Ya, worthless pieces of shit or not, I find this rhetoric very surprising and very promising. There might be a chance for some big debt reduction bill after all.

Oh don't get me wrong. I'm happy to see it happen. But just because he came to the obvious conclusion that we need to increase revenues doesn't overcome the disgusting attacks he used against Max Cleland.

Not too keen on the mortgage deduction part of that statement. But not surprised that something like that would go rather than something affecting the $250k+ crowd (not that that won't, but it'll get me too).

I have no problem in eliminating the mortgage deduction part of the statement. (Simpson-Boyles plan pushed this, as well). The $200,000/$250,000+ crowd will be already tax more thanks to Obamacare, (3.8% additional tax on investment income, 0.9& income on ordinary income for all earners that are in the $200,000/$250,000 (married) and up bracket.

He is calling for a 30% flat tax on income $1 mil to $10 mil, and 35% over that. He mocks the idea that investors will run hide their money if they have to pay more taxes.

As he rightly should. Anyone who would decide to do that based solely (note my use of solely) on US tax laws is a poor investor.

Buffett probably doesn't want his "terrific investment idea" after all, then.

Saxby, Graham, McCain ... and Corker, King ...

Interesting that the below article did not name McCain (may have been premature).

The GOP’s ‘Read my lips’ moment

I think the question isn't about "investment", but selling the investments.

Obama playing a dangerous game to see how much he can get. Let's get it done soon.

Will President Obama push us over the cliff? - CNN.com

Interesting insight, I didn't think about the below.
First Thoughts: A laughing matter? - First Read

Obama is receiving a lot of negative feedback towards his plan to send astronauts to an asteroid........

Expert panel: NASA seems lost in space, needs goal - Yahoo! News

That's really going to hurt his chances for a 3rd term. ;)

I'm sure there's a rationale for it but why don't we send someone to Mars now instead of an asteroid. I bet there are some astronauts that would be willing to take the risk.

It'll be interesting to see what Obama (or NATO or UN) does if the line does get crossed. My guess is increased and public support for rebels.

Syria loads chemical weapons into bombs; military awaits Assad's order - World News

Interesting.

DeMint leaving Senate to head Heritage Foundation | Fox News

wow that is a surprise, but as a South Carolinian, very happy to see him leave the Senate.

I'd imagine a lot more money and a lot less bullshit is pretty appealing for a guy that won't ever be the GOP leader in the Senate.

Arab spring not done ... another one of those who/what will take over when its done.

Syria's endgame in sight as rebels advance - CNN.com

I thought the plan was to mine the asteroids for water/fuel? It makes so much sense

Great job Obama.

(But lets not forget it was GWB that started the drone strikes in Pakistan and he should be given kudo's for that).

Which made me think there wasn't much during the Presidential debates about Pakistan and it's not been in the news much. Wonder what's the strategy from the WH.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news...cials-say?lite

I get you can't run for a third term but this is not good.

Anti-American rap won't keep PSY from performing for president - NBC News Entertainment

Now we're not even proclaiming to have killed AQ #2. It's potential #2 now.

Well, duh. It's always been AQ's #3. Because everyone knows who #1 and #2 are, you can claim pretty much any AQ middle manager is #3 so we've killed AQ's #3 like 50 times.

SI

Yawn. It's really boring and silly.

SI

I wonder if the guys always ask themselves why there is always a listing for that position on jihad.indeed.com.

"No experience needed!"

Must be tough working conditions or something.

"Pays better than nothing, so sounds good!"

SI

What a stupid bitch. Is she and others like her so afraid of any cuts that they can only think of adding more spending or to play stupid games counting non-cuts as cuts?

Nice misognyistic lead-in to your post there. Overcompensating a little much methinks?

Yeah. It's just that I really didn't have a problem with much of anything in the CNN article until I read that part. Do you think that's really stupid?

That's similar to the Obama statement fairly recently where he wanted to increase taxes first, and THEN they'd start the real negotiations to determine how much (more) to raise taxes and how much to cut spending.

It makes them seem like used car salesman, but I guess they're learning, for the first time here in 2012, how to try to get things done in Washington. You have to be a car salesman and you have to be disingenuous.

So what term would be better? Dick? Prick? Bastard?

I guess jackass could work, that's not really gendered. Dumbfuck, maybe,

How about an actual argument against the politics instead of an ad hominem opening? It was completely unnecessary and pointless.

I am disappointed with Obama on this. I wonder if he really believes this or just political payback/pandering.

Obama blasts 'right to work' in Michigan, presses 'fiscal cliff' - latimes.com

Pot. Kettle.

you called the House Minority leader a stupid bitch Bucc. What the hell is wrong with you?

All I have to say is, Pelosi is one of several members of Congress/Senate that have wayyyyyy over stayed their welcome.

Am I the only one that has ever called a politician a derogatory name?? What did some of you call the previous president/vice president/cabinet members? Or how many called Hillary a bitch when she was running against Obama?

But congrats on deflecting away from her...comments.

Bucc has spent so much of his time here pointing out the hypocrisy of posters for criticizing the other side when they do the same thing that it's so deliciously ironic to see him deflect criticism from his name calling of Pelosi by saying others do it, too.

Pretty much. Bucc is the political version of the asshat type of atheist.

Really? Go back and find a post where I used the "b" word on Palin. Did I call her stupid? Sure...but I never resorted to a misognystic ad hominem.

It was inappropriate, sorry. Should've just stuck with stupid.

Agreed and I say that as a hard left liberal.

I thought Luke Russert's question to her a few weeks ago about leadership positions was spot on.

I think the GOP is doing a very poor job in the PR campaign on this. They need to frame the discussion harder and better publicly and insert more pressure on Obama and the Dems.


She is out of touch, power hungry and frankly, corrupt. When she mentioned that they needed to pass the ObamaCare bill first to see what's in it, that should of been the end of her.

What was his question and her response?



Isn't he just playing politics as well? Kind of the pot calling the kettle black.

He, and union members, are missing the big economic future picture. Which is sad, and why we need forward, innovative leaders, not the standard, stupid, and greedy political leaders.

It's kind of sad to see some of the liberals defend the behavior of some of the protestors yesterday. Absolutely disgusting, and it makes me hate the unions even more.

I find it's way too convenient to be able to claim to represent the traditional
Democratic principles when your husband is extremely wealthy. You can easily sell reform while at the same time not jeopardizing anything that will personally affect you on a dramatic level. In many ways the ultra-rich/ultra left is the worst convergence of policies. Claim to represent the best interests of the little people while at the same time being personally gluttonous with the distribution of public funds.

But in our system you can't win without being wealthy. Wouldn't that just eliminate any policies that don't benefit the rich?

Right to work laws lead to workers pay dropping by an average of $1,500/year through weakening the union's ability to look out for workers because they enable free-riding on the union's work by people who don't pay dues.

Aren't Republicans adamantly against free-riding? Didn't we just go through an election cycle where that was proudly proclaimed by all Republican candidates? So suddenly free-riding is okay if it weakens unions and thus workers (the little guy)?

That's some serious hypocrisy.

My point is the standard union-type job are going to become more and more obsolete over time. Not due to right-to-work laws or even outsourcing, but due to technology. Robotic machinery is getting more sophisticated each year, computer software and programming is pushing the limits, mobile technology is here and only going to grow, and education and medicine are going to start feeling the technological revolution. The current union manufacturing, and perhaps in the education and health care, jobs are going to be replaced by highly-skilled, highly technology talent who can manage and engineer these technological programs.

Free-riding? The argument is against being forced to join an union, and to pay dues to have a job, not necessarily against forming unions. Aren't a lot of state and local governments facing a lot of financial squeezes due to the costs from their union deals? The Big 3 has been getting beaten by the foreign automakers who aren't saddle with incredibly high expensive labor costs (GM has said that health care costs add $1,400 to each car it makes alone). Why are Democrats for freedom and pro-choice, but not when it comes to the freedoms of workers?

Why do corporations force employees to have a dress code? How is joining a union as a condition of employment different? It is simply another condition of joining a particular job that potential employees have to decide whether or not they can live with.

I can see that, but also how it's a tough pill to swallow if you don't agree with the organization you're being forced to join. How would people feel if they had to join the Republican party and pay dues to support them for example, just to take a job at a factory worker or teacher or something? Maybe they'd just say, "to hell with the job", but I bet a lot of them would think it was unfair too. I know there's been cases of employers trying to subtly influence employees' voting, and people go apeshit over that.