Sheesh, I wonder why the Republicans aren't calling the Dems on this, instead of whining about the defense cuts?

Hostage-taking has its victims. So as a result of Republican hostage-taking, ...

DHBranski - a source, link, some background, a quote or other backup would be helpful to be able to determine the veracity of your statement. I'm interested to see what information you've based your post on, because frankly, at best it sounds like a misguided/misunderstood interpretation of known facts.

He's talking about agreements Obama was thinking about making during the GOTea debt ceiling hostage-taking incident. But it didn't happen.

Indeed, DWIA. But you would never know it from DH's post.

This list smells a bit. Any facts to show us?

Thanks, June Day. I was thinking that, if he was right, POTUS & Dems shoud own up to these things.

(1) The cuts never happened because the GOP walked away from the table. Offering cuts as part of a compromise > not compromising at all because the rich might complain.

(2) The "cuts" you're describing are mainly (meaning overwhelming as a share of the nominal value) structural changes to how the benefits are calculated. Benefits are expected to explode out of pace of what economists call "true" inflation and well ahead of wages and consequently revenue. The reform, a chained-CPI index, would slow the rate of growth, which technically counts as a "cut" relative to current law (the CBO baseline) but isn't quite what simply saying "cutting benefits" sounds like.

(3) The other "cuts" are also mainly another structural change that WOULD reduce benefits, but for the wealthy earners. Say you have a pension and/or savings accounts that are way above the baseline. You won't receive the full amount you might if you were at the poverty line because you don't need it as much. George Bush-era Republicans sided with this reform to keep the SSA solvent long-term, only today's Teapublicans would rail against it.

(4) As a final point, I have to emphasize that these were internal negotiations between the Speaker, representing the opposition in Congress, and the President. Nothing was fully hammered out and consequently the President need not "own up" to anything; it's not even a formal proposal---Romney, meanwhile, says his tax plan "can't be scored" because HE refuses to release the tax credits he says he'd eliminate to make up for lost revenue. That is a proposal and he refuses to release that information. This is the lowest-content, lowest-information campaign in decades.

"As a condition to getting Republicans to allow the middle class tax cut, absolutely vital to Obama's re-election effort, the president agreed to more cuts in Social Security benefits for the elderly and disabled."

Wouldn't that have been stupid. Do you have any evidence of that?

Um..because its not true.

I do know that Obama cut a certain part of medicare to get rid of waste and inefficiency. The Republicans tried saying that Obama didn't care about the elderly and disabled. But what it was was cutting some of the waste out of it. Other than that I hadn't heard about any big cuts.

"As a condition to get the Republicans to allow..." christ do you know how much %@%# you can throw out there under that phrase?

Thanks, Lorr. Media accepts non-responsive answers from both sides more often than not, denying open source for an informed public that is the media's oath they thus betray, leaving us with making life's decisions based on illusion. Just more of the Matrix.

You can do it yourself. Just choose a journalist that egregiously engages in the false equivalency act and shove them in his or her face. I particularly like to e-mail Dan Balz, Peter Baker and editors at the NYT and WP. But do it with your own home town media, too.

Huh?

Oh, never mind. I see.

It's difficult to imagine how Mitt Romney looks himself in the mirror. It's hard to imagine, isn't it?

Sure is! Nobody's perfect - but I've never seen anything like this. When I observe audiences smiling and cheering him on, I have to wonder - how do you cheer for this guy, who's standing there insulting your intelligence, baldly lying to your face - who apparently is congenitally incapable of telling the truth? What are they cheering, exactly?

This is why they're called Useful Idiots, and have recently upgraded to Useful Mitt-iots.

When you assembled your kidroids out of spare parts, its easy.

"It's difficult to imagine how Mitt Romney looks himself in the mirror."

He can't do that because a mirror doesn't show a reflection of him.

I would imagine that he tells them its just politics. The MSM attempts to make Mittens out as this Father of the Year type guy, and I would suspect that Ann raised those kids, while Mittens was out making money. Becasue they don't seem to have a lot of respect for him. I have heard interviews where they make little digs at him and his ineptness. Mom probably always said, "that's just how he is."

I would hope he's doing better with grandchildren. Men going out to work and making a lot of money, never home, sometimes bond more with grandchildren because they are not working so much.

Who knows?

He's Lyin' for the Lord, and therefore not condemned to hell. He's condemning us to hell, though.

I disagree, Disgusted, in this respect: He's not an ideological zealot who thinks that the ends (the ideology he's devoted to) justify the means. He has no ideology because he has no convictions. That's why we're up to Vol 28 of Mitt's Mendacity and it's only the beginning of August. He's a moral siphon, whose one guiding force is to feed his ego by being President. He'll say whatever he thinks will promote himself in any situation, and reverse himself in the very next situation he finds himself in, the next day, or even the same day.

You want to know when Romney's lying? Listen to that little He-he-he he always gives after he says anything! Perfect little tell. I would LOVE to play poker with this guy!!

Oh, I know Sofferclese. He's amoral. I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt and getting in a dig elsewhere.

Mitt Romney's laugh: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/the-romney-laugh.html

That's his opinion, mine is that he "he-he-he"s after every lie!

Media news departments don't make money, so they're underfunded, so they don't do investigative reporting, preferring to re-report what organizations like AP and Reuters report (thanks, Dan Carlin). The goal would seem to be to send TRMS information to media outlets that "lazy" news departments use as secondary sources. Drop enough of it in their laps, and they'll pick it up and run with it (unless they think that everyone knows Mitt's a compulsive liar and either already hate hum or hate Obama so much that they don't care).

TRMS does well in getting this information out there. Love you, Rachel! However, its not getting out to other journalists. Maybe after her show, she should send this stuff out to the MSM so they can use it too. We need to get it out to the low information voters.

And he doesn't look well. His eyes look funny and he's pale. I'm a nurse, and have seen that look before. but I don't know what it means, except that he's not well. I wonder if he's coming down with some chronic condition that makes it difficult for him, such as diabetes or high blood pressure. High blood pressure in a presidential campaign would be rough.

I've seen several suggestions that he might have Asperger's syndrome, a high-functioning form of autism, and his behavior does fit my understanding of that condition. The inability to relate or feel empathy, especially with anyone outside one's tight inner circle, is a classic symptom.

I read a comment elsewhere, yesterday, that made a provocative argument for early Alzheimer's. What I particularly recall from it is the idea that some of his reversals--when he says one thing and then, in just minutes or hours, says he never said it--are typical of the short-term memory lapses that characterize the disease. And like with Reagan, those near and dear would be scrambling to cover for him.

But somebody (Grover Norquist, I think?) has said his actual positions on issues don't matter; they expect him to be just a robot who will sign whatever legislation a tea-party controlled Congress sends him.

Don't need a meter; the direct contradictions will speak for themselves. Besides, a meter suggests that one of the directly contradictory statements is true, when in fact, he might well be telling two (or more) contradictory lies.

Running side by side adds of Romney contradicting himself would be most effective. Then I would have adds asking the american people "why do you think Romney won't release his tax returns?"

In order for him to "say what he believes" wouldn't he have to first believe something? It seems that his strongly held position on any topic is the one that he thinks the audience he is speaking to wants to hear.

More to the point, in order to speak your mind, you must first have one.

I'm not 100% certain of this answer, but I believe that what the SCOTUS determined in their ruling is this: If you can afford to purchase health insurance but choose not to, the penalty comes in the process of filing your taxes (either a tax penalty or a reduction of your refund). That's why they upheld the law - because the government has the right to levy and collect taxes. And that's why Romney and the GOP are trying to call it a tax increase. In a sense it is, but only to those who freely choose not to buy coverage. (They are severely misrepresenting the size of the "tax increase.") Anyway, I believe that it has been estimated that only about 1% of the population would end up paying this penalty.

The 1% refers to the projected number of Americans that will have to pay the penalty for not getting health insurance even though they can afford it. (there is a scaling chart with income guidelines)

It refers to the number of people, who, though they could afford it, would refuse to pay for health insurance, and therefore be subject to that actual mandate's tax penalty. A small number indeed.

As usual bannedagain, you are wrong! Reagan reduced taxes on the wealth, Clinton did not.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_1997

This reform act both lowered the capital gains rates in general AND exempted the first $500,000 in capital gains for married couples.

In case you were a youngster then, this was long before housing inflation and the only people who had $500,000 in capital gains on their residence were the very rich.

Also since the rich get far more of their income from capital gains than the middle class, the overall effect of this act was to decrease taxes for the wealthy below what the initial tax increase had raised them from.

Why do you post about things without doing any reasearch at all?

wikipedia?!

LOL!!!

Bannedagain,

Actually, on this ONE post, you are right, I did forget about the 1997 Capital Gains Tax Reduction!

bannedagain, Shame on you. You chastise others for "post about things without doing any research at all" and then ignore what is in your own research.

Specifically, the wikipedia article you site states, "The act exempted from taxation the profits on the sale of a personal residence of up to $500,000 for married couples filing jointly and $250,000 for singles. This is for residences that were lived in for at least 2 years over the last 5."

This not what you said in your post. You said it was capital gains in general. This part of this tax bill very specifically addresses the fact that many people bought a house decades ago and through inflation and investing in their home the value grew greatly. The tax code used to be very twisted and convoluted regarding this gain. A homeowner had to keep track of every dollar invested in his home to verify with the IRS. This tax bill simplified the whole process by saying that it was not necessary to maintain all those records. Your house could appreciate up to $500k and we are good.

Example, my parents bought their last house in 1961 for approx. $40k. They sold it in 1999 for approx $280k. Same house, well maintained.

I used wiki because the tax code itself is impenetrable.

The capital gains rate in general WAS lowered as clearly stated in the article which you apparently missed. The change on residential housing was in ADDITION to that.

banned,

Yeah, I did miss that part on my first read. But you misled in your post by saying that the CG tax was lowered AND the first $500k was exempted for couples without explaining that that exemption was only for housing. And then you went on to theorize that only rich people had CG in housing. My Dad sold insurance all his life and is not rich. And you forgot about the huge inflation of everything, not just housing, in the 70's.

BTW, the way CG was calculated on housing, my parents example needs to go back to their first house, which they bought for around $9000 in 1947. they were allowed to rollover their gains from house to house, as long as they kept track of all their legitimate expenses. The 1997 tax law said they can just have that gain, as long as it wasn't over $500k. This was mostly an attempt to simplify the tax code, since keeping track of all those expences (seen as capital investment) was a huge drain on the IRS manpower AND my parents.

I apologize for all my failures as a poster.

From Benen's "defense:

"Here's what you need to realize. The original chart above comes from a document (.pdf) that was put out by White House economic advisors Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein on January 10, 2009.

It's important to recall that his was right in the throes of the recession. At the time, things were weakening much faster than anyone could possibly realize in real time."

Unfortunately there were much sharper people than Romer who not only realized what was happening they made billions from it. Not only that they bet on the right horse in 2008 by contributing a lot of money to President Obama's campaign too . . . Goldman Sachs.

Advisors don't speak for someone, they speak to someone. Therefore, the statement attributing the statement to Obama and a promise to the American people is blatantly false.

It is reasonable to believe that the two chief economic advisors of the President speak on behalf of the President when they issue an official report in support of legislation requested by the President.

Hey they were simply wrong, it happens with economists all the time and especially with Bernstein who isn't actually an economist at all. Also a more experienced/capable economist than Romer never would have made the statement at all specifically BECAUSE of the tenuous nature of the situation at that time.

However for Benen to say it is a lie week after week is simply a lie on his part.

bannedagain,

Sigh, ANOTHER right wing troll "pretending" to be "moderate" so that you think you can "appeal" to us and "slip" in your right-wing dogma! You think YOU are the first to try that????

But the fact is that Romer and Bernstein made their projections (and that was ALL they were) based on inaccurate data and based on a stimulus that was 1/2 again as large as the actual stimulus that was enacted.

Were Romer and Bernstein "speaking" for the President? NO, they developed the graph to "advise" the President - two VERY different things. NO ONE speaks for the President in Government!!! If the President chooses to release their advise, he can do that - but that NEVER means they speak for him!!

Oh, that's right, YOU don't understand how government works, do you? Kinda ranks right up there with your understanding of "history"!

"a stimulus that was 1/2 again as large as the actual stimulus that was enacted."

"NO, they developed the graph to "advise" the President - two VERY different things"

Neither of your assertions is true, as you would know if you actually read the report.

"Estimating the aggregate employment effects of the proposed American Recovery and Reinvestment

Plan involves several steps. The first is to specify a prototypical package. We have assumed a

package just slightly over the $775 billion currently under discussion."

You're a "curse the darkness" instead of "light one candle" guy at heart.

Bannedagain,

Mitt Romney has turned into Bill Clinton’s biggest booster.

Seeking to attract Democrats and independents who supported the last Democratic president, Romney has taken to lavishing praise at every turn on Clinton’s boom-era ’90s policies while contrasting them unfavorably with President Barack Obama’s old-school, Big Government ways.

The tactic is designed to drive a wedge between the group of Democrats who supported Obama during the epic 2008 primary battle between Obama and Hillary Clinton: the white, working-class voters who hold the key to many swing states, like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76424.html

And you are just the latest "footsoldier".

In other words you have no factual rebuttal for this or any other of my posts.

I got it the first time.

No, you don't "got it."

And you never will.

Bannedagain,

Go back and read the ORIGINAL Romer-Bernstein recommendation, not an "updated", changed" or "modified" report!

Yes this one, the one I quoted to you directly from:

http://www.ampo.org/assets/library/184_obama.pdf

Why are you keeping this argument up?

Bannedagain,

That isn't the ORIGINAL version, that is the "doctored" version. You need to go find Romer's ORIGINAL. I don't know if it is on-line anymore, but I read her original memo on-line, and what you've presented is not it!

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/02/summers-romer-and-the-stimulus-package.html

Her private memo to the president doesn't matter. THIS was the report that was publicly released in support of the legislation and from which everyone is quoting, inlcuding Benen.

No other memo was ever given out, until the various rats in the administration started pointing fingers at each other over who was at fault as they left the sinking ship. Thats' where Suskind's book came in, a chance to settle scores against each other.

From the NYT review of Confidence Men:

"Why have so many people in the Obama administration vented to Mr. Suskind in the first place, when the president was only partway through his first term? Like many of Bob Woodward’s sources a lot of them are motivated by spin, score settling and second-guessing. Given the stalled economy and the president’s sliding poll numbers, some former staff members are playing the blame game early, while others seem to be hoping to goad the president into a reboot and a more aggressive stance before the 2012 election."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/books/ron-suskinds-confidence-men-focuses-on-obama-review.html?pagewanted=all

Actually, her original DOES matter, because you and others are attributing something to Romer and Bernstein that WAS NOT their position at all.

Obama got BAD advice from Emanuel, Geithner, and Summers who "distorted" what Romer and Bernstein said, and yet you claim that this bad advice came from Romer and Bernstein and that they were "speaking" for the President! All WRONG!!

Yes, I'm directly quoting the report that they put out under their own names which is not addressed TO the president but to Congress and the media (which explains the "embargoed" reference at the top) in support of the President's request to Congress. How terrible of me to quote them!

Now I understand you want to make Summers the bogeyman in this because God knows he is wrong much more often than right. However for one of the few times in his life he was correct (presuming the sniping accounts at each other are correct). A trillion dollar plus stimulus would have been none at all because it never could have passed.

See when you get past the "troll" thing, this is actually an interesting discussion is it not?

Once:

BTW, you DO realize that you're killing the administration's ablibi in your posts, right?

The whole Benen defense is "we didn't know, nobody knew". You are actually saying that they DID know how bad it was, but decided not to go for the doubly large stimulus that was required for reasons of infiighting within the White House itself.

In the 20th century, we've been involved militarily somewhere except for 1935-1939 and 1977. In our entire history, there have been 11 years without armed conflict. China was visited by our military the most, being 6 separate times.

Agreed so anybody else would not call it a lie when in fact it is a subejct matter that is open to 4-5 legitimate interpretations at least.

All president's use the military basically because they can. For instance there is no way that Obama would have dared say during the 2008 campaign that we will be in Afghanistan for 6 more years if you elect me, but there we are!

Indeed. And we're still negotiating the retention of military bases in Iraq, so we may never leave. Same with Afghanistan. We always leave behind a military presence in the country of a conquered adversary. That's what we do.

I think all candidates for POTUS can say whatever we want to hear. But in reality, one really only knows what is going on after that first meeting with the joint chiefs and the CIA, FBI people. Only then do you get all the scarey news that is restricted from the rest of us. Only then can you say yes or no to something with knowledge.

Willow: Restricted knowledge like yellow cake uranium, aluminum tubes and a source called "curveball"? With which "knowledge", Bush2 said "yes"?

Yet you don't apply the same logic to Obama who inherited a busted economy and 2 unpaid for wars. Go away now!

I'm not posting incorrect "facts" about Obama, now am I?

bannedagain,

If YOU think Benen "lies" so much, why do you keep posting here??? To inform us of your "great" truths???

PROVE one place where Benen has "lied"!!!

Oh, BTW, if you think Romney did SO MUCH for Massachusetts, why didn't they want him back?? The reason he didn't run again is because he was SOOO unpopular in that state - why, do you think, was that???

I proved about 8 of them using either outside sources or Benen's own links, but I know that won't be enough for you.

You're a faith based person. What you believe is determined by who the source is.

bb,

I don't know why you come on this site posting such bull@!$%#.

Are your feelings hurt because you have been banned from this site?

I would suggest getting a life.

Or perhaps creating your own right wing blog. Cultivate followers and traffic like Benen has.

Otherwise you just looks like a jealous right wing hater, influencing no one on this site.

Just sayin.

I'm a troll because I use facts in arguments. Therefore I should be shunned rather refuted. I get it.

Actually the only blog I've even been banned from was Jennifer Rubin's far right one . . . twice! (hence the name)

So you admit you are a troll. The first step in healing is admitting you have a problem.

And I really doubt that Jennifer Rubin's site is the only one you have been banned from.

Your obsession/jealousy with/of Benen is very clear.

And "facts" or not, nobody is buying what you are selling.

And it is highly doubtful that you are influencing the "lurkers" who visit this site either.

Just saying.

Take a look at your posts. You just want me to go away because I say things that upset you personally, not that anything I have written is wrong.

Benen is a fighter which I actually think is good. However he has gone over to the side of we can say anything true or not, because it's in a good cause of defeating Romney. If you want to be the "good guy" then you accept as a given that you have a handicap the bad guys don't . . . an obligation to tell the truth.

bb

You are mistaken. Again.

I don't want you to go away. You don't upset me, because I don't get upset by total strangers that I don't give a @!$%# about. Careful, your over inflated ego is showing there, dude.

And you are the one who does indeed seem pissed by Benen, which is why you post so much on his site. Which is a good thing for Maddow and Benen: more traffic, more money for them.

You don't get paid, though.

But you are shown for the hater that you are. Which is also a good thing.

And your "truth" doesn't mean anything on this thread, won't change Benen's work or his opinion. He doesn't know who you are or that you exist.

And you don't change the minds of the regulars on this thread. And you look like an idiot to the lurkers on this site that don't comment.

So all in all, what you say is so irrelevant on so many levels that it is just interesting to watch. Only you think your opinion means something.

Just sayin.

Again, you simply don't deal in facts at all, not even slightly.

Not changing minds is find, not changing history is fine also, which is why I obejct to many of the things that Benen has erroneously written.

Doesn't seem like I am alone in the "not dealing with facts, not even slightly" area.

But haters like yourself, gotta hate.

First, let me say I am a HUGE Obama supporter. I find Romney detestable because I really do think he lies about everything. It seems he believes, and I think sadly correctly, that if you say something loud enough and long enough people will believe you, regardless of its relative truth.

That said, I don't understand why all of this venom is aimed at bannedagain. He, or she, has not taken to personal attacks, vile language, or crazy accusations. He (I'm going with that one) is merely expressing his opinion, and trying to lay out what he sees as proof that some of what Mr. Benen posts is wrong. He is entitled to that opinion. He is entitled to come on this board and post his views as long as he continues to be respectful.

Why are you all trying to kick him off this site? Are we incapable of making a counter argument? If this site were just for Obama disciples what is learned? Take the opportunity to try to show him that Romney is indeed a ridiculous liar. In fact, bannedagain has even said so himself in one of his posts above...His hatred for Romeny is such that he considers every single sentence Romney utters to be a lie ( of which quite a few really are)...so right there he is agreeing that Romney is a liar. He is just disagreeing as to the extent.

My 2 cents.

They probably even accept dollars in payment, which of course is just another dependency on the governmnet.

I've been wondering about that myself. Is this embarrassment of a campaign/candidate intentional, meant to lead to a hand-picked candidate that maybe could not get elected in certain Red primaries but whom the base would vote for rather than depart the GOP? Alternatively, I wonder whether Romney will have disemboweled himself so thoroughly by convention time that he will collapse or have to step out of the race. But am not sure if I wish for another candidate -- this one is such a massive Fail. Yet, I do wish that the GOP would pick someone less obviously rotten if only because, in the dire event that the GOP might win, I really do not not want Romney in the White House. Oh, what to wish for? A dilemma.

Any bets that Romney will still be the candidate on September 1?