dayman

In your warped universe federal income tax is the only tax in existence. And the top few percent are the only people paying it. I don't feel like searching for one data point all through is work...the point is that the bush tax cuts were huge drivers of debt. And they came when we were at war and Bush told us then to go shopping. The bottom line is regardless of what anybody has said in public THE most out of control spending that we have in the country is military. According to Lofgren...30 year military budget man.

According the Lofrgren under no circumstances things that would result in the wealthy paying more. 10-1 spending cuts for revenue increases got no love in the primaries. After roundly rejecting debt ceiling deals (something everyone loves to talk about here) they ultimately agree to a smaller debt reduction and fewer spending cuts in order to protect the donor class. Lowering taxes on the most favored elements of society is the sole object of the GOP fiscal policy. They are no serious about deficit reduction. - lofgren

Very good Gary, good boy!

It's his thesus not mine. He put the direct costs (not including funds funneled to agencies such as homeland security) to amount to about 1.7 trillion (nothing paid for) while the tax cuts themselves ... I can't recall what he had to say about the Bush Tax cuts in numbers but it was big...here's on graph a google search produces that is not his work so for what it's worth (it doesn't work for this discussion other than to show the tax cut impact relative to the war figure) and his overall criticism being a military spending nut was the institution of constantly increasing the budget no matter what perceived threat need be manufactured and no matter how superior our military becomes...he gave detailed descriptions of the lobby industry for military goodies and how they are in bed w/ the military itself and nobody on the hill dare question any of it lest they be "soft"... Basically his work is really depressing. He hits the entire spectrum and describes how he has seen it develop over 30 years. Senate tactics, money, military, anti-intellectual pandering, media, religion....he really harps on the tax and military issues b/c that's what he knows best. He blasts the Dems where they are the same for what it's worth although nobody on this board will see him as a credible source on anything I'm sure...

So we're waiting on this "replace" law that is so much better....

That's one of his other huge issues. Is he see the tax cuts at all costs + military adventures as huge problems they don't talk about while all the time insisting things like healthcare and retirement are things we can't afford...but of course we can afford to run the rest of the world just not the homeland (he has a interesting take on the term "homeland" also hehe)

Believe it or not, yes.

Lofgren's point is not that the religious right forced him out. His main point was the plutocracy forced him out. And he acknowledges the Dems are conflicted and ultimately very bad about it, but his experience in military budget and tax code analysis over time just led him to conclude after 30 years that the GOP exists almost exclusively at it's core to protect the wealthy contributors that keep them in power. Being a budget man at his core he concluded that the budget rhetoric spouted by the GOP is merely political manipulation as the Bush tax cuts and the 2 wars are more responsible for our debt explosion than anything else...and given that the GOP (notably Ryan himself) fought to kill Simpson-Bowles (which many Dems didn't mind) which lowered rates, broadened the base, eliminated loopholes and slashed trillions in spending (the same principles they claim to advocate) ... this could not happen if it resulted in revenue increase at the expense of their wealthy donors. He also talks about the war culture and the anti-intellectual thrust of the political advertising and that did irk him...but his primary concerns were clear hypocrisy on issues of money and war.

Preexisting conditions is not in effect yet for adults. There are two ways to deal with this regardless of what Romney says (btw Romney knows this). Single payor...or mandate. Now I know the mandate is terrible...despite the fact that it was a former GOP mainstay...but then again "we were always at war w/ mandates" (see: 1984). If companies have to take all comers, then everyone must have insurance at all times, of course you can't mandate something people can't afford so you must expand coverage for the poor and provide incentives for small business as well as discounts in the exchange, and to do all this you must have a funding source (however counterintuitive the scheme may be). There isn't some "common sense reform"...regardless of what the GOP would have you believe, that is so brilliant and different from what we have now...except for of course...single payor...which isn't perfect either but is probably the best option.

So you are here to tell me the current state of the GOP is every bit as sound as the current Democratic party and that it's pure finger pointing to suggest otherwise? There's no ingrained trends in political discourse, or platform...that would give a neutral observer reason to suspect one party may be a bit more rotten at the moment than another?

He knows that, it was his point. He would slit his mother's throat to avoid a public payer, but that doesn't stop him from bashing the only other reform that can cover preexisting conditions and accomplish a slew of other improvements (while admittedly bringing on new problems). Point being, don't tell anyone to get ready for 2016 or even 2014....that's our problem. If there was 1...that would be it.

And really if you don't want to get into everything (which is preferable I think from both our stand points) ... a simple explanation, as you see it, as to why Huntsman candidacy was DOA while every cook-and-cranny had a shot a Mitt for a few weeks a least will do. It's been a gradual shedding of what was once a coalition...but there is now a litmus test on fiscal (not 1 dime more from the rich, 39% w/ loopholes might as well be communism), social (abortion, gays, any threat at home that fits for the moment), and foreign policy (right of Dems at least, usually far right but now the country is a bit weary and they realize that). Following the election of Obama and the 2010 midterms...the insanity kicked into a new gear...the fringe controlled the center and congress turned into the biggest joke it has ever been....all of this culminating IMO w/ the freak show primary we saw unfold w/ awe. This is pointing the finger? Yes. I agree that the Dems suck, are useless, and are too busy fighting each other, keeping their own crazies under control, and too beholden to their own financial interests to do anything about anything (see healthcare, see financial reform). But that doesn't mean it's just all equal.

For the sake of discussion, and I'll listen with an open mind...what are some things you see as wrong with either party and how are the basically equal?

One 30 year/now retired GOP man venting worth reading, however much "finger pointing" you consider it to be. When the truth is that one party is in fact more dysfunctional. that's my what I end up saying. http://theragblog.bl...t-gop-cult.html

It's pure fairness bias to act like the GOP is equally dysfunctional in this moment. It's simply not true. Why do you feel this is somehow not a real "stand" to say this opinion out loud and merely "continues the cycle of division"?

I just say what I feel. And I think the statement speaks for itself. The GOP has real issues. The best candidates wanted no part and Huntsman was a joke...for some reason...he was a joke and Herman Cain held a lead for weeks...say what you will but at least on the Dems side strong candidates want in...

Both need a good clean out but the GOP really needs it the more...not to say that the Dems are close to good but the GOP is !@#$ed.

The GOP needs a cleansing and a retooling.

When Republicans say this they lose primaries.

Man I felt awkward just watching that. Why tip-toe around the truth that we all know...to be supported by the GOP fully any candidate has to be against gay marriage and abortion and to a far lesser extent cannot really talk too seriously about carbon emissions. It's an institutional flaw with their party (IMO) however for those that feel that way it guarantees their issues are front and center and they always have a candidate by the neck regardless of whether or not that candidate would otherwise be open to some reasonable discussion on the issue. The country would be far better off if Dems could just be pro-life and Repubs could be pro-choice and either party could have a view on gay marriage and both could acknowledge climate change as something that is somewhere between "concerning" and "a big !@#$ing deal"... If that happened...I think the GOP would be better off honestly. Just my opinion though, as I write I am instantly thinking about the wedge it drives and understand why the GOP guards those positions so well but I still think they would be better off.

Just poking my head in here haven't read everything...are they on strike right now or is it still negotiating? I thought I heard a blurb that they were set to strike soon...

Adam Schefter MRI compete on Fred Jackson's right knee and it revealed nothing conclusive. It will probably be 7-10 days before a ti… say.ly/DLV48LV

Informed of Williams' comments, Howard told ESPNNewYork.com, "If that was an issue, I think they would've thrown some flags. I didn't see any flags out there." Spoken like a man who was punching people in the face all day and knows it

http://espn.go.com/n...ement-refs-loss

How can people not think that was a fumble?