JG55

Part 1 [h=3]"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers."[/h] “And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They’ve got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner. It’s going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We’re going to win that war... President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march… Everybody here’s got a vote... Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong." Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa, trying perhaps to sound feisty and combative, goes way too far. "Let's take these son of bitches out"? That connotes murder. Whatever happened to the civility Obama talked about last January? Obama took the stage after Hoffa and expressed approval! I realize "let's take these sons of bitches out" can be interpreted to mean let's vote these terrible people out of office. But "take them out" is not an idiomatic expression that corresponds to "vote them out." Take them out? Maybe that's not the phrase he intended to use, but if it was unintended, it was still a gaffe. A revealing gaffe. Unless you're speaking in a positive way — referring to taking someone out on a date, for example — "take them out" is a violent command. With "sons of bitches" right there, it's unmistakably violent. Now, you can say it's only metaphorical, and all Hoffa really wants is to oust these people from office. But it was only last January that Obama and many other Democrats were saying that violent metaphors, including a simple target on a map, were dangerous incitements for the unstable irrational folk out there. UPDATE: On reflection, I'm more concerned about something else Hoffa said. Copied from Althouse: "We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers." Part 2 [h=3]Jimmy Hoffa's "Let’s take these sons of bitches out" speech — take 2.[/h] I've already blogged about this speech, but I woke up this morning thinking there's something else about the speech that's worse than the murderous metaphor. Let's look at the text. I'll add some boldface to focus your attention on what I want to talk about now: We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They’ve got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner. It’s going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We’re going to win that war... President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march… Everybody here’s got a vote... Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong. Hoffa is a labor leader, pushing the agenda of labor unions. The interests of the actually people who work may converge or diverge with the interests of labor unions. Don't let him conflate the 2 entities. He may say "we," but that doesn't mean he embodies everyone who works (or wants to work) in America. He can't even get to supersede the individuality of the members of the Teamsters Union (the union he heads). Yes, he's empowered to bargain for them, but that eradicate their individual minds and personal political preferences. Yes, they take the deal he gets for them, but that doesn't mean that they all want what he brings them or that they want only that. Some of them, obviously, support different politicians. Some may hate being in a union. Some may like the union but prefer different policies. Right now, unions are fighting to preserve unions, and that might be best for workers. But the individuals who work — or want to work — may very well think their interests lie elsewhere. I'd like to think that the vast majority of people who work resist the assertion that there is a "war on workers." It's quite clear that every serious politician in America cares about what happens to individual citizens. They're not aligned in an army against the citizens! They have different ideas about how to improve things. Hoffa announces that there are 2 sides aligned in a fight against each other, and he would like anyone who has or wants a jobs to perceive himself or herself as a "worker" and thus a foot soldier in his army, with no independent mind. That's quite repulsive. And by the way, the constant use of this word "workers" reinforces the notion of the collective. You can see that for Hoffa, "workers" mean "soldiers" — and obviously, soldiers take orders. They don't think for themselves. Copied From Althouse: Jimmy Hoffa's "Let’s take these sons of bitches out" speech — take 2.

@krauthammer Charles Krauthammer Earthquake, hurricane, Obamacare. When does it stop? Seven more and I vote we let the Israelites go. 25 Aug via web [h=3]Retweeted by colossians412 and 100+ others[/h]https://twitter.com/#!/krauthammer/status/106845975297015808 Another: [h=1]Sex-Crazed Insects Whip Up 'Bugnadoes' In Iowa[/h]Sex-Crazed Insects Whip Up 'Bugnadoes' In Iowa - Yahoo! News One More: [h=2]Friday, August 26, 2011[/h] [h=3]Alarums and Excursions: If the Sybil Could See Today[/h] [TABLE=class: tr-caption-container, align: center] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: tr-caption]Dictator Sulla with his proscription lists[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Before Sulla rose to become Dictator, there was a sign: "On 6 July 83 BC the largest building in Rome was struck by lightning. The ancient temple of Jupiter loomed on the summit of Capitoline Hill. Here,beneath a ceiling sheathed in gold, amid trophies of statues and shields, the guardian of Rome had his shrine. back in the distant days of Kings, excavators digging the temple's foundation had found a human head. Augurers, summoned to determine this wonder, had explained it foretold Rome's future as head of the world.Who could doubt, then, that it was Jupiter who had guided the Republic to its greatness? No wonder that the Senate should choose to hold its first meeting every year in the sanctum of the G-d. This was where Roman power was touched by the divine. "But now Jupiter had decided to destroy his own temple with a thunderbolt. This was not a promising omen. It hardly required the Sibylline books to reveal that -- which was just as well, since they too were going up in the blaze. But what was the G-ds anger?" -- Rubicon by Tom Holland, pg 82 This week, Washington, DC is in line with two forces of nature: First, the earthquake that cracked the Washington Monument: And now Hurricane Irene is soon to strike the same region. Where are the Augurers today? Or a Sybil to note the trends? Are there more plagues of Egypt to enter the Beltway? My own theory is that America cracked after the Connecticut Senatorial primary of 2006 -- Senator Lieberman was thrown out of the Democratic party for working across the aisle with the President of the other side. Precedent was created. The tea party groups (Fiscal Conservatives all) are being slammed just like the Social Conservatives of the 1990's were. Rep. Waters (D-CA) telling them to "Go to Hell," is not the road to civility. In the last Administration, the Democrats called forth their hate against an American president who believed in Wilsonianism. It was what the Democrats believed in under Reagan and Bush pere (and FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ). Did the Democrats sacrifice their soul for power? Before Caesar crossed the Rubicon, Sulla brought his troops to Rome in 88. The precedent was set. My question: Is this foreshadowing something worse? Or has the die already been cast? UPDATE 8/26/11 7:33 AM: Cue the Twilight Zone music! Just as the post was about to publish -- the Internet went down due to the heat. Divine Providence? or coincidence? You decide! Valley of the Shadow: Alarums and Excursions: If the Sybil Could See Today :tinfoil:

Found this article and for anyone who is struggling or who has failed at something, it gives you hope that you too can succeed when you see people rise from their failures. Steve Jobs: America’s Greatest Failure Glory is sometimes born of catastrophe. Steve Jobs’s announcement that he is stepping down as CEO of Apple is not surprising. He’s a very sick man; and running the world’s largest market-cap technology firm can’t be easy for someone with pancreatic cancer and who-knows-what other ailments. Lots of digital ink will be spilled about Jobs in the coming days, most of it focusing on his truly marvelous successes. It’s better to focus on his failures. Jobs failed better than anyone else in Silicon Valley, maybe better than anyone in corporate America. By that I mean Jobs did what only the greatest entrepreneurs can do: learn from their failures. I don’t mean learn from their mistakes. I mean learn from their abject, humiliating, boneheaded failure Everyone today thinks of Jobs as the genius who gave us the iPod, MacBooks, the iTunes store, the iPhone, the iPad, and so on. Yes, he transformed personal computing and multimedia. But let’s not forget what else Jobs did. Jobs (along with Steve Wozniak) brought us the Apple I and Apple II computers, early iterations of which sold in the mere hundreds and were complete failures. Not until the floppy disk was introduced and sufficient RAM added did the Apple II take off as a successful product. Jobs was the architect of Lisa, introduced in the early 1980s. You remember Lisa, don’t you? Of course you don’t. But this computer — which cost tens of millions of dollars to develop — was another epic fail. Shortly after Lisa, Apple had a success with its Macintosh computer. But Jobs was out of a job by then, having been tossed aside thanks to the Lisa fiasco. Jobs went on to found NeXT Computer, which was a big nothing-burger of a company. Its greatest success was that it was purchased by Apple — paving the way for the serial failure Jobs to return to his natural home. Jobs’s greatest successes were to come later — iPod, iTunes, iPhone, iPad, and more. Jobs is a great entrepreneur for another reason. Lots of ninnies can give customers products they want. Jobs gave people products they didn’t know they wanted, and then made those products indispensable to their lives. I didn’t know I needed the ability to read the Wall Street Journal and The Corner on a handsome handheld device at my breakfast table, on the Metro, on the Acela, or in any Starbucks I entered. But Steve Jobs did. I didn’t know I wanted to mix and match my music collection on a computer and take it with me wherever I went, but Steve Jobs did. I didn’t know I wanted a portable multimedia platform that would permit me and my kids to hurl angry birds out of a slingshot at thieving pigs. But Steve Jobs did. All those successes were made possible by failure after failure after failure and the lessons learned from those failures. There’s a moral here for a Washington culture that fears failure too much. In today’s Washington, large banks aren’t permitted to fail; nor are large auto firms. Next up will be too-big-to-fail hospital systems. Steve Jobs is a reminder that failure is a good and necessary thing. And that sometimes the greatest glories are born of catastrophe. — Nick Schulz is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and editor of its journal, The American.

Micheal Collins with a splash of H2O

The way you salute says a lot about you as a soldier. A proud, smart salute shows pride in yourself and your unit and that you are confident in your abilities as a soldier. A sloppy salute might mean that you're ashamed of your unit, lack confidence, or at the very least, that you haven't learned how to salute correctly

[h=2]White House: No Photos Of Returning Heros Killed In SEAL Helicopter Crash But We Will Release This Picture Of Obama — Update: Carney Attempts To Explain Release Of Photo, Failure Ensues[/h]It’s all about him. The official White House “Photo of the Day.” Update: Why release a picture at all if it really was all about Obama honoring the fallen SEALs? (Washington Examiner) — When the coffins of the fallen Navy SEALS came back to US soil, the Pentagon and the White House closed the event to the press. That’s understandable. After all, the George W. Bush administration made similar restrictions for such ceremonies, although President Obama overturned the policy. The press complied as well, but when the White House released a photo yesterday of Obama saluting the coffins at the ceremony, they raised their eyebrows. When Associated Press reporter Ben Feller asked about the photo today at the White House Press briefing, Carney answered: “The reason we were able to release a photo, is that it was carefully done so that none of the transfer cases that contained remains were in the picture. . . we were able put those restrictions and control the White House photographer so that the photograph that we released does not cause any of those problems.” Props to the AP reporter for calling out the White House. Every once in a while a MSM journalist does his or her job.

Is that a a salute?

Did you notice the List goes on..... Mcconnell, Boehner, Kerry, Snowe, Graham, Schumer, Durbin, list goes on..... Why call the Tea Party folks critters seems derogatory for no particular reason. Or did you mean Hobbits... Seems Rubio and Ryan are standing firm, over time we will see. Two Party system is fine with me, just need new blood to mix the system up and get some things done. Perhaps the bigger problem is the entrenched Dem and Rep staffers/bureaucrats who are only interested in keeping their jobs..

Couldn't agree more.. So tired of seeing the tired old faces on tv, Pelosi,Reid, Frank, McCain,Hatch, Dingel, Alexander,and the list goes on, spouting off the same old tripe. We need new blood and term limits to get these people out.

RONTO (Standard & Poor’s) Aug. 5, 2011 – Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services said today that it lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to ‘AA+’ from ‘AAA’. Standard & Poor’s also said that the outlook on the long-term rating is negative. At the same time, Standard & Poor’s affirmed its ‘A-1+’ short-term rating on the U.S. In addition, Standard & Poor’s removed both ratings from CreditWatch, where they were placed on July 14, 2011, with negative implications. The transfer and convertibility (T&C) assessment of the U.S.–our assessment of the likelihood of official interference in the ability of U.S.-based public- and private-sector issuers to secure foreign exchange for debt service–remains ‘AAA’. We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade. Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent with our criteria (see “Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions,” June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). Nevertheless, we view the U.S. federal government’s other economic, external, and monetary credit attributes, which form the basis for the sovereign rating, as broadly unchanged. We have taken the ratings off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of the Budget Control Act Amendment of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate threat of payment default posed by delays to raising the government’s debt ceiling. In addition, we believe that the act provides sufficient clarity to allow us to evaluate the likely course of U.S. fiscal policy for the next few years. The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability. Our opinion is that elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a ‘AAA’ rating and with ‘AAA’ rated sovereign peers (see Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions,” June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). In our view, the difficulty in framing a consensus on fiscal policy weakens the government’s ability to manage public finances and diverts attention from the debate over how to achieve more balanced and dynamic economic growth in an era of fiscal stringency and private-sector deleveraging (ibid). A new political consensus might (or might not) emerge after the 2012 elections, but we believe that by then, the government debt burden will likely be higher, the needed medium-term fiscal adjustment potentially greater, and the inflection point on the U.S. population’s demographics and other age-related spending drivers closer at hand (see “Global Aging 2011: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Likely Cost Even More Green, Now,” June 21, 2011). Standard & Poor’s takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.’s finances on a sustainable footing. The act calls for as much as $2.4 trillion of reductions in expenditure growth over the 10 years through 2021. These cuts will be implemented in two steps: the $917 billion agreed to initially, followed by an additional $1.5 trillion that the newly formed Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is supposed to recommend by November 2011. The act contains no measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them. The act further provides that if Congress does not enact the committee’s recommendations, cuts of $1.2 trillion will be implemented over the same time period. The reductions would mainly affect outlays for civilian discretionary spending, defense, and Medicare. We understand that this fall-back mechanism is designed to encourage Congress to embrace a more balanced mix of expenditure savings, as the committee might recommend. We note that in a letter to Congress on Aug. 1, 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated total budgetary savings under the act to be at least $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years relative to its baseline assumptions. In updating our own fiscal projections, with certain modifications outlined below, we have relied on the CBO’s latest “Alternate Fiscal Scenario” of June 2011, updated to include the CBO assumptions contained in its Aug. 1 letter to Congress. In general, the CBO’s “Alternate Fiscal Scenario” assumes a continuation of recent Congressional action overriding existing law. We view the act’s measures as a step toward fiscal consolidation. However, this is within the framework of a legislative mechanism that leaves open the details of what is finally agreed to until the end of 2011, and Congress and the Administration could modify any agreement in the future. Even assuming that at least $2.1 trillion of the spending reductions the act envisages are implemented, we maintain our view that the U.S. net general government debt burden (all levels of government combined, excluding liquid financial assets) will likely continue to grow. Under our revised base case fiscal scenario–which we consider to be consistent with a ‘AA+’ long-term rating and a negative outlook–we now project that net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 79% in 2015 and 85% by 2021. Even the projected 2015 ratio of sovereign indebtedness is high in relation to those of peer credits and, as noted, would continue to rise under the act’s revised policy settings. Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade. Our revised upside scenario–which, other things being equal, we view as consistent with the outlook on the ‘AA+’ long-term rating being revised to stable–retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating. In this scenario, we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021. Our revised downside scenario–which, other things being equal, we view as being consistent with a possible further downgrade to a ‘AA’ long-term rating–features less-favorable macroeconomic assumptions, as outlined below and also assumes that the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2 trillion) that the act calls for does not occur. This scenario also assumes somewhat higher nominal interest rates for U.S. Treasuries. We still believe that the role of the U.S. dollar as the key reserve currency confers a government funding advantage, one that could change only slowly over time, and that Fed policy might lean toward continued loose monetary policy at a time of fiscal tightening. Nonetheless, it is possible that interest rates could rise if investors re-price relative risks. As a result, our alternate scenario factors in a 50 basis point (bp)-75 bp rise in 10-year bond yields relative to the base and upside cases from 2013 onwards. In this scenario, we project the net public debt burden would rise from 74% of GDP in 2011 to 90% in 2015 and to 101% by 2021. Our revised scenarios also take into account the significant negative revisions to historical GDP data that the Bureau of Economic Analysis announced on July 29. From our perspective, the effect of these revisions underscores two related points when evaluating the likely debt trajectory of the U.S. government. First, the revisions show that the recent recession was deeper than previously assumed, so the GDP this year is lower than previously thought in both nominal and real terms. Consequently, the debt burden is slightly higher. Second, the revised data highlight the sub-par path of the current economic recovery when compared with rebounds following previous post-war recessions. We believe the sluggish pace of the current economic recovery could be consistent with the experiences of countries that have had financial crises in which the slow process of debt deleveraging in the private sector leads to a persistent drag on demand. As a result, our downside case scenario assumes relatively modest real trend GDP growth of 2.5% and inflation of near 1.5% annually going forward. When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with ‘AAA’ long-term ratings that we view as relevant peers–Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.–we also observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the U.S.’s net public debt is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we estimate that these five sovereigns will have net general government debt to GDP ratios this year ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the U.S. debt burden at 74%. By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP ratios will range between 30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with the U.S. debt burden at 79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to decline, either before or by 2015. Standard & Poor’s transfer T&C assessment of the U.S. remains ‘AAA’. Our T&C assessment reflects our view of the likelihood of the sovereign restricting other public and private issuers’ access to foreign exchange needed to meet debt service. Although in our view the credit standing of the U.S. government has deteriorated modestly, we see little indication that official interference of this kind is entering onto the policy agenda of either Congress or the Administration. Consequently, we continue to view this risk as being highly remote. The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction–independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners–lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government’s debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at ‘AA+’. On Monday, we will issue separate releases concerning affected ratings in the funds, government-related entities, financial institutions, insurance, public finance, and structured finance sectors.

This is a dem talking point, try something else it gets tiring .Just finished rereading the s@p Downgrade -No where in there does it state they wanted Tax increases. Are you relying on this Sentence That's a broad statement( related to the next paragraph) that is trying to be used as a specific point by talking heads.More accurate is the next paragraph One more quote

http://www.zazzle.co.uk/downgrade+bumperstickers

Do any of you really think the democratic party which is pushing for higher taxes, would in anyway do that to their golden gooses in Hollywood. I wonder If Matt Damon or Tom Hanks would support Hollywood paying a 20% sales tax on Hollywood production, dvd's etc. Wonder If the Beyonce or Dixie Chicks would support a 20 % sales tax on concerts, cd's and music videos?

I think the above author was being sarcastic in regards to taxing Hollywood as well as giving history lesson, that some of us might not known about. Re- read the article

[h=1]Sunday Reflection: Why the GOP should give Obama the higher taxes he wants[/h] By: Glenn Harlan Reynolds | 08/06/11 8:05 PM Well, the debt deal is behind us, but it's clear that the White House wants more taxes. Instead of fighting this head-on, the GOP might want to think about future ways of giving President Obama what he says he wants. Done properly, it just might be what academics like Obama call a "teachable moment." One of the things that's been floating around the Web over the past week is a video clip from 1953. It's a short film produced by the motion picture industry, seeking the end of a 20 percent excise tax on movie theaters' gross revenues that had been imposed at the end of World War II as a deficit-cutting measure. (Yes, gross, not net). In the film, figures ranging from industry big shots to humble ticket collectors talk about how the tax is hurting their industry and killing jobs, and ask Congress to repeal the tax. They even explain, in a sort of pre-Art Laffer supply-side way, that a cut in theater taxes might actually produce an increase in federal revenues as the result of greater economic growth. The effort -- which includes a call aimed at "Congressman John Dingell," father of the current Rep. John Dingell, who took over from his father a mere two years later in 1955 -- ultimately succeeded. But while I'm usually for tax cuts, in this case I think that's too bad. Because with this battle over, Hollywood stopped talking loudly about the damage done by high taxes, pretty much for good. When, since, have we seen such a firmly expressed appreciation of the harm that excessive taxation can do to the economy, voiced by representatives of the entertainment industries? Today, those industries are a major source of Democratic contributions and spread-the-wealth rhetoric, even as they prosper based on this tax cut, and numerous other bits of favorable treatment scattered throughout the Internal Revenue Code. It's time for a change. Were I a Republican senator or representative, I would be agitating to repeal the "Eisenhower tax cut" on the movie industry and restore the excise tax. I think I would also look at imposing similar taxes on sales of DVDs, pay-per-view movies, CDs, downloadable music, and related products. I'd also look at the tax and accounting treatment of these industries to see if they were taking advantage of any special "loopholes" that could be closed as a means of reducing "tax expenditures." (Answer: Yes, they are.) America, after all, is facing the largest national debt in relation to GDP that it has faced since the end of World War II, so a return to the measures deemed necessary then is surely justifiable now. The president's own rhetoric about revenues certainly suggests so. Perhaps the bill could be named the "Greatest Generation Tax Fairness Act" in recognition of its history. Should legislation of this sort be passed -- or even credibly threatened -- I think we can expect to see Hollywood rediscover the dangers posed by "job killing tax increases," just as pro-tax-increase Warren Buffet changed his tune once his own corporate-jet business was threatened. And, given the entertainment industries' role as the Democrats' campaign finance ATM, it seems likely that the president might soon reconsider his rhetoric as well. And that's not the only "revenue enhancement" we might employ. I note that FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, who approved the Comcast merger, left the commission to take a lucrative job at Comcast, just as many members of the not-so-successful Obama economic team have left their government positions for lucrative jobs in private industry. Obamacare drafters went to work for the health care industry at inflated salaries. And drafters of the Dodd-Frank financial bill have gone on to big-shot lobbying and consulting jobs at high salaries. Because much of their value to their employers comes from their prior government service, I think that the taxpayers deserve a share of the return, say in the form of a 50 percent surtax on any earnings by political appointees in excess of their prior government salaries for the first five years after they leave office. Some would say that a 75 percent tax on "revolving-door profiteers" would be more appropriate, and I'm certainly willing to entertain arguments to that effect; I'd also like to extend this to members of Congress, but I don't think Congress would ever pass that bill. Democrats already understand this approach. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., plans on attaching a "poison pill" to the Balanced Budget Amendment that would forbid tax cuts for people making over $1 million a year. But why should Democrats be the only ones to enjoy the fun of taxing people they dislike? Businesses that support Democrats have had a good deal up to now. When Democrats are in power, they get the kind of special deals that Democrats dole out to their supporters. When Republicans are in power, their taxes don't go up because Republicans don't like tax increases. Well, perhaps Republicans should take Democrats seriously in their call for "shared sacrifice." Such an action would, of course, run counter to the Republicans' no-new-taxes pledges, the importance of which was recently reaffirmed by Grover Norquist in the New York Times. But even Norquist has allowed that in some cases loophole-closing may not be quite the same thing as a general tax increase, and perhaps he could be persuaded to make an exception, just this once, in favor of higher taxes -- for the educational value, if nothing else. Because apparently Hollywood and the Democrats have a lot to learn. Examiner Sunday Reflection contributor Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, hosts "InstaVision" on PJTV.com. Read more at the Washington Examiner: Sunday Reflection: Why the GOP should give Obama the higher taxes he wants | Glenn Harlan Reynolds | Columnists | Washington Examiner

[h=1]“President Downgradeâ€[/h]By Joy McCann – August 7, 2011Posted in: Homepage Slider Really need to watch the video as she goes off. Here's a link to the post and the video go here to watch video “President Downgrade” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkOExn3A62Q&feature=player_embedded She’s right, you know: he’ll be known forever as The Guy Who Made Everything Worse. Amilya Antonetti, the Chair and CEO at AMA Productions, gives Obama the talking-to he deserves: Meanwhile, Phil Klein insists that there’s no way the President will be able to escape blame for the downgrade: Standard and Poor’s explanation for why it downgraded U.S. debt is written in such a way that it can be seized upon by all ideological stripes. The statement cites the unwillingness of Republicans to raise taxes and of Democrats to agree to entitlement cuts. And the rating agency’s discourse about the political dysfunction will provide column fodder for Washington pundits who long for the days when both parties would work together to reach compromises. But make no mistake, when all the dust settles, it will be difficult for President Obama to escape blame for this. Defenders of Obama will attempt to pin the blame on his predecessor, President Bush, and on intransigent Tea Party radicals in the current Congress. But that would leave out the part in between. For his first two years in office, Obama’s party controlled both chambers of Congress – for part of that period, he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. During that time period, he and his fellow Democrats could have passed his supposedly ideal, long-term, deficit-reduction package — one that represented a “balanced approach†between spending cuts and tax increases. It also could have delayed the deficit reduction for several years, so it wouldn’t have affected the current weak economy or the “investments†he considers crucial. Forget about actually accomplishing serious deficit reduction — he didn’t even attempt it. When Obama came into office, he argued that we needed deficit spending to boost the economy, so he passed a $800 billion stimulus package. Then, in one of his first supposed pivots to the deficit, he convened a ‘fiscal responsibility summit’ in February 2009. But that actually turned out to be part of a different pivot altogether. It was during that summit that then White House Budget Director Peter Orszag declared, “health care reform is entitlement reform.†And so, for the next 13 months, Obama spent all of his energies trying to get health care legislation across the finish line. The end product was a plan that, according to both the Congressional Budget Office and actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, did not bend the health care cost curve down. Let’s even set aside the argument over the accounting gimmicks that were employed to obtain a CBO score that showed modest deficit reduction. The reality is this: the law used money raised through tax hikes and Medicare cuts that otherwise would have been available for deficit reduction, to instead expand Medicaid by 18 million beneficiaries and create a massive new health care entitlement. Of course, there’s more. After health care passed last March, Obama punted on the debt for the rest of the year as he awaited a report from his fiscal commission. He then ignored its recommendations and released a budget so ludicrous that within two months, it failed 0 to 97 in the Senate and he himself rejected it. He instead delivered a speech about his deficit reduction vision, which didn’t have enough details for the CBO to score. And then he spent the last few months arguing that he was prepared to offer Republicans a “grand bargain,†but to this day he hasn’t released details of this supposedly awesome deal that Republicans refused, beyond calculated leaks to favored reporters. But there’s another reason why Obama won’t escape blame for this. Obama was elected president at a time when Americans felt the nation was in decline, and his central job was restore their faith that our best days were ahead of us . . . Unfortunately, he thought his central job was to play golf; there was, of course, an unfortunate misunderstanding. [h=4]BY Joy McCann[/h] Joy McCann is a refugee from the modern version of left-liberalism who has been blogging since the spring of 2003, primarily at Little Miss Attila. She's an accomplished editor of cookbooks, Harley-Davidson guides, gun catalogs, and interior design magazines. Her online publications include everything from corporate blogs to an article on St. Paul's views of women.

Red stag kinda of night

Just finished this true story. What a life this man had, Olympic runner, B-24 Bombardier, survived a plane crash, spent 47 days in a raft in the Pacific ocean, survivies 2 1/2 yrs in Japanese POW camp. 93 yrs old . I couldn't put the story down especially knowing it was true story. If you like to read give it a whirl Amazon.com: Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption (9781400064168): Laura Hillenbrand: Books