Associated Press
Education Secretary Arne Duncan and House Speaker John Boehner both recently appeared on Sunday shows, made claims that were not true, and got caught. But it's worth pausing to appreciate how the two responded to the ensuing controversy.
Duncan, about a week ago, told CBS that "as many as 40,000 teachers could lose their jobs" as a consequence of the sequestration cuts. He added, "There are literally teachers now who are getting pink slips, who are getting notices that they can't come back this fall."
This was fact-checked and proven to be incorrect. When pressed for an explanation, Duncan acknowledged that he'd made a mistake, apologized, and set the record straight.
Seven days later, Boehner told NBC, "[T]here's no plan from Senate Democrats or the White House to replace the sequester." This, too, was fact-checked and also proven to be incorrect. Asked for an explanation, Boehner acknowledged that he'd made a mistake, apologized, and set the record straight.
No, I'm just kidding. Boehner's office actually doubled-down on the lie, saying the falsehood is true if Republicans are allowed to change the meaning of basic words.
With both of those "plans" easily found in official records and news reports, we asked Boehner's spokesman Brendan Buck how the speaker could claim that none exists.
"A plan must demonstrate it has the ability to pass a chamber of Congress to be worth anything. We've twice passed a plan. We're still waiting for the Senate to pass something, anything," Buck told PolitiFact in an email.
It would have been very easy for Boehner and his team to say, "The Speaker misspoke. Democrats have a plan, but we think it's an awful plan that would produce awful consequences."
But that would mean taking honesty seriously. Instead, the Speaker and his office have to argue, with a straight face, that they have their own definitions of the words "plan" and "is," which do not comport to any known dictionary.
In this case, Boehner said there is no Democratic plan. Reminded that there is a Democratic plan, Boehner's spokesperson says a plan isn't actually a plan unless it can pass the House or Senate. How did this conditional definition come about? They just made it up.
Told that the Democratic plan could pass the Senate fairly easily if Republicans stop filibustering it, the Speaker says ... well, he doesn't say anything, because it's a question he doesn't know how to answer.
If Boehner told the truth, it would make Republicans look even worse, so he finds it necessary -- indeed, he feels an obvious obligation -- to deliberately deceive the public, cynically hoping Americans are easily fooled by garbage talking points.
Duncan made a claim that wasn't true; Boehner made a claim that wasn't true. Duncan quickly acknowledged his mistake; Boehner quickly tried to redefine reality in ways that don't make sense. Duncan apologized; Boehner still wants to pretend his lie isn't a lie.
If you ever have the impression that the two sides of the political divide are playing by a very different set of rules, it's not your imagination.
Leave a Comment:
Gleesh, reminds me of the fights we're having on the skeptical blogs I frequent. Some people say something horrible, some apologize, some double down on what they said.
It reminds me of the "flights" (not fights) and "travelers" the administration said would be delayed by the sequester. And despite evidence to the contrary, they just keep saying the same thing. Where is the Duncan example here? Will Napolitano come out and say, "I was mistaken"...or wrong...or lied? If you hold one person's feet to the fire, hold them all.
And using the same source as above, how about our President. Has he corrected his "lie" as well?
I'm all for people being truthful and correcting errors, but don't make this a partisan issue, this is fully on BOTH sides all levels and I challenge anyone to disagree with proof.
Good thing you put Obama's "lie" in quotation marks because it turns out to be true. He said that the janitors would be losing money and sure enough, their normal overtime is being cut. That means that instead of losing just their hourly wage, they are losing time and a half.
sorry rob but the wait times in San Diego are now between 2 and 3 hours on international flights and expected to reach 3 to 4 hours by the end of the month. That was on the morning news today. Domestic flights are about 2 hours, compared to 3/4 of an hour last week
Relax people, I'm sure RobDon meant to say "proof acceptable to him..."! He said nothing about truth.
Rusken, not looking for proof acceptable to me but to general standards. Notice that dkm only wants me to take his word, no link to a source and no mention that, if true, the overtime was related to sequester.
Neither did Jane offer any source for her delays nor a note that Napolitano mentioned specific airports and San Diego was not one of them. Did she makes some general statements that would apply to San Diego? Sure, but that does not excuse her spefic claims that were proven false.
Lol! "General standards" clearly means "proof acceptable to me" for RobbyWobby.
Lol! Your response comments never offer any information, just criticism.
Do you care to offer any proof (agreeable to me or not) that Chicago's O'Hare or Atlanta airports have increased delays due to the sequester as Napolitanto said or do you just want to attack the messenger? I'm betting you only want to criticize...
I refuse to waste my time on your flim-flam "arguments". As I observed elsewhere, you are nothing but an infamous "both sides" troll, and nobody here with any sense and self-respect takes you seriously.If you insist on being a troll, you had better get used to being treated like one, and spare us the totally unwarranted self-pity.
Love the hypocrisy. You don't want to "waste" time addressing facts instead you waste time responding to multiples of my comments with the same old tired line. Nice showing.
Mr. Hypocrite accuses me of his own character defect. Believe me, it's no effort at all to smack you down. It's something that needs to be done, and I enjoy it. Every time you spout your flim-flam, you demonstrate the validity of Lebowsky Dude's observation about you: "...as far as intellectual honesty you choose to be near the bottom of the chain..."
There you go wasting time again. You said you didn't want to waste time addressing the sourced facts of my posts but yet you have no problem making comment after comment with personal attacks. And you think I'm the hypocritical one!
You are a complete phoney and you richly deserve to be treated as such, no matter how much whining, narcissistic self-pity you spout.
"self-pity?" I'm not feeling sorry for me, I'm feeling sorry for YOU!
Bwahahahahaha! You are really bad at faking sincerity.
No, but I'm really good at getting you to "waste" your time reading and responding to this comment. Thus, illustrating again, it is not that you don't want to "waste" time responding to factual information as you stated. It is just that you are simply incapable.
Typical right-wing delusions of self-importance. This is no work at all for me. Again, you are projecting.
I never said it was work for you. I was addressing that it requires time. Again, you are misstating what I said.
Your attempts at logic chopping are getting more and more ridiculous!
Okay, apply your superior logic skills and show me where I said your comments were work.
Still with the lame attempts at manipulation. You never learn.
I don't think the attempts at manipultation were lame at all, considering I got you to make SIX more comments AFTER writing this:
Now, if you'll just respond one more time it will be SEVEN!
Still trying to create your own reality by projection. Dance little troll, dance.
I'm not the one projecting. I quite enjoy getting you to respond to a post with nonsesne, especially after you acknowledge you didn't want to "waste" your time with me. I use this back and forth with you for my entertainment and a break from real work.
Classic troll arrogance! and here we have the spectacle of a conservative admitting to stealing time from his employer! No morals at all, RobbyWobby!
Self-employed, dear old Entropy...wrong again! Well, at least you are consistent.
Just google wait times at airports due to sequester. lots of articles, not enough time to read em all. Another glorious effect of the sequester I noticed is the customs agents hours are cut so our imported fruits and vegetables will be sitting in ports longer. In a nutshell, employees hours are being cut so you better get your a$$ to the airport a couple of hours ahead of time and bring a good book. Won't affect me since I am too busy working to travel.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-05/delays-grow-for-travelers-to-tomatoes-as-u-dot-s-dot-cuts-hours
Well, I was being sarcastic, but you already knew that. Even if self-employed, you weren't being very productive, now were you. I'm not surprised.
At the time, productivity was not my direct goal; a diversionary break was...oh, and wasting your time!
You walk into the room
With your pencil in your hand
You see somebody naked
And you say, "Who is that man ?"
You try so hard
But you don't understand
Just what you'll say
When you get home.
Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones ?
Having to borrow words to try and get your point across, huh? Okay...you win.
"Borrow words"?!?! How petty, and how typical. I'm done here, anyway.
By Boehner's spokesperson's definition Paul Ryan never has had a plan. Bowles/Simpson is not a plan. In fact, there hasn't been any Republican plan.
Actually, by their definition, Paul Ryan does have a plan as it passed one chamber of Congress multiple times...the fact that it failed in the Senate also multiple times is where they play the blame game as well as the new definition of "plan".
By Boner's definition, the repubs don't have a plan since they can't get it through the senate. The republican plan only got 34 votes, the democratic plan got filibustered.
In an effort to stay grounded in the facts and the truths derived therein, Speaker Boehner's office threw anchor over the side of their spaceship Uranus! -Kevo
I bet it has some penile shaped rockets also .....
All hands Ahoy !
My favorite verbal jun-jitsu lefty euphemism is "tax expenditure". How many here understand that "tax expenditure" is any moneys Govt allows you to keep. As in...'your entire paycheck is a tax expenditure'.?
Sorry shooter; a tax expenditure is actually a subsidy others don't get. It's a specail deal for a favored few at the expense of the rest who have to pay for it. Tax expenditures drive up the rates the rest of us pay.
A "tax expenditure" is any deliberate distortion of the tax system to allow people to avoid paying their normal tax rate. If a straight calculation of income tax shows you owe $6,000, but it's reduced to $1,500 because of your mortgage (these numbers are purely hypothetical- I have no idea how big the deduction is), then that's a $4,500 tax expenditure. I'll admit the wording can be a bit deceptive, but it makes sense if you understand these deductions and loopholes are deliberately written in to encourage certain behaviors with the understanding that they will result in less revenue. So, yes, "tax expenditure" does make sense if you pay attention.
Re: #4
The tax rate is the percentage that everyone in a tax bracket (income range) pays.
A "tax expenditure" is the portion of the taxes that would have been collected that are not.
I own a home mortgage, so I get the "tax expenditure" that is calculated on how much of my income went to pay the interest on the mortgage.
Somewhere back in history, it was decided that home ownership was good for society, so the home mortgage interest "tax expenditure" was put in place to encourage this economic activity.
The discussion that we should be having is what "tax expenditures" can be justified and which should be stopped.
"Tax expenditures" that were put in place to support an new industry that wise people recognized as beneficial - to get it off the ground - should be stopped once the industry is profitable. Why are we still subsidizing the oil and gas industry? Makes NO SENSE.
Shooter's job is to shoot shiny objects into the air in an attempt to distract from the real topic. Shooter has no real defense of John Boehner so he tries to change the subject. We shouldn't follow his ploy.
shooter242
June 11, 2012 at 6:54 am
I’d like to encourage more trollery on left wing sites. Specifically pushback on common memes such as identified by Jonah Goldberg as unchallenged cliches. It can actually work, and it can actually change the course of debate.
For instance, I always challenge “the rich take too much of the pie” meme. There is no pie, no one decides who gets what, and the “pie” is a measure of contributions to a total. Ergo the rich don’t take they contribute. It’s been gratifyingly effective.
Try it you’ll like it. Don’t curse and keep the personal insults to a bare minimum, don’t allow moving goal posts or distractions. Ignore trollish responders, and be four times more civil. They hate that.
I don't come to this site often enough to be aware of Shooter's pathetic existence, but I must say I found the replies intelligent and insightful. In a twisted sense, I'm glad he posted, so that you guys could knock him out of the arena with your logic. It makes me feel good about my fellow countrypeople; perhaps there is hope.
So swerver, which part of that gives you difficulty, the pushback or being nice about it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CzteDucRHo
Huh?? I'm not buying the nonsensical. This isn't about "tax expenditures". It's about Boehner being a bald faced liar. Do you have trouble with that concept right wing trolls??
TOP,
Those on the right rejoice in bald-faced lies as long as those lies are Ideologically Sound/Theologically Correct.
This story is analogous to how left-wing blogs allow conservative trolls to participate, but we all know how right-wing blogs maintain the misinformation purity.
Bingo! Too many good wittle wibewals are more interested in maintaining their Personal Virtue than in accomplishing anything.
Why do you think the right wing nut trolls come here? It isn't for their "stated reasons" of showing "lurkers" a different point of view! That's just BS. No person who has ever used a computer or visited the web can believe that "lurkers" only know how to find one website and are "dependent" on the trolls to "set them straight".
Rather the trolls come here because it bothers them SO MUCH to see ANY opinion proffered which differs from their group-think "world view"! It's like an itch that always has to be scratched for them. If you don't think like the Borg, then they have to "get even" with you for that!! It's like they can't control themselves!
I think this belief comes from a fragility in their nature that makes them think that if they aren't part of a rigid group that tells them how to think and act, then their shallow little lives become meaningless. Sad! Independence and free thinking are actually GOOD things!!
My one retort to this is that left wing blogs don't always let conservatives participate. There is a quite a bit of name calling and shouting down even on this blog. Often people do respond and it results in a debate but there are those on this site who just name call and shout down certain posters.
However, that being said I agree that it seems to be a much bigger problem on the right wing (though that could be due to the thousand or so responses to a given article there compared to the 50-60 here).
The explanation is simple psychology. Most Conservatives defend their opinions as a matter of personal identity, rather than intellectual debate. They're far more interested in achieving the upper hand than they are in doing anything constructive, or actually serving for the greater good. For evidence on a national scale, there's the mess of the Bush administration.
Trolls, on the other hand... they're just small, sad little people who get their kicks from make-believe control issues. The fun thing to do with trolls is to push their buttons right back at them. But the worse possible thing you can do to a troll is to ignore them when they shoot their mouth off.
Couldn't help yourself Tiger?
Did you know that there are MANY Conservative blogs that won't allow liberals to participate? But then, liberals really DON'T believe everyone has to think like them, so I'm betting they don't waste their time on those blogs....
I suggest when you are looking at those thousands of blogs, try to find the ones where any coherent thought is involved. Would probably be just a few ....
what do you mean by "Couldn't help yourself?" I'm just cautioning against the mentality that liberal blogs/sites are inherently good and conservative sites are inherently bad. We accuse them of epistemic cloture lets not do the same on our end.
Concern troll alert!
When my son was in middle school, one of his favorite hobbies was to annoy his sister & watch her react. He grew up & got over it. Most trolls are still stuck in middle school. If you don't react, they don't have anything to amuse themselves with.
Exactly. Working in the lumber business I had several contractors who harassed the other woman that worked with me. I asked one why he did not do that to me and he said "because you don't react." Told him it would be a very cold day in He** before he ever saw a reaction out of me. I figured out real early that some people get their kicks from pushing your buttons, especially if you get all hissy over it.
I post often on Think Progress. The good thing about that is if someone responds to your post, you can go back and respond. Of course, most of the posters over there, so they may respond to your post, but its usually not in argument, but something funny or to add something to your comment. Not many arguments over there. But if one gets stated, its pretty bad.
I think of the trolls as I remember the stories about my grgrandfather. He was on the school board in this little town. And if the rest of the board wanted playground equipment (for example), they would all say that the one thing they didn't want to buy was playground equipment. And he was so obstinate that he always took the opposite in disagreement. Then they would allow him to scream and yell, and then they'd let him have his way and they'd all get the money for playground equipment and he thought he had won. Same thing. Some people just love an argument, just love being the opposite. I have no doubt if my gr grandfather were alive today, he'd be making a quarter a post online, while sitting in his mother's basement. LOL
"I figured out real early that some people get their kicks from pushing your buttons, especially if you get all hissy over it."
To quote Alfred the Butler to Bruce Wayne (referring to the Joker) "Some people just like to see the world burn"
Shooter is our Joker without the intellegence.
I used to try to debate and actually thought some folks wanted to debate. But there are those that simply want to put us in "our place" as if they were in charge. When someone points it out that they are trying to manipulate the board into arguing their point, they say something like they both do it, change the subject, or call someone a name of some kind.
Then when someone calls them out, for reacting in the same way, they don't get that's what's happening. There is some assertion that the rules must be according to them. The tactic is to answer with the same tone, but I usually just don't answer. They think they won, but it's more like an eye roll. I think many are more hurt from silence than arguing by typing whatever they think. OK, but we don't have to accept it and we don't have to answer some person who thinks they are going to straighten us out here with name calling and no facts to back the opinion. Just false equivalence or trying to get someone to say both parties suck, don't bother.
Being upset about Bush hiding out at the ranch was a little weak, but him leaving OBL and going to Iraq was a legit thing to do, while squandering the budget surplus handing out candy. But they try to say forget all that. Just look at the outrage over Obama going golfing and not offering them caviar and champagne and asking if they want a back rub, too. Well, they were invited several times before and kept swinging at him. They are always trying to set him (and by extention all of US) up.
It's like watching a prepubescent child making a fart noise under their armpit in class. It's not funny, but they got pleasure if only one person looks at them. Distraction. Not even funny, unless you're a prepubescent child. There are probably places where you can go, like at some Limpy or RW site, snivel about Obama, call names, and yell at liberals being the problem to be "eliminated". But really, you're not giving anybody much to to chew on there. Just get angry and tell people what to do. We have always disagreed about lots of things. Now O'Really has people on there, yelling at Coombs, nearly having a stroke on the air, calling them a liar. http://www.examiner.com/article/bill-o-reilly-goes-ballistic-after-getting-schooled-by-liberal-guest-alan-colmes
Great example you got there RW folks (trolls), solving the problem by yelling and distracting.
I just ignore most of it. If someone just wants to fart in the room, why bother? Just don't think you won if nobody responds. My ignore list is very, very long. Just like many posts of mine are way too long. Ha ha ha.
Hey, we had spending cuts, let's focus on jobs as the best solution first. How long have we been saying jobs, jobs, jobs? Then when there are road projects, they say cut cut cut. They prioritize cutting spending, when we should prioritize jobs/economy. Cutting too much will affect jobs and economy negatively. That is a fact. Also a fact, the loophole closing everyone seemed to want are supposedly 'off the table' now. They won't debate anything until the President concedes and bends. You guys, we elected him not to cut like crazy, but gradually close deficit, which has been happening, despite the ravings of the lunatics like O'Really. They do it by distracting us, taking power from the people, threatening and forcing cuts. They want to make the President and us fail, but Wall St. and Forbes' billionaires are doing fine.
Ay, ay, ay... I meant
Boehner: We have a "plan" and they don't. Well, sure, they've proposed a plan, but it isn't a Republican plan and I'm only counting Republican plans as "plans".
Boehner wants Democrats to at least vote on a plan so that Republicans can start writing their 2014 campaign ads attacking Democrats for voting to cut so many crucial social programs and entitlements.
Bonehead's "plan" is from the 112th Congress, and it no longer applies. But I am also disgusted by the media which may/may not challenge these idiots with the truth/facts/point out dates/rewind the video - and stop this charade that the GOTP is pulling...
Nothing aggravates me more than hearing Boehner or Cantor saying on TV, "if thePresident would show leadership and write up a bill. We elected him to lead. Why isn't he leading on this?" Um, Boehner, that's your job. In fact, I go to Boehner's facebook page once a day and post, "Speaker, do your job! "
Boehner's spokesman has turned into a verbal contortionist. How long did it take to come up with this nonsense?
LOL, if Boehner needs a non-traditional definition of the word "is", he should ask Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton's argument about the meaning of "is" was actually relevant and reasonable to establish the time frame being used in the question he was asked. Legal parsing? Of course - it was, after all, a legal case where clarification of meanings of words matter.
For John Boehner what matters is to deflect blame and advance his political career and agenda. Distortion of the meaning of words, not clarification of them, is what matters.
Plus wouldn't that mean that Boehners plan isn't a plan either. He knows his "plans" from last congress was never going to pass the Senate and get Obama's signature so by his new standards NO ONE has passed a plan.
Lots of pundits on TV harp on the way Congress is obstructing and filibustering. And we need to start pushing with the Speaker in both sides of Congress, "just put it out there for an up or down vote." Boehner will not allow a vote on something unless the Republicans have a clear majority .. He won't even offer it. just let them vote. If you get a bipartisan vote and a majority that's alll we want. Just put it up for a vote. Of course the Tea Partiers have taken over the GOP. But still. isn't their job to vote on a bill, a straight up or down vote.
How is it no one pointed out that if that's the Boner's new Humpty-Dumpty definition of the word "plan," a "plan" you passed in the last Congress and haven't dared put up for a vote this Congress because you don't have the votes for it isn't a "plan" either.
I mean seriously, this is the real story here. This "plan" he keeps bragging about having passed was passed by the last Congress. It will never come up for a vote in this Congress because the Teahadists have issued a fatwa against it and Boehner can't put it up to a vote without demonstrating that he's been reduced to an inconsequential strawman who's completely lost whatever minimal control of his caucus he once had.
Boehner, isn't about time for another " plan" repealing Obamacare or a "plan" to outlaw Sharia law , how about a Ryan budget "plan" again ...
remind me again what " plans" you passed since 2010
Don't forget another abortion bill or another contraception bill, or a bill to cut social security. lol We cannot win! SMH
The excuse for the teapubs lies have been, "I meant what I said, but I should have said it differently" is getting very, very old.
"A plan must demonstrate it has the ability to pass a chamber of Congress to be worth anything. We've twice passed a plan."
Boehner has obviously not passed two plans, since a plan is now something that can pass Congress.
You said "If Boehner told the truth, it would make Republicans look even worse...". I contend that not only would it make Republicans look bad, it would cause the ground to shake and the sky to darken. Boehner telling the truth is antithetical to his being. I do believe if Boehner tried to tell the truth his heart would surely explode from the stress.
It's enervating just looking at his sickly fake-tanned face; although he is showing signs of aging and exhaustion. My dad always told us growing up he would always know when we lie to him; You can see it in his expression.
But at least he isn't so orange anymore. So he has either switched to a better quality tan spray, or he slowed down on his drinking and his liver is better.
I'll never get used to this "new language" I listen to out of Washington. The Republican leaders seem to be the worst offenders now, but the Democrats can turn a twisted phrase when necessary.
Teacher! I'll just take an "F" and stick to speaking Southern!!
Aren't these the same people who had apoplexy when Bill Clinton asked what the meaning of is is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0
A plan is not a plan unless it is a teabaggers plan.
It's the senate's own damn fault for not getting rid of the filibuster or actually reforming it when they had the chance.
I think Reid didn't want to change it too much, because when the GOP gets a majority in the Senate (fingers crossed they won't), then the filibuster can come from the other side, and we will have another four years of partisanship, only the other side will be at blame. Obviously Reid realizes how much fun it can be to have that power. A minority in power. That's basically what it is.
The filibuster wasn't "reformed" because there weren't enough votes. There are 55 Senators, two of whom are Independents, in the Democratic caucus. There were only 47 or 48 votes to change the filibuster, so even had Sen. Reid voted to change the rules, there still would have only been 48 or 49 votes - not a majority.
That is not to say that, had Sen. Reid voted for change, one or more of those opposed might not have followed him, but I don't know. What I do know is that Sen. Reid has already used the "nuclear option" to change procedural rules during a session of Congress! He did so back in October of 2011, when he marched 51 members of his caucus out, out of a total of 52, and changed some rules McConnell had been abusing (shocking, that!). 51 out of 52 agreed with Sen. Reid, but only after McConnell had demonstrated his inability to abide by his (McConnell's) word.
I tend to think that's what happened in January of this year. Sen. Reid made another "gentleman's agreement" with McConnell and if McConnell, again, fails to live to his promise, then Sen. Reid will march his caucus out and change the rules. I also think that's where Sen. Merkley got the idea that there were enough votes for filibuster reform - those votes are there, but only if/when McConnell fails to keep to the agreement.
I give it another five or six months...
The gop, aka the "human stain" are only interested in inflicting another 4 years of misery for the average American. Why did the dems and President Obama agree to this sequester in the first place? It certainly will not affect the rich, it can only hurt the poor so it's a no brainer to block any movement to end it. They don't give a flip about the pentagon, they know damn well they'll get a series of budget resolutions to keep funding it. This is right up the gop alley here..
The Democrats believed that the sequester would cut programs so much that the Republicans would never go for it. And the Republicans believed that the Democrats would be screaming over the cuts to social programs. So both parties signed it believing that the other side would never put up with it, and would cave and sign a bill,, just to the GOP can save the military from cuts and the Dems could save social programs. Come to find out, this little game of chicken didn't work. The GOP is not happy about the cuts in military spending and the Dems aren't happy about the cuts. But this game of chicken is still going on.
Used to be a very common practice among both parties, also known as the "Ooh look at the shiny" strategy. However the current Government seems to have been put through a centrifuge and all the crazy has bled to one side. Not saying Dems don't lie, just saying the rate of lying cannot hope to compete with what the Republicans are managing. Dems are like sprinter liars, and Republicans are marathon liars.
Lesson is, we need to test Republicans for illegal steroid use.
Howard Dean said on TV about six months ago, "about 14% of the crazies are on the Democrat side. and the rest of them are on the right. " And all of the pundits on both sides laughed. And the GOP analysts know he's right.
How does Boehner keep that tan in the winter? How often does he play golf?
I think he got a better tan spray. either that, or his liver was acting up and he turned orange. lol.
I don't know why anyone is worrying about the sustainability of social security. Most Americans are so fat and out of shape, the average lifespan will be dropping not increasing. Young kids now have type two diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and other diseases that are part of the cluster of conditions listed under "metabolic syndrome". Last spring I went to a local salad bar that offered both "healthy" and "unhealthy" selections (you can eat small amounts of any food even if considered "unhealthy" and still be O.K.). Every person in my party loaded up their trays to the point that I thought that they were actually at the gym with a tray and a ten pound weight. Every person has complained to me about being "over-weight". I chose "healthy" selections and ate until I was not quite full. They ate so much that I really thought that their stomachs might explode on the spot. They could have chosen less of the really fattening selections and more of the greens and still eaten alot. If I had that little self control, I would never put myself in the position of going to an all you can eat restaurant. It's simple. Chose wisely and learn to put your fork down. If you want to eat alot, eat greens with a healthy dressing that you have measured out. When you go to the store, park at the far end of the lot. Take the stairs not the elevator. There are lots of ways to get more movement in your day. Only bring healthy food into your home if you have so little self discipline. The book "The Power of Habit" details how anyone can build new habits.
Lots of people eating at a buffet gorge on foods. Its like getting something for nothing. That's why I don't like to go to a buffet. Because I know I'm going to want my money's worth.
I actually have a reason that I am overweight. I have narcolepsy and when you do not sleep well, you have a glycogen storage problem. Plus wthout medication, I can sleep like Rip Van Winkle, and sleep 22 hours a day. Thank God for dexedrine (which is either not strong enough to keep me awake, or makes myhands shake). However, when I got on the proper medication for narcolepsy, I lost 75 pounds in one year. So when you see the info about heavier people not sleeping enough hours, they're right.
Is it time to change the title to Speaker of House Lies?
How about LIAR OF THE HOUSE ! Boehner will go down in the history of the United States of America as the WORST speaker off ALL TIME!!
So, a "plan" has to have the ability to pass one but not both houses of Congress? How about a plan has to be able to pass both and be signed by the President - then neither the GOP nor the Dems have a plan - which is actually closer to reality.
I've said it once i might as well say it a million times. Remove all the selfish greedy TERRORIST from office so our country can move on.
And to those that I speak of. This isn't the late 1900's. The public is more than aware of what's going on in politics today because mainstream media has technologically advanced to where anyone in any kind of public spotlight (celebs, politicians, law enforcement, etc.) is immediately exposed to not only us here at home, but the entire world now.
We don't care how you want to use whatever legal loopholes you fabricate up to disguise it. Your holding our economy and namesake of our country hostage to line you're own pockets. Maybe if you would have done your research on modern times and modern people, you wouldn't have blown so much of everyone else's money on the last major election that you people lost back in November.
If it's any consultation though, We all felt very sorry for you after your performances on camera. But that's still no reason, or excuse to replace lost money with my tax dollars and government employee pay checks.
Realistically,
A former Republican vote.
The public is more than aware of what's going on in politics today
You are being VERY generous. With the exception of the small minority of folks that really do stay engaged in politics/government (like here) most people are much more focused on who will win American Idol or what celebrity is in rehab this week. The technology is more advanced to be sure, which only means there are more avenues to broadcast/disseminate a lot more crap (like a TON of reality shows and graphic cop shows).
He should be fired.
How does the ordinary citizen tell the difference between the wheat and the chaff? How do we try to make it real? Compared to what?
Read more at
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2012/10/distinguishing-wheat-from-chaff.html