logical part of the austerity package to get you on the road to health. Just look at any country in Europe that’s actually implementing an austerity plan. But if things are already too far gone to fix, if we’re really broke, why bother raising taxes? That’s just more money down the hole. Conveniently, this position allows Republicans to conclude that alarming deficits are cause for spending cuts, but not for tax increases.
We need tax increases, and we need them now!

Ryan| 8.2.11 @ 8:20AM

Not until spending is cut FIRST. There has actually been, though, something on the table that conservatives have been willing to work with - loophole closing (which raises taxes) combined lowering overall rates.

It's actually more of a free-market solution to the problem anyway - it removes tax subsidies to targeted companies and industries and allows companies to flourish on their merits, not government handouts.

What it also does for larger companies (and maybe smaller) is reduce the non-value-added burden of calculating taxes due to complex tax law.

TrueBlue| 8.2.11 @ 7:35PM

Reducing complications in the tax law helps out smaller companies much more than bigger ones really. A small company has to have a larger percentage of its overall workforce to deal with taxes, whereas a bigger company can use the same number of people but percentage-wise this is a smaller number and so affects the number of people they actually have producing much less.

That said, I have no issues with tax increases really, but FIRST they need to decrease spending and cut loopholes and government subsidies (which cuts spending!).

Redstateboy| 8.2.11 @ 8:26AM

have you wrote out your check payable to the US Treasury? No - you haven't.
Have ya heard of HusseinCare?? There's your Tax increase. One State - my Great State of Tennessee's portion of HusseinCare is $142 Million dollars added to our State budget every year for 7 straight years. What's your States share of HusseinCare? NY and CA's share is in the Billions!! WHERE IN THE HELL IS THAT MONEY GOING TO COME FROM!!?!!?!?
Liber-uls must actually believe that there is a Magical Money Tree someplace.

Indiana Alex| 8.2.11 @ 8:31AM

No, you are absolutely 100% wrong on tax increases and conservative opposition. There are two reasons why we oppose tax increases. The first reason is that the government has always spent any money that may have been the result of tax increases, and could we all please agree to stop using Orwellian euphamisms like "revenue" to avoid unpleasant terms like "tax increases".

The second reason we oppose tax increases is that they do damage to the economy, and they seldom bring in anywhere near expected receipts.

Candidate Obama once said in a debate that he would raise capital gains taxes even though he knew higher rates would bring in less revenue. He said he would do so out of fairness.

It should be quite clear to spendaholics that people will change their behavior if they are rewarded with subsidies or targeted tax breaks. People are not out there building windmills because of a demand for high priced wind energy.

Since liberals believe tax cuts are the same as government spending they should understand that people will change thier behavior to avoid tax increases, or take advange of tax cuts.

Intelligent Design| 8.2.11 @ 8:45AM

"We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." -- Winston Churchill.

This is so basic, but liberals don't understand it.

John II| 8.2.11 @ 12:35PM

Ah, but they do understand it. They want power. They don't want any level of prosperity that makes people less dependent on the state. To repeat Indiana Alex's previous post:

"Candidate Obama once said in a debate that he would raise capital gains taxes even though he knew higher rates would bring in less revenue. He said he would do so out of fairness."

Yes, I recall that remark well. A mere slip of the scheming tongue, no doubt, but the Professor often says things that perhaps inadvertently reveal his intentions clearly. I say "perhaps inadvertently" because I can't be sure whether or when the slips are really just in-your-face outbursts of true intent. He is, after all, an arrogant narcissist.

But he represents the Left mindset accurately and predictably. It amazes me to hear conservatives talk about the Left's shortage of understanding. I guess the only reason I can see all this so clearly has something to do with the 40 years I've spent in academia, surrounded by the Left mindset.

To repeat: The denizens of the Left are at root reactionary. They hate the very concepts of freedom and responsibility. They love power. Their personal lives are hugely disordered, and they have no serious moral compass, so that their politics are both a substitute for religion and a frantic distraction from the creepy emptiness of their hearts. They want to destroy the American experiment, and after decades of trial and error they know exactly how to go about it.

So there's no question about whether they understand the baleful consequences of their politics and economics. And they are beyond caring about whether they understand themselves and the disordered source of their true motives.

And now back to "It's a Wonderful Life" (1946), a Frank Capra vehicle made in the first year of the Boomer generation, when the culture still had a residual moral vision secured by a sense of the transcendent--a vision hastened into dissolution by the well-heeled Boomers themselves, in consort with the spoiled second half of the preceding "Silent Generation" (e.g., Harry Reid was born in 1939, Nancy Pelosi in 1940: too young for World War II or Korea, too old for Vietnam--generationally, a couple of bipedal silver spoons, with napkin-rings for backbones and Obama-like narcissists for offspring.)

Doctor Right| 8.2.11 @ 1:51PM

Dude, Liberals don't understand how to use a can opener, let alone try to understand Churchillian wisdom on economics.

You might as well be try explaining the theory of relativity to a Lib...

Roy N.| 8.2.11 @ 12:37PM

Please explain to me how entrepreneurs will continue to bust their collective butts working when their bottom line is shrinking because of higher taxes. High taxes are a disincentive. If you want less of something, tax it.

This line of thinking reminds me of the dark ages when doctors would bleed people who were critically ill, lowering their very life support.

Occam's Tool| 8.2.11 @ 9:03PM

"Perhaps I will stop bleeding people. Perhaps I will learn transfusion techniques and antibiotics, leading to a new Golden Age of Medicine....Naawwww!" Theodoric of York.

W| 8.3.11 @ 10:10AM

This is not Occam

CrackerHound| 8.2.11 @ 1:58PM

Why should the American people trust the government with MORE of our money??
Why should the American people give the government ANOTHER line of credit/blank check worth TRILLIONS (a number usually reserved for astronomers when talking about numbers and distances that are too mind boggling to contemplate yet here it is as our deficit number)?

After seeing this debacle played out, why would ANYONE believe we should give more? Do we want a bigger hole? The government takes in plenty of money for the country to operate. Force them to figure out how to do it. Once the problem is fixed to sane levels (it will never happen), then we can talk.

Please enlighten me Mr. White. On what grounds is feeding the beast a good option? Your post above did not do that.

Paul Nelson| 8.2.11 @ 2:21PM

Ok let's raise taxes--a special excise tax of 40% on all federal checks. Immediate balanced budget

Drunken Sailor| 8.2.11 @ 2:47PM

Your taxing retired military pensions with your plan.

BayouKiki| 8.2.11 @ 6:21PM

If I thought for a moment that my increased taxes would go toward eliminating the debt, I'd be all for it. BUT THAT WON'T HAPPEN. The mindset of these politicians is to take whatever they can get and give it to whoever they need to so that they can be reelected. THAT'S ALL THEY CARE ABOUT. So I choose to not be in favor of their taking more of MY hard-earned dollars to give it to some major contributors of theirs.

Paul from SA| 8.2.11 @ 10:35AM

Who wrote this bill? Does any one person know what's in it?

This bill is quite complex and large and has been in the works for a long, long time. This was not just put together in a few minutes Saturday night.

We've been hoodwinked.

Who wrote this bill? Where did it come from?

George True| 8.2.11 @ 11:47AM

According to Redstate, Harry Reid wrote the bill. It wouldn't surprise me. Nothing would surprise me anymore.

TrueBlue| 8.2.11 @ 7:44PM

It's not that complex, or long (compared to the what, 1700 page? Obamacare plan) it's only 74 pages. That said it is VERY repetitive. The first 8 pages alone could have been fit into half a page if it weren't for the legalsleaze language and the fact they were trying to hide that it gives Obama and the OMB the ability to arbitrarily pass any budget they want so long as they can keep the House/Senate budget committees from acting on it for an undisclosed period of time. I love how they mention stuff like "that affords such committees the opportunity to comment before official action is taken with respect to such changes" without actually listed how long that opportunity lasts.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.2.11 @ 6:41AM

Your article suggests that many on both sides left the arena feeling dis-satisfied. Perhaps that's because the ruling elite don't care about public satisfaction anymore.

The bill will allow a vote on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

The vote may happen but the budget will not be balanced.

The bill contains so many ways out and so many push offs that it's long term overall effect will be nil.

It isn't only a question of the money. It's a question of power.

And the bill did little to change the landscape of the power elite inside the beltway.

That's where the real power lies, deep inside those buildings. As the government has gravitated towards technology, those bureaucrats are actually learning how to use it and they are using it to increase their strangle hold on our society.

The government can pass and bluster about the debt. It's not the greatest threat we have to face.

The greater threats lie in the federal agencies where unfettered and unchecked power allow 17,000 employees at the EPA destroy the opportunities for millions of future job opportunities. That's not to mention the millions of jobs that left the country as a result of the bureaucrats at the EPA. And that's just one federal agency.

Federal agencies have a tendency to attract and reward very liberal people. And that's the real problem.

As long as DC remains the power seat, it will continue to plot it's central planning which in reality is a conspiracy against the rest of the country.

The elitist attitude of DC can be summed up thusly:

"But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

(Spoken by Candidate Obama at a fundraiser in San Francisco)

But don't kid yourselves. There are many in both parties inside the beltway who feel the same way about "Fly Over" country which is Middle America.

From John (Mr. Kite) McCain:

"The idea seems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue and the public will turn en masse against Barack Obama.... Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced-budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the tea party hobbits could return to Middle-earth having defeated Mordor.

"This is the kind of crack political thinking that turned Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell into GOP Senate nominees," he said, referring to the failed tea-party-backed candidates from Nevada and Delaware.

"The reality is the debt limit will be raised one way or the other.... If conservatives defeat the [GOP] plan, they will not only undermine their House majority, they will go far to reelecting Mr. Obama and making entitlements that much harder to reform."

The sentiment for big government is deep inside the beltway and those who speak out or work against it are marginalized.

In the meantime, big government gets bigger through a technique called baseline budgeting. The base line grows everywhere with anticipated official increases of 7.5%.

Rand Paul has come up with a penny plan which could actually balance the budget within 8 years but it eliminates baseline budgeting projections and calls for zero baselining. He will be a Hobbit soon.

D.C. is full of anti-people like John McCain and Barack Obama, ironically they were also our last two Presidential candidates.

It proves that there isn't any real vision inside the beltway and no courage and no principles.

To the elite inside the ring of power, the people are bitter, or the people are Hobbits, but whatever the people are they are not worthy of the respect of the power elite.

Pecos Pete| 8.2.11 @ 7:03AM

Excellent comment!

Siegfried X| 8.2.11 @ 8:15AM

"This is the kind of crack political thinking that turned Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell into GOP Senate nominees,"

Both of those candidates LOST, which helps the Democrats and the Republican establishment.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.2.11 @ 9:53AM

So did John McCain.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.2.11 @ 10:13AM

By the way, just recently Christine O'Donnell filed a complaint against CREW, an alleged non-profit left wing organization. Instead of labeling others with derogatory terms like Hobbits, she's actually doing something, unlike John McCain and plethora of others inside the power ring:

Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell, who came up short in a high-profile U.S. Senate race in Delaware last year, is asking the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of a government watchdog group that filed a complaint against her last fall, saying the group was just trying to injure her reputation using government resources.
O'Donnell said Wednesday she also has asked the U.S. attorney in Delaware and the U.S. Justice Department to investigate Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), for potentially violating federal law by "knowingly filing a false claim."

O'Donnell's attorney, Cleta Mitchell, filed the complaint with the IRS against CREW on Tuesday.The complaint states that CREW is unworthy of its 501(c)3 status because it has been involved in "partisan intervention in multiple political campaigns over a period of several election cycles."
She added that it has misused its tax-exempt status "for the private benefit of the Democratic National Committee and for-profit media outlets," and has a "disturbing pattern and practice of racially discriminatory activities, and other knowing and willful violations of the code, all committed under the guise of being a charitable and educational organization.”

Butch | 8.2.11 @ 1:31PM

Anybody know why the left (and I include McCain in that) always packages Angle and O'Donnell together? Unless my memory is faulty, Angle ran a close race against the incumbent Senate Majority Leader, led the race late, and lost only by a small margin due to election-day voter fraud. Is my memory faulty on this?

Doctor Right| 8.2.11 @ 1:54PM

McCain HATES the Tea Party because they tried to "primary" him with their preferred candidate, JD Hayworth.

McCain is a vindictive SOB. Most narcissists are.

George True| 8.2.11 @ 7:23PM

No Butch, your memory is correct. Angle got relatively little support from the RNC and the RNSC, and what she did get was too late.

The Christine O'Donnell matter was a case study of the ruling class in the GOP torpedoing its own standard bearer because she was off the GOP country club reservation. The day after she won the primary over the hapless RINO Mike Castle, her own party leadership openly and publicly denounced her. Had they instead supported her full tilt boogie, she may very well have won.

t is not just the left who package these two ladies together. The GOP leadership does it too.

Bob K.| 8.2.11 @ 8:33AM

You are right, Bill!

The inflation of our bureaucracy resulted not only in the creeping inflation of our money supply and it's subsequent consequences but in the loss of our jobs to other nations. Our economy has become a paper economy and it has become eroded to the extent that the people have lost their confidence in it and the people who run our nation.

As Clinton was fond of saying: "It's the economy, Stupid!" He will eat his words come 2012.

Pelligrino| 8.2.11 @ 6:46AM

I'll ask the same question and raise the same issue as I did here yesterday: If anyone is truly serious in Washington, D.C. about all this, where are the grand scale U.S. federal worker layoffs?

Average from 36,000 to 40,000 per week from now until Christmas.

This would save money. And not just in salaries (that don't have to be paid) but also in overhead in federal buildings and offices (and with federal vehicles that can/will sit idle and should be sold).

[Just think of all the electricity saved! Think: Office cubicles not occupied, computers turned off, phones not used, etc. Surely Green-minded liberal souls would like this.]

So where are the layoffs? Let's get to it. Target 38,000 per week for the next 18 - 20 weeks. All agencies/all sub-agencies/in every town and county in our land with feds -- feds we don't need. Include those on government contracts.

Tip: Start with the White House czars and their personal staffs. Include: 20% layoffs for congressional staffs.

Stan Redmond| 8.2.11 @ 10:47AM

I don't think this is the shared sacrifice Obama blathers on about.

Negro X| 8.2.11 @ 6:50AM

Sooner than later we will pay for this, nothing is free in spite of what obama says.

Clint| 8.2.11 @ 6:57AM

Dr.Ron Paul,
“This deal will reportedly cut spending by only slightly over $900 billion over 10 years. But we will have a $1.6 trillion deficit after this year alone, meaning those meager cuts will do nothing to solve our unsustainable spending problem.

“In fact, this bill will never balance the budget. Instead, it will add untold trillions of dollars to our deficit. This also assumes the cuts are real cuts and not the same old Washington smoke and mirrors game of spending less than originally projected so you can claim the difference as a ‘cut.’

“The plan also calls for the formation of a deficit commission, which will accomplish nothing outside of providing Congress and the White House with another way to abdicate responsibility.
In my many years of public service, there have been commissions on everything from Social Security to energy policy, yet not one solution has been produced out of these commissions."

The Big Government Ruling Elite Are Guilty Of Economic Treason.

Stand In Rebellion.

Elron H.| 8.2.11 @ 4:40PM

Dr.Ron Paul,

“You put your right foot in, you take your right foot out, you put your right foot in and you shake it all about...Aaaaaggggghhhhhhh!!!! There's lizards on my testicles!! Get 'em off! Get 'em off!!!

Ahem...

This deal will reportedly end the mid-control tactics of the Underground Zenite Empire, but only temporarily. We will have 1.6 trillion illegal, microscopic Zenite laborers in this country by 2013 unless we close our sub-space borders, and do it quickly! Those meager cuts will do nothing to solve our unsustainable invisible alien invader problem.

"In fact, this bill will never stop the Zenites and their leader, Lord Kinbo. Instead, it will enslave future generations of Americans to an evil vegetarian philosophy. We must resist the Zenites with a vigorous, daily regimen of deep-knee bends and bottled water. This also assumes that this is not the same old Washington smoke and mirrors game of pandering to sub-atomic Empires bent on destruction.

“The plan also calls for the formation of an alar commission, which will accomplish nothing outside of making our apple supply more expensive, and less tasty.

"In my many years of public service, there have been countless commissions aimed at stopping attempts by alien species to subjugate our breeding practices, everything from Social Security to testicular binding, yet not one solution has been produced out of these commissions."

The Big Government Ruling Elite Are Hot and Sexy...'Specially That Mitch McConnell.

Sit on Clint's Face.

Occam's Tool| 8.2.11 @ 9:50PM

I iwsh I had written that, dammit!

Occam's Tool| 8.2.11 @ 9:50PM

"wish"

Occam's Tool| 8.2.11 @ 10:01PM

I wish...... ummmmm

Occam's Tool| 8.2.11 @ 9:59PM

I wish you would sit on my face too, Brooks.

W| 8.3.11 @ 10:12AM

this is not Occam

Elron H.| 8.2.11 @ 9:55PM

I Ain't Got Any Testicles, But I Like To Watch Allen Brooks Sit on Dr.Reich's Face.

Elron H.| 8.3.11 @ 10:22AM

Clinton, cleverness is not exactly your strongest quality.

Timothy L. Pennell| 8.2.11 @ 7:14AM

A Study was done recently. It found that 20% of Americans, suffer from a Mental Disorder. Gallup tells us that 20% of Voters consider themselves LIBERAL.
Emmanuel Cleaver, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Fat Slob Nadler. The list goes on and on.
Hypocrites, Liars, THIEVES.
Chuck Schumer is the MENTOR of Weiner. Barbara Boxer is the Compassionate, Empathetic, Liberal, who takes the time, at a Senate Committee Meeting, to interrupt a Military GENERAL, to INSIST that he call her "SENATOR".
Emmanuel Cleaver is just one more Lying, Thieving POVERTY PIMP, from the Black Caucus, who gets RICHER every year, as "His People" fall farther through the cracks.
Dianne Feinstein has been STEERING Government Defence Contracts to her HUSBAND'S COMPANIES for decades. Harry Reid is so SLIMEY, and NASTY, and he's just such an unlikable WEASEL, that Nevada should be BOYCOTTED, till the end of time. Fat Slob Nadler, is a FAT SLOB, and you can throw in LIAR and PIG, while your at it.
This is like an Acceptance Speech, at the OSCARS: "There's so many people to trying to tear down this Country. I don't know where to start."
The Democrat Party is a collection of what's WRONG with this Country. These are the people who Marched in the streets, calling for US to DISARM, during the Cold War. They complained that RONALD REAGAN was too uncompromising, in his dealings with the Communist PRISON STATE, to our East. They carried their "Better RED Than DEAD" signs. They Firebombed our Recruiting Stations. Burned down our Cities. BURNED OUR FLAG. They have DESTROYED the Black Family, and have conditioned them to ACCEPT their premise, that the only way they can get bye, is to remain on their PLANTATION, relying on the SCRAPS from THEIR TABLE. Like Pavlov's Dog, they have conditioned them to DROOL, whenever HANDOUTS are mentioned. They are Destroying our CHILDREN, by teaching them LIES, in our Public Schools.
Which brings us to NANCY PELOSI. She may be the single best example of what Churchill meant, when he stated, about DEMOCRACY: "It's the WORST form of Government, except for all the rest."
HOW does she get elected? WHO is voting for her? She campaigns against the RICH. She's a MULTI-Millionaire. She's against Private Jets and Privilege. She DEMANDED a bigger Jet, when she was Speaker. She's for "The little guy". She's PRO UNION. Her family owns VINEYARDS and RESTAURANTS. What they DON'T own, is UNION EMPLOYEES.
All of this is PROTECTED, by the Media. The STEALING and the LYING, and the ARROGANCE and the RAW HIPOCRACY.
The 4th Estate, long ago, became a FIFTH COLUMN in this Country.
Does anyone think, for a second, that if Charlie Rangel was a WHITE REPUBLICAN, he would still be in the House? If Al Sharpton was a WHITE CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVE, he could get away with all of the SH*T he's done?
The Huffington Post? The Nation? Moveon.org. The JournOlists?
Just imagine the FEEDING FRENZY, if a bunch of Conservative Columnists, from all different kinds of Publications, would secretly get together, on line, to CO-ORDINATE their Coverage of their HERO. Remember, the O in JournOlist, is a capitol letter, because it stands for OBAMA.
And, WHY is there a VIDEO of Bill Maher, EVERY DAY, on Real Clear Politics?
Who cares what this NO TALENT POS has to say?
I'm just saying.

JFGalt| 8.2.11 @ 8:18AM

The progressive agenda marches slowly but exorably on as it continues its quest to stomp out the life of the country class.
I wonder though-once the elites suceed in killing off the excess people they deem unworthy then who will serve them. That will be when they turn on each other.

Teaghan| 8.2.11 @ 8:27AM

Tremendous post Tim. Thank you.
I am so upset by biden yesterday calling me and others who are fighting for our nation "terrorists" He doesn't even call murdering muslims who fly jets into buildings, terrorists. Or the muslim at Ft Hood who killed 11 human beings. But we who love this nation, who value our freedoms, who appreciate what our forfathers did to begin this grand experiment, are labeled by him, his boss and their fawning bootlicking "news" networks as terrorists who strap bombs on ourselves and hold the congress hostage. I am sickened by this and today feel at my wits end. Where do we go from here? Shall we just sit down and let them with their communist ideology have their way? I'm tired. I'm tired of trying to keep my small business open in this horrible economy. I'm tired of looking for sales in Walmart to save money. I'm sick and tired of obama and his ugly wife strutting themselves around like the neuvo riche trash that they are. (excuse my spelling). obama has divided our country from which I don't think it can ever come back together again. God, please bless America.

Timothy L. Pennell| 8.2.11 @ 8:55AM

We needed the NIGHTMARE, that was Jimmy Carter, to bring about the MIRACLE, that was Ronald Reagan.
Someone once said that "America gets the Leadership, that she deserves." Or, "NEEDS". It's one of these.
Perhaps this is the only way we can stop the great Death Spiral that we've been in, since Pelosi and Reid took over both Houses of Congress?
Perhaps this THING, in the Oval Office, this ANTITHESIS of everything the Founding Fathers put forth in our Founding Documents, is just what we NEED, to remind us of how FRAGILE our way of life is?
As Benjamin Franklin put it, when responding to the woman who asked him: "What kind of Government have you given us?"
"A REPUBLIC, Madame. If you can keep it."
If you can keep it.
Indeed.

Siegfried X| 8.2.11 @ 9:27AM

Yes, the Tea Party was formed in reaction to Obama.

Pecos Pete| 8.2.11 @ 9:34AM

Wrong! The Tea Party happened (it was not formed) because of excessive and wasteful spending of taxes by Congress.

Doctor Right| 8.2.11 @ 1:57PM

Wrong.

What?? Wasteful spending is a NEW thing???

If McCain had won the election, there wouldn't be a Tea Party.

Al Adab| 8.2.11 @ 2:13PM

The first rallies were in September of 2008 after a couple years of leftist congressional majorities. Perhaps a reaction to the lending crisis and bailouts. In April 2009 the large rallies spread due to the massive tax increase proposals coming from the new Congress and administration. What the future holds will be seen, but one cannot rationally give Obama credit for the rise of the Tea Party.

Doctor Right| 8.2.11 @ 2:38PM

There were NO Tea Party rallies in 2008.

The Tea Party did not begin to coalesce as a recognizable entity until CNBC business anchor Rick Santelli urged the formation of a quasi-rebellion against Obama's reckless spending on-air on February 19, 2009.

Smaller, local rallies began to pop-up across the country in spring-summer, 2009.

The first major rallies did not occur until the MASSIVE rally in DC (>1 million strong) in August, 2009.

Al Adab| 8.2.11 @ 3:39PM

Again, half true. Anti spending and bailout rallies began in September of 2008. Likely they were not known as "Tea Party" protests until after Feb of 09. Major ones all across the country on April 15 (get it?) of 2009. About Obama? I think not. About Leftist statist policies and excessive taxing and spending by both parties, yes indeed.

Doctor Right| 8.2.11 @ 4:23PM

No, 100% "full" true.

Anti-spending and "bail-out" rallies may have been held...so what???

The term "Tea Party" did not re-enter the body politic UNTIL Rick Santelli's proclamation on Feb. 19, 2009.

BTW...2009 is AFTER 2008...get it??

And since Obama WASN'T President in 2008, then of course none of the rallies were about him.

Duh.

And yes...the 2009 rallies were most definitely catalyzed by Obama's election...so in essence, they were about him.

Again...No Obama...No Tea Party as it exists today.

And the MAJOR Tea Party protest of 2009 took place in D.C., in August.

That's an undeniable fact. I know. I was there.

Sorry to point out...again...that you're wrong. But you're wrong.

Al Adab| 8.2.11 @ 4:36PM

I think Dr. that we are saying pretty much the same thing. May not have been called Tea Party until April of '09 after election of '08. Yeah. Catylized perhaps by the election of a redistributionist administration dedicated to higher taxes, bailouts, and increased spending. About Obama personally, no; about his avowed policies, certainly. Do we not seperate the man from his Faith?

Delta Zelda| 8.2.11 @ 4:37PM

Yes there would have been a tea party. McCain is worse than a DemocRAT. The RATs tell you up front they want bigger government and will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. McCain claims to be a Republican but is a RINO who wants to be a Democrat but lacks the strength of character to change his party affiliation. Shouldn't be surprised at that, he is a gutless and spineless wonder.

tsd| 8.2.11 @ 7:26AM

When all is said and done we, the people got screwed by a group of elitist morons in Washington... and that is all.

Pelligrino| 8.2.11 @ 7:27AM

Does anyone else wonder about the timing of this cheap Vaudeville show in D.C.?

The deadline/issue raised by Timmy Geitner some time ago for a "deadline" August 2d....

Just prior to the "traditional" Washington, D.C. recess.

Wanna bet that these Congress cats will all get outta Dodge (D.C.) and take their full vacations?

All flurry and flimflam, bluster, preening, and P.T. Barnum show in these last two weeks....

Yet off they'll go on their vacations, fundraiser events, fact-finding missions, taxpayer funded junkets, etc.

Just ask Ma and Pa Kettle in Tulsa, Wheeling, Pueblo, or Carbondale when is the last time they had a "vacation."

Stan Redmond| 8.2.11 @ 10:50AM

Ma and Pa Kettle are on funemployment so everyday is vacation. I read that in an AP story somewhere...

oldfart| 8.2.11 @ 7:47AM

Survival is a very strong instinct. The 'flight or fight' decision must be made quickly, and correctly. Once again 'inside the beltway' types have proven they have no plan, only an agenda that seems to be made up as they go along.

There is a pattern of creeping Federal Authority of every aspect of our lives. You see that with the new red gasoline containers for sale at every Wal-Mart. They are so safe it is almost impossible to get the gasoline out of them without spilling. It has to be held at a certain angle, flip a 'switch', press a lever and pray the spring loaded 'anti-spill' trap door on the car can be held open by a plastic tube so gasoline does not spill over the side of the car and/or onto the person holding the can.

Or a Dept of Eduction that requires children be taught WHAT to think, not HOW to think. All three of my college educated children have said to us that high school and college were almost a waste of time and money. Learning HOW to think was not in the courses at our centers of 'higher propaganda'. The more expensive the school, the more propaganda and bovine excrement is on the menu.
Any attempt at true debate is met with 'your racist', 'your homophobic', your 'destroying the environment' because you don't believe that humans are the prime cause of global warming – etc. etc. etc.

Job opportunities are determined by the color of a person's skin. Genetics has proven that the color of the skin is no more different than hair or eye color. Why not determine who gets a job based on eye color not on their ability to do the job, training and experience? We don't what to be retinaphobic do we?

If most people are rewarded for 'group think' then most people will spout the required 'group think' to get their ticket punched.

What I see is our leadership has descended into hypocrisy of spouting a mantra of individual freedom but requiring actions conforming to the path set by the state.

Going back to my opening line – survival is a very strong instinct – The People have a very clear choice to make. Either by conforming to the leadership of the elite and grounding the ship of state or by demanding that our leadership fix the rudder and chart a course that will take us away from the shoal and to the safety of deep water.

Melvin| 8.2.11 @ 8:06AM

So what are we going to do? Speaker of the House John Boehner has stuck it to the Conservatives three times now. Three times he had a press conference, "We got the best deal we could, but we'll get the spending reductions next time.?
John Boehner sealed the deal on the golf course weeks ago, what we have been witness to is both sides playing good cop, bad cop. Mitch McConnell, and Harry Reid's aids got together in a closed room and wrote the current bill.
We have the Vice President of the United States calling fellow Americans terrorists, while our true enemy the Islamic Radicals who are just poor souls practicing their religion.
Has anyone ever entertained the thought, that just maybe we are fighting the wrong enemy. The politicians get us into three undeclared wars. Then they hobble our Armed Forces with so many rules of engagement, that it is impossible for the to adequately protect themselves let alone win the war outright.
Islamic Radicals kill, and maim our young men and women with impunity, and when our men and women respond, many of them are brought up on charges of murder, by our government.
Billions upon billions of borrowed dollars have been given to foreign banks. Forth-Three percent of Americans think that our politicians are corrupt. So I ask you, "Who is the real enemy?" We presume the Islamic Radicals to be our enemy, and for the most part they are. But, there is another enemy much, much closer to home, that is causing more widespread destruction of this Country internally than any Islamic Radical could ever hope to achieve.
If I could say one thing to Joe Biden, I would say this. "Mr. Vice President, it is not the Tea Party who is the terrorist and destroying this Country....It is you."

Pelligrino| 8.3.11 @ 2:30AM

I always wonder what finally occurred with the 3 or 4 US Navy Seals accused of "overly?" abusing a known terror killer-thug in Iraq. Remember that story from over a year ago?

Were they ALL fully exonerated? What about their accusers? What about the idiots who pressed the charges and did all the Navy legal work against them?

I guess what I'd really like to hear: That the false accuser(s) got summarily booted from the service with a dishonorable discharge and perhaps likewise for all the Navy/Army (military) legal beagles and the flag officer who thought this matter warranted such severe charges.

ROE (rules of engagement) are NEVER a laughing matter. Talking with a member of my community who is a Vietnam Vet, he said there were nonsensical ROE in Vietnam, too. And he said every foot soldier feared the day when you'd be out on patrol and have to radio in for permission to engage the enemy. 1) It was stupid to have to ask permission, 2) the radios weren't always good enough so that you could be sure you'd get the necessary "affirmative" reply fast enough -- or at all.

To agree with the final thought above: Yes, Joe "This is a big _____ deal" Biden is a total disgrace. He is a charlatan and the enemy. And this long before there was even an inkling he'd be a VP.

martin j smith| 8.2.11 @ 8:08AM

The debt ceiling scenario --all of it--shows-as if this is not known--that it is impossible to govern this nation as long as we have the Party system we now have. And it is not likely to change. Our Political system is BROKEN. The only option is this--and it is a very long term proposition which will take dedication,persistence and a kind of fanaticism or single mindedness and nothing less--and a lot of money. This will require raising of funds to set up local thru national small scale and large scale groups in small and large communities for the purpose of connecting like minded citizens,develop propaganda and media,political strategy and othger types of rescources. The Tea Party is a basic framework but a lot of work has to be done. The essential problems that must be responded to are:
A) The Media( a serious problem _ B) Educational Establishment C) Unions and D) The Socialists government officials themselves. This will take decades--but this is what the LEFT has done--can we ?
The Republican establishment is in capable or unwilling to be real strong leaders. Here is one example: The Tea Party as "Terrorists" If the Republican Party were a true opposition Party ( in my view they are fake ) they would have made a lot more noise than the sound of silence.

This debt ceiling bill shows that this nation cannot be governed. Each Party claims to interpret the bill as whatever which way it wants. This is agreement without any agreement. Wonderful.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

oldfart| 8.2.11 @ 8:14AM

I would like to suggest a movie that, I think, will explain what is going on - The Bridge on the River Kwai. It is not available to watch instantly, but is available by DVD from Netflix.

Stormzeye| 8.2.11 @ 8:38AM

After all his capitulation to the Japanese "ruling class" Alec Guinness suddenly realizes that he has been emasculated by failing to resist, then he realizes, too late: "What have I done?"
Excellent metaphor!

Bill| 8.2.11 @ 2:28PM

And those who have set themselves the task of stopping him wind up face down in the river, bleeding their lives out in the water.

Pelligrino| 8.3.11 @ 2:41AM

Yes, I think I agree. A good insight.

And all the while the old Brit Army colonel "lords" over the British soldiers (and particularly his subordinate officers) that full order & discipline WILL be kept! His orders WILL be obeyed (after all, he is AUTHORITY) and...to be unquestioned.

And his focus and efforts are openly and fully aiding the Japanese war effort, i.e. he's working for the evil.

It all comes down to that last 5 minute scene.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.2.11 @ 8:15AM

Returning spending back to 2006 levels (the last Bush/GOP budget) would be a good start in reversing the outrageous Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democrat spending that has driven our country to the brink of economic chaos. But the only way we're going to accomplish real reform is give Obama and the Democrat Senate majority the boot in 2012 – very likely since we’re now in Obama’s double dip recession or the beginning of the Obama depression.

When Republicans meet with Democrats in November to discuss cuts Republicans should push for zero baseline budgeting, repealing Obamacare, cutting the Obama State Departments funding of mosque building and outreach to the jihadist world, ending all US aid to the UN, cutting NATO expenditures to 1/4 to placate the Democrats desire to gut America's national security, cut military aid to neo-fundamentalist Egypt to zero, cut aid to Pakistan to zero (let them get it from their friends in China), end all funding for Obama's personal war in Libya where his radical Muslim buddies are now fighting each other, abolish the Dept. of Ed. SWAT team, abolish the ATF, abolish legal aid, abolish the National Endowment for the Arts, cut the EPA, cut the White House budget so Obama can share in the sacrifice, sell government lands to ranchers, farmers, oil companies, mining companies and individuals at fair market rates (it is outrageous that the government owns so much marketable land), etc..

It really isn't as hard as they think to cut since Obama unnecessarily increased discretionary spending by 25% reversing that outrage would be a major benefit to the country.

If Republicans on the committee don't know how or where to cut I will make myself available to help make the tough choices. Since Barack Obama doesn't want to shoulder the responsibility of leadership and he likes unelected czars making decisions I'm ready act as Cuts Czar for Congress.

oldfart| 8.2.11 @ 8:22AM

Don't forget all forms of foreign aid. Rather than one big bill - all up or all down - for the Congress to do it's job. Vote country by country. Why are we giving foreigh aid to Russia?

Michael Tomlinson| 8.2.11 @ 8:26AM

I had a brain fart and just couldn't remember all the dictators, tyrants and petty despots (Obama's pals) we're funding. Cutting aid to Russia, China and anti-American thugs (Obama's friends) is a great idea. It would also be smart to quit sending aid to country's who hold our national debt too.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 8.2.11 @ 2:35PM

Michael Tomlinson, what percentage of the 2011 federal budget goes for foreign aid?

oldfart| 8.2.11 @ 4:12PM

doesn't make any difference what the percentage is - it should not be there. the best way to eat an elephant is one bite and at a time.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 8.2.11 @ 7:01PM

oldfart, my question was not directed to you. And you didn't answer the question anyway, save to use the old dodge of belittling the question.

oldfart| 8.2.11 @ 7:58PM

I did answer the question - the amount of money in foreign aid is not important, nor is the percentage of the total budget. if costs are going to be resolved then NOTHING is off the table. foreign aid is, or should be, an easy target.

oldfart| 8.2.11 @ 8:10PM

As if it makes any difference -
FY09 actual - 52.6B
FY10 estimaged - $55.0B
does anyone beside me think that this money could be better used within our borders?
You start hitting a few billion here and a few billion there and then you have a another trillion.
The data is from the "Congressional Budget Justification - FOREIGN ASSISTANCE - Summary Tables- FY11
Perhaps next time TheRightIsAnythingBut you should be more inquisitive and less stuck up.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 8.2.11 @ 10:47PM

Well, with that crack and the dismissive tone, oldfart, you've now joined the august rank of the Shunned along with W, Clint, Truth to Power, skippy, and irish19.

May you flourish in your delusional heaven.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 8.2.11 @ 10:48PM

And I shouldn't have forgotten - although I would dearly love to - Doctor Right. The Queen of the Shunned.

W| 8.3.11 @ 8:18AM

We are deeply hurt that the SEIU Wisconsin slug, also known as David, will not play with us.

Siegfried X| 8.2.11 @ 8:26AM

I know this is a FANTASTIC deal for conservatives. And the reason I know that is because I, unlike most other conservatives, remember how much worse things were before the Tea Party, when the RINOs had total control of the Republican Party and all the conservatives were asleep.

If you think this deal is bad, then how did you feel back in the 2000's when Republican leader Tom DeLay said that the Republican-majority congress and President Bush couldn't cut the budget because there was no fat in it? How did you feel when Bush and the Republican congress passed new socialist programs like the Medicare drug program, and when they turned the schools over to the federal government with Ted Kennedy's No Child Left Behind?

We seem to have gone from one extreme to another. In the 2000's no one said a word about anything the RINOs did. Now in 2011 nothing is good enough besides dismantling the whole government in the single day, even though we have a Marxist president and Senate, and the Republican Establishment still controls the party.

It seems like if today's conservatives had been alive in 1773, they would have called the real Boston Tea Party a failure because the British still controlled the country and hadn't surrendered yet.

Rome wasn't burnt in a day.

Melvin| 8.2.11 @ 9:01AM

Very true, but they didn't have gasoline back then either.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.2.11 @ 9:26AM

Bush didn't increase discretionary spending by 25% nor did he have trillion dollar annual deficits. Based on estimates at the time the GOP Congress was on track to balance the budget by 2015. The CBO actually projected a small surplus.

Sadly, some so-called conservatives thought it would be better for the country to have a Democrat Congress and President than those "profligate" Republicans. Too bad they got their way look where that's got us.

Siegfried X| 8.2.11 @ 10:04AM

We added over $6 trillion in debt when George W. Bush was president. That's more than four times as much as the president before him, Bill Clinton, added to the debt.

Al Adab| 8.2.11 @ 11:25AM

The point Sigfried is not who gets the blame, there is plenty of that to go around over the last hundred years. The question is what those of us who recognize the problem for what it is can do about it through the political process. Failing a solution there the days ahead are dark indeed and there is a serious concern over whether Liberty can prevail anywhere for ages to come. How will any of us apologize to our grandchildren for the tyranny into which we delivered them?

Siegfried X| 8.2.11 @ 12:48PM

I agree with you and that is why I compliment the House Republicans. They proposed, and passed, the Paul Ryan budget. In that budget, and elsewhere, they have come out strongly in favor of massive entitlement reform and cuts. And all but 5 Republican Senators voted for Ryan's budget. Paul Ryan is repeatedly on television spreading that message, that deficit reduction is essential.

Politicians normally think of that as being political suicide, which is why the Democrats in Congress haven't even passed a budget.

That's why I think it is important to support the good start that Republicans have made, rather than saying they have failed because we haven't balanced the budget yet.

Al Adab| 8.2.11 @ 1:14PM

Strategicly it may be a matter of holding the line until the majorities are in place (after 2012?) to end the borrowing, the spending and get our house in order. I however, am not too confident that the republicans have that vision. When I listen to McCain and others criticize the Conservatives I fear for the actual outcome.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 8.2.11 @ 2:36PM

In your view, are Conservatives immune from criticism?

Doctor Right| 8.2.11 @ 2:40PM

From Liberals?

Yes.

Liberals are among the most willfully ignorant people on the planet. Practically everything they believe is the OPPOSITE of truth, yet they soldier on, regardless of the facts and the evidence.

Pelligrino| 8.3.11 @ 2:57AM

AA, I appreciate your comments in this thread today and these specific ones. Yes, how do we explain to our grandkids and those of our neighbors that we are the ones who ruined it all?

McCain is in good company (sadly). I've heard so many long-serving Senators and Congressmen talking in these last few days about how "we just must reign-in a wayward Congress...a Congress that spends too much and a government that grows too much...."

What??!! These are almost verbatim comments from Utah's Senator Orrin Hatch -- yesterday. The man is a fossil on Capitol Hill. And he's talking like somebody else is to blame?

He's to blame!

I'd dearly love to strip all the life savings away from all politicians and staffers who have racked up in excess of 6 years cumulative time in Washington, D.C. in the last 50 years. (and, yes, go after the money from the departed as well)

Sure, it would only be $15 - 35 billion, but, boy, it would be a nice slap in their faces.

They play with us like we're the serfs of old.

Drunken Sailor| 8.2.11 @ 10:01AM

I agree Sigfried. I understand the frustration and fear that we are not doing enough. We are not! We are however doing something which is a change from the past. When was the last time Deficit reduction was being talked about by both sides? The car in the ditch analogy is all wrong. The US goverment is much larger than a car and will not turn on a dime. It is much more like a Aircraft Carrier. It takes a while to turn and if you have more engines/horsepower pushing you left, the ones pushing right are only going to make so much progress.

Louis Jenkins| 8.2.11 @ 8:28AM

Gabby Gifford arose from the virtual grave to vote on this most important issue. The Democrats pulled no punches, and the Republicans gladly accepted them right on the nose. I agree with Mr. Melvin- the enemy is from within. They move about in their hallowed halls, in think tanks, in the White House, in Congress, and they mean us no good will. Yes, it's Democrats and Republicans. The Tea Party is our only salvation, but even they may be weak to twist a change in the direction DC has taken us. I have closed my mouth when people on this blog speak of the Republicans and how they are our salvation. I truly no longer believe this. They are cut from the same cloth as Democrats.

Pelligrino| 8.3.11 @ 3:06AM

It is also holding Tea Party nominated/supported/elected politicians' (at the state level, too!) feet to the fire. Once these "youngish" people in their 40's and early 50's get to the statehouses and nation's capitol, well, they start getting rather full of themselves. A radio interview today. Fox News TV tomorrow, a quote in the WSJ....their heads start to get big like prize watermellons.

Yes, this can be human nature. And it is the ego -- our own undoing -- that must always be combatted.

D.C. is not just considered the District of Corruption for giggles and laughs. It's real. Lobbyists will dangle perks, accounts, access, future jobs, fame, and more.... OPEC lobbyists alone.....oh, if the truth could be openly told!

We have to watch ALL OF THEM like hawks. And make them routinely eat lots of humble pie.

JimP| 8.2.11 @ 9:00AM

With the extreme, unapologetic, radical, terrorist left wingers upset and dismayed at this deal, does it mean that they will nominate a candidate even further left than Obama for 2012? Who might that be? Can they resurrect Karl Marx? Oh, they'll clone him and have Bill Maher act as puppeteer. OK, looking forward to 2012 even more now.

Our Future| 8.2.11 @ 9:35AM

Great deal for the Washington Elitiest Club. They win, again. They are feeding our kids and grand-kids to the hounds of hell, the debt dogs. For vested special interests, ideology, power(short-lived now). Two things: they all have new clothes--we see them in the nude, fooling no one any more(the Washington sell-outs and the K & J media--Kneepad and JournOlist). They can't read the writing on the wall. Eat, drink and raise the debt ceiling.

oldfart| 8.2.11 @ 9:37AM

Their motiviation is always the next 'mark'. They figure they are too smart to get caught on the short end. History tells us otherwise.

oldfart| 8.2.11 @ 9:39AM

I'm wrong on that - sorry - they will just ask for another Federal bail out!!!!!!!

Doctor Right| 8.2.11 @ 9:41AM

"Cognitive dissonance"? Hardly.

For anyone who was paying attention, the situation was obvious:

1. We were NOT going to default on August 2nd. That reality had been explained ad nauseum by Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Steyn, Paul Ryan, etc, for well over 2 weeks if anyone cared to listen. The Aug. 2nd date was a fraud that Obama and the Dems pulled out of thin air to scare the GOP - and it worked.

2. The AAA rating WILL be downgraded, and that was NOT going to change based on ANY bill put forth by Boehner, McConnell, or Reid. And it won't change now. This bill does NOTHING to address that. NOTHING.

3. Spending has NOT been cut. Baseline "cutting" is a fraud. These fools are still going to spend like drunken sailors. Just yesterday, after the vote, HHS began demanding that private healthcare insurers provide birth-control FOR FREE...FREE!!!!! Who's going to pay for that, folks? We are.

4. Boehner, McConnell, McCarthy, and even Cantor were desperate to make a deal, despite their occasional tough-talk. They were working behind the scenes with Obama and Reid the whole time.

5. Boehner and McConnell have just taken budgeting off-of-the-table in 2012. This was a GUARANTEED losing issue for Obama...and now it's gone! Poof!!!!

6. Any deal with Obama enables him to not only claim credit, but when it fails (and it will), he can say "I signed a bi-partisan bill...we've tried to cut government and cut taxes to fix the economy, and it just doesn't work. Time to raise "revenues!"

In short, the GOP-establishment has just utterly, completely sold-out the American people. These gutless, feckless, lying SOBs are now a part of the problem, just like the Democrats, and THEY MUST GO.

With rare exception (Alan West), every Republican who voted for this meausure needs to be primaried. Boehner needs to be the first sitting SOH to lose his job.

This bulls*** MUST stop NOW. The Ruling Class in both parties is actively destroying this nation.

Enough is enough. Time to elect some people with balls.

The Real Dr. Right| 8.2.11 @ 1:04PM

Better watch out Dr. Das Reich, that Paul Ryan is a Roman Catholic.... Quick, get Margie the Mullah and Quartermaster and Mr. O'Grady Potato Head. Time for some religious hate bating!

Doctor Right| 8.2.11 @ 2:05PM

Hey, Clint!

I guess the bath-houses are closed?

Welcome back, closet-case!

Curtis Rasmussen| 8.2.11 @ 3:07PM

Ha -Ha. Your retort is so stupid that it's comical.

W| 8.2.11 @ 4:01PM

Let's stay on topic: the deficit, the spending.

Doctor Right| 8.2.11 @ 4:26PM

And yours is clever, Clint?

Please...Your low mental acuity, as well as your deeply repressed proclivities are not exactly a secret on this board.

Clint| 8.2.11 @ 4:34PM

I Got $1000.00 That Says That Post Was Not My Post, Queer Talin' Bigot Dr. Reich.

Put Up Or Shut Up, Cunt.

Occam's Tool| 8.2.11 @ 9:56PM

"Guns, Guns,Guns....Tigers Are Playing Tonight, and I Never Miss A Game..."

Nice Mouth, C(lint) Elegans...

Occam's Tool| 8.2.11 @ 10:03PM

I wish Dr.Reich would sit on my face.

Curtis Rasmussen| 8.2.11 @ 5:00PM

I'm talking to 'The Real Dr. Right' to make myself perfectly clear.

I have a kid. I want her to see a stronger America but these clowns, Republican and Democrat, keep kicking the can down the road. Soon, the road will end.

Sound tough on issues, cave at the last minute, and hope the electorate will remember the posturing at the next election.

LarryK| 8.2.11 @ 9:42AM

The Deal.

How do you analyze The Deal?

Take a man that has 3 tumors -one on his lung, one on his thyroid, and one skin lesion on his left testicle. The correct procedure would be to remove all three tumors and begin chemotherapy.

The political bi-partisan solution is to leave the thyroid tumor, take half of the tumor on the lung, and cut off both testicles and skip chemotherapy.

Hold a press conference and declare "victory" and leave the patient to die another day or be treated by another session of Congress.

What a bunch of gutless wonders, and Boehnor cries.

We are doomed!

Bob Grant| 8.2.11 @ 10:00AM

Even at this late hour, the confusion over this bill is incredible.

I've never witnessed such confusion not so much by the citizens, but from the authors of it and experts who've studied it.

These people are like car salesmen on steroids.

Can anyone answer this simple question: Does the Super Committee have the authority to increase taxes without full congressional approval or only recommend tax increases?

Experts are all over the place on this question.

Siegfried X| 8.2.11 @ 10:15AM

"Does the Super Committee have the authority to increase taxes without full congressional approval or only recommend tax increases?"

According to the US constitution only both House of Congress can pass legislation. All the committee can do is make recommendations. If Congress rejects the recommendation, then automatic across-the-board spending cuts kick in.

Bob Grant| 8.2.11 @ 11:57AM

And so why are my fellow Tea Party Patriots getting bent out of shape over this? ...Seem to me a step in the right direction.

Drunken Sailor| 8.2.11 @ 12:50PM

Possible Knee Jerk Reaction?

Al Adab| 8.2.11 @ 1:16PM

We were discussing above the possibility that this is a strategic move, a holding action, on the part of the republicans. While I hope that is the case, I am not so confident in what we might as well call the Republican spine. That piece of anatomy has been lacking for far too long.

Doctor Right| 8.2.11 @ 2:04PM

Please...give me a break. A "holding action?"

These Republicans are ALWAYS "holding". .They are gutless cowards

Doctor Right| 8.2.11 @ 2:04PM

Please...give me a break. A "holding action?"

These Republicans are ALWAYS "holding". .They are gutless cowards

Al Adab| 8.2.11 @ 2:40PM

As I said, I hope it is a strategic move, but I doubt it.

Nick| 8.2.11 @ 1:07PM

Siegfried X,

What spending cuts? There are no spending cuts in this liberal plan. Unless, you're a democrat.

Thanks to "baseline budgeting" spending automatically increases every year. So, if a department was suppose to get a 10% increase in spending next year, and they only get a 7% increase, the C.B.O. considers that a spending cut.

Rush has been explaining this for over 20 years. Boehner and McConnell are acting like democrats. Don't be fooled.

Also, didn't Boehner promise that we would have 3 days to read all bills before there would be a vote? Boehner is acting like San Fran Gran Nan Pelosi.

This is why T.E.A. Party Patriots are "bent out of shape," Mr. Grant. That, and the fact that the super committee can gut the military and raise taxes with only SEVEN VOTES!

Bob Grant| 8.2.11 @ 1:41PM

Not true. The tax increases must be approved by congress. Both chambers.

Doctor Right| 8.2.11 @ 2:02PM

Bob,

What you say is Constitutionally accurate.

For that very reason, don't be surprised if Obama finds the power to raise taxes WITHOUT Congressional approval.

We have our first Dictator...And our own Party just gave him more power.

Bad times ahead...

Nick| 8.2.11 @ 6:28PM

Mr. Grant,

Didn't you hear Dusty Harry Reid today? He said there will be tax hikes or the "triggers" kick in. And, Rand Paul says that Super Committee can expedite bills by limiting the filibuster.

Just wait until we find out how much more garbage is in this "Crappy Meal."

What about the 3 days we are supposed to get to read all bills, that Boehner promised? Remember? After San Fran Gran Nan Pelosi rammed through O'BamaCare?

Siegfried X| 8.2.11 @ 3:45PM

They are spending cuts by the same definition which President Reagan and all other Republican presidents used. This is also the way which businesses work, that inflation is built into the budget. Every year the cost of salaries and supplies go up so a department whose budget is frozen will eventually need to lay off people off. Budgets need to increase just to maintain the status quo.

Ultimately it comes down to whether one wants to live in the real world or a fantasy. In the fantasy world we use a new self-serving definition of "cut" and ignore the fact that we have a Marxist president and Senate. In the fantasy world we have a congress made up of Paul Ryans -- I agree that in that fantasy world we would expect cuts in absolute dollars. But I live in the real world, not a fantasy.

Nick| 8.2.11 @ 6:16PM

Siegfried X,

Well, you keep taking big bites out your GOP "Crappy Meal", as Michelle Malkin calls it. And, the "real world" you live in, you see through rose-colored glasses.

Just answer this question: Does the national debt decrease under this Crappy Meal deal? Or, does it increase?

I'll stand with Rush, Levin, Malkin, Rubio, Inhofe, DeMint, and the Heritage Foundation. And you can stand with Will, Krauthamer, Barnes, Kristol, McConnell, and Boehner.

POST American| 8.2.11 @ 10:12AM

---Cognitive dissonance at the service of
creating cognitive dissonance ---ALERT!---

The only thing to be noticing and talking
about today is the first time appearance
of, in rather stale Freemason fashion, the
roll out of a 'Super Congress' ---a 'Council of
13' comprised of Rockefeller/CFR fake 'Right'
and 'Left' Congress, and our latest CFR front
executive, Obama.

All ILLEGAL and ALLLLL a FRAUD.

Of course, as consciousness of
Globalist TREASON and EUGENICS ops sweep the
web, and swamp the consciousness of the
ever growing ranks of the awakened, the
fronts KNOW they're being exposed.

They KNOW what they're doing, what they're
representing, is CRIMINAL and that they're
---wanted--- men.

They are going for broke.

And so it's to be 'Rule by Councils' --for the
states, cities, rural areas ---ALLLLL answerable
to an unaccountable central directing authority.

ALL working in unison. The 'fave' ideal of
actuarial psychopaths everywhere.

Councils working in unison for an unaccountable
central authority.

------------------------BTW--------------------------

AS the media covered up Fukishima world de-pop op goes into its fourth? --fifth month? ---consider this:

the word for 'Council' in Russian ----is SOVIET.

Welcome to the New SOVIET UNION-------------

George True| 8.2.11 @ 7:31PM

For once you actually made sense. Sort of.

russel| 8.2.11 @ 10:23AM

When Russia is complaining the US and its debt is mucking up the world economy , that says something . It says the likes of Reid and Pelosi should be held up as poster posers for irresponsible congress-people . The socialists' were taken aback when we briefly held our ground and Boner even had the audacity to take it to the child in the oval office . If only our tepid GOPhers would fight and yell to America who is doing what and its collateral damage we'd start getting somewhere constructively . When it comes to a fight , only our new Tea Partiers are gaining the high ground . There is no way the likes of McConnell are re-elected by we here , so who's doing it ? . Elderly ?.

PolishKnight| 8.2.11 @ 10:23AM

The author may have missed the main reason why the left hates the budget deal or, for that matter, any budget deal: plausible deniability. Whether they know it on a conscious level or not, their policies are not about improving the country or even the world in the short or medium term. It's about them consolidating personal and political power and tearing down the evil capitalists and making the world into Detroit which, then, somehow magically will become Sweden.

So saying that the evil Republicans are winning everything is part of a narrative to cast the blame away from themselves. In addition, they are fantastic about projecting their own dirty tricks on their opponents and, as the author points out, engaging in cognitive dissonance. Leftism is a philosophy of contradiction, paradox, and hypocrisy. It's the notion that their beloved government is so good that the rules of logic no longer apply. But on a daily basis, they need satan or Snowball to blame for the failure of their tin god:

"Whenever anything went wrong it became usual to attribute it to Snowball. If a window was broken or a drain was blocked up, someone was certain to say that Snowball had come in the night and done it, and when the key of the store-shed was lost, the whole farm was convinced that Snowball had thrown it down the well. Curiously enough, they went on believing this even after the mislaid key was found under a sack of meal." --
Animal Farm

Nothing upsets leftists more when I point out that they are never going to get their utopia or paradise because their leadership will always blame us. It's like I'm telling them that their rapture is never going to happen.

Paul McGrath| 8.2.11 @ 2:04PM

This is a great point. By perpetuating the myth that this is a great Republican victory, they can then blame the Republicans when inflation and interest rates begin to skyrocket, as they are destined to do.

This has actually been a great victory for Obama. He got his debt ceiling increase and didn't have to give up a thing.

PolishKnight| 8.4.11 @ 10:12AM

One silver lining: There's a debt commission that's going to need to kick in a few months and the whole dialogue goes off again with the stock market fluctuations and Socialist Western Europe problems as well. Obama is in for a wild ride and not like a roller coaster but more like the teacups: It will be nauseating economic malaise and misery with him offering not hope to get out of it other than blaming GW.

It's useful to remember that times have changed since FDR could exercise a bully pulpit. Back then, the media wouldn't even publish a picture of him in a wheelchair and this kind of leftist control remained until Talk Radio and Foxnews in the early 1980's. And there's the internet of course.

For true believers on the left, tough times are ahead as their dream of riding on the comet changes into a mere cool aid party.

Sarbo| 8.2.11 @ 10:25AM

I don't get it that the American media still don't get it. There's a fundamental difference between a debt-ceiling and debt-to-GDP ratio. There is a fundamental difference between default and downgrade.

This whole circus seems to have been about who got what, who made a monkey of whom, etc. The fact remains that even if this deal is faithfully adhered to, America will continue to sink deeper and deeper into long-term debt.

The Chinese state tv, no favourite of mine, seems to have nailed it on the head. As reported by Breitbart's Big Government, the Chinese, in a rare television editorial, said "The American taxpayer and global debt holders suddenly find out that the debt crisis is only a tool ... that the main concern is to get more political capital for the next presidential election."

Despite the mutual back-slapping, the risk of a downgrade of the AAA rating remains. The risk may even have gotten worse. Ratings agencies are not fools. They depend on credibility to survive as viable business entities. They know that it will be years and take immense political risk-taking to tackle entitlements. But, at the least, they expect to see a movement towards stabilisation of the debt-GDP ratio. This deal doesn't address that.

oldfart| 8.2.11 @ 10:27AM

this is perhaps not directly related to the debt limit but it sure is a sign of a Government out of Control.
http://wusa9.com/news/article/.....ts-Mom-500

RichTex| 8.2.11 @ 10:36AM

Let me make a little modest proposal about taxes. We can start with the proposition that in general Democrats are in favor of raising taxes and Republicans are in general in favor of cutting taxes (RINOs and DINOs aside). So, to make everyone happy, let’s raise taxes … on Democrats!

How much? Well, if you ask a Democrat who were his favorite Presidents, you’re going to get an answer which includes FDR as one of the top two or three. At the end of the FDR administration, the top tax rate was 94% on incomes over $200,000. Since Democrats just love taxes, let’s have them pay those rates. They surely can’t object to what FDR had done.

In contrast, the top tax rate at the end of the Reagan administration was 28%. We can go back to that rate schedule for Republicans. See, now everyone can be happy!

oldfart| 8.2.11 @ 10:56AM

Excellent plan. I have one better - ALL registered Democrats should pay an income tax of 94%. Let them walk the talk. AND if Congress cannot balance the budget then ALL Senators, Representatives, their staff, The President, all White House Staff should give up their pay and serve pro bono until the budget IS balanced.
In addition IF the elected part of the Govt. is serving pro bono then ALL other reportable income should be taxed at 94% until we have a balanced budget.
If they cannot due the peoples work, they should not get paid.

Al Adab| 8.2.11 @ 11:28AM

Apparently we fail to realize that a person's income is a form of their property. As such it cannot be taken from them without due process. Confiscatory and progressive taxation is anathema to free people. Why one persons' dollar should be treated dufferently from any others is unconscionable.

oldfart| 8.2.11 @ 11:41AM

I completely agree with that statement. But for pay a person is supposed to perform assigned their assigned tasks. No work - no pay. It is what - over 800 days since the Senate has passed a budget bill. I think is justification to suspend their income. It certainly happens in private industry.

Bill| 8.2.11 @ 11:09AM

I don't know why people see the debt ceiling deal as this great victory for the right wing. The Democrats got the biggest debt ceiling increase in history, they got the option to agree or not to spending cuts in a few months, something they'll refuse to do because then that refusal will trigger cuts so deep in the Department of Defense that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will end (not that's necessarily a bad thing if we're not going to fight to win, I just thought we'd make the decision differently), and by the time the "triggers" get pulled, the Republicans will have lost the resolve to look for the rest of the spending cuts in entitlements.

The Democrats will get the same tired phony promises to cut spending some time in exchange for the huge rise in the debt ceiling, President Obama skating away from financial criticism until after the 2012 election, the end to the Afghan and Iraq wars, isolating the no-tax-cuts issue and putting it squarely in the laps of the Republicans as the 2012 election cycle is gearing up, all for an empty promise to cut spending some day in the future.

I'd say the Dems made out like bandits, and their crying about the deal being a Republican victory is sleight-of-hand intended to make us righties think they're stupid.

martin j smith| 8.2.11 @ 11:26AM

Let me re-iterate this Bill was a cease fire at best between those who care about our nation and those who want us to sink. The"deal" basically is "you think what you and I think what I want and that is that. One example: Taxes increase-YES and NO--
both ?
Bottom line: This country cannot be governed when one Party ( the Socialists ) basically HATE anyone who disagrees. And let me add: Calling someone a Socialists does not equal calling a Political opponent a terrorist or racist,bigot etc etc. I would say the Socialists are DISGUSTING.

LMajito| 8.2.11 @ 11:26AM

need to fire all of the dc whores first...every single one of them...then cut 2/3 of federal government jobs eliminating 3 upper and middle managers for every non-managerial slot...then close the frb once and for all...allow the big banks to fail...f them in my book...straight 7% tax rate, no deductions and the first $30k of income are exempt...corporations get their 7% regardless of where they make the money...and lastly, tell all of the folks we own those trillions...sorry folks we're bankrupt and we owe nothing...

that's how you fix it but way too many folks want their piece to be left alone for this to work...the way i see it, only a 1776 type revolution will work...nothing short of that where everybody gets hit no matter your status in life...

Wayne | 8.2.11 @ 11:36AM

I will be a contrarian here. The debt is not the problem, rather it is the cure. The problem is a concentration of power. Central management of a country and its trade does not work and only serves to destroy individual freedom. It is a throwback to feudalism.

Thank goodness there are constraints, and the biggest one is borrowing. It forces a decentralization of power, either gradually or with chaos. So we have a shot to cut the laws and bureaus that destroy our freedom. If we don't the owners of the debt will dismantle this country, first by destroying our military.

I am leery frankly of those who want to cut entitlements first. The reason is that they are leaving the bureaus in place and are trying to maintain this huge monstrosity of a government on the backs of the seniors who actually paid for the benefits they receive. This is a breach of faith and the beginning of the attacks on the lives of the weakest among us.

Just look at the facts. We borrow almost half of what we spend. That means we must either double our borrowing or double our taxes. Both are impossible, so to keep the monstrosity alive it goes after our savings, and medicare and social security represents the bulk of our savings.

Bill| 8.2.11 @ 2:13PM

Regrettably, it's not a persuasive argument to contend that programs for the elderly were paid for by the people they're set up to aid, from the taxes those people have paid during their working lives. We've known for decades that the government stole that money as soon as it was paid in, in order to fund new social programs. Our leaders were like the kind of foolish businessman who receives payment for some good, and believes that that money is for buying some other goods, leaving the credit debt for the goods already bought unpaid; they just stole that money. It doesn't exist. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are gigantic Ponzi schemes, except the paying population is now shrinking, revealing the deception.

Oldefarte| 8.2.11 @ 3:55PM

Please explain the above. Debt is not the problem , but the cure? How has debt ever been a cure of anything? Has the personal over indebtedness of over-purchasing real estate CURED that industry? You've used DESTROYING INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM numerous times....what are you talking about? How is DOUBLING OUR TAXES OR OUR BORROWING a cure for the problem of overspending? Isn't the OVERSPENDING the problem, and the cutting of same the cure? Your arguments don't make sense. When you say that SS/Medicare are the bulk of our SAVINGS, that's false. SS was established as only a PARTIAL FORCED RETIREMENT SAVINGS VEHICLE for those individuals too ignorant to personally save based on their own investment decisions. It is impossible to adequately live/survive on SS retirement benefits alone. How do you reason that Medicare is SAVINGS, since it represents an EXPENSE, not savings, in accounting termonology? Please explain your philosophy more concretely!!!!!

Butch | 8.2.11 @ 6:19PM

I agree completely about the obsession with entitlements. While they are a problem, the key to controlling costs is to dismantle the regulatory state. Eliminate all the regulatory bureaus that immediately get infiltrated by the leftist termites, then harass business, drive up consumer costs, and prevent energy independence.

Among the non-regulatory agencies, Parkinson's law prevails. For example, Dept of Education bureaucrats earning $150,000 and benefits require blizzards of reports and forms from local schools, causing the schools to hire their own bureaucrats just to complete the paperwork.

Defense, State, Treasury, possibly Commerce, and the Post Office are the only departments clearly posited by the Constitution, and we could easily eliminate the latter.

W| 8.2.11 @ 12:06PM

The stock market fell yesterday, and is down again today. If this is a good deal for the economy, then the market should be rising, not dropping. The main selling point now seems that the "climate" and the "discussion" has changed because we are talking about cuts and not more expenditures. But the problem with this analysis is that the expenditures are real and embedded in the budget with the baseline increases of 7% each year, whereas the "climate" and "discussion" is all talk. Now we need to change the "discussion" so that a cut is a cut in plain english and eliminate the Ruling Class's definition that it is a cut only on the projected 7% incease.

Al Adab| 8.2.11 @ 1:21PM

W:
First, thanks for your comments of late yesterday on the other thread.

You are right on point that what is now needed are immediate, deep and meaningful reductions in spending and borrowing. That is the only way out left to us. We can hope that this action represents a holding action on the part of republicans and that long term- after the new majorities are in place- the GOP will demonstrate a new found spine and act as though our future depends on their courage for in fact it does.

W| 8.2.11 @ 3:44PM

Al,
You are welcome.
I don't know what happens to these people when they get to DC. McConnell, Boehner, Ryan, all seem like smart, honest people, but then they always agree to current spending and future cuts, and the cuts never materialize. They speak a different language. To us a cut is a cut in current, today's spending; to them, maybe they will cut in the future only the projected increase, so there is always an increase in spending but not as much, at best. I even had trouble writing that, I got confused, and had to lay down.
It is like Biden/Obama say they created two million jobs. How can that be when we went from 6 to 10% unemployment.
While I don't advocate more laws, maybe we need a constituional amendment that the ruling class speak the same language and uses the same math as we simple voters.

Bill| 8.2.11 @ 4:17PM

In the accounting professionals' code of ethics, accountants are required to use "commonly accepted accounting procedures." But that won't help when it comes to government; they can count money sixteen different ways, and none of them reflects the income/spending ratio.

W| 8.3.11 @ 5:19PM

Bill, "code of ethics" is the key phrase. In the real world professionals such as doctors, lawyers, accountants have rules of ethics to follow otherwise you lose your ticket, like Bill Clinton. There is no such code for the ruling class.

Bill| 8.2.11 @ 2:16PM

I don't believe that the "climate" or the "discussion" have changed one iota. The Democrats in Congress outwitted the Republicans, who were all too willing to be outwitted, being afraid as they were, of being blamed if we reached August 2 without raising the debt limit. The "conversation" is still about cutting spending vs. tax increases and keeping the spending untouched, and the Democrats won that debate this time.

Bill| 8.2.11 @ 2:18PM

Whoever said we have to get rid of the old whores in Washington completely, and replace them with people who are willing to work for the good of the nation and be accountable to The People, was absolutely right. That's the first thing to be done.

Unfortunately, we have devalued the status of our elected legislators and leaders to the point where only the whores will run for public office.

Pelligrino| 8.3.11 @ 3:36AM

Correct. We have unreal expectations of those running for office and those in office. We expect smiling, 6'0" or taller, full-haired, charming men with nice teeth, perpetual smiles, and just oh-so-nice speeches. We expect immaculate resumes. And we expect them to exhaust themselves running from one end of the district to the other while listening to the issues/problems/expectations of "the people."

We expect a doting and loving wife at their side every step of the way. And we expect children that only a Normal Rockwell could create for a Saturday Evening Post cover.

These candidates can never tell a questioner, "What are you saying, man? I've heard a lot of dumb questions over these past three months of this campaign, but that was the dumbest comment and question yet!"

Which candidate has ever said in one of these "Town Halls" or "Rock the Votes," "Hey, lazy bones, from what you've just told me you aren't working and haven't for over a year already. Get up off your fat duff and get to work like any other respectable adult and father must!"

And we always tie political worth to dollars. A candidate is not even viable in the media's eyes even in the very early days unless the campaign funds are rolling in.

Bill| 8.2.11 @ 2:21PM

We, of course, have forgotten completely the purpose of the debt limit in the first place. It was to put a cap, a limit, on Congress's ability to borrow money. You can see how easily Congress got around that limitation over the past generation or so.

George True| 8.2.11 @ 7:39PM

The market dropped because at least a few people know that this debt deal will cause runaway inflation. And the smart money knows that when they cash out their equities, which are denominated in dollars, those dollars will have lost a big chunk of value. So the smart money is beginning to cash out now and fleeing to safety. Probably gold and silver, possibly foreign ETF's that are designed to go up when the dollar goes down.

RCV| 8.2.11 @ 1:20PM

Of course the debt ceiling was raised. It was always going to be raised. What we've seen in the last three weeks is pure Kabuki Theater, put on by the GOP leadership for the benefit of the Tea Party supporters, whom they have manuevered to hijack since the November 2010 elections. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

W| 8.2.11 @ 3:46PM

RCV, who do you believe "won," the Dems or the Republicans?

RCV| 8.2.11 @ 4:36PM

I think the President got exactly what he wanted: an extension of the debt ceiling to 2013, with nothing else really kicking in until the 2012 elections. The GOP leadership was allowed to pretend that they fought hard for tea party principles. The Democrats to the left of the President -- and there are lots -- are pissed off that Obama didn't raise revenues (read: increase taxes on the wealthy). By agreeing to the super-Congress committee, Boehner and McConnell have rid themselves of the annoyance of having to deal with the real Conservatives on the next round.

W| 8.2.11 @ 5:29PM

Unfortunately you are correct.

George True| 8.2.11 @ 6:45PM

RCV, I actually agree with you for once. Everything you said is pretty much as it really is.

George True| 8.2.11 @ 6:52PM

It was Kabuki theater all right, but it was put on by both sides. This is our ruling class at work. We will all pay for this personally. Conservatives, liberals, independents, and everyone else. Nobody will escape this without their savings and the buying power of whatever income they still have being cut in half.

It will happen sooner rather than later. Conservatives already know we have been sold down the river by our elected leaders. The liberals and the independents who lean left have yet to discover that their leaders have sold them into slavery as well. But they will find out. When everybody's money buys half as much two or three years hence, then everyone will know.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.2.11 @ 8:55PM

I don't bother with silly cognitive dissonance of course of a post seemingly a reasonable conscionable view when a week ago a post hysterically warned of republican corruptible venality by jeopardizing the nation with reprehensible catastrophic vital FINANCIAL the sky is falling DEFAULT on not to mention silly cognitive dissonance of belonging to the party of compromising adults guaranteed reelection in the room that care about human beings at least AFTER they're born and other consistently pathetic and despicable not to mention unintelligent and dishonest not to mention unconstitutional and unChristian matters.

RCV| 8.4.11 @ 3:04PM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...................

Oldefarte| 8.2.11 @ 1:23PM

As indicated this deal stinks worse than a dead skunk, and its only accompolishments are possibly avoid a credit rating downgrade and a slowing down of governmental spending. There will be no true solutions to this problem if/until the taxpayers begin voting intelligently. While arguing with some here, its now obvious to me that some of you apparently either don't understand the significant differences between Republicans and Democrats or simply know but refuse to acknowledge that difference. The essential tipping point of this problem when this nation elected its current president in November of 2008. Its still dumbfounding to me that this even occurred, as he was/is the most liberal senator/politician that the Democratic Party contained. Previously, a political war occurred within their party between the liberal faction [ie the Kennedys] and the moderate faction [the Clintons], and the former won the battle and thereafter financed and promoted our current president. Their party was well aware however that they could not win the WH without disguising their liberal candidate and propagandizing him as a average, justlike you, everyman [which was a complete falsehood designed to get him votes and elected president]. The American public was brainwashed by them and their minions within the MSM, and the public voted STUPIDLY for this extremist, radical street-merchant from Chicago [who cut his political teeth with Acorn type political corruption]. The public was bombarded with their HOPE & CHANGE bullexcrement and bout it hook,line and sinker. When he came out of his liberal political closet and revealed himself as to the radical that he was/is by conspiring with Pilosi, Reid and other liberal Democrats, the tea party nation was established over the outrage resulting from same. Getting back to my point, the American public [and especially some of these tea partiers] still don't obviously have the ability to see these liberal Democrats for who/what they are and are still being brainwashed. They're combining all DC politicians into a THEM category, instead of making a useful distintinction between the parties and their platforms. These DC Repuublicans are lackadasical and forgetful of the fact that they owe their allegiance to their constituent-voters back home, but they are not Democrats. These Kennedyisk Democrats now have full control of their party and are ruthless and don't give a damn about anthing other than their own political power. They are in the political control of our government [again thanks to our voting stupidity in 2008] and they have/will cram down America's throats their social legislation that causes the present defecit/debt at the expence of taxpayers. They conspiratorially use their gained governmental power to institute social/welfare legislation in order to enlarge the public's dependency upon governmental services and to correspondingly force the voters to re-elect them in return for their granting of this welfare. When the tea partiers refuse to acknowledge the party differences, they are playing right into the Democrats' desired intentions and playbook. Since there are only two parties, if the tea partiers reject Republicans and vote instead for Democrats [as they did in November of 2008 for the current Democrat president], then the Democratic Party has once again succeeded in brainwashing America. I understand tea partiers and all of us conservatives' frustration with this semi-worthless debt deal, but understand that the only solution desirable will come in November of next year if you elect more conservative Republicans to replace current Democrats DC office holders. If the Senate and the WH come into Republican hands/control, then your desired budget reduction of substantial proportions can then be enacted and government spending can be cut in large amounts [by eliminating governmental departments, programs etc that waste taxpayers' money and are the cause of this defecit/debt problem]. I'll conclude by saying a special THANK YOU to the tea party movement of patriots out there who have heroically begun this battle. We all owe you a great debt of gratitude for your courageous fight, but we must all put aside our differences over specific agendas, vote the straight Republican ticket, provide more ground troops to DC freshmen etc Republicans who are fighting for us taxpayers, and we will one day soon hopefully get the desired conclusion that we all strive for!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 8.2.11 @ 1:29PM

PS: Some once said that A HOUSE DIVIDED CANNOT STAND, and uless we unite in opposition to these socialistic Democrats next year, we will not STAND either!!!!!!

Melvin| 8.2.11 @ 2:20PM

Well it won't be the Republican Leadership.

Oldefarte| 8.2.11 @ 3:30PM

Then what specifically will it be? Will it be the Democrats [since there are only two parties]? Don't generalize!!!!!!!

darcy| 8.2.11 @ 4:15PM

Quite so: A House Divided Cannot Stand. You're thinking of the House as the Republican Party.

I'm thinking of the House as our elected members in DC (minus Jim DeMint and his allies), the drones, and the left versus the vast American Tea Party movement.

Wayne | 8.2.11 @ 1:31PM

We demand more of the GOP. You are just content with the GOP not being the Democrats. We will not be put into the same old box, the GOP has put us in for 50 years. We no longer are content with the lesser of two evils arguments. That argument has lead us to where we are now.

It is now time for the Hobbits to carry that ring to mount doom.

Oldefarte| 8.2.11 @ 3:29PM

Then GD it, what's YOUR PLAN? Its easy being critical of others. Be specific instead of your vague generalities. What specifically would you do???????????????

George True| 8.2.11 @ 1:33PM

This debt WILL be paid for, and sooner rather than later. Our grandchildren will never have to deal with it, because it will all come crashing down within the next several years.

The US dollar has lost 25% of its value compared to the Swiss Franc in just the last five years. Now in all fairness, the Swiss Franc is also going down in value (losing its purchasing power), just not as much as the dollar. When our government is creating monopoly money out of nothing every month to the tune of 40% of all the money it spends, there can only be one outcome - inflation.

Nobody knows for sure how much of its purchasing power the dollar has lost in the last three years of 1.5 trillion dollar a year deficits. Some say 10%, others say even more. The reason gasoline, groceries, and other commodities have gone up in price so much is in large part due to the fact that the dollars we use to buy the necessities of life are less valuable now than they were last year and the year before.

But whatever the extent of the devaluation thus far, it is minor compared to the devaluation that must happen in the next few years. If something cannot continue, it won't. And yearly deficits that are 40% of the overall spending can only be continued for a little longer, a year or two, perhaps three, before the bill comes due.

And the bill will come due in the form of massive inflation (devaluation) of the dollar. I doubt that our charlatans in government will formally announce an official devaluation of our currency. That would be the ultimate admission of total failure on their part, something that I cannot imagine them doing. But the devaluation will occur all the same. The politicos will just ignore it. It will be the third rail that must not even be mentioned. But it will be there.

The best case scenario is that the dollar will lose thirty percent of its value, or purchasing power, within the next thirty six months. More likely, it will lose 50-60% of its value by 2013 or 2014, if not before.

What that will mean in practical terms is several things. First, any savings that people have in the bank, in brokerage accounts, and in IRA's and 401k's will become devalued at the same percentage as the dollar. Any assets that are denominated in US dollars will be affected. If someone has $100K in a brokerage account and they decide to cash it out, they will first pay capital gains tax on their gains. Let's say half of it is profit. So $50K would be taxed at 15%, leaving $92,500. Then, if the dollar has lost half its value, that money would purchase only $46,250 worth of necessities.

All ongoing income will be affected. Somebody earning $2000 a month, or a retired couple collecting $2000 a month in Social Security would be able to buy only $1000 a month worth of goods and services. Everybody will still get their check, but it will only buy half as much.

This is the real price that will necessarily have to be paid for the galactic grand theft our government has engaged in over the last three years, and what they will continue to do going forward. It may not be the end of the world, but it will be the end of the world as we know it.

As a result, most Americans will be reduced to living in poverty. There will be no such thing any more as discretionary income. Every devalued dollar people can get their hands on will be needed just for physical survival - a roof, utilities, food, and gas in the car. Middle aged couples with children will move in with their parents. Multiple formerly well-to-do families will share dwellings and pool their resources. Crime will go off the charts. And government will raise taxes on almost everybody to ever higher levels in a vain attempt to cover its shortfalls.

This is our near future. Not 20 or 10 years from now, but much sooner than that. This is the price that will be paid by all of us so that Barack, Harry, and Nancy can continue to hand out the goodies to the minority who were lucky enough to hit the government lottery, either through entitlements or through lifetime government employment.

Are the politicos really that stupid? Do they really not understand that they will visit financial ruination upon each of us in a very personal way? Some of them are indeed that stupid. Most of the Marxist/Socialist true believers really are that stupid and arrogant. But many more are not. They know full well what they are doing to all of us, and they simply do not care. They have their millions squirreled away, probably in gold and silver. They will continue to collect their fat paychecks, and will continue to get their free health care, chauffeur driven limo, exorbitant pension for life, and they will still have their tony condo in Georgetown and the vacation home in the countryside. Even if their own $200K a year salary only buys $100K in goods and services, they will still live a pretty nice life, well insulated from the horror they have visited upon the rest of us. The are the ultimate grifters.

I mentioned earlier that out grandchildren will not have to pay this dept our ruling class has saddled us with, because the debt will come due in the next handful of years. But our grandchildren may very well grow in an age where poverty is the new normal in America.

Bill| 8.2.11 @ 1:48PM

Poverty was, until quite recently, close to the norm in America. That changed after World War II, when increasing productivity and increasing worldwide population's demand insured great wealth for the industrialized nations, of which we were both the least damaged by war and the most advanced in manufacturing. That lasted for about 50 years.

Now that expansion has reached its end, and we are returning to the older status quo, where home ownership was not as widespread as it is now, where family life included the extended family instead of the nuclear family, and where life was a bit cramped. Most Americans shared middle-class or lower middle-class values. The upper 10% of families sent their children to college; the rest became laborers, workers, and small entrepreneurs. About 1/3 of the population would qualify as poor.

That's where we're headed.

Jack London| 8.2.11 @ 5:08PM

I think we're finally getting somewhere - what were, in more detail, the conditions that led to the long increase in prosperity for most of our people, and what happened and when to make it change, for example to the vastly widening gap between rich and poor?

George True| 8.2.11 @ 7:02PM

The gap between rich and poor is irrelevant. In fact, during boom times the gap between rich and poor always goes up. But the income level of the poorest goes up dramatically. A rising tide floats all boats. But leftists would rather have a smaller gap, even if it means that everybody is poorer, rather than a larger gap in which the poorest are substantially better off than they were with a smaller gap.

Leftists do not think rationally or logically. They seem incapable of looking at a situation dispassionately. Class warfare. Divide and conquer. The gap is bigger! Can't have that! Even if we cripple the economy and make everybody poorer, as long as the gap gets smaller that's all that matters. It's all about "fairness" don'tcha know?

Jack London| 8.2.11 @ 7:10PM

The vast inequality gap has many adverse consequences for society despite your arrogant and ignorant dismissal. But leaving that aside, what were the economic structures that changed from those all round prosperous days and when did the rot set in?

John II| 8.2.11 @ 7:50PM

About 1946, when folks like you started being born in abundance, rather than sporatically. Apparently, prosperity fosters rot. On the other hand, I find it fascinating to hear you using a term such as "rot," Jackie. Perhaps I've misjudged your optic.

George True| 8.2.11 @ 8:01PM

From your comments, it is evident that you really do not fundamentally understand any of these concepts. Name one of the alleged adverse consequences of the 'gap' getting bigger. Hint: There aren't any.

Since rich people have more money to invest than the poor, they have a greater ability to invest in the boom times. If a rich guy has a million dollars to invest, and makes a 20% return for four years in a row, he will have doubled his money. If the poor guy has no money to invest, or even if he has a spare $10,000 and doubles his money like the rich guy did, the rich guy still got richer because he had more to invest.

But they are both much better off. And for the life of me I cannot see why or how it is somehow a bad thing that the relative gap between them got bigger. So what?!?! How is the poor guy harmed by that??? HE ISN'T. Not in any way.

In fact, he is helped. Because what is the rich guy going to do with his money? Stuff it in his mattress? Not hardly. He will buy stuff with some of it, and invest some of it. Either way, poor guys and middle income guys who work at the companies he buys stuff from or invests in are benefited. It is amazing that liberals don't understand how this works.

John II| 8.2.11 @ 9:11PM

They do, George. They understand it quite well. And they don't like it--it horns in on their will to power.

And now back to -- damn, I'm running out of references. I'm getting the queasy feeling that what's happening now is without precedence. I'm old enough to remember when liberals were patriotic . . .

skip| 8.2.11 @ 9:45PM

The rot set in when idiots like you, Equus Asinus Enthalpy London, stated as "FACT: Every dollar spent on unemployment benefits creates $1.61 in economic growth" (7.22.11. @ 4:18PM), and, logically, we pursued such brilliant economic growth, you idiot.

Check out the vast inequality gap documented on pages 7 and 8 of this 25 page report, you idiot.

Disparities that are the result of facts such as the percentage of poor U.S. households in 2005 with amenities, you idiot, such as:

97.7% with a television, you idiot
32.2% with more than 2 televisions, you idiot
63.7% with cable or satellite television, you idiot
78.3% with air conditioning, you idiot

http://thf_media_media.s3.amaz.....bg2575.pdf

You are such an idiot you have jeopardized the very one John II reports that sustain me in these perilous times of rot. Idiot.

There's always "The Outlaw Josey Wales" (1976), which on television I've seen the start of twice, and the ending of 276 times. I am simply incapable of coming across it channel surfing without watching it to the end. I can almost envision one John II's report and its relevance to our times...

skip| 8.2.11 @ 9:53PM

If the link fails, try:

www.heritage.org/Research//Rep.....Is-Poverty

John II| 8.3.11 @ 12:25AM

Yes--thank you, Skip, it was an appropriate reference. I recall especially a contemporary remark on "Outlaw" by the snot-nosed Brit critic Benny Green to the effect that the flick would have been good except that the actors got in the way of the scenery. In fact, the true-blue Americano Indian Chief Dan George was magnificent, and the Brits were already in free-fall.

You have recharged my batteries in this time of woe. I shall continue to report, anon.

skip| 8.3.11 @ 1:22PM

I was anticipating juxtapositions to spit upon scorpions and Missouri boat rides, but the important matter is the condition of your batteries.

I thought the movie generally well acted, with the exception of Locke, who was not cast for acting abilities, and McKinney, which just may have been on purpose. Chief Dan George was indeed magnificent.

Bill| 8.3.11 @ 9:08AM

When the soldiers began coming home after World War II, the housing industry was the first to boom. The automobile industry, which had been suffering for at least the past 15 years soon followed, as those cars from the 1930s that people had been driving (they couldn't afford new cars during the Depression, and couldn't get new cars during the war because the auto makers were making tanks and other military vehicles); that brought the steel industry around, and other industries followed. The GI Bill helped, as soldiers went to college on the government dime. The growth of the late 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s were the result. In the 1960s, we went back onto a modified wartime footing with the Vietnam War, and that aided the economy for another decade. Unfortunately, we went deeply into debt during the late 1960s to the mid-1970s, and the recession of the Carter years was the result.

The Reagan administration in the 1980s, by restoring American optimism, staved off the consequences of deficit spending through the Bush I years. The boom of the Clinton years, as the Reagan economic policies began to pay off, saw this country through another decade. But beginning in the summer of 2000, the economy began to slide and has been sliding ever since. The Obama plan to drive this country into bankruptcy has revealed the folly of deficit spending, hopefully (though not obviously for the Democrats, apparently) for the last time.

Bill| 8.2.11 @ 1:56PM

Sadly, the institutions that were in place to accommodate life under those circumstances are no more. Most young people went to elementary school then high school. When they got out of high school, they joined the armed forces or waited to be drafted while working as entry-level employees (at the gas station or factory), then served their time in the service. When they got out of the service, they typically got a better job, joined the union, got vested with their defined benefits retirement plan, got married around the age of something like 22 - 25 or so, had a couple of kids, and spent the next 35 or 40 years putting their time in on the line. There were social mores and slots into which most folks could follow that course; they no longer exist, in most places. Maybe in the South or in the more rural states.

Doctor Right| 8.2.11 @ 1:59PM

There's a LOT of anger now directed at the GOP establishment.

In the run-up to 2012, this might not be a bad thing.

We've got to clean-out our own dead-wood along with the Libs. Boehner and McConnell just made that job easier.

Melvin| 8.2.11 @ 2:25PM

I'm just shooting in the dark here, but does anyone know if there is a Constitutional provision, that allows members of Congress to either vote out John Boehner and Mitch McConnell with a vote of no confidence?
I don't know maybe some of you may know, there has to be something tangible and physical that we can do, other than just complaining. There has to be some obscure rule somewhere in the Constitution.

weaverofdreams_2000| 8.2.11 @ 4:06PM

The Constitution really doesn't have anything to do with it (other than that it provides that the House chooses its own officers). Each party chooses its congressional leaders in each house (done at the start of each session). The Speaker's position is more formal and requires a vote of the whole H of R. As a practical matter, it will go to whoever the majority party caucus has chosen to be its leader. There is no constitutional provision for getting rid of them, as per impeaching the President. I can't recall a case where the majority party has thrown its leadership under the bus, so how to do it is somewhat uncharted waters.

I think what would be required is a massive revolt within the party caucus voting non confidence in their leader and essentially forcing him to resign. I think Boehner is on very thin ice here, McConnell far less so. Eric Cantor has a bullseye painted on Boehner's back. He will likely survive this Congress (it would be a crippling sign of internal dissension to dump him now), but it will be very interesting to see what happens after the 2012 elections. If the Republicans maintain their House majority and win control of the Senate (good likelihoods), there could be some very interesting dynamics at play.

Cheers!

Pat| 8.2.11 @ 4:35PM

Melvin, there are no convenient loopholes within the Constitution our politicians haven’t effectively blocked with a complex web of laws, Supreme Court decisions and regulations. We’re allowed to vote every 2 or 4 years but vote only on the players, not on the legitimacy of our government. Every American schoolchild has been raised to sneer at government by a monarch, it’s neither efficient or just and doesn’t work wonderfully well like our representative democracy does. But a system of government, whether monarchy or democracy, can remain legitimate only through doing right by the populace. And history reminds us that “doing right” is entirely within the minds of the governed. At the present, Americans continue to struggle with the issue of finding some feasible way to preserve our form of government, but, at the same time, force it to do right by the populace.

Unfortunately, that’s now a case of having your cake and eating it too. Revolutions challenge not just who within the ruling class gets to rule, but the legitimacy of the government system as well. Sometimes that means merely substituting one brutal dictator for another, but, at other times, brilliant new methods of governing are the outcome. However, until the concept of “the system no longer works” replaces the concept of “the system can be made to work” in the minds of the governed, the ruling class will continue to rule – they have the inside track and hold the patent on “how things should work”.

Here, in America, we’re still a few years away from embracing “the system no longer works” as a serious topic for debate, but, as history shows, our ruling class will eventually force us to embrace that very concept – that’s not our rulers’ intent of course, but it is in their nature and they can’t help themselves.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 8.2.11 @ 2:26PM

There's plenty of blame to go around - if you wish to believe the people:
An overnight poll conducted by CNN and ORC International finds more Americans disapprove (52 percent) than approve (44 percent) of what the pollsters described as "an agreement between Barack Obama and the Republicans and Democrats in Congress [that] would raise the federal government's debt ceiling through the year 2013 and make major cuts in government spending over the next few years."

The poll delved deeper into specific aspects of the agreement and found support for spending cuts but opposition to the lack of tax increases for wealthy Americans. Specifically,

•65 percent approve of $1 trillion in cuts in government spending over the next 10 years (30 percent opposed)
•60 percent disapprove of the fact that the agreement does not include any tax increases for businesses or higher-income Americans

The survey also included an unusual question that dramatizes the way Americans feel about the overall debate. More than three out of four respondents said elected officials in Washington that have dealt with the debt ceiling debate have behaved "mostly like spoiled children" (77 percent) rather than "responsible adults" (17 percent).

Drunken Sailor| 8.2.11 @ 2:57PM

Not that I trust CNN anymore as they keep veering more and more to the left. But since you post CNN polls. It would also seem a majority of people polled there think the Tea Party or the Republicans won.

Which group came out on top in the debt-ceiling deal?
Democrats35%
Republicans34%
Tea party31%

What to take out of that? Not a damn thing except that nobody got everything they wanted.

Al Adab| 8.2.11 @ 3:44PM

After the battle of El Alamein Winston Churchill said, "This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end, but it may perhaps be the end of the beginning."

We must carry the fight against excessive taxation and excessive borrowing to every corner of the land. We cannot rest until fiscal sanity is restored to our nation and the light of Libery shines once again unmortgaged to tyrants and slavetraders.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 8.2.11 @ 7:05PM

DS, who "won"? Nobody. And time spent calculating winners and losers is like arguing who won at Antietam or Thermopylae. That was not my point in posting the survey results, except for the last part about spoiled children and adults.

The country, on the other hand, was a longterm loser.

The cowardice in not facing unpalatable choices and taking the correct action on both sides of the aisle was disgusting.

W| 8.2.11 @ 4:00PM

Right, who do you think "won" and why?

weaverofdreams_2000| 8.2.11 @ 4:16PM

Everybody is a loser from this charade.

This has accomplished absolutely nothing at all, except get everyone pissed off and make the creditors very worried about whether America will ever get serious. The can has just been kicked down the road. Watch the mess all play out again in November. And then again in December 2012, and then again...

Time to send some grown ups to Washington who will talk to the American people like adults and really explain the colossal mess public finances are in rather than playing stupid "inside politics" games. This is not Pittsburgh vs. Green Bay. It is serious. Unfortunately, all sides in the political "game" these days are more interested in the political game than really making the hard decisions that need to be made -- and this will require both "sides" to "lose" something they want. That is the only way fiscal sanity will be restored. Other countries have done it (e.g., Canada 15 years ago, Britain taking a real cut at it now). Neither cuts or taxes alone will do it. The gulf is just to big to bridge from one side alone. You need to build from both sides towards the middle.

America is not Greece (yet). Greece is beyond hope. America still has hope and an endless menu of options to choose from. It is time to take a hard look at the deficit buffet and put together a balanced meal.

Cheers!

maverick muse| 8.2.11 @ 3:25PM

"Except the supposed 'unappeasable right-wing radicals' were mostly unappeased. Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Marco Rubio (R-FL), some of the legislators most associated with the Tea Party, announced their opposition. Center-hugging Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty joined Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann in denouncing the deal. In the House, Paul and Bachmann joined such Tea Party lawmakers as Reps. Joe Walsh (R-IL), Paul Broun (R-GA), and Tim Scott (R-SC) in voting against it."

"So here’s what we’re going to do. We have now run out of time. I told Speaker Boehner, I’ve told Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, I’ve told Harry Reid, and I’ve told Mitch McConnell I want them here at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow. We have run out of time. And they are going to have to explain to me how it is ... The only bottom line that I have is that we have to extend this debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013."
Barack Obama, July 22, 2011 press

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid touted the "super congress" on Monday afternoon and told reporters, "Everyone knows that the joint committee was my proposal. I'm glad that Senator McConnell has put his arms around this. I hope that we can get something done." Reid, Aug. 2

"Senators who vote against the deal will be ineligible to serve on the so-called 'supercommittee' for deficit reduction that the legislation creates," hence eliminating any fiscal conservatives from membership.
Paul Blumenthal, Huffpo, Aug.2

Claire Solt PhD| 8.2.11 @ 4:14PM

All this sound and fury signifies nothing. It is August, and everyone4 who can is on vacation. they are playing to empty galleries.

Al Adab| 8.2.11 @ 6:45PM

Looking back over the posts of today raises a question in my mind. Are we allies or opponants in this battle? The posters are comprised at least of Republicans, conservatives and Conservatives. Are we not of one purpose and one mind or does the blame game and methodology of battle seperate us? Has the Left suceeded in dividing and thereby conquering our side or can we, finding comman ground, find victory?

I would suggest that just as there is plenty of blame to go around, who gets the credit for our ultimate victory is less important than the fact of Victory itself. I do not speak of victory in the sense of who may be elected, but rather in the ultimate and necessary triumph of Liberty over the forces of statism and tyranny.

Maybe after all Ben Franklin had it right when he said, "We must all hang together or we shall certainly hang seperatly." Let us then focus on the goal and not on those things which come between us.

Pelligrino| 8.3.11 @ 3:54AM

AA, I'm with you. But just try a few of these lines (just like you've typed them above) when speaking in person to your U.S. Congressman, a Senator, and your district's State Senator --- the next time you see them at a local political gathering.

Oh, they'll nod and look you a bit in the eye and say, "Well, yes, of course, that's what we've got to do. Yes, yes. And work so hard for November 2012. Yes, you've got the spirit. Gosh, we need 10,000 more people just like you in this district. Thank you."

As they leave the room, they'll be muttering under their breath, "Who was that clown? Gimme a break. He's not living in the real world. Get me outta here." Yes, those very words will be under his breath as he makes a firm mental note to himself to NEVER EVER again be engaged in a 5 minute conversation with you.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 8.2.11 @ 7:08PM

I'd count myself with you on this post, Al Adab.

The One Who Runs Like a Duck| 8.2.11 @ 9:00PM

Don't call my bluff, Anything Butt. That cracks me up. Can you believe those terrorists are keeping us from spending their money? At least that is our story. It seems like we are still spending an unbelievable amount of money. You know maybe we are a bunch of mindless spendthrifts who are out of control. Anyway those Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, Jihadi tea party types are putting a gun to my head and forcing me to sign that bill. We call this the Clevon Little Blazing Saddles strategy. Nobody is supposed to notice that I have the gun to my own head. I mean who was responsible for all this mindless spending that got us into this mess? Did you notice we won't refer to Muslim terrorists like this in fear of offending them. Not a problem with Republicans. This is what we really smart progressives call nuanced. Gosh are we clever? The American people probably won't notice what a bunch of nasty pieces of work we are. No new revenues is pretty hard to take. We have always depended on certain Republicans to help us raise taxes. They don't want the job anymore which means that there will be more of them after 2012, Tea Party types too. It is time for all of us to shout with a unified voice that we want higher taxes for everybody. Corporate jets won't get it done, we need to gut the middle class so we can give them benefits too. Gosh we are smart. Wind turbines in every back yard, baby and put the whole tea party in gitmo. More golf and parties for me and my fat cat friends.

POST American| 8.2.11 @ 10:58PM

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

'Cognitive Dissonance' at the service of Cognitive
Dissonance at the service of concealing a Federal
Coup d'etat --ALERT!--

"BANKERS ABOLISH CONGRESS"
-Alex Jones
(yesterday)

In our 2011 Freemason infested
monopoly corporate media enviornment,
ALEX JONES ---------IS THE PRESS.

REALLY

TRULY

Buck Ofama| 8.3.11 @ 2:16AM

I bannot type the letter 'c'. I am bompelled to replabe it with 'b'.

Pelosi and Jokebama, a pair of SILLY BUNTS.

kiltmaker| 8.3.11 @ 11:24AM

The New York Times editorialized that the debt deal was a "nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists." "We have given much and received nothing in return," lamented Rep. Raul Grijalva. "The lesson today is that Republicans can hold their breath long enough to get what they want."
Surely, someone remembers Obamacare and how it was "full" of comprimise. NOT!

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|97 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|99 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|56 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|24 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|31 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|19 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|32 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|88 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 6.18.13

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Political Hay

Cognitive Dissonance

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (197) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Intelligent Design| 8.2.11 @ 6:31AM

Timothy L. Pennell| 8.2.11 @ 7:16AM

Mike D.| 8.2.11 @ 7:42AM

CrackerHound| 8.2.11 @ 1:50PM

Edward White| 8.2.11 @ 8:08AM

Ryan| 8.2.11 @ 8:20AM

TrueBlue| 8.2.11 @ 7:35PM

Redstateboy| 8.2.11 @ 8:26AM

Indiana Alex| 8.2.11 @ 8:31AM

Intelligent Design| 8.2.11 @ 8:45AM

John II| 8.2.11 @ 12:35PM

Doctor Right| 8.2.11 @ 1:51PM

Roy N.| 8.2.11 @ 12:37PM

Occam's Tool| 8.2.11 @ 9:03PM

W| 8.3.11 @ 10:10AM

CrackerHound| 8.2.11 @ 1:58PM

Paul Nelson| 8.2.11 @ 2:21PM

Drunken Sailor| 8.2.11 @ 2:47PM

BayouKiki| 8.2.11 @ 6:21PM

Paul from SA| 8.2.11 @ 10:35AM

George True| 8.2.11 @ 11:47AM

TrueBlue| 8.2.11 @ 7:44PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.2.11 @ 6:41AM

Pecos Pete| 8.2.11 @ 7:03AM

Siegfried X| 8.2.11 @ 8:15AM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.2.11 @ 9:53AM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.2.11 @ 10:13AM

Butch | 8.2.11 @ 1:31PM

Doctor Right| 8.2.11 @ 1:54PM

George True| 8.2.11 @ 7:23PM

Bob K.| 8.2.11 @ 8:33AM

Pelligrino| 8.2.11 @ 6:46AM

Stan Redmond| 8.2.11 @ 10:47AM

Negro X| 8.2.11 @ 6:50AM

Clint| 8.2.11 @ 6:57AM

Elron H.| 8.2.11 @ 4:40PM

Occam's Tool| 8.2.11 @ 9:50PM

Occam's Tool| 8.2.11 @ 9:50PM

Occam's Tool| 8.2.11 @ 10:01PM

Occam's Tool| 8.2.11 @ 9:59PM

W| 8.3.11 @ 10:12AM

Elron H.| 8.2.11 @ 9:55PM

Elron H.| 8.3.11 @ 10:22AM

Timothy L. Pennell| 8.2.11 @ 7:14AM

JFGalt| 8.2.11 @ 8:18AM

Teaghan| 8.2.11 @ 8:27AM

Timothy L. Pennell| 8.2.11 @ 8:55AM

Siegfried X| 8.2.11 @ 9:27AM

Pecos Pete| 8.2.11 @ 9:34AM

Doctor Right| 8.2.11 @ 1:57PM

Al Adab| 8.2.11 @ 2:13PM

Doctor Right| 8.2.11 @ 2:38PM

Al Adab| 8.2.11 @ 3:39PM

Doctor Right| 8.2.11 @ 4:23PM

Al Adab| 8.2.11 @ 4:36PM

Delta Zelda| 8.2.11 @ 4:37PM

tsd| 8.2.11 @ 7:26AM

Pelligrino| 8.2.11 @ 7:27AM

Stan Redmond| 8.2.11 @ 10:50AM

oldfart| 8.2.11 @ 7:47AM

Melvin| 8.2.11 @ 8:06AM

Pelligrino| 8.3.11 @ 2:30AM

martin j smith| 8.2.11 @ 8:08AM

oldfart| 8.2.11 @ 8:14AM

Stormzeye| 8.2.11 @ 8:38AM

Bill| 8.2.11 @ 2:28PM

Pelligrino| 8.3.11 @ 2:41AM

Michael Tomlinson| 8.2.11 @ 8:15AM

oldfart| 8.2.11 @ 8:22AM

Michael Tomlinson| 8.2.11 @ 8:26AM

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 8.2.11 @ 2:35PM

oldfart| 8.2.11 @ 4:12PM

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 8.2.11 @ 7:01PM

oldfart| 8.2.11 @ 7:58PM

oldfart| 8.2.11 @ 8:10PM