"Concerned"- When will you let us know how it went when you told all your black friends about the Prez' wife's gorilla face?

When you answer that one, then I will research your question.

Cftc - I am an educated Republican of the Nelson Rockefeller, Pappy Bush side of our big tent! Though, recently, less-than-informed-crazies in our big tent have been trying to push us out for the past 15 years with the help of the propagandists over there at FOXNEWS!

I have met many people over the years, and I can certainly say most Democrats I have met are not "narrow minded"! If anything, they are a too bit loose and unfettered in their thoughts and ideas. I am an American first, and then if need be, an ideologue sticking up for my own interests!

I am libertarian, and I am accepting of cultural difference. I will hold strong to my conservative pedagogues, but I will refuse to condemn an idea that may serve to benefit Americans.

I will speak the truth as I have come to know it through my formal education, and not by the personalities on the FOX NEWS channel because they are spun into a narrow band of Obama Derangement Syndrome. If our POTUS sneezes, well, to FOX personalities, he's conspiring to get all of America sick!

You, Cftc, would do well to be more accepting of others who themselves have some measure to add to the dialogue instead of resorting to references of gorilla like faces! Your petulance does no one any favors!

There Cftc, does that help you understand a bit more? -Kevo

As to answering your question? Well, it makes no sense the way it is grammatically structured. "Your" should be "You're." "Their" should be "there." I have not heard of your charge of ad hominem regarding Ms. Ingraham. And, I get a healthy digest of news across the spectrum.

As for my place on this blog, my name says it all. You see, history is always present, and if you know your history regarding Mr. Benen, you will understand why I post here. I have been reading Mr. Benen since his start-up, The Carpetbagger Report, and I have followed his posts ever since, since I do enjoy intellectual engagement, and a public dialogue.

So, Cftc, get out of a one-dimensional information source and begin to see and understand the great and wonderful USA in more that just the FOX NEWS way! -Kevo

Hey! A concern troll. *yawn*

The "right wing slut" came from Ed, on his radio show (not MSNBC). He apologized and was suspended, though, by MSNBC for a week, without pay. Guess that means you got that wrong, too.

Still waiting for Rush's suspension over the "slut" and "prostitute" remarks.

b

That was one time he didn't show up

Funny KKKountry that McCain would miss a very important meeting that HE wanted in the first place.

By the way how many intelligence meetings (too many to count) did Obama, miss?

That would be none, zero, zip, nada, KKKountry.

much less not reporting in to balance the budget,

more right wing nonsense.

perhaps too many golf games maybe?

Maybe you should ask Bush, 'cause he spent over two years in vacation while being President.

Thank you for your concise response, I will vote with you in 2014 and 2016

"Why didn't they besmirch (I like that word, Obama) Condaleeza Rice's reputation when she went on interviews and talked about weapons of mass destruction, apparently using intelligence reports as the basis of her responses?"

Actually, the Dems did exactly that during her SoS confirmation hearings. The difference though, is she was the president's National Security Adviser during the lead-up to the Iraq war, so it was her JOB to determine the difference between good or bad intel. Since she, along with the rest of that community, sucked at it, she got called out for it when she wanted a promotion.

Obama's death stare at MSNBC as Ed called it, was misinterpreted, I saw the same stare when he is faced with a question he doesn't want to answer, just like the question he dodged at the press conference, remember I'll speak to the families of the victims, not the press?, nah he's not hiding anything, let the public decide when the full investigation unfolds, when he's not near a teleprompter, that will be must see tv!

Translation: I really, really, REALLY don't like the fact that a black man was re-elected President.

You're welcome.

Your Racial left wing numbness must be causing something in your brain to not be working, I AM NOT A RACIST.

Says KKKountry who posted this comment:

Concerned four the country

So sick of seeing the Prezs gorilla faced wife.

• !

#49.1 - Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:17 PM EST

But NOOOOO, you aren't racist! You just don't like black people OR you think that black women look like gorillas!
LOL!!!

First of all, I take pride in having a president that's initial reacttion in a tragic death is to console the families of those we lost as opposed to jumping in front of a camera without knowing anything.

Also, if you don't want to be called a racist, don't make racist remarks. Are you trying to tell me that you didn't catch the correlation between calling a black woman's face "gorilla-like" and inherent racent tendencies? I truly believe that there is this misconception between what is offensive and what is racist, but that is truly the ladder.

The notion that Obama has skipped his intelligence briefings was promoted by a right-leaning research group called the Government Accountability Institute, which published a report detailing that the president’s daily calendar shows Obama receiving an in-person briefing on the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) 43.8 percent of his time in office. (The percentage dropped from a high of 48.8 percent in 2010 to 38.2 percent through May of 2012.)

Marc Thiessen, a former Bush speechwriter who writes an opinion column for The Washington Post, then drew attention to what he called the “startling new statistics” in the report. His column on the subject is cited as the source in the American Crossroads ad.

That column also includes the White House’s response — that Obama reads his PDB every day, but he does not always require an in-person briefing every day. The White House argument is that this is how Obama structured his White House operation, so it is specious to say he has “skipped” a meeting that was not actually scheduled.

The PDB is a highly secret document seen only by the president and a handful of other advisers. Only a few have ever been declassified — mainly from the Lyndon Johnson era — though the famous Aug. 6, 2001, PDB warning “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” was also declassified as part of the investigation into the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Our colleague Walter Pincus earlier this year examined how Obama has handled his morning foreign-policy discussions:

Obama reads the PDB ahead of time and comes to the morning meeting with questions. Intelligence briefers are there to answer those questions, expand on a point or raise a new issue. [National Intelligence Director James] Clapper may be present once or twice a week, but most often one of his deputies is in attendance in case an intelligence community issue arises.

When Pincus refers to the “morning meeting,” he is describing a regular national security meeting that is held every day at 9:30 a.m. with the president’s top advisers. In his article, he cites a meeting that took place on Jan. 13, 2012, that included discussion of the PDB with one of Clapper’s deputies. Yet the White House public schedule for that day lists no such meeting — and no PDB meeting. So the entire controversy appears based on a semantic distinction — or perhaps inaccurate White House schedules.

Thomas S. Blanton , director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, says that there have been “lots of variation in the briefing patterns” among presidents, with different consequences.

con't

George W. Bush “wanted personal and oral, and that matched CIA’s institutional interest in face to face with the president, much better for their bureaucratic politics, but unclear how good it was for presidential decision making,” he said. “On Iraq WMD [weapons of mass destruction], the direct brief was clearly pernicious; reading might have pointed to the dissents, but the briefers did not.”

In contrast, Bill “Clinton the reader was known to comment that his morning papers were better than the intel brief, and better written — to the point that the CIA director James Woolsey joked that when that Cessna crashed into the White House, that was him seeking an audience with the president.”

Richard Nixon also had few, if any, oral briefings and instead received his intelligence from the morning memo of his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger.

According to a CIA history of the PDB written by John L. Helgerson :

Throughout the Nixon presidency, the PDB was delivered by courier to Kissinger’s office. Each day Kissinger delivered to the President a package of material that included the PDB along with material from the State Department, the White House Situation Room, the Joint Chiefs, and others. Nixon would keep the material on his desk, reading it at his convenience throughout the day. Feedback to the Agency typically was provided by Kissinger directly to the DCI.

Interestingly, the history says that Gerald Ford, who became president when Nixon resigned, decided to add an oral briefing from a CIA official as his first meeting of the morning so he would be better prepared for foreign-policy discussions with Kissinger, who had become Secretary of State.

Jimmy Carter scrapped the oral briefing and instead relied on a one-on-one meeting with his national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski. But he wrote frequent comments on the PDB, so that “the CIA received considerably more feedback from Carter than it had from Ford,” the history said .

Ronald Reagan, meanwhile, also almost never received oral briefings or had meetings with CIA personnel. Here is how the CIA history puts it :

Agency officers who provided daily intelligence support to the White House during the Reagan administration remember that his several national security advisers varied markedly in the time and attention they devoted to the PDB. In all cases, however, they received the Agency’s briefer every day, read the PDB, and ensured that it was forwarded to the President.

Thinking back over the eight years of the two Reagan administrations, the Agency’s briefing officer remembered only one or two occasions when the National Security Adviser took him into the Oval Office to brief the President directly. Unlike Carter, Reagan almost never wrote comments or questions on the PDB.

Clearly, different presidents have structured their daily briefing from the CIA to fit their unique personal styles. Many did not have an oral briefing, while three — two of whom are named Bush — preferred to deal directly with a CIA official. Obama appears to have opted for a melding of the two approaches, in which he receives oral briefings, but not as frequently as his predecessor.

Ultimately, what matters is what a president does with the information he receives from the CIA. Republican critics may find fault with Obama’s handling of foreign policy. But this attack ad turns a question of process — how does the president handle his intelligence brief? — into a misguided attack because Obama has chosen to receive his information in a different manner than his predecessor.

As it turns out, no president does it the exact same way. Under the standards of this ad, Republican icon Ronald Reagan skipped his intelligence briefings 99 percent of the time.

Well the other thing that I find highly obnoxious is the idea that the White House would announce every single day when it's having a top secret national security meeting. Has it never occurred to anyone that that might be something you don't put on the public switchboard? Just a thought....

I mean I am surprised that Republicans didn't try to play the whole "he's hiding something" angle as opposed to the "he's incompetent" angle. Although how an apparently incompetent person is also shifty and crafty enough to engineer a massive cover-up costing American lives! is even more amazing to me.

Also good to see you Donna you haven't been on the past few days. Hope all is well.

Good to see you speaking truth to power, Cartoon!

I am doing well and hope you are doing great too! :)

Don't preach to me about intel and what people read or not. You know nothing but what you are being told by fox news. So tell me--- What set on whose desk that said America was going to have a terrorist attack?

Good job, Donna! Now watch this drive!!

Hey Cftc, President Obama is the POTUS - he is your President if you consider yourself an American!

You use the construction "for your President" as if you are not an American practicing civil democracy here in America, where majority rules until the next election cycle when the opposition can muster an effort to change our political will!

If you can't bring yourself to say "our President" or "my President" you are showing yourself to be an America hater just because your guy didn't get elected! What pusillanimous balderdash!

You're a hurting a bit here. Maybe a better discernment of the issues at hand for all of us Americans is too tall an order for you! -Kevo

You haven't debunked anything where did you receive this info, because it is clearly wrong, and biased this comes from a left wing point of view news website, so it is clearly bogus and un factual, end of story.

Translation: I am a right wing troll who is ignorant, spouts nothing but lies and debunked talking points, does not like the fact that a black man is President, and thinks black women look like gorillas, but that doesn't mean that I am racist.

You're welcome.

Investment growth was weaker under supply-side policies

The critical link in supply-side theory’s chain is business investment. Proponents argue that lower taxes on the rich will spur more investment, and since investment is a key ingredient to growth, that will boost the overall economy. But investment growth during both supply-side eras lagged far behind that of the 1990s when taxes were higher. (see Figure 1)

Productivity growth was weaker under supply-side policies

A second key ingredient in the supply-side recipe is increasing worker productivity. The theory says that more business investment will result in innovations that allow each worker to produce more, thus growing the pie for everyone. But as with investment growth, productivity growth under supply-side policies fails to impress when compared to the higher tax era. (see Figure 2)

Overall economic growth was weaker under supply-side policies

With their lackluster investment and productivity growth, it’s not surprising that overall economic growth during the supply-side eras also lagged behind the higher-tax era. The expansion following the Bush tax cuts was especially weak. (see Figure 3)

Employment growth was weaker under supply-side policies

Because the higher-tax period experienced faster growth, it also enjoyed a booming job market. Employment growth after the 1993 tax increases outpaced that of both the 1980s supply-side period and the 2000s supply-side period. Again, the most recent supply-side period was especially bad for employment growth, averaging just 1.5 percent increases a year. (see Figure 4)

Income growth for middle-class households was lackluster under supply-side policies

Supply-side theory posits that when the tax burden on the rich is reduced, it will eventually help everyone. And conversely, if you raise taxes on the rich, then everyone will end up paying the price. Of course, if that were the case, we should have seen robust income growth for middle-class families under supply-side policies and stagnation under the higher-tax regime. But we saw just the opposite. After the tax increases, income for the median household grew at nearly twice the rate as it did under the supply-side tax policies. (see Figure 5)

Hourly earnings were flat or declined under supply-side policies

One of the ways that lower taxes on the rich is supposed to end up helping the middle class is by resulting in higher hourly earnings. Why? Because if investment leads to boosted productivity, then that boosted productivity should be reflected in wages. Is that what happened? No. We didn’t get the investment boost, or the productivity boost, and we certainly didn’t get the wage boost in either supply-side era. In fact, hourly earnings (after accounting for inflation) fell during the 1980s, and were flat during the one in the 2000s. But during the 1990s, after the tax hikes, real hourly wages grew by about 1 percent a year. (see Figure 6)

Our nation’s fiscal health deteriorated under supply-side policies

Some of the more dedicated supply-side devotees go so far as to argue that tax cuts for the rich will result in so much additional economic activity that they will actually increase government revenues, thereby “paying for themselves,” and have no negative impact on the bottom line. This assertion, as with the others, is not supported in the data. Not only did government revenues fall during the supply-side era, but the bottom line deteriorated noticeably, too. Publicly held debt rose during both supply-side eras, and fell substantially during the higher-tax period. (see Figure 7)

So again, KKKountry, you are full of @!$%#.

Spending

In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."

Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.

The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.

Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.

His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."

The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.

Taxes

Before looking at taxation under Reagan, we must note that spending is the better indicator of the size of the government. If government cuts taxes, but not spending, it still gets the money from somewhere—either by borrowing or inflating. Either method robs the productive sector. Although spending is the better indicator, it is not complete, because it ignores other ways in which the government deprives producers of wealth. For instance, it conceals regulation and trade restricdons, which may require little government outlay.

If we look at government revenues as a percentage of "national income," we find little change from the Carter days, despite heralded "tax cuts." In 1980, revenues were 25.1% of "national income." In the first quarter of 1988 they were 24.7%.

Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.

But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.

Even the heralded Tax Reform Act of 1986 is more deception than substance. It shifted $120 billion over five years from visible personal income taxes to hidden business taxes. It lowered the rates, but it also repealed or reduced many deductions.

According to the Treasury Department, the 1981 tax cut will have reduced revenues by $1.48 trillion by the end of fiscal 1989. But tax increases since 1982 will equal $1.5 trillion by 1989. The increases include not only the formal legislation mentioned above but also bracket creep (which ended in 1985 when tax indexing took effect—a provision of the 1981 act despite Reagan's objection), $30 billion in various tax changes, and other increases. Taxes by the end of the Reagan era will be as large a chunk of GNP as when he took office, if not larger: 19.4%, by ultra-conservative estimate of the Reagan Office of Management and Budget. The so-called historic average is 18.3%.

Deregulation:

Deregulation gutted consumer protection, environmental protection, workplace safety and the right to organize under Reagan. It led to many scandals that made his administration one of the most corrupt in history, with a record 138 officials investigated, indicted or convicted. But the biggest change was deregulation of banking, which led to successive financial wildings and crashes that have cost taxpayers literally trillions. The first was the Savings and Loan debacle that followed on Reagan's reforms that empowered banksters to gamble with other people's money, with their losses guaranteed by the federal government.

Your own argument:

Did Reagan Reduce Government Spending?

Shows that Reagan DID increase gov't spending as well as the size of government, so major FAIL on your part, KKKountry!

It is SOOOO fun debunking right wing lies! LOL!

Concerned how can you discredit her source as a left wing source while simultaneously stating that you don't know what the source is. Either a. you don't know what the source is and therefore don't know if it's valid or not or b. you DO know what the source is and therefore don't need to ask for her to provide a bibliography.

Ironically enough I actually think you're both using the same source. Heh.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it fact, KKKountry:

Clearly, different presidents have structured their daily briefing from the CIA to fit their unique personal styles. Many did not have an oral briefing, while three — two of whom are named Bush — preferred to deal directly with a CIA official. Obama appears to have opted for a melding of the two approaches, in which he receives oral briefings, but not as frequently as his predecessor.

Ultimately, what matters is what a president does with the information he receives from the CIA. Republican critics may find fault with Obama’s handling of foreign policy. But this attack ad turns a question of process — how does the president handle his intelligence brief? — into a misguided attack because Obama has chosen to receive his information in a different manner than his predecessor.

As it turns out, no president does it the exact same way. Under the standards of this ad, Republican icon Ronald Reagan skipped his intelligence briefings 99 percent of the time.

Oral briefings my point exactly he wasn't there, he didn't show up, absent, missing whatever you want to call it, not there! gone 38% off the time. more golf i guess

KKKountry's reading comprehension skills are lacking.

OR: KKKountry is just another right wing troll who refuses to acknowledge that it is full of @!$%#.

LOL!!

CFTC, Just like Reagan's briefing's while the Marines where in Lebanon? He was really up on thing's, Ah heck, let's not pass the word down the the chain about intercept's that NSA had 4 week's Prior to the Tragedy in Beirut? We'll tell em Frickin 28 day's later. No comment about your Greatest Pres. that being Reagan? Selective Outrage against President's, That is all you get from the Repub's

KKKountry's direct quote:

So sick of seeing the Prezs gorilla faced wife.

So NOOOOO you are not a bigot!!! LOL

You much rather post a red herring argument in an attempt to justify being a bigot! LOL!!!!

Keep it up KKKountry!!! You are doing GREAT!!!!

And a black man is STILL President! LOL!!!!

I have plenty of black friends, Democrats and Yes some Republican black friends

That's why I keep tellin' 'em negroes they needs t get back to th' farm and stop being so uppity!!! Damn gorrilla faced woman needs t' know 'er place!!!

Yeah I'm buying the whole "no prejudice bone in this man's body" line reaaaaaall well.

I'm curious what would your black friends have to say about you calling Michelle Obama a gorilla face, hmm?

Also how is this president a socialist? Define socialism using a reliable source and then name one policy that he has passed that meets that definition.

you can love the person, but hate their ways

I don't haaaaate you, I just want you to change everything about who you are, how you dress, how you look, how you act, who you hang out with, what you do for a living, etc.

Seems to me you're the racist I've already said I don't have a prejudice bone in my body, if you don't want to believe that, then that's your prerogative, but it certainly doesn't make it true, just because you believe it, I know my heart.

LOL!

Sure!

I mean your statement:

So sick of seeing the Prezs gorilla faced wife.

shows that you are not a bigot! LOL!!!!

Yep!!

John Kerry is GREAT!!!

And the swiftboating of Kerry has been reported on extensively, yet those on the right still insist on posting the same debunked lies over and over and over and over again.

Doesn't make those lies the truth. No matter how many times those on the right post it.

Did you not understand:

And the swiftboating of Kerry has been reported on extensively, yet those on the right still insist on posting the same debunked lies over and over and over and over again.

And: If you can't see the problem with this fact and truth, then you are truly lost, with no way back!

Concerned- George W. Bush snorted coke, do we want a Pres. like that? Oh, never mind he already was Pres.

Did you ask your black friends about the First Lady's gorilla face yet?

KKKountry's post translated:

I am a right wing troll that does not like the fact that a black man is President and also thinks that black women look like gorillas.

You're welcome.

Or Senator Do Nothing! :-)