It's dangerous to make too much out of a three way special election, but it certainly seems like the GOP has lost a solid red district NY-26 due to the support of Medicare phase out. I bet there are a lot of panicky House members tomorrow.

When I'm making the point that any one (i.e. both you and the original poster) making it a partisan issue is totally missing the point, it doesn't matter. You and the original poster are both blinded by partisan politics. It's worthless and solves nothing. The time where politicians can make those arguments and get away with it is quickly drawing to a close.

Give me a break.

Of all people to claim to be free of partisanship.

He's an independent! Remember!

Some people realize the flaws in their argument and admit they might have previously been wrong. Some flog the same dead horse. Keep flogging that horse.

And some people are honest enough to admit to their leanings.

my thoughts on the special election:

It doesn't PROVE anything. There are several things that make it easier to decide this is not a bellweather event. (Tea Party Candidate, special election, Democrats have way more Senate seats "in play" then the Republicans in 2012)..

But just like the Scott Brown election here in MA, I think it's quite possibly an "uh-oh, we overreached" moment for the R's, and I think it could cost them next November (the fact that they keep doubling down on their plan that the public doesn't want doesn't help.. reminds me of that infamous Blackjack thread)

Recently, one Top Republican said "We have a message problem with the Ryan budget". It's my (possibly biased) opintion they do have a message problem. And that message is from the public "No, we don't want that"

Nate Silver notes that the Tea Party candidate had run as a Democrat recently and those that voted for him preferred the R by only a 2 to 1 margin. There was also a Green party candidate that grabbed another 1%. In a two way race, she would've likely cleared 51% in an R+6 district.

I cannot disagree. Wonder what is Musharraf's game ... doesn't he need us for asylum when 2 or 3 presidents down they go after thim?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapc...x.html?npt=NP1

A good sign I guess. Wonder what else they found.

Open Channel - CIA team searches bin Laden compound

I'm good with this, has there really been abuse of this recently?

Obama approves extension of expiring Patriot Act provisions - CNN.com

Wasn't it Musharraf that agreed to the US doing a unilateral raid if used against Bin Laden?

President Obama is validating quite a bit of the foreign policy/national defense work done by the Bush admin. This will reflect kindly from a historical standpoint, I suspect for both presidents.

He denied it when it first came out.

I think there's a lot of that with him - support and assist the U.S. privately, deny it and criticize them publically.

It's hard to imagine the U.S. would be so "whatever" about this if they had found Osama hiding in Syria or something next to a military compound.

I agree. He seems hellbent on revising history to make it seem like the U.S. did all these things without his permission when it was clear at the time that he didn't mind. Probably trying to save face with the Pakistani community.

And I sure don't see him turning down foreign aid from the U.S.

Wall Street’s Getting Nervous About a Default | FrumForum

They keep pushing the meme that it wouldn't be such a bad thing if we default.

Actually, I’m beginning to think this is a Machiavellian bit of strategy by the GOP.

Now, before you look at me like I’m suddenly spouting gibberish, or quoting the holy writ of the Tea Party, think of it this way…

There is one key issue in the 2012 election. Both sides agree, and that’s the economy. If the economy has recovered significantly by November 2012, Obama is pretty much unbeatable.

This is a bit of maneuvering specifically designed to slow down the recovery.. make Obama run “against the wind” instead of “with the wind”.
‘
They’ll stall, pontificate and threaten for every last moment of time, and hope that investors panic and send Wall Street into a fairly big drop (not enough to wipe out fortunes, but enough to take the wind out of the sails of the economic recovery). Suddenly hiring slows, large purchases and luxury items slow down.. at the last moment they sign a deal that has a little red meat they can sell to the Tea Party..

I know, it sounds ridiculous, and on the verge of “We can’t win in the current environment, so we’re going to change the environment even if it hurts the nation”.. but it could work. Stories like this are a sign of it.

For all the stock investors on the board, what are you predicting for the stock market and how would yo mitigate the effects?

Well, I'm not exactly Cramer from Mad Money, but.. here's the difference between a default (which basically sinks the US Economy, and basically sends the Stock Market into a crash) and the possible scares that we're running into

If I think there's going to be a default my thoughts are that I need to get money out of things that are volatile (like Stocks).

If I don't think there's going to be a default but I think they're going to scare Wall Street up until the last moment? Well, I may want to review my portfolio to see the level of risk I'm exposed to if there's a few "bad days" (and by bad days I mean multiple hundred point drops on the NYSE as we lead up to the "Drop dead date"), but that's always a good idea to be risk-aware).. but generally I think, unless the default happens, (or something similarly epic to wreck the economy), that the recovery will continue, albeit slower then it possibly could be.

(Obligatory disclaimer: I am not a licensed financial broker, and this is not financial advice, just as a CYA) :D

I wish the Dems were trying to educate the public on what the GOP is risking. If we get to the end of June without a deal things could get ugly quickly and it will all be caused gleefully by the GOP.

And if they "Educate the public" and cause the very panic they're trying to prevent?

I guess that's a risk, but something needs to happen to keep the GOP from driving the economy over the cliff.

They're wagering too, that the GOP is sane and won't actually cause a default.

And I assume any political bet made by the Dems is a loser.

I've heard a couple different things. One friend who is a Futures trader says things will be really bad. Will fall to 2008 levels and we'll see a trickle effect across the board for decades as our rating drops and we'll have to pay higher interest rates. The big fear being that we'll be dropped as the reserve currency of the world.

Still he didn't seem that worried and felt there were enough smart people around to avoid it from happening.

I still don't get how this would be a benefit for the GOP. There would be a pretty clear cause and effect between not raising the ceiling and the economy tanking again. You would see an immediate drop in the markets, perhaps a run on some banks/investments, and it would be all over the news. I think it would be political suicide. Which is why I think this is all just talk to appease a percent of the base that doesn't understand how any of this works.

It's not pushing over the edge, it's sowing FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) and pousing it to get every concession they can. Yes, it has backlash, bu I doubt they truly want a default.

Presidents vs Congress, I think we get the same story with every president regardless of party. For the Republicans on the board - is this really a big deal to you or just politics?

Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission - Washington Times

But my personal (right-wing) take on Libya is two-fold.

1.) I'm glad we support the effort to oust Ghaddafi, the age of Kings in the middle east is ending, so I support President Obama's willingess to support the "winning" side. While we may ultimately be supporting new regional caliphates to be set up in the old dictator's place, if that's the will of the people, than you can either support it or generate even more conflict with it. And with Libya being an oil producer, we need to pay attention to it, right? We've all basically agreed in principal that supporting our economy is the right reason to interdict...screw oiless Darfur and all that, right? At least, I haven't heard a peep about Darfur since Bush was in office...so I think we are all working from the same page. And I'll bet Republican's don't fault President Obama for moving in the right direction here.

2.) My problem is with the plan and on that basis, I agree with the congressional rebuff. A rebellion erupts in an oil rich state, we drop no-fly zones and wait. Eventually popular opinion turns against us and we fail to produce results or an exit strategy, global terror groups grow exponentially using our ineffective "policing" as a recruiting tool, and we have to put an end to the situation with a big "shock and awe" bang. Sound familiar? This happened in 1991 with the Shia and Kurd uprisings in Iraq. So far, the facts are that we just busted out that same gameplan to use with the Libyan uprisings. And the problem with the last presidency was "How is Bush, an ex-baseball club owner supposed to know how to act unilaterally?" And the current problem is "How is President Obama, experienced only as a small-time state senator, supposed to know how to act unilaterally?" Perhaps the will of the American people is such that we want more "buy-in" from Congress, particularly following the vastly unpopular executive powers implemented by President Bush just a few years ago?

I'll let you decide if what congress is saying is simply gamey or not...but what would you do if you were congress? Would you question Obama? Would you have questioned Bush? Or would you have wanted both of them to provide more answers and ask for more permission?

Congress is constitutionally mandated to declare war. It would be nice if they got involved.

To me this is business as usual - Congress always gripes about not getting notified when they don't support a war, and ignores notification requirements when they do.

Agreed, there certainly is a lot of business-as-usual crap going on, I just disagree heavily with the notion that this is somehow a new Republican-centric problem and the Democrat's are simply rising above it (at least the last few posts in this thread are certainly entertaining the notion).

That's certainly not what I'm saying. Congress long ago decided it was easier to let the President declare war so that they were free of responsibility and free to criticize without having to face repercussions.

Arab Spring still around. Looks like its only a matter of time (and NATO's will) that Gadhafi is a goner. Demonstrations still seem to be going strong in Syria, pretty interesting to see what plays out there. Yemen is coming to a conclusion/bloody climax now that Saleh has left the country. Let's hope Iran is next.

Power grab feared in absence of Yemen leader - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

I don't really know if we should be support Yemen's anti-government forces, they may be the same forces we are trying to take out.

Why we should care about Yemen - CNN.com

Sadly, I don't disagree. In addition to controlling the budget, I think the keys to the future are education and much increased immigration of the educated (which also acts as a brain drain for source country).

I've always wondered why we don't make immigration much easier for anyone getting higher education - PhD, Masters for sure. Its not as if they will be on welfare.

Decline and fall of the American empire | Business | The Guardian

Disagree with the point that porn=cultural decadence, but other than that there's nothing surprising in that article. We've long been in the "declining empire" phase (like Rome c. 200AD). Well not long, but...for the past say 15 years or so.

(My hypothesis) ... which coincides with the rise of the internet and offshoring of IT and services (and porn), allowing other countries to catch up much quicker.

D-Day was really all about ending Medicare?


Suck on that, Hitler!

I don't get why Obama doesn't get stronger on his support for what's happening in Syria. Its not as if Syria has nukes or is helping us in that part of the world. Is it primarily he doesn't want Syria to pull Israel into some sort of confrontation? This is probably the strongest opportunity to get rid of him and get rid of an Iranian ally.

Too delicate and inconsistent posturing right now. I think GWB would be much different.

Residents: Mutiny led to Syria security 'massacre' - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

I'm torn between staying and going but tend towards pullout. There will always be one reason or another to stay ... fairly stable, they have problems they need to work out amongst themselves now.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7584A020110609

President Obama would have more credibility if he had emphasized this two years ago instead of wasting political capital on some of the dubious legislation that he was pushing (health, climate, energy and Recovery).

Obama jobs council meets again - Jun. 13, 2011

BTW...Jeff Immelt is a f'n idiot. Train people for manufacturing jobs? As if qualifications are the problem there? If you formally train people, you are increasing their salary requirements (if they pay for it). If they do not pay for it...you are increasing the debt in order to train people to do jobs that can by in large be OJT & absorbed into the cost of the product(s) being manufactured (not to mention...using the government to hedge that bet...stupid).

Now, it isn't lost on me that he is talking about more complicated manufacturing than simply clipping refrigerator panels together...but first & foremost...we need a demand for it or else you might as well pay people to dig holes & fill them back in.

Despite my usually stance on government intervention...I firmly believe that world governments and the US money supply in particular is the only way to "correct" our economic issues at this point. Unfortunately...that requires inflation with the high likelihood of stagnant wages for an extended period imho. This is how we will all "feel" the debt burden. Purchasing power will decrease & people will need to make better choices. So long as there is public awareness of what this means...I see it being more manageable than we might usually believe of people.

Coinciding with this inflation, we'll likely need to do some things like roll back the Bush(now Bush/Obama) tax cuts as well as trim more fat from the budget and allow states to finance more social safety nets rather than an out of control & bloated central government which cannot be trusted AND cannot be easily corrected when oligarchy runs rampant (not that any level of government can be trusted..but local can be dealt with more expeditiously & does not destroy the entire country).

I've said it before a million times...but we are not going to solve our debt & economic problems without addressing energy independence. I'll spare everybody that speech but it is the first item on the checklist...and if we (the U.S.) addresses it boldly, other nations will follow. This will give us another 20 years of relative economic stability in the world while we figure out how to address the next economic disaster that will pop up at that time.

It won't happen with this Congress, but I'm a fan of a 3/1/1 plan. Over a decade cut three trillion in spending, spend one trillion on infrastructure/energy, and raise taxes by a trillion.

You're right that we're suffering a demand crisis and cutting trillions to quickly may only worsen the deficit. That's exactly what's happening in England.

I presume this is sarcasm??

I agree making cuts indiscriminately will cause unnecessary fallout. I think the key here is that you have to evaluate where to make those cuts, and even if you make cuts to services that we all might deem "necessary", that doesn't preclude a state from running a (hopefully) more efficient & targeted social safety net in its place. The difference here being that the state will need to balance this against the (presumably) new expendable household income due to the fed level cuts for such services.

Where I think everything gets lost is when we start talking about how to solve the "jobs" problem. Too many people in authority seem to believe that "a job is a job is a job"...and it simply isn't true. Building bridges & roads & railways, while certainly needed & worthwhile generally speaking, are not productive multipliers as they simply take money from 1 area (taxpayers) and use it to pay others (government contractors). They may end up being net-neutral (ideally...though not practically), but they haven't solved anything related to debt or essentially...the shortfall between export/import.

The multiplicative effect of making energy a net positive (or at least neutral) for the US is a good use of debt (and ultimately, quantitative easing so long as the dollar is the reserve currency). It not only cuts into the import/export deficit...which also helps to strengthen the dollar & offset the inflationary purchase power reduction; but it also reduces our need to engage in military operations around the world in the interests of stabilizing oil-producing regions...which reduces our debt as well.

So rather than fight over oil (and spend trillions doing so in the coming decades)...we spend that (monopoly) money on energy independence which the world will also strive for (if for no other reason but national security interest). But the world will not wait on us forever. Which is why I see the time to do such an initiative as being...oh, a few years back but at this points...ASAP.

I think we have to have both. Our infrastructure is crumbling and in many areas it's in desperate need of repair. There is a multiplier with infrastructure spending, too. The companies/people paid to do that work spend the money on other goods and services. I don't know the exact percentage of multiplier, but it isn't accurate to think a dollar of government infrastructure spending sees no multiplier. And that doesn't even get into the effect of quicker and smoother delivery of goods and services.

I'd also like to see a major push to repair schools and clean parks. There's just a hell of a lot of deferred maintainence out there that can get people working quickly. It won't fix unemployment, and most of the jobs should be temporary, but it will get money flowing and fix things that need fixing.

I'd like to put a lot of low skilled people to work doing that kind of stuff soon as well as build a more killed industry to keep people working long term.

Of course none of this will happen because no one in D.C. seems to give a shit about unemployment.

Didn't you just describe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...t_Act_of_2009?

I don't disagree with any of that...but I put those in the same perspective I put Health Care reform into. You have to solve the issue of excess outsourcing 1st & foremost...namely energy...before you will have the funds to do any of the other stuff effectively. Not that we don't do any conventional infrastructure spending short term, but it has to be more truly urgent-need type of stuff so that you can fund the things which will ultimately save us hundreds of billions a year. Once we're on that track...funding for conventional infrastructure will become more self-evident.

If only. There was too little direct work and too much in non-stimulative tax breaks. It was better than nothing, but it really didn't put enough people to work.

edit: Just to be clear, this was in reply to LS.

If you mean me? You are definitely mistaken. "Stimulus" should have been called an "Aid" package as it was primarily unemployment bene's, state funding shortfall aid, tax cuts, and "shovel-ready" (whatever that means) projects which have no strategic benefit to them long-term. The simple passage of "Stimulus" & the Health Care bill all but assured we would not be willing to do something so massive ever again...no matter who is controlling the House or Senate.

What I am talking about is a once in a generation initiative to make the US completely energy independent. That cost will make the Stimulus look like a waiter's tip. Which is why we will not have the funds for the more conventional infrastructure projects right away imo. It has strategic value to it, however, as we gradually reduce the outflow of funds (to pay for oil) and reduce our need to deploy militarily over foreign oil interests & stability.

I think we need to put people to work ASAP. We're @500 billion in tax losses due to the recession. Or to put another way, we lose each year more than was spent on stimulus in 2009. A critical component of any deficient reduction is getting people back to work to start making up the lost tax revenue.