Tea Party Down Grade

and the Undo- Everything House of Reprehensibles
(Note the counter-linkage or weaving of sources.)

Reading of the Day and relevant fn.

One great thing about Obama's primary victory is now we know that's not true. This is the modern Republican Party. It turns out they were the ones who adopted Malcolm X's slogan, "By any means necessary." As disgusted as I am with S&P's decision to downgrade U.S. debt, the ratings agency took the unusual step of calling out the GOP in its press release, predicting future fiscal peril "because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues," Sen. John Kerry was right to call it the "Tea Party downgrade" on "Meet the Press" Sunday. They have now made clear they'll wreck the economy as long as they can wreck Obama's presidency. And we have no way to know that Clinton's history with right-wing saboteurs would have enabled her to fight more effectively.

Simpson-Bowles and S&P Re: Revenue.

Hennessey’s assessment of Simpson-Bowles is even more puzzling. As I’ve noted before, Simpson-Bowles raised about $2 trillion in new revenues and cut defense spending by about $800 billion. The plan Obama proposed to Boehner raises half as much revenue and, from what I’m told, includes about half as much in defense cuts. It’s hard to see how that qualifies as "to the left" of Simpson-Bowles.

The fn. above discusses a narrative that is lacking in Obama's rhetoric. The actual recalcitrance of the Republican party, the lack of a filibuster proof congress, not to mention the media as we know it(Koch Brothers), argues more balanced narrative than Blame Obama. The Obama Inaugural was our calling.
(NFRY)

Candidate Obama was nuanced and President Obama is pragmatic and incremental, the message is clear.
[Hoist on our own Picard.]
[More Meet the Press.]

Green Span on Degree of Certainty: the only thing certain is change, and that the Right won't.

I mean Greenspan: "this deficit problem that is out there is a lot larger than we calculated. the actual numbers employed by those calculating the deficits are based on a level of economic activity, which we are not acheiving." Rather than translate IMHO the Greenspan quote, there is FIXING NEWS(as opposed to breaking) as the President addresses the downgrade now. (Remarks by the President: and previous remarks)

Flash Words

and Holey Math!
The words are not as bad* as the math or the understanding of the checks and balances and full faith in budgets or IOU's.

* Picking up from the last link(or 2) in the last post I must note the biased(although that is relative)source(mediaite) and dig out the Paul Krugman and Peter G. Peterson sources above. And I have to say that there is no comparison to the "gotcha journalism" of recent controversy. Commissioner Simpson was the aggressor who stood his ground in error or at least two worlds, confusing the IOU's with the Lock Box. i.e. the double hit is not, except for the interest that is robbing Paul to not pay Peter. No pun on sources, but I must note that we have a strange convergence of agreement, Simpson must go or actually be used to school the debate. But I will unthread these sources to D-Day(the Derivatives article) in Progressive Breakfast with a side of Simpson a link to Krugman, and from him to The Fiscal Times(of Peter G. Peterson). Has one ever seen such bipartisan agreement that Simpson should go for several reasons?[bold added 1-31-11] But does it not boil down to this? The double hit is really a double pick pocket or some such farther from faith and credit to government.

[Post-comment updates] [and more]

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.]

Un-P.C.(Or Read Meet?)

[reference asterisk *]
[The following is posted on 5-31-12 although continuance of 5-26 material]
Cow Pies: 

QED? * http://lbo-news.com/2012/05/26/bain-actually-loves-dems/

Footnotes:
[1] http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Simpson+Bowles
[2] http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Bowles+Simpson
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/private-equity-firms-what_b_1545342.html

[4] http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2012/05/badge-of-courage.html
[5] http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2012/05/tar-buck.html
[6] http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2012/05/clinton-is-full-of-bs.html
[7] http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Turd

The History of B.S.

[Herstory and Blog Searches* aside.]
[Originally Drafted May 26, 2012]
There is a joke about what the oldest profession is, but I won’t go there.  It is more or less about procreation. The B. S. I am talking about is the flip-flop of Simpson-Bowles.[1] Yes, I believe that was its name before it hit the road.  It was supposed to be a bi-partisan committee on the debt, but could not come up with any consensus on how it should be addressed, so its full report was submitted more like a Supreme Court decision that was tied. 

Recently it seems that its name was changed, to Bowles-Simpson.[2]  Was there some reason for that?  Could it be to honor the real oldest profession?  And I don’t mean the Barter System.  If this is too nuanced, maybe it is the joke, to be less about creation, more about pro$e.  Either way this is a very economic and political history. 

[More Bio-Product.]***
Speaking of PEG’d...(Private Equity Government)[3] or nailed it, Coffee Table This! [4-7] Now that is creationism.

[Now I realize that some boots may be needed for the above, but I was trying to be economic. But the point is that it is always political and it has not been bi-partisan except on the Democratic side.  Pun on BP aside.** The irony is that it is about walking a plank.  Both want a rising tide, but the Republicans want the people to walk the plank, while politicians take one to the other party boat. Unfortunately this may need deeper boots or Mitt-Flops for the economics, let alone politics.   The B.S. may be in this writing, but it is in the links and balanced solutions as well.]

*literally I will present this without links(see footnotes later)
** bi-partisan (now that is slick)
*** oops:  sorry for anachronisms

Happy Birthday President Obama!

Best Wishes!

Is this a present from Alan Simpson?

Super Committee in balance.

[update to 8-1-11 original -
Final Notes: Hall and Bashir 2B updated (alter or Bane).]
Hall TDR
Bashir
2B
[update to 8-3-11 original -
8-3-11 Obama/Simpson/Bowles follow-up: and interesting Tangent. NFRY files or fries.]
Not Yet. Or Dylan but Alter or Altar*.



See the Graphic Launch.
Putting America Back to Work.

*Cillizza
Fineman/Walsh
Finney/Heye
[Rhodes/O'Donnell and real lures.]
[And a suggested birthday present from leaders Pelosi and Reid, their nomination of strong leaders for the super committee.]

Clinton(Bill) is full of B.S.

Balanced Solutions like Bowles Simpson.
Also a bit of Share'N Angle.

Recently embedded remarks regarding Bowles Simpson were made by Nancy Pelosi.***
Similarly* under "Balanced Solutions" we have reference to budgets and sarcasm. Ouch!**

* not this link but the links (First B S) above!
** related to image(poster) in prior link and evolved sarcasm:
where they think they agree but you are connecting their dots and it does not follow.
*** third times a charm (asterisk 3) under Nancy
[missing link]

Footnotes or GPS of sorts ? [!]
[Not exactly the bottom line, but FB equal GB equal CB, then ironically corporations are people? Where acronym's stand for Family, Government and Corporate Budgets. That may though be a good base.]
[A missing leap regards some rant to AM. Not your father's GM...no American Moderate. Not Andrea Mitchell, but Tamron Hall and Cory Booker^.]
[Pin the Tale on the MB eh! (3R's)( Reeding, Wrighting^^ and Mitt-matic?)]

^needs updated link
^^ anachronistic messaging? RMegaDon DieSign?
[The Sting of Inoculation^^^]
^^^ meme wars (video) (I am trying to find my most recent shot on this matter.)

5-22-12 So is Hillary. Either one.
Not so random self searching.
Peter Piper picked a Peck of Pickled Predecessors.
[See Format Change in PAGES column.]

^^^ update "wars" CTRL F "calling card" Good answer, see FB/GB/CB equal formula above.
See original Balanced Solutions links above.
Speaking of 4moolah and math ...

[related LEAP mission creep(^^[!]): tba Thom Hartmann ]
[Speaking of Forks ? Yes! But you can't handle the conversation, and it is exactly the conversation Obama is having, yet it is not his alone to have. The "yet" part means that as a leader he cannot tip the hand of equity^^^ from congress, the judiciary and the people. Well, he can all that but it is political as well and that is why there are three hands so to speak(the but/and/yet here). See CTRL F "calling card". ]

Re:Focus

TIME is not on anyone's side.

(NFRY)
related links : Joe Klein
Paralysis Rules
One for All and All for One
Is Romney a Realist or an Idealist?
Paul Ryan's Grand Vision
The Trouble with Simpson-Bowles

(fn) not yet

[Re-visit ! ?]

[Re:Boot ?]

[Let her role ?^^ ]
AM ?
NOW ?
Mitt-matic ?
Cheese US ?
Or Bane^ ? !
Or Diploma See!

^ The Best Defense(Mine'd Hive?)
^^ But a blimp[!] The Mark Leder Twain.

[Fog of Math!?]
[Brass Balls? Or Dorothy's Slippers?]

Initialism

Not to pun on Recreationism [!]

But Crypto Political Science deals with a more dimentional political spectrum of global exceptionionalism.  (FP1)

(not there yet)
In the begining...
Long Story

BLANK NETWORK (scroll click){Paper U?}
{Re insert} Speaking of Pre Post or Us ... Knowwww!!!!*

* Colbert Daft Anachronism
(MSNBC search for "Failed States" flailed bridges)

{OK, the original sentiment is that there is politics of a third kind^.  Not just the libertarian(6) , but international perspectives (14) that clash with the old partisan ships. The glint of tinfoil(17) is actually a tool in the shed of progress that cannot be emptied by executive order**.  There is a war on terrorism, it was declared by congress, and the president is the commander-in-chief.  It is tough enough dealing (f.c.)^^ with adversarial states, let alone protect America from it's legacy(such as it is)*** in a world that is changing, from the global to the local.  Crypto Political Science as I have coined it relates, to the wise crack of perception being reality.  Knot[!] to mention, truth being the first casualty in war.  It his hard enough dealing with a divided congress, let alone pre-constitutional or crypto-political organizations.}

** Ctrl F/papa
*** history in general/leading in particular(b.s.)
[OBAMA AM/Tonight Show: Changing the box ... of Tetra Heed Run.]

^ Embassy closings cover for actions or prudence in the unfolding middle-c of Turkey and Yemen?  [To The Point ?]
(The Point *link* is yet to be inserted: an NPR report on Terrorism.  A tangent? Who would be the counter-balance to Alan Simpson?  But where is Joe Scarborough? LET ALONE THE CYCLE.) 

[8-9-13 P.S.] ^^(f.c.)4ment change see (6)th link "dimentional". Let alone the Point !

Rubric's Peek

Not to mislede***, but I lost my original heading:
Recession imminent if ‘fiscal cliff’ of tax hikes, budget cuts not averted, CBO says.

My second shot, "Rubric's Peek" is a pun on a Peak at the way congress put it.
Now that is the ticket, something about B.S.* as in Bowles-Simpson or "balanced solutions"**, not to mention "bumper snickers".  It wasn't quite Sea QuestOr B.S. nor BaneOr C-Quest.


* "Off The Cliff-Notes" was not it.
(Maybe The B.S. Cliff /something.)
** place holder for better "off the cliff"notes.
i.e. not(nor) the link I hoped to find
*** the lede is this paragraph, Rubric's Peek my alternate heading

[I have refrained from overburdening with links, but did find a few that were interesting if not off the cliff. (at least prior to this sentence) And I still haven't found the simple explanation of the Fiscal Cliff, not exactly to ribble a hint: woof!]

Note: G'Ribble is not exactly in the last four links but... akin to a GPS of sorts. 
Note:  the exception proves the rule on links or peeks.

Speaking of Timing

All posts are posted at the time indicated unless otherwise noted*, not always clearly, as updated or inserted**.

* saved-in-draft maintain original time with date posted indicated
** sometimes indicated by links

Sometimes bracketed material is a preface, and
now to the matters that triggered this tangent.
It was a surprise to me and others that the Debt Panel released its(or rather the co-chair's) plan, an interesting update to my comments in the update regarding the chart and debt. It is probable that the chart, may not include social security, and regarding medicare, off the chart going forward. But given the shotgun approach, not really a good metaphor(as aim is not the point), but as a matter of breadth and coverage, it is all over the map and "harpooned every whale"***. While the origin of the Debt Panel(link hopefully to be inserted)is in question, (was it Obama's or a Republican idea) it does seem to fit my theory of Obama. The solutions to our economy are very broad, and inter-related, and hinge on the balance of what government does, more particularly does it create jobs or the environment for the economy. The answer is usally, if not always, both to some degree. In this regard, any wholesale dismissal of the plan is in as much error as even calling it a plan. It seems a well crafted way to put everything on the table, not that it will all be called for or passed.

*** Simpson quote from Bloomberg link.
[Speaking of timing and updates and tangents, Fair Game is a movie noted in C-word post, but Decision Points(book) is the center of the Circumference. Somewhere there is a link that closes the circle.]
[Speaking of Spokes: Axel Rod?]

Thinks fall apart.***

It is almost like they knew what works...
and what doesn't and gave up on what doesn't to blame* what does**. 



* in no particular order ? ^
** politics, economics, democracy (ironic 1st 3 links).
*** The impetus for this heading ? [ ! ]

^ Rovian Bowles Simpson Clinton ? [k n o t]

Give an inch...

Take a footnote:
VOTE NO ON DEAL.If the original intent was a clean bill, this should fit the bill. If harming the economy for political purposes is the intent, then the Debt Deal is the proper balance. While I can understand the political purposes in light of the burden of accountability and compromise, it is a tough call to say, hold tough, but it is your call. My call is that it is not only the 14th Amendment but the Debt Ceiling law itself, which gives the President and Congress their respective powers, which only a no vote would enforce. So while I can understand that Sum Would Cheer: I must on principle urge a No Vote on kicking the can down the road for political purposes. UNLESS it has already been calculated that the obligations that the Treasury holds(f.n. 2) are already not a part of the debt ceiling picture.
Footnote 1
and 2 (except guaranteed obligations held by the Secretary of the Treasury.)

[8-3-11 Obama/Simpson/Bowles follow-up: and interesting Tangent. NFRY files or fries.]

Rest in Peace: Andrew Breitbart

It is with no schadenfreude that

I note the "passing" of Andrew Breitbart.

Nor to stay the course.

News Feed:

CNN,

NPR,

New York Times.

He probably did change the face of journalism.

I am not sure how that works, but the above image*** was linked to the "face" link.

Yesterday, David Bender interviewed former Senator Alan Simpson, who really tore into Rick Santorum and the Stephenie Miller Show. I hope** that was not what put the "Journalist"* over the top. I regret putting any meaning into what were hopefully "natural causes", not that they are any better than the best intentions sometimes. His dreams or nightmares will live on.

*3-2-12 BS added...(i.e. blog search)

** and asterisks: I hope "hope" is not a humor. "I'm just" reporting. (A wisecrack on sayings.)

*** apparently it may be how "Google" can work for some.(note image replaced below)

4A: not to pun on a death but there are categories of writing and communicating. Why do you think they have wakes?^^

3-2-12(continued): In fact I think I will take it back a notch.

See "face" change. The original "Google"^.

Note: Face moved and replaced.

(see "image"*** switch)

RIP: Respect in Place (Face adjustment)

^ unembedded from Big Journalism today

^^ link added post post

[3-8-12 Update: It certainly was my first reaction that Breitbart died of Righteous Indignation, but not in so many words. I did not even know he wrote the book, that I know of. But it could have slipped through my safety net.]

Hyper Sorting

The "Liberal Media" is Laughable...
Update
If Only It were Black and White
Axis of Fruit Loops
These links reflect the actual sequence of the last four posts.

The "Liberal Media" is Laughable...
Meet the Press from the week before featured Ron Paul(14 minutes in),
"undoubtably" the scariest thing for Herman Cain.
Then I feature Norman Goldman* "on the other hand"
Followed by two takes on the OWS crowd.

Update
Rovian Republican Recalcitrance(theory)
Attack Strength
SIN
and Spin on the Simpson-Bowles*** and the NRA**.

Axis of Fruit Loops
Martin Bashir on Koch/Cain and Mika Brzezinski on Elizabeth Warren on Morning Joe
* adding 10-31-11
** need Martin Bashir
*** Morning Joe?

[MB- McDermott on debt plans and super committee
Smoked Cheese, etc.]

Hi tech whining. [10-4-11 Republicans Crack Me Up]

Not to Follow-Up...

...Or Down*
But that's the ticket.

While I did read the 2nd link, I have only glanced at the Sorkin critique and I am surprised at the criticism for the creator of Newsroom.  Not an HBO subscriber, I only saw the first episode OnDemand and was very impressed with the whole deal.  I don't know if I will have the same perspective of Alex Pereene if I could have seen the later episodes. Not that I was that impressed or critical of him to begin with. I thought he was fair and balanced, but not in the way it has come to be taken.  This actually this does follow from my not going that far and how some get** where they are.

My second line will be more fully digested later, and provide more fair and balanced context.

* actually it might follow(the only piece I have fully digested)
** BaneOr Side Show
*** anachronistic irony (I Ron Knee, Iron Knee of Bowles-Simpson/Balanced Solution)
[The Romney Tax problem is a sideshow so that they can say that Obama won't talk about the economy.  Republicans have been unprecedented obstuctionists so they can run against*** the economy, rather than the choice between more change and turning around to go back to what took us down.  Now that is a follow up.]

Speaking of Johnsons.

No!
These Ones Really*.

* calling out the B S

[Bowles /  Simpson]
(also Blog Search...NOT, but ouch!)
[update-pit]

The Curve or Nuance Thing

In this I am referring first to the Laffer Curve, which is propably not exactly a Bell Curve..

Now to un-nuance something or other.** The Laffer Curve has generally been used to argue that reducing taxes will increase government revenue. That is also called Supply Side economics. Reduced taxes(for the rich and corporations) will create jobs that will produce things and the economy will grow. Supply money, or not take it away, and it will supply jobs that will supply products and people will buy more. A better economy means better revenue. If people cannot see a few leaks in this theory, it is not just what I may have left out.

Not just the Demand Side, but also the debt side, the outsourcing, and the Wall Street or commodities side are left out. If money is being left in businesses and jobs, it is not being taxed as income. If it has a lower tax rate it will come out as income that will be spent, but there are fewer people in the top tax brackets to benefit the economy than there are in the lower tax brackets who would benefit the economy by having enough money to pay for their needs let alone their demands. Their decrease in taxes, or other income benefits,* would increase demand for products which would produce demand for jobs, which would increase their ability to benefit the economy. Now of course there are dangers to an either/or supply or demand(or any general) approach to the analysis. Then there are the debt, outsourcing, and Wall Street factors. Taxes are aslo a part of how these issues(debt, trade, and investment) effect the economy as generally explained here,(as well as in a more complex equation of the economy) as well as how changes in tax code may help the economy.

This has generally been more about how reduced taxes can help the economy. But there is the correction to the myth that all reducing of taxes increase the revenue. When that is more properly on the curve or in the equation, increased revenue will come from a general rise in the economy, as well as the proper taxation rate which will benefit the debt picture, which will be good for the economy. Now, too much emphasis on the burden of debt, trade and investment risks, must also find itself on the curve or dynamic equation of the big picture as well.

* two charts



** two curves in first paragraph: Ezra Klein and Eugene Robinson
*** yet to fully read, but a note on foreign aid as something to cut with only 1% of the budget. It just might fit into the above understanding of proper balance and investment not that it all is, but a cut in foreign aid may mean an increase or leak in another part of the picture above.

[I hope the above is easy to understand, but then there is the crack pot calling the kettle "stupid". i.e. Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg disagreeing with what Alan Simpson and Charles Krauthammer think.]

[Also Straw Man D'baits Red Herring. Thomas Sowell is right, there is no trickle down. That is because the money needs to be spent at the bottom, but where does the money come from? From the demand and the production of the worker.]

[3-11-11: two links (an update) from State of Thought blog]

Now the Un-Voodoo Math

Re: tired Rhetorical Run A Round?
I said it so: Mo Jo!
And way mo !

RawMoney Lyin' 2012
or
RobMe Lyin' 2012

Bumber Snickers versus Balanced Solutions
Blog Search versus Bowles Simpson
No b.s. / Ouch!

Pre-selection references:
1-30, (Wisconsin)
3-20,  (AP-Paul-ING Susan)
4-4, (Social Darwinism)
4-5,* (Marvelous MR**PR)
4-10, (legislative experience)
4-30, (Ryan Shrugged)
7-10 (Ryan/Bane)

Speaking of Re-tired, the Romney/Ryan 2012 is no b.s. 

* Not that it is all math. 

Duoh!

Alan Simpson must remain on the Debt Commission until two things occur, journalism gets its act together and people realize he is representing how some Republicans and others on the right actually think. On the first point, he certainly livens up the opportunity for bringing things to light, unfortunately it is not being done by the media(present company excepted-see labels. And just because (other)topics are being discussed and Social Security is being considered if not confused in this regard, does not mean that the commission is the one that will decide what will be done. It should be like brain storming, and while there may be thunder, some are not exactly lightening.
[This based on only one of the three source.]