We don’t want no stinking compromise

I can count on one hand, the times I've come away from a spirited debate , where I've said, “by golly you're right" and neither has my opponent. I think that's pretty common with online debates because it's mostly about a point and counterpoint with not much in- between. Sometimes it's all about gotcha.The on line debates mimic the "You didn't build that" or "what's in those tax returns,"nonsense.

In my last blog, I should have saved myself a lot of time by simply stating that, we could deal a severe blow to those who want to commit a tragedy like the one in Aurora, Colorado by reinstating the 1994 assault weapon ban. It's very simple logic, if you can't get your hands on it; it lessens the odds on it happening again. The idea of a ban is at the heart of the issue; after 911 when we all submitted to tighter security measures. I would like to think that we would've complied regardless of who was president. A couple of failed bombers forced us to endure more intrusive searches, a longer wait time at airports, and we accepted that some liquids would be denied. We did all this without much fanfare but if a homegrown terrorist commits mass murder with a semiautomatic assault weapon; the gun advocates will ban together to give us their reason on why it's a foolish idea to ban those weapons. They know that the politicians don't have the backbone to step up to the NRA. Therein lies the difference. It's not about the second amendment, the intent of the founders because it's already been proven that we will sacrifice a little freedom, if we think, it'll make us safer. My argument was in the first sentence of this paragraph, and my opponents will go through circles and semi circles in trying to make others think that there're willing to compromise. Truth is, they are scared that the country might want to take their guns away, if they don't take a stance every single time.

I read Jessica Puente's well researched blog asking the question "Why we asked what should happen to the survivors of the Goliad County wreck." Most of the responses were predictable. I understand the journalistic argument. Jessica was trying to make, but it will not penetrate because people had their mind made up before the accident ever happened. Some were trying to humanize the situation and others would have none of it. I've been watching the forum since I left, and I found that articles and blogs were not getting a lot of comments. The minute the subject turned the illegal immigrants; a lot of people came out of the woodwork, and others came out to defend the victims. The America that I grew up in, no matter what state our economy was in, would treat victims of any tragedy despite the circumstances. I trust that our authorities will do the right thing when the survivors recover. There are no laws that say if a person enters this country illegally and gets badly injured, that they will be allowed to remain until after they recover. It's a little premature and out of most people hands but not their mouths, on what will happen to them when they recover. I sincerely doubt that those people posting the hateful comments have read one line of Jessica's article because they are not interested in reading something that is contrary to what they firmly believe.I may be wrong, but I don't think those posters represent the Victoria I grew up in. They're like the Tea Party, small in numbers, but they make a lot of noise.

We could live if those two issues I mentioned remained on the back burner for now but our planet is getting hotter, yet were are not serious enough to try to do anything about it.

Greenland Ice Melt, Measured By NASA Satellites, Reaches Unprecedented Level

Exxon CEO, Rex Tillerson acknowledged that burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet, but said, "society will be able to adapt." Huh? You tell that to the farmers who see their crops being ruined by the heat.

We are also discovering just how corrupt Wall Street is, but we have one major party that wants to repeal Dodd-Frank. My favorite is the latest CBO report on the Affordable Health Care Act. "They concluded that with the June United States Supreme Court decision, the law by 2022 would insure three million fewer people resulting in a lower cost of the law by $84 billion, and that a planned repeal by Republicans would add a net $109 billion to the federal budget deficit by 2022." That doesn't matter to the partisan Republicans who still want to repeal Obama Care.

I like to think that I’m a reasonable man, let’s start small by insisting that Speaker Boehner kick Representative Michele Bachmann off the House Intelligence Committee or at least change the name of the committee. Here is another one of her latest stupid remarks.

My analysis of last night's GOP debate

After the Bachman-Pawlenty face off, I couldn't stand the Fox live presentation of the GOP presidential debate anymore, so I recorded the rest. I watched the rest of the debate this morning.

The presidential candidates were asked to show by raising their hands, to state that they wouldn't ever compromise, even if the ratio was $10.00 in spending cuts to $1.00 in revenues. I bet a smile came across Grover's face because all the candidates raised their hands, they all have been Grovernized. Grover Norquist has a lot of power.

"In 2004, Congress enacted the American Jobs Creation Act, which allowed overseas profits returned to the U.S. in 2005 to be taxed at a 5.25% effective tax rate. Will the U.S. government temporarily lower U.S. tax rates by 85% again, as it did in 2004, so those firms will bring roughly $565 billion of it home? No, at least not during the next two years, mainly because studies show the 2004 dividend repatriation didn't create many jobs here, and most of it went to buy back shares and to pay dividends. The Senate rejected it in early 2009. President Obama opposes it, and even if the Republicans take Congress, they won't have enough votes to overcome a Senate filibuster or a veto."

http://tinyurl.com/3o7wxdu

When ask about this, Herman Cain said" so what if it went back in dividends." That's the GOP mindset, corporations can do no wrong. Take that same scenario to the people on welfare and some would have those people limited to two children to stay eligible for public assistance. It doesn't matter to Herman Cain if we are cutting taxes to those corporations (redistributing the wealth) to line the pockets of the CEOs and shareholders. Mitt Romney said he would create bank accounts for the unemployed. I don't think the banks will set up free accounts, so what would be the advantage of those bank accounts. It's more money for the banks.

Many of the pundits thought that Michelle Bachmann did pretty well, but they were talking about style in appealing to the right wing evangelical tea party crowd. That's who she has to appeal to in order to win the Iowa straw poll. When the Fox commentator asked her about her position on not raising the debt ceiling, she stuck to her guns, not even addressing the fact that analyst have reported how devastating it would've been to workers 401K's. She obviously doesn't know the basic math of our economic problems. As Rick Santorum, (I can't believe I'm quoting Rick Santorum) accurately stated “Our debt is comprised of 40% discretionary spending and 60% of it is entitlements, defense spending, and interest on the debt. By not raising the debt ceiling, we would have taken the cash route and no longer been able to borrow 42 cents out of every dollar. We would eventually have to eliminate all the discretionary spending and about 2% of the entitlements, defense spending, and interest on the debt. Remember, tax increases are off the table and the top 2% are not asked to contribute as part of a shared sacrifice. You could mix it up, but it's still doesn't take away from the fact that Michelle Bachmann doesn't understand the basic principles. Her claim to fame is the" Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act" that was defeated. Michelle Bachmann might win Iowa, but she's not ready for prime time. I was not surprised that Michelle Bachmann did not know that one credit-rating agency downgraded us because of our inability to solve our problem politically. Never mind, the credibility of that agency. Michelle Bachmann said that she could have by economy on the road to recovery in just one quarter by lowering the corporate rate and more tax cuts. What's wrong with this picture? The Obama administration passed 16 tax cuts and ~40% of the stimulus was, tax cuts, but we still have a demand problem. The Bush administration passed two major tax cuts but only 1.1 million were created in that duration. The Clinton administration raised taxes and about 22, million jobs were created. That makes a case for demand and not necessarily a tax rate. It's important to remember the goal. Tax cuts mean the inability to fund the entitlements and eventually eliminate them.

The foreign policy (as little as it was) was pretty dull except for the exchange between Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. I thought Ron Paul got the best of that because he correctly said the trouble with Iran started in 1953 with the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

Mitt Romney likes to use the GOP line of listening to his generals, but he will quickly find out that some of those generals are willing to fight endless wars and rack up billions in costs. There some generals that believe in nation building, but we need to do a lot of that back here in the United States.

The social issues were as crazy as ever because Herman Cain still fears Sharia law being used in United States and Newt Gingrich  would make everyone sign a loyalty pledge. What is it with all these pledges? Does Newt really think that if a terrorist who wanted to work in his administration would be bound by that pledge? Rick Santorum thinks that if states are given as much right as Ron Paul wants them to have; they might choose to make polygamy legal.

It was just another early Republican debate where the emphasis was on corporate tax cuts, spending cuts and very little about jobs and growth; unless you think austerity only will promote growth.

You let me down “ Meet the Press”

I didn't want to believe that a political talk show like " Meet the Press" would allow dumbing down its audience for advertising dollars.  The interview that David Gregory had with Michelle Bachman was pretty pathetic and did not meet the standards it once had.  Politicians used to be afraid to face Tim Russert because he would not let 'em spew their talking points instead of answering legitimate questions.  Then again, Tim Russert and those before him always had credible guests.

Michelle Bachman in a trance like state kept repeating "It is shocking the revelations of all the money that's been spent," said Bachmann, R-Minn. "There is a Congressional Research Service report that just was issued in February, and we discovered that secretly, unbeknownst to members of Congress, over $105 billion was hidden in the Obamacare legislation to fund the implementation of Obamacare. This is something that wasn't known."....Just in case you missed her point, she said the number "$105 billion" seven more times, and waved a sign that said "$105,464,000,000."
http://tinyurl.com/4qkvg5e
...Politifact gave a her a "barley true"

[Our conclusion]
Bachmann said that "secretly, unbeknownst to members of Congress, over $105 billion was hidden in the Obamacare legislation." She’s right that there’s about $105 billion of already approved spending in the health care bill that may be difficult to rescind. But that does not mean that the process was secret. While the pre-approved spending provisions didn’t attract media attention, they were in the plain language of the bill and did not vary dramatically from past congressional practice. And the bill was made public before the vote. On balance, we rate Bachmann’s statement Barely True.

She went to call the Obama Administration a" gangster government."...  A credible Sunday political talk show with 60 years  of experience should not lower their standards for advertising dollars. Michelle Bachmann has talk radio and Fox News where she will be more than welcome.

On the local front I thought BigJ wrote a good blog stating his feelings of pride but on cue,three local right-wingers were angered at the mention of president Obama. The question “ Are ethnic theme months necessary?  prompted some typical responses,  so I think BigJ went out on his own  to respond. I may be naive but I thought the board would sit around the table and decide the answers to questions they poll.  I imagine they have the diverse group to poll from. If you got to ask; don't complain or delete when you get the response.


I'm giving odds on the deletions of posts and maybe a poster or two by Sunday night.