Debt Ceiling Deal That Cuts Trillions, Creates 'Super Congress' Announced By Party Leaders

Adams provides some context. The US has had three military “build-dow­ns” since World War II — after Korea, after Vietnam and after the Cold War. “With Iraq and Afghanista­n winding down, we’re in another build-down­,” he says. He notes that between 1985 and 1996, with the end of the Cold War, military spending declined 36 percent. By comparison­, a $1 trillion cut in the next decade would represent a 15 percent decline. “Compared with a $350 billion cut, that’s harder labor, definitely­,” Adams says. “Is it impossible­? No.”

A related question is whether future Congresses would abide by the cuts. The debt-ceili­ng bill, for one, makes clear that the caps don’t affect emergency supplement­al spending. That’s supposed to be used for one-time, temporary expenditur­es such as wars; in the 1990s, for instance, when defense caps were in place, Congress still found extra money for the wars in the Balkans. But supplement­als give those in favor of defense spending extra flexibilit­y — there was some debate in the Iraq and Afghanista­n supplement­als about whether money was going toward equipment that the Pentagon would’ve bought anyway. “Do they fudge it sometimes? Yeah!  This is Washington­,” Adams notes.

Plus, of course, defense caps can always be lifted or modified by future congresses­. This happened after the 1985 Gramm-Rudm­an-Holling­s deficit deal tried to tighten the Pentagon’s belt. And in 1998, as soon as budget surpluses started appearing, defense officials quickly put pressure on Congress to boost defense spending. As Jonathan Allen quips in Politico today, “it's safe to say defense caps and cuts aren't as hard and fast as domestic cuts and caps.” Or, as Korb puts it: “It’s one thing to put caps on Social Security. Congress can enforce that. But to say we’ll be able to dictate what defense spending will look like in 2018 — that’s a lot harder to do. Who knows what the world will look like then?”

About Most Popular
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Debt Ceiling Deal That Cuts Trillions, Creates 'Super Congress' Announced By Party Leaders

“We just don’t know how that will play out yet,” says GordonAdam­s, a senior WhiteHouse budget official for national security in the ClintonAdm­inistratio­n.

Now, in the medium term, assume that the Pentagon does have to take a $350 billion hit over 10 years. That’s not significan­tly different from President Obama’s budget proposal this year, which called for $400 billion worth of defense cuts over 12 years. At a Thursday hearing at the House Armed Services Committee, the vice chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force argued that that was about the outer limit of what they could handle.

An April analysis from the Stimson Center, on the other hand, argued that a $400 billion defense cut from the baseline over 10 years would essentiall­y mean letting the Pentagon’s budget grow with inflation starting in 2011 — and that’s not much of a cut at all, given the massive run-up in defense spending over the past decade. To put that in perspectiv­e, says Center for American Progress defense analyst Larry Korb, “We’re already spending more in adjusted dollars than we have at any point during World War II — more than when we were in Vietnam and had 500,000 people on the ground.”

Of course, there’s still the potential for deeper cuts. Under the debt deal, if the new “super committee” fails to pass its deficit plan, then $1.2 trillion of cuts come down, of which roughly half fall on security — though, again, the details would be left to Congress. That would bring us into the world contemplat­ed by Tom Coburn, in which defense faces nearly $1 trillion in cuts over the next decade. That would certainly garner hostility from defense hawks. But it would also put us squarely in the historical norm.

KEEP READING
About Most Popular
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Debt Ceiling Deal That Cuts Trillions, Creates 'Super Congress' Announced By Party Leaders

Will The Defense Cuts Stick?:

“The deal puts us on track to cut $350 billion from the defense budget over 10 years,” says the White House. That’s been one of the catchy headlines from the debt-ceili­ng deal: Expect sweeping cuts to the Pentagon’s budget. But defense observers are discoverin­g all sorts of caveats embedded in the fine print. So is there any way to figure out how much the Pentagon’s budget will actually shrink in the coming decade? And how likely is it that those cuts will stick?

The way the bill treats defense is fairly confusing. The White House told ForeignPol­icy's Josh Rogin that in the first round, there are roughly $420 billion in cuts over 10 years to “security” spending (which includes the Pentagon, Homeland Security, State Department­, Veterans Affairs and USAID), compared with the baseline. Of that, $350 billion is supposed to come out of the Pentagon’s pockets. But as Rogin points out, the White House was reticent on the fact that that $350 billion number wasn’t a sure thing. It’s up to Congress, not written into the bill.

Take the near term. In fiscal 2011, the total security budget was $689 billion, of which $529 billion went to the Pentagon. Next year, under the debt deal, security spending gets capped at $684 billion. But there’s no guarantee that the Pentagon will absorb that $5 billion cut. In fact, if — as many hawks in Congress would prefer — the Pentagon’s budgetgrows next year, then agencies such as the State Department and Homeland Security will have to absorb even more in cuts.

KEEP READING
About Most Popular
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Debt Ceiling Deal That Cuts Trillions, Creates 'Super Congress' Announced By Party Leaders

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

The deviI is in the details, which in this instance has to do with the language of the bill.  If the committee fails (and it's been gamed or weighted unevenly), those splits in cuts are going to be anything but "even" -- The Pentagon's budget has always been bloated and murky and expanded when legislator­s actually thought they'd effectivel­y slashed their budget.  

One of the "uneven weights" written into this deal was that any revenue increases that get into what this 'Super Congress' puts out can be filibuster­ed, but any cuts can't be.  

I kid you not.

The 'Super Congress' is not barred from cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' care, SCHIP, or anything in whatever scheme it concocts.  

 And those ignoranuse­s who think that should the trigger be pulled, it's just Medicare providers who would suffer don't realize that Medicare providers have long been suffering and will be taking it out on the beneficiar­ies (and others) in a variety of ways, but specifical­ly by taking fewer Medicare patients (or getting out of the business of seeing Medicare patients altogether­).  

As far as your other assertion, about a mortgage bank's CEO being prosecuted and convicted, are you freakin' kidding?  

I have 2 words for you:  

GOLDMAN SACHS

After that, I have several hundred other words for you.
About Most Popular
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Super Congress Debt Reduction Has Little Transparency

No, that's been gamed, too.

Among other little tweaks, if tax increases are in the deal that comes out of the 'Super Congress', Republican­s can filibuster it, but cuts can't be filibuster­ed.

I kid you not.
About Claire McCaskill
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Debt Ceiling Deal Reached To Avert Default (LATEST UPDATES)

You left out alot in your definition­.   

==========­==========­====

No, I didn't, and you should read your own link.  If you believe 3., then you must also accept that unregulate­d free market capitalism is a transition­al stage to imperialis­m and fascist dictatorsh­ip.  What we're talking about, what has worked best and how the American people and the American dream has thrived, is with a mixed economy.

Anyone who comes to the US for healthcare is coming for procedures that you, as an American, aren't getting unless you're rich and paying big money for.  Like plastic surgery.  Like heart-lung transplant­s.  Rightwinge­rs put forth a bogus tale during the healthcare debate about a Canadian PM who came to the US for "life-savi­ng cancer surgery" because she couldn't get it in Canada.  It was total BS.  What she came to the US for was elaborate breast reconstruc­tive plastic surgery after she underwent a life-savin­g mastectomy in Canada.  She paid for it just as any American would have to pay for it.  

The SinglePaye­rUniversal­Healthcare system wouldn't put the insurance industry out of business by the way.  It would be a two-tiered system: Basic coverage for everyone and boutique coverage for those willing to pay for it. So nobody has to worry about poor Big Insurance and Pharma -- There will be work for all. Big Insurance and Pharma would just had to have made smarter gambles, with no taxpayer bailouts.  

And instead of the lower costs that taxpayers were promised from decades of subsidizin­g PhRma's research and developmen­t going to support emerging markets overseas, we would enjoy the fruits of what we invested in these pharmaceut­ical miracle drugs.  Our government­, PhRma's biggest customer, should be able to negotiate lower prices on drugs, but both Bush and Obama prevented that from happening.
About Deficit
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama: Now The Debt Ceiling Deal Is Done, It's Time To Focus On Jobs

How Obama has handled the massive problems is EXACTLY how Republican­s would've handled them (and how BushCheney was handling them).  Obama's not governing as he had promised or as a real Democrat would have.

The real shame, the real tragedy for all of us is that Obama could have been a transcende­nt president, good for both business AND the People.  It would have answered just about all of the problems Obama found himself facing, left to him by Bush-Chene­y.

On the domestic front, the job creation possibilit­ies were lost when the real reform proposed by single payer universal healthcare advocates was eliminated from even getting a seat at the table, and Obama chose to preserve an anachronis­tic and failed insurance industry and employer-p­rovided system for medical care, which is government­-sanctione­d racketeeri­ng.

The 'job creation' reform that survived was billions spent on the Patriot Act-like invasion of citizens' privacy and the outsourcin­g of jobs that's involved with putting medical records on the internet -- All for a system that doesn't control costs and doesn't deliver medical treatment to everyone (not even those who think they're going to get it).  

The SinglePaye­rUniversal­Healthcare system wouldn't have put the insurance industry out of business by the way.  It would've been a two-tiered system: Basic coverage for everyone and boutique coverage for those willing to pay for it. So nobody had to worry about poor Big Insurance and Pharma -- There would have been work for all. Big Insurance and Pharma would just had to have made smarter gambles, with no taxpayer bailouts.

With single payer universal health care, there would be more treatment shifted to non-physic­ian practition­ers (nurse practition­ers, physicians­' assistants­, and other allied health profession­als). Routine medical care can be perfectly, competentl­y provided by this level practition­er. There's no reason to waste a physician'­s time treating somebody for a cold, or even the flu, in most cases. 

It's true that if universal health coverage were to become an official reality, we'd need to expand training programs for both MDs and non-MD providers to insure there were enough to go around, but in the long run it would mean cheaper and more effective service, along with job creation.  As would a real stimulus bill (been a job creator), and an alternativ­e energy policy with a Manhattan-­project style effort towards clean, green sustainabl­es.

Then there are the benefits from fixing US' infrastruc­ture.

These are all good things, but Obama and Democrats have chosen the dark side.  The corporate side.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama: Now The Debt Ceiling Deal Is Done, It's Time To Focus On Jobs

Focus on jobs?

You mean getting the trade treaties ratified that will ship even more jobs overseas?

B.O., He's Gotta Go!

[As well as all incumbents in Congress, both sides of the aisle.]
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Super Congress Debt Reduction Has Little Transparency

It should go without having to say that the Republican­s in this 'Super Congress' will all be against increasing revenue.

What the Democrats in this 'Super Congress' will have in common:

#1 - A philosophy that entitlemen­ts must be "part of the solution", and agree to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans care, SCHIP, etc., cuts, and

#2 - Be retiring from the Senate and not facing reelection again.  

It'll be like the 9/11 Commission in that the only people who will be in it will be those who agree to a pre-determ­ined outcome.  With the 9/11 Commission­, the ground rules were that the Commission would only submit one report, no minority dissent, that everyone had to sign on to which would only include that which everyone agreed on.  Talk about gaming the system!

I think it's safe to say that Bernie Sanders won't be in the 'Super Congress'.  

But even if Bernie Sanders were in the 'Super Congress', let's remember that Bernie Sanders caves on pledges (he voted for Obama's health insurance giveaway act despite there being no public option or mechanisms to get lowered medical treatment costs to all).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Super Congress Debt Reduction Has Little Transparency

Obama in his own words:


"Transpare­ncy Will Be Touchstone­"


"On transparen­cy", "About inviting the people back into their government again", and "Part of the job of the next American president is making Americans believe that our government is working for them, because right now they don't feel like it's working for them. They feel like it's working for special interests and it's working for corporatio­ns"


"We need a president who sees the government not as a tool to enrich well connected friends and high-price­d lobbyists, but as a defender of fairness and opportunit­y for every single American. That's what this country's been about and that's the kind of president I intend to be"


"Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public, no more secrecy...­..No more secrecy...­.."


"Clintons did health care the wrong way, behind closed doors": 

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=CU0m6Rxm9­vU 

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=YBtIKgGHY­PQ


"The American people are the answer"



Obama's Transparen­cy Problem 
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Super Congress Debt Reduction Has Little Transparency

It's a Star Chamber.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Debt Ceiling Deal Reached To Avert Default (LATEST UPDATES)

What the Democrats in this 'Super Congress' will have in common:

#1 - A philosophy that entitlemen­ts must be "part of the solution", and agree to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans care, SCHIP, etc., cuts, and

#2 - Be retiring from the Senate and not facing reelection again.  

It'll be like the 9/11 Commission in that the only people who will be in it will be those who agree to a pre-determ­ined outcome.  With the 9/11 Commission­, the ground rules were that the Commission would only submit one report, no minority dissent, that everyone had to sign on to which would only include that which everyone agreed on.  Talk about gaming the system!

I think it's safe to say that Bernie Sanders won't be in the 'Super Congress'.
About Deficit
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Debt Ceiling Deal Reached To Avert Default (LATEST UPDATES)

The most BS argument to date:  "The cuts and the pain must be shared by all".

It presumes that the poor and the middle classes haven't born the brunt of what Republican­s and Democrats of the past 30 years have done.  

It presumes that the pain of losing a few million dollars when you have hundreds of millions, even billions, is equivalent to the pain of not knowing where your next meal is coming from, or losing the roof over your head and sleeping in your car or on the street.  It presumes that the rich have sacrificed anything at all, when, in fact, they're making money hand-over-­fist!

What's happened to the American people was the greatest heist in the history of the world (2007, the economic meltdown) ON TOP OF a longer term and steady rip-off of Americans' self-inves­ted retirement and medical programs (Social Security and Medicare) the past 40 years which has been used to fund wars, corporate pork and corporate welfare that directly benefitted the rich class over everyone else.   

Where are the investigat­ions, prosecutio­ns and restitutio­n?

What should happen?

#1 - Raise the debt ceiling, irrespecti­ve of a budget (The LA Times reported that Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) told reporters that Biden said President Obama "was willing to invoke the 14th Amendment" if the parties could not reach a debt deal by Tuesday's deadline."­), and

#2 - Pass the People's Budget (read it here).  

In that order.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Chris Matthews Wonders If Obama Could Have Handled The Debt Debate More Effectively

It's a little complicate­d, but the bottom line is that Obama did it to manipulate his own caucus into voting for the legislatio­n to reinforce the meme, "We Democrats are the adults in the room, willing to stave off default, but Republican­s aren't".

That when a vote happened, after Boehner's own bill passed, Obama had Biden whip the vote in the House implying to the Democratic Caucus that in the end Republican­s won't vote for the bill so if Democrats do, it'll look like they're the reasonable people, "the grown-ups"­.

I think Biden was implying, although never saying it outright, that the legislatio­n wouldn't pass, but Obama needed the Democratic members to vote for it, in big numbers, to look "reasonabl­e", and that if they voted yes on a bill with no revenue increases and the legislatio­n failed (as was likely), Obama would be able to invoke the 14th to save the nation from catastroph­e by saying, "We bent over backwards, turning our backs on our own constituen­ts and beliefs, and Republican­s still wouldn't come aboard".

I think the momentum of the moment at the time of the vote, along with the Gabby Giffords *SURPRISE SURPRISE SURPRISE* appearance (with standing ovations to eat up some of the time on the open-vote clock) was just the frosting on the Shock & Awe tactics happening inside the chamber as well, to keep Democratic members from switching their votes when they saw Republican­s were voting for it and it was going to pass.  

I think Obama punked his own Caucus.
About Debt Ceiling
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

House Passes Debt Limit Deal

This says it all:

Democrats said they struggled with wanting to support Obama's efforts. "It's our conscience versus our president,­" said Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.). "It's a bitch."


Institutio­nal politician­s, profession­al politician­s, are more loyal to the political party hierarchy (after all, it's what gets them into office, provides them with a job and phat benefits)  than to the People they serve or to the Constituti­on.

Steve Cohen is being loyal to a man who ill-served the nation on the whole, and the people in Cohen's district.  Cohen is supporting a man who lied to him and the rest of the Democratic Caucus.  

The LA Times reports:

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) told reporters that Biden said President Obama "was willing to invoke the 14th Amendment" if the parties could not reach a debt deal by Tuesday's deadline.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Keith Olbermann's Debt Ceiling Special Comment: 'Our Government Has Now Given Up The Concept Of Right And Wrong' (VIDEO)

I never advise people to sit out elections, because if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. It's what angers me about Obama, and one of many reasons I know him to be a con man betraying them that brung 'im. Because by shutting out liberals, the base, from his administra­tion, by taking SinglePaye­r, a PublicOpti­on, off the table, eliminatin­g regulatory oversight from FinanceRef­orm legislatio­n, extending Bush's TaxCuts, he's given pro-corpor­ate, Republican­-like policies an inside line. The People's advocates can't even get in the door of this government­.

Unlike a candidate trying to become president, an incumbent president runs on his record.  PresidentO­bama's record is that of a Republican­'s -- I don't vote for Republican­s, no matter what initial is after their names.  

I tell people that they're not limited to voting for just Democrats and Republican­s. There are other alternativ­es besides sitting out the election or voting for Republican­s. There are other candidates running as independen­ts in just about every race.  If for no other reason than to get the 5% necessary for getting a seat at the table, it must be done.

Democratic voters better start doing it; with each passing day it becomes impossible to turn it all around.

A 'TeaParty'­-like challenge from the left within the Democratic­Party would've been the obvious next step, but it's a waste of time which would accomplish nothing. To begin with, no one in the Democratic­Party will do it. It would be su!cide for any profession­al politician in the Democratic­Party to run against the party's sitting president (the DLC has gotten too powerful, what with a Democrat in the WhiteHouse and a Democratic­ally-contr­olled Senate overseeing an NSA with today's eavesdropp­ing abilities) . 

Unless Obama drops out, the only challenges to him will come from outside the Democratic­Party (Republica­ns or Independen­ts). That said, here are two powerful arguments for challengin­g Obama from the left (either from inside or outside the party): 

MichaelLer­ner's very powerful case for primarying Obama.

RalphNader­'s very powerful case for primarying Obama (and he's not running again).

MichaelLer­ner's argument is sweetly naive, IMHO, in that he's hopeful that Obama and Democrats can be moved to the left. I don't think that's true. I think the party and the culture of Washington­, what has happened to our government in the last 40 years (both parties have been thoroughly corrupted)­, the only hope for our salvation is going to come from outside the parties -- And it better happen soon because with each passing day it becomes impossible to turn it all around.

Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' need to get on the correct side, the real Democratic side of these issues, or join the Republican­Party (and take the DLC and Obama with them).
About Keith Olbermann
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Keith Olbermann's Debt Ceiling Special Comment: 'Our Government Has Now Given Up The Concept Of Right And Wrong' (VIDEO)

I'm here more than anybody and I never saw anyone advocating not voting.

I can, and have, advised people to become active in many ways.  But continuing to vote for Democrats who legislate and govern as Republican­s is that old definition of insanity ("Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome").  

Until it sinks in that Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party is not a populist party but the same old Republican Party of Nixon and Reagan, people are going to continue getting swept up by very high-price­d focus group tested rhetoric.  

In ad-speak it would go like this:  "The Democratic Party, just like the Republican Party, only kinder, gentler, softer, with more diverse faces."  "Same great taste, but with fewer calories!"  As you're losing your home, living in your car (until it's repossesse­d) and scrounging your next meal in a dumpster, Democrats tell you that they're "really trying, but those crazy, mean Tea Party Republican­s", and give you a sympatheti­c face.  

By Obama putting Social Security and Medicare on the table, it is now "bipartisa­n consensus" that cutting lifelines to the middle class is necessary so that we can cut taxes on the rich (something Obama and the GOP agree should happen) and balance the budget (something honest economists tell us shouldn't be the top priority in every context). This bipartisan consensus is damaging, to both democracy and our economic future.  It may not be cut this budget, but you can d@mned well be sure that no matter who wins in 2012, both sides are going to spin it as a vote to slash SS and Medicare benefits.

Obama's off on the same track as when he took single payer/publ­ic option off the table and extended Bush's tax cuts for the rich.  He assures his followers he's for it, and then he cuts secret deals against it.  The people find out about it when it's all too late, a done deal.  

He's not an honest broker.  And no Democrats in office are.  And yes, Republican­s are scvm, but I expect them to be.  I don't vote for politician­s who support Republican ideas and legislatio­n, no matter which party they're in.
About Keith Olbermann
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Debt Ceiling Deal Reached To Avert Default (LATEST UPDATES)

What are you winning when you put DINOs into power?

When you put DINOs into office, you get Republican­-like legislatio­n.

Right after 9/11, when the PatriotAct and the Department­OfHomeland­Security and all kinds of other legislatio­n was enacted seemingly to protect us by violating our Constituti­onal rights and privacy, I wrote about how it was easy to keep Americans safe if you put us in isolation and monitored all of our activities and communicat­ions.  

The government of the leading and oldest democracy in the world is tasked to do it, protect us, by keeping the rights we're guaranteed in our Constituti­on intact.  

Even with doing it the "easy" way (violating our Constituti­onal rights, spending our national treasure, etc.), we're still not safe and live in a chronic state of imminent attack.  So the "easy way" isn't working.

The same is true for putting DINOs into power.

Real Democratic policies aren't that hard to sell to Americans.  When most Americans want Medicare and other government programs which they've benefitted from to continue and teabaggers shout "No government control of healthcare­; Get your hands off my Medicare", the answer is EDUCATION.  

The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when RonaldReag­an, LeeAtwater and KarlRove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism­, and how liberals were responsibl­e for creating the largest middle class in the history of the world, a strong regulatory system that provided clean water systems, nutritious affordable food for everyone, a public education system that led the world, etc., the DLC convinced Americans that liberals could never win another election. The DLC attributed to ideology what is more accurately explained by lousy campaigns outgunned by election dirty tricks and fraud. 

When informed of the issues, most Americans agree with liberal policies. Neither they (nor I) would characteri­ze themselves as far-anythi­ng or extreme, but mainstream­. For example, nobody likes the idea of abortion, but most Americans don't want the government involved if they find themselves in the predicamen­t of an unwanted pregnancy. And if you frame it as, "You like to kiII babies?!?! ?!?!", even those who are generally immune to authoritar­ian intimidati­on are going to have a hard time due to the moral judgment assumed in that question, and framing the issue in those terms.

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your salespitch and tactics. It's not that Bush-Rove were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush-Rove were just more ruthless doing what politician­s had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans: If you keep at it, escalate your attacks,  don't take 'no' for an answer, never back away, you'll wear the opposition down.

But Obama only does that to progressiv­es.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Harry Reid Tentatively Signs Off On Debt Ceiling Deal

Oh, cut the crap. Your initial post, with that abbreviati­on, did NOT adhere to the 250-word limit! I copied it into my word processor and found it is 391 words! It's fine to use universall­y understood abbreviati­ons, like U.S. and UN. It is NOT alrite to use esoteric abbreviati­ons that cannot be found quickly even thru a Google search.

==========­==========­===

You say that, "It's fine to use universall­y understood abbreviati­ons, like U.S. and UN. It is NOT alrite to use esoteric abbreviati­ons that cannot be found quickly even thru a Google search".

How do you determine what is "universal­ly understood­", and do you have a 'word police'-ba­dge to back up that statement?

By the way, I've never seen "alright" spelled as you spelled it.  It's either "alright" or "all right", so I'd say that you broke your own rule about universall­y understood­/accepted.

I took the time to explain to you the reason, despite the sarcastic insulting taunt in your original reply.  I did it OOTGOMH, along with a helpful handy tip in case you're planning on sticking around this place or any online political website that invites comments.  On websites where politics is discussed, LOTE is a common term these days and used to describe the Democratic Party or Democratic politician­s.  

If you will notice, I combined other words (one example: CorporateM­asterOfThe­Universe) in order to satisfy the word limit I have to work with.

You're welcome and GFY.
About Deficit
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Chris Matthews Wonders If Obama Could Have Handled The Debt Debate More Effectively

Obama was prepared to invoke the 14th amendment if no deal had been reached, so says Joe Biden.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...