Comments


  • RE: Advocate gurus'

    My Blackberry is set up to receive an alarm when I get a comment.

    In the past 20 minutes I have received 9 consecutive old comments from John Lara but they don't show up in the on line forum because he sent them weeks ago. This is an obvious glitch that I hope your technicians will be able to fix..... I guess I could just turn off cell phone for now.

    Thanks in advance

    December 22, 2010 at 11:23 a.m.

  • itisi

    It's obvious we won't agree on the definition of supply side economics', but I'm taking my definition from an old textbook that was copyrighted in 1987 called the "10th edition of Economics" written by Campbell McConnell... True, Reagan's economics ‘was not taught much in my day. Supply- side was an economic answer to demand side policies. I believe the system was designed to" stimulate incentives to work, to save and invest, and undertake entrepreneurial risks."... Check the details of the tax package and tell me how extending unemployment benefits and the EITC fit in this description.

    That's a battle of semantics, we can have in the middle of next year some time but for now, thank you for the holiday wishes and let me extend mine by wishing you and your family Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and Happy New Year.

    December 22, 2010 at 9:56 a.m.

  • RE:Writein

    I don't hate your opinion because it's not something that I haven't seen before but to the occasional viewer, you might be sending a mixed message. The column by Jonathan Schell could've been written by Ed Schultz, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or Michael Moore, but you wrote "MAY GOD BLESS THE MAN WHO WROTE THIS !!!!!!!!!!! Thank you."... I know you only agreed with the parts that denigrated Glen Beck and the Tea Party but others might not.

    I agree that Obama will be reelected because the republicans don't have anyone that can beat him, but if unemployment is still at 10%, they will go with generic, as the 2010 midterms proved...His job approval is rising fast…2012 is still a long time away.

    The democrats will have an uphill climb because yesterday's census report was favorable to the GOP states with a few more electoral votes. Florida will be just as important as Ohio, California and New York. It will not have anything to do with Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid but Democrats are expected to have 23 seats up for election, including 2 independents that caucus with the Democrats, and Republicans are expected to have 10 seats up for election.... In the 2006 &2008 elections democrats picked up conservative districts in the house; that should not have happened, and it was not sustainable. People don't vote for the speaker, the house or the senate majority leader...

    A successful speaker of the house will be hated by its opponents, i.e. Newt Gingrich, Tip O'Neill and now Nancy Pelosi. The health care law was a product of Max Baucus; the White House, the senate and Rahm Emanuel had given up on trying to pass Health care... It was president Obama's idea to push forward with it. On the day of passage, Nancy Pelosi and the liberals stood idly by while the president and the conservative democrats hashed out the final details (abortion) to pass it.. You’re believing the right wing spin.... As for Cap and Trade, the speaker did get the bill passed by one vote but the senate never considered it, so was a non issue.... Look up the history of Cap and Trade; before it was demonized by the oil companies and right wing media, it was a free market idea that President George H.W. Bush used to regulate sulfur dioxide emissions..... Nancy Pelosi acted on the legislation in accordance with the democratic platform.... I'm not much of a Harry Reid fan but I like to give credit where credit is due... Harry Reid did a phenomenal job in this lame duck session. Without Reid's work in the last two weeks; president Obama could not go out and say that his administration passed 80% of what he campaigned for....Check it out.

    1. http://politifact.com/
    2. http://www.democrats.org/issues

    May you and your family have a Merry Christmas, Happy Holiday, and a Happy New year.

    December 22, 2010 at 9:37 a.m.

  • Mike.

    I know you are going to hate from what I have to say, but the Liberal wing of the Democratic party should shut up. They should have been a little more reasonable on Health Care, Cap & Trade, and other issues over the past two years.

    I believe that President Obama will be reelected in 2012, but with unpopluar Democrats like Nancy Peisloi and Harry Reid, the Democrats would to wait for 2020 for their next majority.

    December 22, 2010 at 2:23 a.m.

  • Mike,

    Let me put to you this way. 2001 and 2003 there was the tax relief act based a surplus from 1999, it was not a stimulus it was a change in the tax code. In 2008 Bush created a stimulus by sending out checks to the lower and middle class, which falls in the scope of supply-side economics.

    President Obama continues the tax relief act, Obama is “not” sending out checks therefore it is not a stimulus; it is a continuance of supply-side economics which was created under the Bush administration only to add Obama’s signature.

    I understand your approach, which is political along with the media terms, and their foot prints how they spin these issues. But what I’m trying say is in real time not from some think tank based on magical numbers.

    The Bush area tax cuts, that revenue is gone it can not be returned because the government never had it to start with, so those numbers are not relevant. So other words all of the links you have provided is nothing more than political spin. It appears that the word “stimulus” has became nothing more than a liberal adjective with the lack of definition and numbers that are not in real time♣

    Mike, have a very very Merry Christmas to you and the family.

    December 21, 2010 at 6:33 p.m.

  • It's a moot point now. The START treaty cleared the final hurdle 67-28.

    "We know when we've been beaten," Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah told reporters hours before the vote.’HUH?... When has a treaty that can only be ratified by the senate become political? How did the GOP lose, Mr. Hatch?

    December 21, 2010 at 3:45 p.m.

  • Great point, arlewill, I agree the language is rather ambiguous but is it that different from the other treaties we have negotiated with Russia? Russia will not accept another treaty with changes.

    The treaty is 16 pages long and the senators have had over 20 hearings in the last eight months... The senators could have read two pages a month and could have brought this up several months ago. According to John Kerry the republican leadership has delayed the vote on this important piece of legislation 13 times. The last time was right before the November election because the GOP didn't want to make it political...Huh? It's after the election. The GOP won and now they don't want to be rushed... This treaty is usually passed with 90 votes or more.... I hope it is just political spin but Politico is reporting that Mitch McConnell said "“There’s much for them to be angst-ridden about,” McConnell said with a chuckle. “If they think it’s bad now, wait ‘til next year.”..They are still angry because Harry Reid made them take a vote on 9/11 benefits and DADT.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/...

    1 .... This treaty leaves a lot to be desired but both countries have to agree.
    2...... We are already a year behind in inspecting Russia's stockpile of nuclear material... We know our enemies would love to get their hands on this material.
    3....... If we don't sign the treaty now, it will have to wait for the new Congress and new senators who would want more hearings; then that treaty would have to be accepted by the State Dept and the Russian president.
    4..... If the treaty is not ratified; it would make the president Obama, State Dept and Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev weaker in negotiating treaties with other countries....
    5...... Not signing the treaty would make Vladimir Putin happy.

    December 21, 2010 at 9:17 a.m.

  • Mike
    I have heard arguments from both sides on the Start Treaty and decided to find the language in the Preamble that has been mentioned.
    From the White House documents:

    Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between
    strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that
    this interrelationship will become more important as strategic
    nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive
    arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the
    strategic offensive arms of the Parties,

    This language is unclear in my opinion and can be interpreted differently.

    December 21, 2010 at 5:08 a.m.

  • As I stated; it's all water under the bridge; a tax cut package passed and it will have a short term stimulus. This issue will be debated again in two years.

    Supply side economics is about removing regulation(this packaging did not) and lowering taxes(this package prevented taxes going back to 1990 levels), to give consumers more supplies and goods at a lower cost, so it's not in a true sense a supply side package. At least that's what it was in my day. The only real tax cut was the Social Security payroll tax from its previous 6.2% to 4.2% for one year.... I can just hear it the GOP harping about the democrats want to raise taxes when the move to restore the rate of 6.2%...Stimulus

    It's not my logic; but it's pretty easy to follow.

    1... We are completely broke running on a deficit, merely paying for entitlements, defense spending and interest on the debt.
    2.... We have to maintain a pay as you go system(deficit neutral) or borrow money to keep paying for anything other than for entitlements, defense spending, and interest on the debt.
    3.... To continue operating with the Bush tax cuts in place, we have to borrow $858 billion.
    4.... I can't put it much simpler terms..We could GROW our way out of this mess or this package could generate more than $858 billion in tax revenues but right now it adds to the deficit.
    You can argue with the economist or play semantics with someone else but i'll leave this reference for someone that's interested.

    "Will a package of widespread temporary tax cuts, extensions of unemployment benefits and new tax breaks be worth $858 billion of additional debt?

    Stimulus vs. debt
    The package could boost the economy in 2011 by an additional half- to full-percentage point above previous lackluster growth forecasts, according to a number of economic estimates."

    http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/15/news/...

    The cost of the $858 billion bill would be added to the deficit, a sore spot among budget hawks in both parties.

    "I know that we are going to borrow every nickel in this bill," Hoyer lamented
    .
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/...

    Believe what you want...I'm out for today.

    December 20, 2010 at 5:45 p.m.

  • Mike,

    This is the way I see it. Example, you take $850 out of savings to give yourself for a want or need, the only way you can replace it based solely on your standard of living is by increasing the amount revenue into your savings or by cutting spending from your standard of living in order to replace that number, because you’re not going down to the bank and borrow $850 to replace that loss. The government did not borrow money for this tax cut package, it cut the intake of revenue which is supplied by the taxpayer, which in-turn is supply-side economics.

    December 20, 2010 at 5:44 p.m.

  • Mike,

    for what it’s worth, I don’t know how you can call tax cuts a stimulus, when it is a continuance of the Bush area tax cuts, something is just not adding up here on the math, yes there were addition to this package, but I still call it supply-side economics, because that’s what it is. I don’t know why you think the tax payer is not deserving of tax breaks, we did not get this country in the mess that it is in, it was nothing more than hap hazard spending by congress. I don’t see how you can double dip this so called tax cut debt; it was not replaced by some magic number, if that is so it would be a 1.5 trillion debt + or – on the figures. I think your logic is away off on this tax cut package. IMO♠

    December 20, 2010 at 5:11 p.m.

  • Lol....The $858 billion is the amount we borrowed from undisclosed sources for the tax cut package; this is basically a second stimulus package the democrats didn't think they would have a chance of passing, so they did not submit it. True, it lacks infrastructure projects, but it has business tax cuts, unemployment compensation, and retains the EITC, the $1000 Child Tax credit and money for alternative energy initiatives.

    I mentioned this several weeks ago; Joe Scarborough mentioned it today, so it is worth repeating" we set up a bipartisan commission to reduce the debt, they came up with a way to reduce the debt by $4 trillion over 10years, and this package just added another $858 to that debt."... As Farred Zakaria said yesterday “we’ve got to be the only country in the history of the world, that borrows money from its adversaries, to pay for tax cuts for our citizens and wars.”..At the same time, I might add.

    I laughed when Chris Wallace told Senator Kyl that the president promised to put more money in the START treaty for a missile defense shield over Europe & US... Yesterday, Cris Wallace said "He (meaning senator Kyl) is worried about the possibility of Iranian missiles that would come and do damage and make sure that we are erecting some defense"..... I know we pay out more than we take in (deficit), we only pay for the entitlements, defense spending, and interest on the debt; any other expenditure will have to be borrowed.... Meaning, we have to borrow more money to protect us from a country(Iran) that does not have missiles capable of reaching us or our European neighbors..The money is for the defense contractors(donors).. That makes a lot of sense but as 60 Minutes reported last night, by next year many state budgets will be in default. Illinois state troopers are finding out that service stations are not accepting their state credit cards anymore. Once our bond ratings drop; we'll you will be forced to take some action.

    I hope I am wrong.

    December 20, 2010 at 2:46 p.m.

  • Mike,

    The tax cuts were needed whether you agree or not. Who do you think created the $858 billion debt? It most certainly was not the tax payer. The tax payer is well deserving of any break it can get from the government “tax relief”. We need to be trimming the size of government, get it back under control and “NO MORE ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS” take what we have and live with it. It is time for physical responsibility within the campus grounds of the United States Congress and including the President regardless of whom or what party is in charge.

    December 20, 2010 at 11:52 a.m.