Democrats keep insisting on using evidence-based facts for decisions.

Republicans keep insisting on doing the opposite.

Adopting the opposite of facts and evidence is not called "compromise".

It's called fantasy.

Republican has become a religion.

Religion teaches you to believe that outrageously impossible things are actually true.

Failure to believe makes you a heretic - a phenomenon exploited by Grover Norquist.

Those wingnuts aren't going to go away no matter what we do. The Republican Party ilks like Sarah Palin, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich gave them a"legitimacy" they've never had before. Before, they stayed in their little hovels and whined to themselves, but now they all now think it is "OK" to spew their hate anywhere they want!

But, yea, you are right - we should put all of them on "ignore"! Makes reading these blogs more thoughtful and peaceful!

I'll try to remember that the next time one of them defecates all over this blog. It won't be easy :-}

Oh, I know. Little do they know, but Wingnut World died last Tuesday. The only way it survives is if Democrats let them off the floor again. But the 20th century is not in danger, unless spinelessness rears its ugly head again. The thing to do for Democrats is to kill it. They have to neuter McConnell's ability to gum up the Senate, and Obama has to be willing to shove it right down Boehner's throat despite any short-term negative consequences. The reason is because there is only one thing these Republican asswholes respect and that is power and domination. They need to be taught a lesson. The more it hurts the better.

But we'll be left with the hard-core believers for a while. They'll be like the Japanese soldiers in the South Pacific who never knew WWII was over. Just like with science, progress is made one death at a time.

Disgusted, #3.2,

I understand many of the "losers" want to secede from the union. Oh, how I wish them Godspeed! Goodbye, Dumfukistan, goodbye!

I certainly won't miss those red, southern states that go all across the South and up the center of the mid-west.

Take that old, obsolete turtle, McConnell, with you when you go. Up here in the blue states, we will continue to believe in science. We will teach facts and real history in our schools! We will have universal health insurance. We will marry whom we want, and we will help the poor and the elderly with the proper safety nets they need. Blacks and Latinos won't be discriminated against. We are our brother's keeper up here.

they can leave but the land is still ours. it stays. remember their rallying cry "America, love it or leave it." well, they're free to leave but they don't get to take a part of OUR country with them. we paid too much for the infrastructure and there's a few non-crazy folks there that want to stay.

splitting the country geographically is what a lot of them think they want. they are shown time and again that they receive more in federal money than they contribute. then they say, in perfect ignorance, that it will be more than made up by the federal taxes that they won't be paying. you can't argue with that kind of stupidity.

Tax cuts for people who will put them back into the economy shouldn't expire till the economy gets back on its feet. Then expire them.

I agree Disgusted. And when our economy gets back on its feet and is stable for a while, THEN we can consider cutting back government spending. But not now! Government is what is driving the recovery. If we cut back now, we WILL end up like Greece!

Keynes had depression-like economic conditions correct.

Once, you are correct. I keep bringing up 1937, but it is a valid point. If you don't learn from the past, you really are doomed to repeat it.

Everyone has gotten trapped in this 'tax cut and reduce the deficit' conversation, which is ludicrous. You can't do both at the same time without doing a great deal of harm to the economy. The Republicans want a plan to reduce the deficit, but are afraid of what the sequester is going to do. The sequester IS deficit reduction, and I quite agree it's drastic and will put us into a recession. Why? Because each of the programs to be cut will cost jobs and take money out of the economy. That's not what's needed right now.

The best thing that could be done is pass the American Jobs Act, but the Republicans won't allow that, even though there's a plan to pay for it. Yes, the plan calls for raising taxes, reducing certain deductions and halting subsidies to big gas and oil companies. We do, however, need to rebuild our infrastructure, and now is the time to employ all those people not only doing the rebuilding, but making the supplies needed in the rebuilding projects.

I'm all for the American Jobs Act if it is paid for. Just saw online that October had a $ 120 Billion deficit and it was noted that revenues increased by 12% but spending went up by 16%. THAT is the problem most of the time - increased revenue fans the flames of spending at a higher rate it seems. I would bet that if we ever do get a surplus in future years the government will find a way to spend it rather that using it to knock down our unfathomable debt.

More right wing clap trap. Name one bill the GOP ever passed that was paid for in the last 35 years. Got to love how the right always whine that the other side must pay for every bill yet their side can just pass garbage bills and not a peep about the cost.

Whomitmay,

First I did not make it up on the October deficit info and second, I don't care which party did what to increase our deficits and debt. We overspend and have for a while during Bush's terms and now. So what is your point? That there is no problem or that now that a Democrat is in office it will all be fine? No difference to me - Bush added around 10 Trillion and we are currently adding a Trillion a year to our debt. I don't know how or why you think my comments are right wing clap trap. Name me one bill from either side that will fix this big mess - and not some peicemeal crap that will reduce our deficits to a managable 1/2 Trillion or so OR that they will just "kick the can down the road" (which is what will probably happen). ALL the politicians in DC are just playing games with this. Nothing of any substance will get done. And if it makes you feel better, it will be the Republicans fault. Somehow if I or somebody else brings up an obvious fact (like owing Trillions) somehow makes it whining from the right. Blame away, but that won't fix anything.

No skip , you people are always excusing the gop and accepting their lame policies , and ready to blame the dems in a flash and trash their policies , that act is beyond old

For example , you just said the only way to make everything fair on the tax cuts is to let the 2% pay roll tax cut expire on the 28% tax rate workers pay , all while the romney gang pay a 12 to 0% tax rate , give it a rest already

We do not over spend stop telling that Reagan lie. Broken record of the GOP, borrow and spend then whine about deficits after you created them then come out with the same old lame plan of tax cuts requiring more borrow and spend because the GOP doesn't want to reduce spending they want to increase spending on what they want so they create boogieman straw men to whine about hurting the country mostly its the social safety nets who they blame.

Pantango,

I was not excusing the gop:

We overspend and have for a while during Bush's terms

And although I did not say it earlier I will add that the Bush tax cuts were also a big contributor to the deficits and the debt. I was not specifically blaming the Democrats either, but apparently you and whomitmay lay no blame on that side of the aisle - everything is because of the Republicans. Fine - I'll go with that too. I did not like most of the policies during the Bush years (who I did not vote for) and I do not like the continuing huge deficits - and again at this point I do not care whose fault it is. You and whomitmay seem determined to continually point out whose fault it is. OK - I AGREE. NOW WHAT. Increase taxes on the wealthy ONLY? Do you think that is enough? I do not. The Democrats it seems do want taxes upped on the wealthy AND maybe some spending cuts. Hopefully the Republicans can agree with that, but IMO, just taxing the wealthy along with modest spending cuts will only reduce the deficits some, but we will still be adding to the debt.

As for all your comments on "straw men" and "GOP talking points" (addressing both whomitmay and pantango), just what is going on then? The spending in the government is just at the right level, even though it somhow ends up being a Trillion dollars more annually? It is just not enough revenues then? One Trillion dollars more in revenue is needed. I'm pretty certain that even if you taxe the 2% at a hefty rate, you may not get that close to $1 Trillion.

The spending whine is pure 100% GOP whine. Then you frame the solution on immediate fixes, what don't you grasp, it took 35 years of failed GOP trickle down/supply side garbage to get the deficit as high as it is and now you are whining that the problem hasn't magically vanished in 4 years. Then you repeat the spending lie.

No skip , you just got busted for your " I don't care which party did what " BS line , not me

Just look at steve's op on what drives the debt , then look at what you are trying to sell , it speaks for its self loud and clear , go sell your gop snake ol else where

To measure the size and reach of federal programs and activities, one consequently must examine total non-interest spending, or "primary outlays." Primary outlays stand at 22.0 percent of GDP in 2012; they are scheduled to decline somewhat as the economy recovers. Even with implementation of the Affordable Care Act, they are projected to average 19.9 percent of GDP under current policies during the final five years of the ten-year budget window (2018-2022) and to stand at 20.0 percent of GDP in 2022, significantly below today's level.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3696

Disgusted, I have always been a big supporter of Keynesian economics. John Maynard Keynes had it right and still has it right.

Milton Friedman had it dead wrong. The GOP needs to examine Friedman a little more closely. Especially what he and the Chicago group did in Chile and Bolivia. They need to read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

If this is Romney's business policy which it appears it is. Romney drives businesses to cut costs and than exports jobs overseas for slave labor. But in the process very little Sales is generated to support the business and as people become unemployed seeking a new job for less wages and benefits. The final outcome is workers are driven to poverty and as slave labor as the rich maintain all the wealth. It appears that Romney has been involved in politics for longer than we think and heavily involved in the Bush and Chenney era which really does make this a joint effort by the corrupt Republicans and rich. Yep, the typical evil tyrants are still at it.

He can't until the first day of the 113th congress. And yes, he has said the filibuster as well as other "procedural" rules will be changed. And the first day, he only needs 51 votes for change.

As far as the debt and deficit go, how much did we spend getting out of the depression? Today, money is the cheapest it's ever been. The only one that can spend is the Government. Name One company willing to, out of the kindness of their heart, finance the infrastructure. And like it or not, it is crubling to the point the highways and bridges are unsafe. How many people would that project alone put to work? WOW. People working and paying taxes to pay down the debt. What a concept.

Larry,#6.1

There certainly will be enough infrastructure to build and repair. Heck, just NY and NJ alone can create millions of jobs building and fixing the broken infrastructure. We need to get our electrical wires underground, too. The climate is changing for the worse, and needs to be addressed. Our bridges and roads are crumbling. Our rail system and subway system is antiquated. These are the things that will help the economy, unemployment, and the country!

Obama needs to get a good jobs bill passed and soon! We need more green energy research and development as well. We can't be energy independent, (that's a myth), but we can be more energy secure.

Yeah, but he hasn't given it much of a workout for a long time, so it gets tired quickly.

old karl did ok. for himself.

there's an agent's fee for handling that money.

there's agent's fees for the folks who produce the ads.

there's agent's fees for getting the ads on tv and radio.

and guess how many divisions of karl rove inc. exist to handle that money at every step of the process. if the typical agent's fee is 15% and you handle the money several times before you let it go...

Yea Carl Rove probably did quite OK at screwing the rich. After all Carl Rove is just like those rich people. Screw anybody you can to become instantly wealthy even if it leads the world to abuse, misery, despair, and death.

Actually, we don't need to look at sensible budget cuts now. Sure, if there's money being wasted, like the subsidized student loans through banks or less-cost-effective Medicare Advantage, cut them. (Republicans vociferously opposed both, of course.) But the only reason politicians are looking for cuts is because of our politics, not because of our economics. Look at the chart -- the wars are ending (though we'll have increased veterans' expenses for a long time), and literally the only things we need to do to get back close to balance are get rid of the Bush tax cuts and get the economy moving again. We have a short-term problem with employment and a long-term problem with debt, and trying to address the long-term problem in a way that hurts the short-term problem (by cutting government spending and hiring) actually makes both worse than they would be otherwise.

I agree with you Uffdaguy, but will these Republicans listen? That is doubtful, since they are the rich in many cases and if their not they are bought by the rich.

And you never will when you put words into the CBO's report they never said. The CBO report stated tax cuts to the wealthy doesn't help. The CBO said tax cuts to the 98% help because the tax cuts go right back into the economy. Why is it so hard for you republicans to understand simple supply and demand economics. You believe in that failed supply side economic model that requires massive credit lines to feed the economy, works great for Wall street bankers in short term spurts before the credit dries up and the market crashes.

Whoa! Back off there, whomitmay! I ain't no Republican.

By the logic you just stated whomitmay, the Bush Tax Cuts should have had a stimulative effect on the economy because they "...go right back into the economy" since they included cuts for the not-wealthy. However, IIRC, at the time, it was stated that they were not stimulative because ordinary folks used them to pay off debt, which doesn't stimulate the economy. Now I could understand if letting tax cuts expire on ordinary folks could hurt the economy because it would come out of money that would normally be spent in the economy, but the asymmetry is striking if true. That's why I asked whether all the tax cuts expired, how much of an effect would it have? And if it increased peoples debt, then the amount taken out of the economy would be incremental?

Note that I'm not advocating it one way or t'other, just asking.

Your over looking that the Bush tax cuts lions share went to the top 2%. By just letting the tax cuts expire on the wealthy that would create 1.8 million jobs. By letting them expire on everyone it creates 1.6 million jobs, a difference of 200,000. Sorry I just had a 6 post war with a rightie who tried to spin the CBO report.

See what I mean right back to the Reagan welfare lie. Just ignore Reagan created the first trillion dollar deficit with his star wars insanity.

Boy more of the Reagan myth. The only thing Reagan ever broke was the country. Reagan a dirty low down drug dealing clown. The USSR broke itself with no help from Reagan in fact the USSR went broke from following GOP policies.

Sorry I just had a 6 post war with a rightie who tried to spin the CBO report.

Yea you did and you lost....taxing the rich doesn't create jobs whom...please explain how taking money from consumers.....creates jobs....and BTW.....the CBO report showed that letting the taxes expire on the the Rich will reduce job growth by 200,000 jobs.....and yes Rueters have it right and whomi has it wrong.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/08/us-usa-fiscal-cbo-idUSBRE8A71D020121108

Jerold Nevada #16.6~~If the 2% pay for this country, Why is our infrastructuer crumbling? Why has two wars and two big Bush tax cuts and medicare part D been put on the credit card and still has not been paid for? We should send the 2% a statement of their past due account!

Only in your mind tap but as everyone saw all you did was spin and lie. Funny how Reuters ignores what the CBO report said and went with the same spin as you tap. The CBO report stated 1.8 million jobs would be created by letting tax cuts to the wealthy expire that would then be 200,000 less if tax cuts expire on everyone or 1.6 million jobs. Oh and tap btw you claimed that 200,000 jobs would be lost when they had never been created in the first place, these are future jobs and heres a clue tap no one can predict the future, they can only guess.

whom....I'm so glad you repeated that Reuters has it wrong and you have it all figured out....I needed a good laugh before I went to bed.

You are correct whom nobody can predict the future....nobody....but when we are making decisions on the best way to proceed we should use data and according to the data.... Scenario (1) Extending tax cuts to everyone will create 1.8 million jobs andScenario (2) Extending the tax cuts to everyone except the rich will create 1.6 million jobs....and if the democrats have their way we will take Scenario (2) and the CBO says we will not create an additional 200,000 jobs....You can say it isn't a job loss but those families that will be in the unemployment line instead of working might not agree with you.

Wrong again tap keep it up so far the only thin your are right about is the day of the week, everything else you have wrong. To bad for you that you just can never grasp that it is not the wealthy who are the job creators.

Once again, TAP, you have got to stop listening to these lying right-wing talkers! You are wrong. I promise you, letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich will create much needed revenue, not unemployment. The unemployment rate will go way down in the next few years because Obama has it right. The GOP House has to pass his jobs bill, and start doing what is best for the country, not their crazy, misguided base!

It would have been quite low previously but for the House obstructionism, courtesy of the damned T-party.

TAP, I just don't understand your desire to sacrifice so many important programs, and much needed revenue, in order to give the very rich a tax break they do not need! They did quite well, in fact, under Eisenhower when they were taxed at 90%! They did great under Clinton, and we're only asking them to go back to the Clinton rates, not Eisenhower's!

What is your problem with this? You aren't one of the wealthy who wants to hang on to a few more thousand to add to their millions or billions! They won't even notice it anyway!

India...I am not listening to right wing talkers.. the CBO report plainly says that Scenario (2) will create 200,000 less jobs than Scenario (1). Do you think that 200,000 jobs will not create revenue? The tax increase will not even put a dent in the deficit.....You folks keep whining about the Presidents jobs bill needs passed even though it will cost over $200,000 per job....but keep demanding we increase taxes on the rich even though it will cause 200,000 jobs to not be created according to the data from the CBO....

To answer your last question.....because it hurts job growth by 200,000 jobs! I know that the wealthy can afford it.....that's not the point. The point is we need jobs!

Goodnight, TAP. I give up. Have a nice night.

Time will tell who is right.

I believe I mentioned that we needed jobs. Tell that to the GOP House economic terrorists who share your die hard beliefs. They're the ones holding up the damn recovery.

Goodnight India...I'm just going where the data leads....the CBO is supposed to know what they are doing. I have seen other studies that show Scenario (2) will reduce job growth by 700,000 jobs. I'm no economist but taking money from small business and consumers doesn't sound like a recipe for creating jobs.

whomitmay-To bad for you that you just can never grasp that it is not the wealthy who are the job creators.

When are you going to grasp that everyone that buys something is a job creator? Also, every company that buys something is a job creator. How many average Joe's purchases a D9 Dozer or a Crane. ...all big ticket items that support thousands of jobs. We are ALL JOB CREATORS. Some just create more jobs than others.

got to keep money circulating.... you stop that process..what happens to your job creation idea?? You sit on billions of dollars or as in a bank sit on trillions of dollars and not lend out.. you are the cause of a recession...and the more money kept out of circulation...such as off shore banking...does not improve economy...at least here.

India LeCarre: Perhaps in the end the rich and Republicans want to be the ones to pay 90% in taxes, because they are sure headed on that path.

India time has already told the tale, tax cuts to the wealthy has lead to every jobless recoveries of the last 35 years, a jobless recovery is main street dies while Wall street thrives.

whomitmay....India time has already told the tale, tax cuts to the wealthy has lead to every jobless recoveries of the last 35 years, a jobless recovery is main street dies while Wall street thrives.

whom...you can keep repeating that lie....the CBO does not agree with your theory. Funny how when the CBO predicts job growth from the President's spending bills the left claims the CBO is "Non-Partisan" and the "Gold Standard"

whom...even the Maddow Blog post that talks about the CBO report agrees with Reuter's and me.....You need to clear your mind and read it again.

CBO doesn't examine the top bracket Bush tax cuts directly. But it does look at two competing scenarios:Scenario (1) One where all of the expiring tax cuts except for the payroll tax cut are extended; another Scenario (2)where all of the expiring tax cuts except for the payroll tax cut and the Bush tax cuts for top earners are extended.

The former Scenario (1), CBO says, would increase employment by 1.8 million full time equivalent employees in 2013 relative to allowing everything to lapse. The latter Scenario (2)would increase employment by 1.6 million. The difference, 200,000 full time equivalent jobs, is attributable to the expiration of the top bracket Bush tax cuts alone.

I added my Scenario titles to help you distinguish between the two...They are in bold.

Here we go again with taps rewrites and backwards thinking, he reads a report that says tax cuts for the wealthy is garbage and comes away believing trickle down works.

And here we go with whom....disregarding data that doesn't fit his line of thinking.....There is no rewrites other than trying my best to help you understand what is written in plain English. I posted it ...cut and past once for you on a previous discussion for you to read and apparently you still don't get it.....so I added the Scenario titles to help you...but now you try to accuse me of a rewrite.

BTW whom...you never answered my previous question....How does taking money away from spenders in and of itself.....create jobs?

I need to go do some work....but I'll be back.

TOM,#16.19, OMG it is so good to see you. So many of us were wondering if you were OK and we missed you! Are you still in China? How are you?

Hello India...I am still doing battle with the right wingers.... way they talk they still think Romney might win..hahaha Talk about denial

Doing pretty good and yep, still in China

I posted that website where if you sign a petition to succeed, you should have your citizenship taken away... you should have heard them cry over that..smile

getting late here, take care and keep them in line... tell all hello

Rick Perry has a big problem with his state citizens, since he, himself started the secession nonsense. They are following his lead. He told them that Texas has the right to secede, which is a lie and Perry should know better. I signed the petition asking Obama to strip all the signatories of their citizenship and give them the responsibility of finding a country who will give them asylum and they can take their governor with them. These idiots do not deserve to live in America.

Great gran, #17.1

I'd be more than happy to kiss their sorry butts goodbye! Take Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, and a few others with you when you go, Texas!

Feel free to persuade McConnell, Eric Cantor, and Paul Ryan to go along. If possible, take Michele Bachmann, too.

At that point I could go for the electric fence idea they spoke of in the primary. Keep 'em out when they start whining and crying.

No states are trying to secede. Those petitions were started by individual people, aka cretinous bumpkins. Not a single state government is going along with this nonsense. These petitions should be taken with no more seriousness than my wish for a pet unicorn that poops diamonds and pisses champagne.

The states can not secede. The people are free to go wherever, whenever they choose, and I say good riddance and don't let our border hit them in their as*.

Great gran, I share your eloquent sentiment.

Hello India.... I sure hope you do not mind... I stole your avatar.....but I will only use it on the conservative blog and just a short time...

TOM, I am so glad to see you again. You can use my avatar anywhere you like!

See my comment above: #16.25! We missed you, dude!

Remember, remember the 5th of November! (This time the 6th of November!)

And the poor are smarter then you are. At least they know they are poor where as you on the other hand have delusions of being wealthier then you really are and believe in fairy tales. Here is a clue, the wealthy will never trickle down their wealth on people like you no matter what that old insane soap salesman told you in the 1980's.

Oh and you are still given yourself that 1 point behind every post.

Jerold Nevada

Before Reagan tax rate 70%....after Reagan tax rate 28% (Class warfare the beginning)

If it was reasonable for them to take it.....then it is just as reasonable to at least get PART of it back!

REAGAN REVOLUTION

The 1980’s were the triumph of upper America. It was a celebration of wealth and the political ascendancy of the richest third of the population.

It was the glorification of capitalism, free markets and finance. But at the same time there were growing hordes of homeless sleeping on heater grates.

The 1980’s were the second Gilded Age and a new plutocracy had been created which would rule America well into the 1990’s.

In terms of the regional distribution of wealth the Washington/Boston megalopolis boomed as did both the coasts in general while the Midwest was left behind.

Wealth was further accumulated in the hands of those already rich.

Now it is important to understand that since the American Revolution the distribution of wealth in America depended significantly on who controlled the federal government.

In this sense the Reagan Revolution of the 1980’s reversed what late-20^th century Americans had become used to.

The liberal economics and politics in the years between 1932 to 1968 left a legacy of angry and bitter conservatives who had seen for two generations the downward distribution of wealth.

The Reagan years between 1980 and 1988 to be sure had created over 19 million new (low paying)jobs, exploding technology, unprecedented prosperity and had rekindled national pride. It also led to firing of 10 million high paying manufacturing jobs as corporations received tax incentives to move their operations overseas.

In fact in the 1980’s so many millionaires had been created that the term essentially had become meaningless. By 1988 it was estimated that there were over 100,000 decamillionaires.

But critics of the time saw another America were the 1980’s were one last national fling with credit card economics one filled with beggars

It was also in the decade of the 1980’s that the U.S. was transformed from the world’s largest creditor nation to the world’s largest debtor nation. Throughout the 1980’s conservatives argued that this really didn’t matter.

At the end of 1986 the U.S. had a national debt of $269 billion, at the end of 1987 it was $368 billion, but by 1992 it was $3.5 trillion. It was the greatest economic miscalculation in recorded world history.

It is not enough to describe the U.S. as the world’s richest nation between 1945 and 1992. What is more important is the distribution of its wealth.

The U.S. by 1984 had the greatest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation in world history.

In 1953 there were 27,000 millionaires, in 1964 90,000 millionaires, in 1972 180,000, in 1980 574,000, and in 1988 1.3 million.

In 1981 there were perhaps 10 billionaires in the U.S., 26 in 1986, 49 in 1987 and 52 in 1988. No parallel upsurge of riches had ever been seen since the late 19^th century of the Vanderbilts, Morgans and Rockefellers.

But the downside to all this concentration of wealth was that wages—the principal source of middle and lower class income had stagnated through 1986. The Reagan decade was a heyday for unearned income as rents, dividends, capital gains and interest gained relative to wages and salaries as a source of wealth and growing economic inequality.

http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/1980S.htm

This is only part of the long list of reagan's policies.

>

More of Reagan

http://jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/reagan.htm

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id395.htm

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-03-27/news/8501170394_1_farm-debt-crisis-farm-journal-farm-foreclosures

http://www.nebraskastudies.org/1000/stories/1001_0110.html">http://www.nebraskastudies.org/1000/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/1000/stories/1001_0110.html

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2506&dat=19840418&id=PIBJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qgsNAAAAIBAJ&pg=987,5819945

http://www.nebraskastudies.org/1000/stories/1001_0117.html">http://www.nebraskastudies.org/1000/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/1000/stories/1001_0117.html