Laughter is the Best Medicine?

This is not just a google of the day. It is about a search for meaning. It is not about two sides* agreeing so they must be right or the answer being in the middle of two extremes, but it is about what works maybe not being even on that line or plane. I take as a model, the constitution and its three branches, the legislative, the executive and the judicial, but what of they be, in the of, by and for? Well that would be from another speech but there is the preamble, not to mention the declaration. The point is that if two perspectives agree it does not make their agreement correct, there may be another perspective that gets them off the dime of the teeter totter. Not to mention if three agree it will get us anywhere, let alone progress or good. The recent UN action on Libya is a prime example of progress, not on the agreement that it receives in popular opinion, but that it is a change in the process. It is not a final solution, but it is an international community effort of which, we have only just begun to talk.

*on disagreement with involvment in Libya

[I take the stand that the President is within the spirit of the law until the law is respelled.]

[But myth** of the day? And based on two links back, this site is not necessarily a myth buster but maybe some reactions will.]

** links that follow are not exactly copacetic or flowing naturally, but I will point to the foundations of myth in this faux debunker. His arguments are too based on the myths that may be the subject of this piece. "Myth(one): Social Security didn’t create the deficit and shouldn’t be cut to fix it". Half true, and the other half not the only solution. Anything further may be besides the point. From Myth Two: "As long as voters consider(...), they will be." Well, duh. Fill in the blank. This guy is, in my mind,(using his own words)"... Exhibit A in why it is so hard to fix them." In some ways he misses his own myth or actual truth: "In other words, the myth misses the point. Whether Social Security continues to pay benefits at today’s rates isn’t a question of credit quality. It’s a question of politics and priorities." And his most destructive myth: "Which brings us to what may be the most destructive myth of all: The idea that Social Security is, fiscally speaking, an end in itself." And the height of I Ron Knee: "The discussion we need to have, then, isn’t simply whether we can pull the levers to bring Social Security into balance. That is easy." This might be Exibit B of mything with myths.

Out Foxed?

Obtuseness Redux.
Why does Social Security Need 174,000 bullets?
Dems open convention playing defense of Obama.
Get the lede out?

Not to bury any ironies or unintended puns...
The first two links are referenced in the next two lines.
The third line and two links are in regard to the heading, and to the sources.
The "Obtuseness Redux" were from Comcast/AP. 
But I first went local then tan gent or BaneOr BainOr... 
the punchline has to do with they nature of Infowars(the site), a bit more journalistic and fair and balanced than FOX, not that they do not require very careful reads.   The four links seem to represent a sort of unsorting and GPS un-crossroads dynamic. And for my part, the first aspect has to do with the irony of any whining about Social Security having an Inspector General division that hunts down fraud, in this age of second amendment fruit salad or T-parties. And for the sake of any intelligence briefs or geeks, "lede" is a journalistic term not a bullet point.  The last two links are a good un-cross Rhodes* of the left.  Not quite Tin-Foil Hats, not quite Coffee Party, but maybe close enough. (4 hard work?)

* not exactly
** ibid?
(See Labels, but I note here the original four:
DNC Convention, Infowars, Seattle PI, Social Security
(I know, [...] there is a local irony...)

[and global...]***

*** Re-verse asterisk of sorts. Emphasis on not read yet and irony. Heavy on the latter.
[For Rob Sake!]
[M-bed-ed?  Actually...]

Social / Security / Justice

Miscellaneous Comments/Links:

Bush letting Gonzalez go, to the hill or hilt.

Ex-aide to Gonzalez speaks: motivation "mis-handled" Sampson and DeLay ya?

Brownback "Savings" Social Security and running on Bush or staying the course.

Romney Running Lists

Please note that my comments are based on incomplete reads of most of this material. The Brownback/Social Security piece I did completely read and it needs more research anyway. The Romney piece includes an MSNBC bipartisan list of candidates.

[Update- 8:45 AM: I was orginally heading for Sampson & Duh Lie Ya, but seriously...
The Romney piece includes potential for my being half "Right", but I don't know if Romney is Fristian.]

Speaking of Ge Oh Me Try

or plane (and not so plane) English...
here is a base of hope, a try angle of diplomacy(Robert Naiman)[UPDATE]:

The New York Times reported yesterday that the US says it does not want to call for Mubarak to step down because 1) it fears losing all leverage with Mubarak 2) it fears creating a power vacuum in Egypt 3) it wants to avoid the perception that the US was "once again" engineering the ouster of a Middle East leader.
Regardless of whether one believes that these stated reasons are the full story, or whether they are also a cover for other US motivations - the Times acknowledges that the administration's "restraint" is also driven by lack of enthusiasm for "dealing with an Egypt without Mubarak" - these are the stated reasons of the US for not responding to the protesters' call.
But publicly and privately backing the opposition parties' call for negotiations would not, on the face of it, trigger any of the stated US objections. It is a very modest demand, totally consistent with previous US statements, which would not plausibly lead to "losing all leverage" with Mubarak; it would not create a "power vacuum"; it would not reasonably lead to a perception that the US was
"engineering" Mubarak's ouster. On the contrary: the US would be raising the profile of a particular proposal for negotiations as a way out of the crisis, and increasing pressure on the Egyptian government to respond to it.

Hope may not be too strong a word for what is not really a base, but a path. The point is that diplomacy must recognize the points and the angles to be effective.

Speaking of angles:

YES! Do not pick on Social Security as part of the debt picture, shore it up. In fact, lowering the retirement age, increasing the cap for contributions, catching it up with inflation would actually improve the debt picture, by impacting federal receipts. (not from Social Security but in income tax on the improved income.) Thank Senator Reid

I may need to take another angle on my comment: Big picture, poor segue, right note. My social security tangent is less than clear in economic or accounting terms, but the issue of State budgets, and the impact of unfunded retirement and health plans is a similar complex of factors that angle back to the nature of our frackin' troubles.

[Footnote * on embedded nature.]

* not (...embedded that is.)

Obama Economy Town Hall

Defending His Record on Economy, Jobs(CNBC)*
Republicans Cry Class Warfare...(The Progressive)
&...Balk @ Obama(...)Proposals they Backed(Bloomberg)

*(see update)Business leader's perspective favors Obama (video approx. 28:00 to 35:30)
[Duoh, stubbed my TOW, (37:00 in) 38:50 infra-structure %GDP]
[Re: social security - it might be only a technical difference but Social Security is a separate issue in the debt picture. While some elements of the discussion/solutions are similar, it may be difficult to discuss simultaneously.]
[Re: Tea Party 40:00 to 44:22 or so, then constitution & commerce clause]
*UPDATE 9-23-10 Top link is good compendium for Obama Town Hall Video as is original asterisk

Almost makes me want to tweet.

The Tweet
The lede?

Well truthout.org headed an email as:
The Model is the Message.
Everything is on the table.
That is what Obama has frequently said, so get to the table.
By Jove!
[10-20-11: Actually there are some things that are off the table for everyone, but they are not always the same things or the same people. Like violence and social security as just examples. A crowd is not always able to control the violence of individuals let alone individual authorities. And taking social security off the table would mean that it doesn't get the help it needs. Everything getting on the table does not mean that it gets off the table, but people had better be with it.]

Six-edged Rhetoric.

Not just to continue a theme,(a likely coincidence)
but it involves the dynamics of progress,
and I don't mean the apparently belated addition(see scrollover v. lede).

Six Things Everybody Knows About Deficits ...
That Are Completely Untrue
Which I rephrase as truths:

1.) Current and future spending are not the problem with the defecit, except for paying for our history.

2.) Social Security is not a big deal to fix(separately), but could be impacted by the budget and other decisions.

3.) Austerity and investment are different stories, that both have an impact on the budget and winning the future as well as the now.

4.) Concessions should not be trickle down but incentives should be target up.

5.) Wall Street is not fixed enough to be that big or permanent a part of the solution.

6.) Social Security is not on the same budget table as Medicare and Medicaid and calling them "entitlements" is misleading, and means testing or tax changes [*] could address their impact on our economy.


Note: Said Relief and labels/associations Slash Segue...
criss-cross aside of more Williams
William Harvey
William of Occom

[*] This is not the link but Norman Goldman did refer to LEX of the FT about relative tax rates(or revenues/GDP)(nor is this it, but... )

Republicans Cuts and Runs

"Distract and Conquer" (Maddow's links) but Ed's Heading!
Not to mention skirting issues.*

*scroll up
(i.e. links from bottom up)
9 The Ed Show: Dissecting the details of "Romney-care".
8 ibid.: Ann Romney talks tax returns.
7 TLR: b.s. (or more mention) skirts
6 TLR: b.s. WOE
5 The Ed Show: They're literally running to their mommies.
4 Lean Forward: Dean on Soviet Propaganda
(ibid.: Really / Running to Mommies )
3 The Ed Show: Distract and Conquer
3b ibid.: The Great Medicare LIE
2 Rachel Maddow: Romney takes on Ryan Social Security baggage
1 ibid.:  Americans not eager to gamble on Social Security, Medicare privatization   

[ Butt Heading Re: Fuse shUn ]

[8-17-12 Not to pun on Trilogies or Tetrahedronogies, but there is some ironic order ! ]
.

Obama Leaks

Some might say he reeks,
but I say that there is more to the issue than liquids or gases.
Pump out the rhyme. This is just a leed into two points which I cannot tell where they came from.
1. the debt does not matter
2. social security does not matter to the debt
3. GE I did not know I was going to stick with the meta4, but of course both matter. And the underlying points I want to make, which I cannot source particularly is that the President's plan when accepted will establish one and two. In other words, the kind of debt matters(tax cuts v. investments) and an opening of the "lock box" that makes congress accountable for social security regardless of debt. Neither are easy to say, leak of the leeds** or reek of the leads, but taxes do matter to everyone, but so do budget calculations and the big picture whether you are a person, corporation, state or fed/global.

[And please note that I have not really made much of the Wikileaks controversy, as I do not support the methods and reasons for its existence. While we do need to have better journalism and government, I am not sure it will help in the scheme of things. Rupert Murdock as a source of inspiration, now supports my feelings in this area, as well as the reference or links of reasoning to scientific journalism.* While my crack at GE hints at the $marminess of some journalism, I will cover that with this mud. The mud in this case is the subjective skills that are responsibly noted which makes raw leaks only facts not truth. Raw data(information) is not just objective but subjective itself.]

*12-9-10(comma added)Rupert Murdock does not support my feelings, him as an inspiration supports my feelings to the contrary, as well as an erroneous scientific take. And last link brackets (information is not just in the form of numbers, but even they are subject to context and formulas).

** [1-17-12 C-(sic): ledes is the intended spelling in this typo]

Perry Wink-L Herring...

Straw Boogie Man*or The Curtains at the end of the Yellow Brick Road.
OK, I am mixing metaphors not to mention cultural references, but that Perry sure can dish 'em. I have yet to watch the debate, but have seen some reviews and snippets.

* "It is a Ponzi scheme*** to tell our kids that are 25 or 30 years old today, you're paying into a program that's going to be there," he said. "Anybody that's for the status quo with Social Security today is involved with a monstrous lie to our kids, and it's not right." [Nobody on the stage or in the Democratic Party, let alone Barack Obama is for "the status quo with Social Security". Now all he has to do is click his ruby red slippers**. BTW: The two sentences, if they are contiguous, are half non-sequitor and half depending on who the "25 or 30 year(s) old(s)" vote for.]

Read more

** or as Ed Schultz might say, notch back the rhetoric, liberally paraphrased (and hope to link) that is.(something about hyperbole)

*** BTW: if it is a ponzi scheme, what are insurance companies? Especially when they need bailing out.

One of my readers

if there is more than one, is concerned about my communications.
Note Under Construction label. I agree, it is problematic at times and heavy in links to say the least.

Fair and Balanced News? is a link directing to The Daily Show.

That is called Ledership you can choose to follow.(The FOX NEWS motto versus Comedy Central as a news source.)

Debt is a Red Herring, is a statement and a link and spins from here:

Six Things Everybody Knows About Deficits ...
That Are Completely Untrue
Which I rephrase as truths:

1.) Current and future spending are not the problem with the defecit, except for paying for our history.
2.) Social Security is not a big deal to fix(separately), but could be impacted by the budget and other decisions.
3.) Austerity and investment are different stories, that both have an impact on the budget and winning the future as well as the now.
4.) Concessions should not be trickle down but incentives should be target up.
5.) Wall Street is not fixed enough to be that big or permanent a part of the solution.
6.) Social Security is not on the same budget table as Medicare and Medicaid and calling them "entitlements" is misleading, and means testing or tax changes could address their impact on our economy

The rest is context and more sources, which may merit more spin and unembedding here: segment,the club of association)

If you don't get it you maybe out foxed.

Nonetheless i will further comment on some of the above links.
Club: The Norman Goldman 4-Point Plan to Rescue America
Association Lawrence O'Donnell, Dennis Kucinich interview about Tea Party coordination.
More: Randi Rhodes interviews Ron Paul
Spin: It is hard to believe Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker could be outed by prank, as puppet of Tea Party Sugar Daddy David Koch.
And back to O'Reilly interview of Beck, it completes a circle. The democracy that means the so-called communists and fundamentalists Beck says will be at the table in Egypt will be practiced in some repects in America and there will be uprising against the crony capitalism of Governor (Mubarak)Walker.
[2-24-11 See Comment and added footnotes in the form of the last two links embedded.]
[Late find of Lawrence O'Donnell v. Beck: tangent out ]

Moore on the Table

Michael Moore jokes about what's on the table.
My Reply:

Hats Off to Moore and Clinton, but the former(Moore) jokes or charges that social security should not be on the table. But I maintain that it is and should be. But of course that depends on what your definition of "on"(the table) is:

Yes everything, including Social Security is on the table! If Republicans can put their Tin-foil Hats on the table and Democrats put their Cheesehead Hats on the table, then ending corporate welfare and tax breaks could solve everything. That is a big if, if not a bigger could. But that is the politics of the table

[Less on the Table: Republic Cons]]

Solutions or

Six of one, or three fifths of an other?
The ruling is 3 to 2 and I am glad I did not preemptively jump on Al Franken's RSN. There has been an issue made by the right or libertarian about freedom's forces, but my point is that the FCC is about a broad spectrum(pun on airwaves) but what it isn't the Commerce Department may be. In this regard the acuteness,(pun on funny thing happened on way to the angle) has to do with what is not on cable may take cellular form, but it is all business. i.e. traditionally if not erroneously, the FCC is about the so-called "public airwaves" what was radio and television are on to other formats or providers. If they can do with out transmitting or satelites, it is one thing, but if they need right of ways for ground links another, then there is the commerce itself, and if they could just not need to cross state lines... If nothing else is clear it should be the complexity that arises from not just our constitution but readings, not that this or the articles necessarily are... but works in progress.
[Speaking of progress or update(not)or [un-Swift segue] here is a concern: Are Social Security payments really dependent on the debt limit being raised? My point is that it is an interesting wrinkle in the charge that Social Security is not part of the so-called debt crisis, but it may be very important in the form you lie of the new congress and the table, no matter who has set it. i.e. is it too late to de-bait(or rebate) the lock box or reinvent the mouse trap?]

The New Compendium

NOT!
Really...probably not.
But it sounds like an epoch
and not quite an anthology,
but hopefully not an achronism.

THE POINT?
A cover page of sorts.
Yeah that's the ticket!
...the dynamics of progress,

Six Things Everybody Knows About Deficits ...
That Are Completely Untrue
Which I rephrase as truths:

1.) Current and future spending are not the problem with the defecit, except for paying for our history.
2.) Social Security is not a big deal to fix(separately), but could be impacted by the budget and other decisions.
3.) Austerity and investment are different stories, that both have an impact on the budget and winning the future as well as the now.
4.) Concessions should not be trickle down but incentives should be target up.
5.) Wall Street is not fixed enough to be that big or permanent a part of the solution.
6.) Social Security is not on the same budget table as Medicare and Medicaid and calling them "entitlements" is misleading, and means testing or tax changes could address their impact on our economy.

[Mis-click of the mouse of the day]
Slash Segue(Aristotellian)[A]
Maybe you had to be there.
The Bill Thing.
The Frackin' Thing.
The Club of Construction.[ B ]
The King Tut of Rhetoric
Not to mention Divagation.

BTW: Going Egypt depends on who you ask, and I am not asking Stephen or Steve King***. And Going Wisconsin should not mean Going Cheesehead*. But I will tie this up with a preamble. If I may paraphrase and extend the remarks of a caller to the Norman Goldman Show: If you are not for "a more perfect Union" you may be Un-American. If you are not willing "to promote the General Welfare" you may be militant against "the Blessings of Liberty", but one can take words (and rhetoric or puns) too far. I suggest the word militant not be used, and that nowwhere near the tactics be used in political protests** but just who expects whom to turn the other cheek? There seems to be a slippery slope in the free speech zone.

* my original intent was a pun on Ed Head, which is not a Soft Head, but then there may be a lede to leader in the eventual link.[I believe it was a caller to the Ed Schultz Show that lead me to independently think that the failure of unions in Wisconsin would put a whole new spin on the name Cheeseheads.]

** the right to protest and any intent to break the law, includes the right to be arrested but not beaten, though we should understand that resistence is not futile but few put up with it well

*** see previous clause "divagation" link and prior line "Tut" for the two Kings.

[A,B updates]
[2-18-11 Blank(updated)Network- Parallel Channel(See The Pair o' Lax View ) Updates under construction. SERIOUSLY these are a serious sorting of views.]

[See Follow Up]

[Note Jumping the Gun Again! i.e breaking in-box of (news) sorts (AKA: sports metaphor not target or weapon analogy) Meaning the CPAC divide regarding the Islamophia section of The Progress Report is hint at the LAME O' PHOBIA of Platonic Dialogue not to mention a cave[of irony] of or con tent... or CAP]

Who is "Lighting a Fire"?

President Bush gave a very remarkable speech today. One filled with hope, if not fantasy. While I did not catch the whole thing, many parts of it should be embraced as goals which we could unite behind. A few parts I may have missed, might cast a shadow on how we go about the tasks that we could agree are admirable, amongst them freedom and equality. However as they say, and I may google the who "they" are, but the devil is in the detail. Here is to the hope that he "speaks anew" to us all, and that we will know what he means, and most important that he means what he says.

If what President Bush calls, spending political capital, is any indication, we may have little hope. If it means claiming a mandate by addressing the Social Security "Crisis" when it ranks fifth (question 2) on a list of highest priorities, then we may be in trouble. It may mean only more, Weapons of Mass Distraction.

Maybe he has been a uniter not a divider, as the poll shows the top concerns of those finding need for hope. While hope may be found even in those that worry, the issues which are of concern are "the situation in Iraq" and "the economy and jobs" (same link, same question). We must have hope, but it is how we work for it that matters. The process does matter or the fire will be suffocated.

We must remember and remind others that when Bush was told "you broke it, you own it" about Iraq, that we are the ones that will pay for it. Now we must make sure that while we may need to improve social security, we do not want to break it.

Understanding the nature?

Bush defends surveillance program
President says Hezbollah lost, American economic foundation strong

"President Bush on Friday criticized a federal court ruling that said his warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional, declaring that opponents 'do not understand the nature of the world in which we live.'"


"'The first reaction, of course, of Hezbollah and its supporters is, declare victory,' Bush said. 'I guess I would have done the same thing if I were them, but sometimes it takes people a while to come to the sober realization of what forces create stability and which don't. Hezbollah is a force of instability.'"

Of course, force?
Understanding the nature of how force creates stability. There are no forces that create stability. Only forces that move one way or another against unequal or forces in other directions. Only equal forces directly opposed to each other create stability unless balanced by other vectors. How long will it take to see that the real losers were the Lebanese?

If they can't understand the three branches of government under one constitution which results in laws that are meant to be followed, there is not much reason to expect that they understand the physics of the laws of force in foreign policy.

Freedom doesn't have a vector but democracy is only a force if it is recognized as having many. It combines for a force that must be opposed with reason*, another force they fear to understand, let alone use.

I won't even start this analogy on economics except the subject of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid was touched on in the article:
"We think it is quite possible to come up with a fix that is quite doable," Paulson said of reforming the government programs. "The question is whether we can get the support of Congress to get something done."

There was an attempt to "reform" one these programs which was met with the force of democracy earlier. The question alluded to on the "support of Congress" implies that they were part of that force. But this is likely a "cut and run" vector from the failures of law and order, and national security, as well as economics. Reform is the wrong force to apply to these programs that work unless it is to help them work rather than replace them with "privatization" that is really "corporatization".

* The Constituion: Checking a Would-Be King
[This link by Ray McGovern from truthout/Perspective was read and added after the complete composition of this piece.]

More Heroes Needed.

Words I saved in file yesterday:

From George Washington who could not lie about cutting down the cherry tree to George Bush the cherry picking intelligence leak that is above the law. From Nixon’s "I am not a crook" to Bush’s "nerve". From checks and balances to "outing" the intelligence and killing the debate, and blaming the messenger.
Apparently not only when war comes truth is the first casualty, but a preemptive war must apparently preempt truth.

WHILE I ALREADY POSTED A RELATED COMMENT, THE FOLLOWING NEEDS NOTING:
Dear Senator Harkin:
[Italics are from link]
We, the undersigned, support your principled stand with Senators Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer in favor of holding President Bush accountable, and we urge you to bring the Resolution of Censure to the floor of the Senate for a vote. The President has brazenly, arrogantly and unapologetically broken the law - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which prohibits warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. Despite getting caught red-handed, he refuses to stop.

Government must protect Americans' security, and that's why the FISA law allows intelligence services to listen to terrorists' conversations legally - by going to the secret espionage and terrorism court to get a warrant AFTER listening.

We are a nation of laws, not of men. No American is above the law. That most certainly includes the President. If Congress fails to hold him to account through censure, then he will believe that he can continue breaking laws with impunity. This is profoundly dangerous to our democracy.

We admire your courage in standing up to President Bush and saying enough! Now, we urge you to take the next step. We - ordinary Americans deeply concerned for the country we love - ask you to work with your colleagues to support and pass the Resolution of Censure in the Senate.


This is barely a start [AS I FURTHER NOTED]. Investigation into pre-war use of intelligence as demonstrated by the cherry-picking and leaking of intelligence must be debated as well. It is not a matter of what did the president know and when did he know it, but when did he know what he didn't want us to know, or not want to know himself?

How far back does it go that intelligence sources have been treatened with exposure for the type of intelligence they provide? How much intelligence has been lost by the declassification of intelligence for political gain? When the president and his supporters blame the media for the success of terrorism, how much does his own misuse of intelligence increase their strength?

It is one thing to be calling someone's bluff, but another to think that they don't know their own cards. Congress must recall the deck and reshuffle their oversight of the whole Bush administration.

While I thank Ed Schultz for supporting this issue, and I had already been contacting my Senators, I would also like to note three issues Thom Hartmann has listed as important to our economy: Labor Law, Trade Policy and Immigration. I would add that overarching or underlying these are the issues of social security and health coverage that government and corporations need to fit into the picture.

Caution: Expletive...

Journalism: Doesn't add up.

Maybe the Exit Strategy does not add up, but I mean that it may have been McChrystal's and Obama's as far as an Afghan Exit Strategy.

UPDATE TO THE SIDEBAR:
Obama = Getter R Done
Understanding the Obama Doctrine*
Counter Evolutionary (R,R,R)
Open Source Intelligence
Navigation: Ctrl F[**]
[Bold links are the side bar links, the unbold are unembedded links, comments or labels. These include: Rachel Maddow on Obama's Successes, Brzezinski on Morning Joe, Social Security Works on the Deficit Commission, Stockman on Taxing, and Navigation* Search.]
* yet to label and add MSNBC: The Ed Show, Olbermann and Ratigan/Matthews
[**] Huzzah!

Everything is on the Table!

That's right!  Everything is on the individual's table, but that does not mean how.

Robert Reich counts
 8 Principles to Guide Democrats in the Fiscal Cliff Showdown.*

ONE: HOLD YOUR GROUND.

 

TWO: NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL.

 

THREE: MAKE REPUBLICANS VOTE ON EXTENDING THE TAX CUTS JUST FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS.

 

FOUR: DEMAND HIGHER TAX RATES ON WEALTHY, NOT JUST LIMITS ON DEDUCTIONS.

 

FIVE: DON'T CUT SAFETY NETS.

 

SIX: DON'T CUT INVESTMENTS IN OUR FUTURE PRODUCTIVITY.

 

SEVEN: CUT SPENDING ON MILITARY AND CORPORATE WELFARE.

 

EIGHT: PUT JOBS BEFORE DEFICIT REDUCTION.

 

Number Five puts the Safety Net on the table. As in: DON'T CUT IT!
But it is not that simple. Medicare and Social Security do not need to be on the table at this time. That does not mean they need to be cut in the future. Addressing them is not just in the form of cutting them. Even so, if they address the top end or the bottom line, changes could be balanced in the tax code, not to hit those that need the safety net and even address the income gap.

 

* BOLDLY ENUMERATED taken directly from his post.

[Follow-down...I wouldn't go that far.  Despite quibbles with the terms of B.S. or F. C.  this is the kernel of the matter: 

Former Sen. Alan Simpson says ‘‘you have to have a blend’’ of revenue increases and spending cuts to achieve a deal to avoid the cliff.

Especially the bold below:

Simpson tells NBC’s ‘‘Today’’ show it’s ridiculous for Democrats and Republicans to speculate on which party would suffer more if no compromise agreement were achieved. He says, quote, ‘‘That’s like betting your country. There’s stupidity in that. This is big-time stuff.’’

I do not believe his "arithmatic" though.(in bold)

Speaking of Congress, Simpson says, in his words, ‘‘If you gave 90 percent of them a profit-loss statement in one hand and a balance sheet in the other, they wouldn’t know how to read it.’’

 It could not be that bad.]

The Alter of Tax Cuts

Excuse me, Altar.
Now the Alter.

[7-13-11 Above may be parsed later,
previous to be parsed later*.
Breaking and Fixed News.]

* secondary to be parsed later

[If the US were a household and the GDP were its income, its overall debt would be close to but still less than one year's income. Note: this is a poor analogy, but fair in the light of the alter.]

[Cynical is as cynical does. Or fighting cynical with cynical. ]

[7-14-11 Follow-up: "Nelson's proposal was designed to ensure that Social Security recipients receive their checks in the event of a default, mandating that the program's obligations no longer count against the overall debt limit." That seems like a big and smart step, that could affect the clock if not relieve the Debt Ceiling problem if also applied to the unfunded "emergency spending" for the wars.]

[A new alternative(hybrid plan) is being crafted that seems to combine congressional creativity with giving it to the President to get 'er done. A Trumanesque reference to giving him the Hot Potato, while they get out of the kitchen.]

[7-15-11 Economics and History. Not exactly.]
[Foot Note: I try to put myself in the other's shoes, but sometimes it is in the other mouth.]

** tangent later
[Hi 8 US ot WME]

[7-16-11 Bleep & Compromise ]
[7-18-11 Bleep 'n Compromise
[7-22-11 Obama 2012]