dayman

By the numbers, Loudoun is one of the most Republican counties in N. Virginia.

Ya gotta use those buzzwords, ya gotta say socialist - Bill O'Reilly

http://en.wikipedia....nt_and_politics Loudoun County, Virginia. The richest county in the nation measured by median income. Home to Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman the #1 and #2 military contractors in the country. Republican mecca http://en.wikipedia....irfax,_Virginia Neighboring Fairfax, a close second in terms of wealth...home to General Dynamics...another top military contractor

Honestly wtf is this? ...just do whatever you think will win Romney... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx612rDA_q8&feature=player_embedded EDIT: Just finished the Factor...Chuck Norris (yes, literally Chuck Norris) came on at the end and talked about how the Dems have gone further to the right and the GOP has gone where the Dems were. I'll think that one over for a bit...

Virgil Goode factor!

If I pay you 1 million bitcoins will you leave the board forever and never come back?

Highly paid union employees? You mean highly paid military contractors and lobbyists?

I'm saying it happened at the Libya American embassy...the death...there were two separate embassy stormings today.... catch up

You sure it doesn't fund the trust? Also...is there a rule that says they can't hoard cash or was the Greenspans view...that it was somehow bad b/c it would then invest it and !@#$ up markets? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/07/992184/-Greenspan-in-2001-We-re-paying-down-the-debt-too-fast-VIDEO This is what I was referring to w/ the Greenspan comment: TEXT: The most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach before the end of the decade. This is in marked contrast to the perspective of a year ago when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. TEXT: But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically nonfederal) assets. At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses currently projected imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. This development should factor materially into the policies you and the Administration choose to pursue.

While that is necessary (by a lot it should jump closer to $200K), that all goes into trust funds to pay out SS benefits. It's not going to solve the deficit...although it will help the short term borrowing to fund SS now that it looks to run red for the first time either this year or next (and since the t-bonds it holds would effect the bottom line if it came time to dip into those more heavily).

My only point was that the blanket statement "half of Americans pay no taxes!" doesn't take into account "loopholes" for the rich, payroll taxes lower income people do pay into, state and local sales tax, etc...a person making $50K can easily "pay taxes" at the same rate as someone like Romney. But to say "federal income tax is the only way to look at it" in terms of Americans "paying taxes"...that's not an approach that makes very much sense unless you are hell bent on just reaching the conclusion that all things point to a group of moochers sucking the teet of the top 10% of Americans. And the entire debate is framed in an environment that is (as linked in posts on previous pages) subject to an unhealthy inequality level in this country.

Stop going off script his high point was the moment he was elected. DId you not watch the convention? Stop being a terrible surrogate you'll blow the party up if you drop the ball this year for them.

Another thing this guy pointed out...the GOP fascination with Reagan...a man who raised taxes a few times b/c he knew he had to...a man who had some political flexibility...and most of all a man who if you ask anyone "what was he" the answer is "the great communicator" as he sold himself in that friendly way w/ that trademark smile. Then you look at the modern GOP messaging...compromise is bad, no taxes raised period...and of course an angry, scare tactic approach to messaging. The GOP could learn a lot from Reagan if they cared to.

jackass

Libyan embassy I think

Money and some sense of party preservation among key insiders. Personally I'm not voting for Romney but I thank God (assuming that the GOP base would get out there and challenge Obama w/ whoever) he came out on top (considering the insane base made the Huntsman candidacy a joke...which is a shame I would have considered him more than anyone else in the general). Crazy as they are at least they ended up w/ the least damaging figure for President...the problem is the Congresscritters....too many toxic GOP congresscritters

It really is a religion. I mean...I've known about this whole thing just like everybody else for a long time...and I used to think it worked. Now I've looked at what is going on with debate about it, facts from the past, and have concluded...that in fact tax decreases do not simply pay for themselves. I still would entertain the idea that really oppressive tax tax regime that is clearly stifling growth could be lowered and revenues could go up under certain circumstances...but that's not the reality we're living in....and the simple truth that "cut taxes, and all will be well" is in fact a lie to cover what Lofgren claims is the GOP's main purpose...to protect the donor class no matter what...faux-populist movements angry about the debt? Great! What a way to sell more tax cuts!

I don't think they're full of **** and this isn't really full of ****. It's just tired and not a really an article we need to have today of all days.

Government revenue has historically gone up with the increased business that results from lower taxes. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/06/29/economists-agree-tax-cuts-cost-revenue--- When asked recently about the proposition, "A cut in federal income tax rates in the U.S. right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut," none of the panel's 40 economists agreed. When responses were weighted by the confidence respondents expressed in their answers, 96 percent disagreed and 4 percent were uncertain. Of course since it's history you are concerned w/ you could just look at the graph above showing the Bush tax cuts over the past decade have substantially contributed to massive deficits I really don't know what it would take to beat this this out of the certain people's minds that if we simply cut taxes, all is well.

Honestly...I think we all get it...911 happened....and now we should move on. On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified reviewof the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal. On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity. That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it. The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible. But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day. In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real. “The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya. And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track. Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else. That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound. On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief. In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react. Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all. http://www.nytimes.c...1-warnings.html

You are living in fantasy land brother

Buffet rule. For real the basic frame work of simpson-bowles is where both parties should start...and there would hopefully be a way to get a little more revenue from the top and more cuts (mainly in defense but also discretionary)...of course that is a pipe dream b/c Simpson-Bowles was a nonstarter as is and pushing for more military cuts or revenue won't change that even if all discretionary spending were cut an additional 200B a year (which Dems would never go for). The point is with Gary's faux-view on American society and economy today and staunch support for the donor class as a result there's no discussion to be had at all!

There is basically no rational argument that can be seriously argued as one concerned with the debt that fits the modern GOP tax policy. I really don't understand why this "class warfare" stuff trumped up by the mass idiocy machine has got you all so incredibly tooth-and-nail clinging to the GOP position. It's transparent. Yes we have to cut spending drastically, no ****. Now...about the revenue....uh...uh....

The "rich" are far from the only people paying federal income tax. I really don't know what world you are living in. Additionally, do you realize the word "inequality' is an economic thing....not a mere talking point? We're broke, plain and simple. The money in society is vastly allocated top heavy...more so than in recent history of our country. The CBO shows since '79 the top 1% doubled their share of gross income from 10 to 20% http://www.nytimes.c...-says.html?_r=1 Bertelsmann Foundation ranks us 27th out of 31 in study evaluating among other things economic equality, social mobility, and poverty prevention... http://www.sgi-network.org/pdf/SGI11_Social_Justice_OECD.pdf There is no reason to be so indoctrinated as to honestly fight tooth and nail for the GOP donor class b/c you are "republican"

Makes sense the basic framework is to decrease spending by a much larger margin than increasing revenue then huh? The basic idea that we aren't going to increase revenue 1 dime on donor class (who are paying lower effective rates than they have in many decades while holding more of the wealth than in decades) AND are going to INCREASE military spending and then just cut everything else to balance the budget is 1) impossible the math literally doesn't work and 2) it's immoral (even though I know you guys don't care about that).