Actually, I have rarely seen a journalist take such pains to get their information right and correct mistakes when demonstrably wrong as I have seen from Rachel Maddow. She is exemplary.

people who don't know what they are talking about should just keep there mouths shut............that would close the lips of most of congress..............of only! Ignorance is not bliss, know what you are talking about like Rachel or keep your opinion to yourself!!!!!!

I don't worry about Rachel's journalistic integrity. It is never in question when it comes to her. She has always gotten her facts right and she has never lied. When she makes a mistake she corrects it immediately. She is not afraid to say "I am sorry I made a mistake and here is the correct information." Rachel has by far highest integrity have seen in a journalism. This person must be from Fox News causing trouble.

all ready debunked!

Next!!!

What was debunked? Solyndra, Warren Buffet's company paying taxes, or taxes starting on those making 250,000?

I got an idea for raising revenue: STOP THROWING AWAY MONEY like the half a BILLION dollars given to a failed company artificially trying to make it viable.

this.

this.

Pilotshark, please explain and source. Thanks.

@Pilotshark what the hell are you talking about? Solyndra wasn't debunked.

The funny thing about Solyndra is that the federal government was engaging in the exact same stupidity I thought we learned not to engage in after the housing and financial collapse. When your people tell you at the lower levels "hey this is not a smart loan" you should probably listen. The government employees that actually signed the documents and put the loan forward were not people higher up, they were average employees. BUT they were pressured to do so by their department chair, even after several complained to the White House and other entities about how bad they thought this loan was going to be. This was because the CEO of Solyndra and the Obama Admin apparently had a relatively cozy relationship, w/ Solyndra's CEO donating a lot of money (although nothing that stands out in comparison to other donations the Obama Administration has received) to PBO's election campaign. The bigger story behind Solyndra is that this is another example of PBO refusing to stand up for whistle-blowers and government employees who are trying to do the right thing. This is not an isolated incident w/in PBO's Administration (and before anyone says anything no G.W. did not have a better record nor is this a defense of his presidency- this is merely a statement of a systemic problem that exists and has existed for some time in Washington politics).

Mouzer...agreed (again both sides play the game).

Pilotshark, your silence speaks volumes.

Well it's just so sad because here is a legitimate example of waste and abuse by the system. If the lower level federal employees had been listened to this would not have happened. But because PBO, 2 department chairs, and the CEO of this company had such a buddy-buddy relationship it went forward anyways, regardless of consequence. PBO's Administration (just like all the admin's before him) has a serious problem with the "boys club" mentality. So here we are now $500mil shorter than we had to be. It's not like this investment was something we couldn't have seen. I could understand the government losing money in what it thought was a sound investment that turned out not to be- that, unfortunately, is the gamble we all play when investing (whether it's in our personal lives, as a business, or as a government). But this was something foreseeable that was done anyways, just like with the housing crash. I will add that I am disappointed that TRMS hasn't covered the issue, but am glad that TDS chose to. Green energy is the future- this situation does not change that reality- but it does show that there is way more work to be done w/in the system that grants these federal loans to companies. I have always maintained that while I am in favor of short term spending if it means long term gains, I am not in favor of doing so half-assedly or wastefully. Either spend to fix the problem and/or make the change you want to or don't spend at all. This is an example of good money being spent in a stupid way for stupid reasons and that is not what government should be about.

I think this is also in part related to the capital gains tax. I understand the inequity in the tax code AND the perception of some inequity. I believe those who have benefited more from our capitalistic society should pay a higher rate than those who are less fortunate/successful.

That said, I don't think you can just up and raise capital gains tax extremely high because that means there will be fewer investors and venture capitalist willing to invest in green energy or other business for that matter.

There's a balance that is needed. Right now President Obama is stating the extreme because as Ms. Maddow said after his joint session speech (or just before it), he is in campaign mode now.

Yes, but I also don't think one can argue that re-introducing a capital gains tax is necessarily a bad thing either. I wouldn't advocate it be extremely high, but I would probably set it back where it was before hand. There are other options though- you could leave the capital gains tax out and implement a small, but fair trade tax on stocks that are exchanged similar to a sales tax. But make it something small that per trade doesn't amount to much, but after lots and lots of trades does. Or per stock or something. That way you're not screwing your average investor with an average 401k or what not, you're basically just targeting those who are banking on the system and not really producing jobs. Remember the other side to this: w/ the de-regulation of Wall Street we have things like short-selling now and this actually causes bankruptcies or ridiculous drops in the value of stocks even though the company(ies) that is(were) involved did not lose any actual value. This makes the trader ridiculous sums of money while simultaneously destroying otherwise sound investments. So perhaps you could agree to not add back something like Glass-Steagal by agreeing to a small tax on each item traded. There probably is some compromise out there, although I will admit now that this is pushing my understanding of Wall Street. I need to learn more about it myself before I could continue a more coherent discussion.

Out of curiosity I had not read that Obama was intending to implement a higher capital gains tax (by "higher" I mean higher than the Clinton rates). Do you have anything you could link on the matter? I'd enjoy the read, thank you if you can.

Oh RobDon really you going that way thinking cause i didn`t get right back to you! here is a good article you might want to read. yes i know you will maybe whine about it, but read it.

MON SEP 19, 2011 AT 08:27 AM PDT

Solyndra: collateral damage in a trade war.+*

byRLMillerFollowforClimate Hawks

I never mind reading. The article had some interest although I think it is an over simplification to say this business failed because of China when there are other solar manufacturers in the US thriving. This from a New York Time article:

Some American, Japanese and European solar companies still have a technological edge over Chinese rivals, but seldom a cost advantage, according to industry analysts...

...Those bankruptcies and closings represent almost one-fifth of the solar panel manufacturing capacity in the United States, according to GTM Research.

Solyndra and Evergreen in particular suffered because they pursued unusual technologies whose competitiveness depended on their using less polysilicon, the main material for solar panels. That has become less important because polysilicon prices have tumbled more than 80 percent in the last three years as output has caught up with demand.

Here is my original statement from above:

STOP THROWING AWAY MONEY like the half a BILLION dollars given to a failed company artificially trying to make it viable.

Nothing in your article or even the excerpt I posted changes this. In tough economic times is NOT the time to take risks with 1/2 a billion dollars in one company! We may disagree on all the causation of Solyndra's fall but I would hope we agree, at least, on this.

Cutting military pensions?? Some of us were expecting to be able to feed ourselves with that money. Got any details??

Rupert Phone hacker Murdoch?

the semi Marjory owner of fox entertainment news.

LOL

Eloise, point taken. I originally thought the Buffet info was from the NY Times when I wrote the Fox New reference, then when I changed it, I failed to recognize what you now point out. Thanks.

It should be noted that Berkshire Hathaway acknowledges they owe the back taxes.

Also, no one is stopping Mr. Buffett from writing a big ole' check to the federal government but himself.

Why are people so gullible? One person comes along and says something. Then another person stands up in Congress and says something to refute it and people go, "Oh see....the first person was wrong...this person knows better." Then another person comes along and says something different as well. More people stand up and side with them because they might be the same religion.

I don't get why people just glom onto each new version that comes in as if that person knows better than the rest of the world!

I have no idea if Chris Van Hollen is right or wrong. It just seems silly to me, though, to post it here as an answer just because he "clearly explained it."

Psychics can clearly explain a lot of things, that doesn't make it true.

it's a "super committee." the U.S. congress will remain the same size.

Eric if as you say you have no idea what the facts are go find out and come on back

You're right, many soldiers chose to sign up because of that pension. So they deserve it.

Besides, how often to mailmen, firemen and policemen have to spend six months to a year away from their families getting shot at on a daily basis.

I'm glad there are people who sacrifice so you have the right to say stupid crap.

Don't forget the numerous illegal immigrant kids who joined for the dream act that never passed. Where else were the Bushies supposed to get that many troops that fast.

When you compare the salaries of federal employees and hours worked to that of the private sector more often than not the federal employee is being paid a lesser amount than compared to their private sector counterpart. Putting aside the common belief, all military personnel are, for all intensive purposes, federal personnel (though they are paid to and subject to different rules in certain areas). Military employees often work way more hours than in all other sectors for any given job- we're talking on average 10-18 hour days depending on whether or not they are deployed or at home and what job a person has. Military employees are also subject to lesser pay, but in their case it's lesser pay as compared to both the civilian federal employee pay scale and the private sector scale. So an EOD technician in the US military may clear 40 grand a year, whereas if he worked for the ATFE he'd probably make 85 grand a year and if he worked for Hollywood as a pyrotechnics specialist he'd probably make 100+grand a year. Given this reality how does one give incentive to someone to join the civilian federal employee base or the military federal employee base? Well you compensate the @!$%#ty pay and @!$%#ty living conditions (and @!$%#ty working conditions at times) by offering better benefits than you could get in the private sector. You offer things like universal healthcare that also includes dental, vision, and mental healthcare, tuition assistance, a retirement and pension plan, housing assistance, discounted loan rates, etc. This entices people to join your sector of work versus someone else's sector of work and it's pretty much the only thing the government has going for it. True there are people who would join the military no matter what, but if you started taking away these benefits you'd see a sharp decline in the people who join the service. Beyond all of this I want to point out that while I am extremely, extremely empathetic to your sister's situation (which is why I personally don't want to see her benefits get cut, either) you are being rather arrogant about someone else's circumstance. Yeah OK you're right I guess that teenager who was sent to prison and told join the Marines or spend 5 years in jail really did have a choice didn't he? Or that girl could've just kept living off food stamps and supporting her newborn on 1000$/mo (and that'd somehow be better?). Choice is an operative term that's often subjective. Don't dismiss people who have different choices presented to them than you.

Again I do not, for the life of me, understand our fixation with choice and assigning blame.

Port of Call Hoboken NJ

Its not a job!!!! its 48 cents a hour!!!

SNL

not sure if he has drawn a line in the sand yet! he has mentioned it but dont think he has really done it yet.

think he has to go threw with it for the sake of country, he knows We The People are sitting on the VERY EDGE now. and there could be major blow back to ALL in Government. good or bad. imo

Can this "veto" line be drawn in concrete instead of drawn in sand?

Ten years of tax breaks for the wealthy have brought us to this point, and these breaks are still NOT producing American jobs. Instead, they have brought more unemployment and more wealth to the pockets of the already wealthy. Enough, already!

And WHEN is Congress going to decide what their own sacrifice will be? Or will they continue to require sacrifice only from those of us who cannot afford to sacrifice any more?

Carol, here is a good start and i would back 100%

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) has introduced a bill that would require lawmakers to wait until the age of 66 to collect their pension, forcing legislators to live like the rest of the population. Currently, lawmakers can retire as early as 50 with a full pension while most Americans must wait until age 66 to receive Social Security. Brown said he introduced his Shared Retirement Sacrifice Act of 2011 out of a belief that his colleagues shouldn’t receive a pension “any earlier than a Social Security beneficiary should get theirs.”

Hey, Pilotshark, something we agree on...not necessarily this bill (haven't read it) but the idea that Congress needs to lead with real sacrifices, cutting into their big cushy job benefits.

Senator Brown's idea likely has no chance to pass, but I'm proud to say he's my senator! Most of the rest of the legislators, not so much. They need some maturity, empathy, and loyalty lessons.

I agree JuergenH, people feel a need to play the faux-patriotic card in this country. Soldiers are elevated to extraordinary high levels because of their "service." While appreciated, I certainly don't think they're any better or more deserving than the folks you mentioned. In East L.A., mailmen face getting gunned down each and every day...no one's being patriotic about them.

well i say right off the bat (vet Here) they are the reason you are able to ask such a question while sitting in your home free to go places.

its not that they are any better but 20 years they will have picked up and moved their entire family's maybe 7 times. maybe speared 3 years plus.

and by the way just what do you think a retired E-8 makes after 20 years? that`s a master Sargent in the Army.

980 a month. that`s good liven.

only adding my two cents. i have the whole dime as well.

They put their life on the line for our country and protect us. That is what they do. We need to be honoring our vets for protecting not mocking them! You outa be ashamed of yourself. They put their life on the line for us everyday. The very least we can do is support them when they come home. Many of those vets are disabled and cannot work because they were brave enough to risk life and limb for us. The least we can do is make sure their medical bills are pay for and give them a little to live on. Contrary to popular believe they don't get much. This is absolutely ridiculous of President Obama to touch vets paychecks. It's so unethical.

Hang on. It's a valid question and Juergen doesn't need to be ashamed of himself. While it is true that many military members put their lives on the line, be honest with yourselves and admit that just as many don't. I live in Virginia, home of the east coast US Navy and I know many, many US Navy personnel; active duty and retired. Most of them haven't had to move once in their career. Some do but it's often a choice to go somewhere interesting like Japan. Many of them served in non-combat jobs so there was no question of putting their lives on the line every day.

Police officers and firefighters face more daily risk than a large segment of the US military. And, I would say, do just as much to make sure people can "freely go places" as the clerk who does the Navy pay accounting or the mechanic who fixes the army trucks.

To question is not to mock or denounce. Discussion is supposed to be one of the hallmarks of a free society isn't it?

BTW: I'm also ex-military and married to a Navy man so don't tell me I don't understand the life. I'm not saying this budget cut should touch pensions, just that people should have the right to question.

Even in noncombat jobs they are still serving our country, and they are still working to keep us safe. For that they deserve our respect and support after they are done serving our country.

So do fire fighters and police officers and they've been asked to put up with extraordinary cuts to their pay and benefits. The point isn't that members of the military deserve less but that the entire system is set up so that the military is virtually untouchable which then requires that everyone else who serves their country, just not in so obvious a way as wearing a military uniform, are treated as less-than.

Why is the police officer who literally risks their life everyday not considered by the general public to be as automatically worthy of the label "patriot" as my young friend's now ex-navy ex-husband who smacked her around and then sexually assaulted her prepubescent niece? Bet many who saw him walking around in uniform would have automatically labeled him as "hero" and "patriot" yet the beat cop gets donut jokes.

Believe me, I get the reflex to defend the military, I've been doing it my entire adult life. Let's just be fair to all the other patriots out there who don't get all the accolades and protections of the general public.

well sadly to say you can also say that about the beat cop as well.

that are guilty as much as anyone else.

i myself a Vet has Never placed firefighters or police as anything other then Patriots and defenders of life.

Why do people who work in the military, as firefighters, police, EMTs, or other like jobs after 20-25 years? Because the physical, mental, and emotional stress is as such that such jobs warrant early retirement. Someone who works in special forces will likely never make it to 20 years with the physical stress his body takes in order to do so. Offering early retirement is because it allows that person to leave and the force to refresh it's ranks with new members. FTR most people who retire from the military after 20 years do not start drawing a pension. You don't necessarily start drawing a pension simply because you retire from the military. Most people who retire after so many years from the military return to the working force for another 10-20 years and effectively put in 40 years of work just like the rest of Americans. That is to say that just like the rest of Americans most will be paying into the tax system for at least 30 years, but more likely 40. This is also the same with police, firefighters, EMTs, roughnecks, and so on. I do not see why this is a hard concept for people to get.

Well Police officers, firefighters and EMTs should get the same benefits as the military. As tough as these jobs and as much as they help us. We should be taking care of them as well.

I never said I advocated the cuts states have been doing to their police forces and all the others. I am just trying to explain that some jobs are more taxing than other jobs. Rachel Maddow, as an example, can afford to do her job until she dies or until she is monetarily wealthy enough that she feels she no longer has to work. That is the luxury her type of job awards and there is nothing wrong with her choosing to do her job and reaping in those benefits. But there are others who choose to work jobs that are far more taxing on the body. Some of those jobs will destroy your body in a very short time and it is those jobs that must have shorter working-span expectancies. I am all for these types of jobs having earlier retirements because of the taxing requirements they put on their workers. Certain people probably should not retire unless, as I said before, they monetarily have the money to retire independent of SS/medicare. Police, firefighters, soldiers- these are not people to which such a rule would apply. I am fine if a cop retires after 20 years of serving his or her community. That does not bother me at all.

They protect us for terrorist attacks. There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that we never hear about that they do to protect us. When they got Bin laden they made the world a safer place for all of us. They deserve our support for everything they do both seen and unseen by the American public. It is unethical to treat our soldiers in this way.

What will you go after next Eric in LA?Disabled vets, the ones that have lost limbs and cannot make a living for themselves.Granted some of them may not have been "brave"as you put it but they're a hell of a lot braver than Iwould be over there.How any of you can compare them with nurses (exept the ones over there)or a mailman is beyond me.I think the young men and women that serve their country for 25 or more years are worth every penny of their pension.And yes many of them join up to get an education but end up being educated how to dodge bullets and road side bombs.So paaleeze get off it.

How stupid. Why would I go after disabled vets to prove this point? See , when people like you don't have anything else to say that's constructive, you make up ludicrous scenarios to try and throw everything off the real track.

Most nurses spend ENTIRE lifetimes working long, hard hours saving people's lives and nursing their grieving families for very low pay. Most soldiers serve a very limited term, and a huge number of them never even see any form of battle. I have a roommate that joined in the 80's served his time, never saw battle, got to go to Greece and then came home. He's now one of these BRAVE vets by default, who can utilize the VA medical services, etc.

I'd like to see you be a mailman in a gang-ridden neighborhood, and let's see how brave you are.

So YOU get off it with your faux patriotism.

Eric if they serve a limited term they dont get a pension.Right?Right!

The last information I saw, corporate NET tax rates range from the mid teens to zero. I don't know how that compares globally, but it doesn't match middle class American individuals. Not that there are many middle class Americans left, even for comparison purposes. I realized recently that in fifty years of employment, I never reached "middle class" wages. I've been poor all my life and didn't realize it! If my "entitlements" get cut, I can move to a new class -- poverty.

If tax rates get raised on Corporations here is how it will play out. The tax is a cost of doing business, if an item costs 0.50 and the business is taxed higher, that item could cost 0.55 to produce. The company that sells the items, service thingey, will now charge .05 more to the price. So who is paying the tax? If it's too high workers get laid off to cover the costs or dividends get lowered, it's all passed on. Passing it on to companies is not the answer, getting a bigger tax base is.

Eric, that raising prices because of higher taxes idea would make more sense to me if the products and services had been priced lower because of tax cuts, tax breaks, loopholes, and subsidies. I didn't notice that happening.

I also didn't notice corporations treating employees more generously because their cost of doing business has been lower in the past ten years. Indeed, the opposite has been true on both prices and treatment of employees.

I know by personal knowledge of one retail giant that regularly cuts hours or a whole day out of employee schedules with no reason, or frequently fires an employee for little to no reason and either does not replace that person at all or replaces with a part-timer with, of course, no benefits.

It's one way to make the bottom line improve. Kind of trickle-up economics.

Thank you.

Handshake!!!

Vet to Vet we all know

" Its nothing but a Thang!"

also thanks as well for your time!

deep down inside we know we dont the correct thing.

Most soldiers don't serve for 25 years! Stop exaggerating to try and prove a point! Most people are in for 4 years and then leave.

@Stephan - Vets should not ever get a cut, or be the very last in line for it. I'd rather see cuts in welfare (section 8), school lunch programs, planned parenthood, Gov't work programs, all light rail projects before they touch a dime going to vets.

....I am still trying to wrap my head around this. So in your mind welfare is section 8? You're aware that vets use section 8 housing as well as enlisted personnel right? And the same with school lunch programs?

We have got to pay for 2 wars somehow and the only way is to raise the tax rate, but it may mean raising it on everyone to pay off this debt. Which is kinda ironic since the majority of US citizens supported the war. We need to raise the rates on the rich 45% like Europe so we can pay off the debt and fiance infrastructure spending and universal healthcare. America would better off.

It would be nice to have a country like France who has the best healthcare in the world. $15 per hour would be nice. I don't think its a good idea make our military smaller. I think that would be stupid.

As Chris Hayes says, "I can get behind that!" lol I am socialist Democrat. I believe in helping people. Free School lunches is a great idea!

The Democrats are trying. If we could get rid of the Republicans our Country would be the best on earth.

The Republicans are the cause of all our problems and things won't get better while King Louis XVI and his cronies are in power.

Notice how the person complaining about emotions being valued more than facts by the left provides no facts of his own, but is clearly posting based on emotion. Le sighs.

lol Totally. I am used to it on here.

If your education you know what the facts are. I think if you look at Wikipedia you will find more facts than lies. I think people want to create a free database of information that is factual. Unfortunately there are people out there that likes to change the information, but if your educated you should be able to spot the facts and the lies. You should know something about history to know when the false facts are.

Huh? I am a socialist Democrat and I am proud of that fact.

No thanks. Nothing to cure. We need to cure them! lol

Sorry righty but you are totally unbalanced!

John Bonehead----Mitch the Talking Cadaver, WHERE ARE THE JOBS??????

CALL YOU LEGISLATOR AND TELL THEM:

PASS THE (PAID FOR) AMERICAN JOBS ACT NOW!!!!!!!!