Budget Talks Fall Apart, Obama Reveals Some Details

President Obama on the failure of the budget talks:

Obama said he had demanded $1.2 trillion in additional revenues over 10 years, in exchange for spending cuts, including cuts to Medicare and Social Security. He said the revenues had been structured in a way that marginal tax rates would not be increased, and no Republicans would be forced to cast a vote that would violate the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which most Republicans in Congress have signed. Boehner said that the additional $400 billion in revenue would have amounted to a tax increase that would hurt small businesses.

Even though Boehner ended today's talks, he says he will attend tomorrow's White House meeting on the debt ceiling. From ABC: How Negotiations Broke Down.

< Affidavits the Public Shouldn't Be Reading | What Will Be The Debt Ceiling Deal? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    quelle surprise...not! (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by observed on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 08:37:49 PM EST
    Obama has another Charlie Brown moment.

    "including cuts to Medicare (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 08:44:27 PM EST
    and Social Security."

    Much less other desperately needed programs in this, the "new normal," which ought to be labelled the Second Great Depression.

    mind-blowing (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by desmoinesdem on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 08:45:16 PM EST
    that he was trying to protect Republicans from breaking Grover Norquist's pledge. Willing to trade away Medicare and Social Security cuts while giving the GOP as much political cover as possible. He really doesn't deserve to be re-elected.

    Equally (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 08:51:36 PM EST

    Obama's reaction to Boehner's walking out of the talks.

    He described himself as being, "left at the alter", and complained that Boehner "won't return my phone calls".

    I have no words....
    My brain has been short-circuited...


    Boehner to Obama: (5.00 / 12) (#7)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 08:53:56 PM EST
    "I'm just not that into you."

    Obama back to Boehner: (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by shoephone on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 09:00:17 PM EST
    "But I can change! I can! Please, darling, just give me another chance..."

    Change is the Change We've Been Changing For! (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 09:11:13 PM EST
    Obama is one lucky SOB. (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by masslib on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 08:51:48 PM EST
    The Republicans in their complete and utter craziness have allowed Obama out of this gawd awful predicament.  I'm so glad the deal is toast.  They will find a way to raise the debt ceiling.

    I think that's true (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 08:55:02 PM EST
    Assuming that we haven't "gotten to no."

    Something tells me the President & his WH (none / 0) (#23)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 11:39:40 PM EST
    were not the least bit surprised. Negotiations can do all kinds of things, and be characterized all kinds of ways by the participants...to make the points they need to make. E.g., who is being reasonable in the eyes of the public, who wants to settle & who doesn't.  One thing we see over & over: People often make their own luck. (And, the leverage was the knowledge that Repubs had to back away from almost any kinds of revenue enhancement/taxes...while not a sure thing, applying that pressure at the end via well-timed leaks & the expected, resultant outrage...that sure is an obvious possibility in this type of negotiation.)

    It would be nice to believe, as you do, .. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by cymro on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 02:51:19 AM EST
    .. that the WH was out-negotiating the Republicans. But it would be the opposite of what I have come to expect from Democrats in general, and from the Obama administration in particular. So I just can't accept your analysis.

    "Something"? Heh (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:38:59 AM EST

    For days you've been telling everyone not to believe the news reports of the Grand Deal because only Boehner and Obama know the details of any plan, now you're telling us that "something" (intuition?) tells you that this was Obama's secret(11th dimensional), negotiating plan?

    "Something" tells me that's ridiculous.


    Okay, yman...Rather than "something" (none / 0) (#56)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 03:42:42 PM EST
    Since "something" was apparently an unclear shorthand way of hinting that the President & his team deduced--from evidence right in front of our noses, and certainly within the purview of Democratic leadership--that the path to & from last November's Republican victory precluded said Repubs' acceptance of what--at first blush & without more--appears to be a going-overboard offer from the WH. The Norquist pledges, their own hyperbole, and the hungry tiger Tea Party now turning on reprobates would not allow them to extricate themselves from their "no taxes" pledge. IMO, and as honestly as I can say this: President Obama & the Dem team pushed this obvious calculation to grandstanding advantage to show to the American public that the Repubs could & would not govern, were only naysayers, etc. etc.  

    Again, Obama appears to have driven home the point of Repub obstructionism time & again--&, as the pollsters have been telling us (and, as average Joe down the block has been saying), the message is getting thru now & will be replayed for 2012.


    That's not "evidence" (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:41:02 PM EST
    Since "something" was apparently an unclear shorthand way of hinting that the President & his team deduced--from evidence right in front of our noses, and certainly within the purview of Democratic leadership--that the path to & from last November's Republican victory precluded said Repubs' acceptance of what--at first blush & without more--appears to be a going-overboard offer from the WH.

    This 11th dimensional chess assuming-the-Republicans-will-reject-a-ridiculously-horrible-offer is just pure conjecture, speculation, and BS in attempting to rationalize Obama's offer.  You sound just like Lawrence O'Donnell, ...

    ... and that's not a compliment.


    christine, i hope (none / 0) (#67)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:04:02 PM EST
    you are right about this:

    President Obama & the Dem team pushed this obvious calculation to grandstanding advantage to show to the American public that the Repubs could & would not govern, were only naysayers, etc. etc.

    & you may well be - i know that when i visited my 91-year-old relatively unpolitical (Democratic) dad in Ohio for Fathers' Day, he more or less called the Republican Party "the party of no," so at least that meme was already established - & the Obama admin would reasonably build on that

    but about this i am not so sure:

    the message is getting thru now & will be replayed for 2012

    it can & will be - BUT Obama has also, for whatever eleventy reason, put "entitlements" on the table, & that is what the GOP can tell the "Keep Your Government Hands Off My Medicare" Tea Party, however dishonest & hypocritical that message will be


    Your concern in the last paragraph is justified (none / 0) (#69)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:30:47 PM EST
    In the past two or three weeks, channels in Denver have been playing--right before the network news a rather powerful commercial (IMO) replete with wakeful woman in nightclothes worried about her family (economy), her mother (Medicare cuts), & her children's future (debt.)  The sponsor, near as I can tell, is one of Rove's sponsorships.  

    At this point I'm willing to take the chance that the party can make the clear differentiation--because the intricacies of negotiations usually go nowhere after the agreement is concluded. People generally look at results only. Yet, I'll admit to a twinge each time I see the Rovian-inspired TV ad; and, when you print your observation too.


    Is this also part of Obama's grand strategy? (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:28:22 PM EST
    After the short White House meeting today, Congressional leaders of both parties met on Capitol Hill to work out an agreement to increase the debt limit. Earlier, House Speaker John Boehner held a conference call with his caucus, where he said he wanted a debt limit plan in place by tomorrow to avoid causing a drop in the Asian markets.

    This concern about the markets has happened very suddenly. All of a sudden there's a belief that a clean increase or a small debt deal with a minor amount of spending cuts would not be enough to avoid a downgrade. Standard and Poor's basically forced this by saying that they would downgrade if there wasn't a $4 trillion deficit deal in the next 90 days. The claim is that this has been caused by political leaders attaching the debt limit to a deal on reducing the deficit, and the inability to reach an agreement, the political stalemate, has led the markets to lose confidence.

    Please tell us again how very smart Obama is by pushing his "Grand Bargain" of $4 trillion deficit plan with cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid so that he will get a clean bill.  


    I think that's true (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:53:11 AM EST
    Though I can't pretend to know what is real vs what is posturing, I am glad to see Dems at long last holding out for raising taxes, making the case for that, and the public coming around to it in the polls. Could be just holding out for it because they knew the GOP would never agree and thus the cuts would fail too, and that is fine with me too. The GOP may have given Obama a way out of the hole he dug himself into by offering up cuts with nothing in return to begin with. Boehner whining about changing the goal posts -that is what I like to see.

    Anyway I am more optimistic now about a clean-ish vote on the debt ceiling alone. I hate the arcane procedural stuff inherent on the McConnel plan, but I would view the outcome as a win policy-wise, and a loss for all of the politicians involved.


    Eh (none / 0) (#50)
    by lilburro on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 11:46:42 AM EST
    this isn't the end.  Like I said below, I am done with the idea that the President is acting in bad faith with everyone except us.  He reads polls about liberal support, too.

    And raising taxes on the rich has always been a popular position.  I don't understand what the gain is here.  I mean, after 8 disastrous years of GW Bush, the Republicans bounced back in about a year and a half.  That is insane.  But clearly they are able to manipulate their image, and fast.  It's not like this is suddenly going to stick to them.

    There will be cuts.


    Ever spend any time wondering how (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 12:00:02 PM EST
    the Republicans bounced back from the brink of destruction in about a year and a half?

    Could Obama validating their policies and adopting many of their talking points have anything to do with their quick recovery?

    Even the "tea party" is as American as apple pie.

    KROFT: No one at the news conference yesterday asked you about the Tea Party. According to the exit polls, four out of ten voters on Tuesday said they supported the movement. How seriously do you take the Tea Party, and will it make the task of finding common ground with the Republican Party more difficult?

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, it'll be interesting to see how it evolves. We have a long tradition in this country of a desire for limited government, the suspicion of the federal government, of a concern that government spends too much money. You know? I mean, that's as American as apple pie. And although, you know, there's a new label to this, I mean those sentiments are ones that a lot of people support and give voice to. Including a lot of Democrats. link

    Quite a lot of Republican positions crammed into one short paragraph along with legitimizing the tea party and their agenda.


    Why the bounce-back? (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 03:57:48 PM EST
    One reason may well be that the past few election cycles have gone back & forth. People expected change with each change they made. IMO, given the deep hole from two wars & tax cuts preceding 2009, there would & could be no quick fixes.

    Recall that Obama knew he would barely have the votes for the quick passage of the small stimulus that we were able to obtain so quickly. In brief, while I agreed with Krugman from the git-go on the need for a larger stimulus, the votes weren't there...especially in the Senate...because this wasn't the 30s in scope & people were still carrying around a lot of the Reaganesque cure-all beliefs.  So, what is the gain, you ask.  Well, given the lay of the land, after people bought into the we-don't-like-big-government-&-we-want-to-bring-down-the-debt motif of the Tea Partiers, the only fix that would have been in was that the Dems were going to "get their clocks cleaned" in the next session...because as we thought & as we have witnessed the controlling House votes would block everything. That Obama was able to finagle as much as he did last winter--despite some reaction here--was rather remarkable; that he may be able to hold the "cut" & other lines as much as he has by how he has played the Repubs (as naysayers, non-responsible, etc.) during these interminable debt ceiling days is --so far-- much much better than what numbers he faced in terms of votes. Wins have a lot to do with realistic expectations & comparisons at the outset.

    It is not over yet...but, if it holds, it will be (in the eyes of politicians and historians) a gain for the President & his party.


    There's usually a loss to the president's party (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 04:18:05 PM EST
    in midterms.  When it comes to the issues of a stimulus, he would have had the backing of blue dogs as well for a stronger, much stronger, stimulus and jobs program.

    Here's where I would argue his tactical error was: he didn't think or push big. He instead proposed incremental. Further, he focused on banks, not housing or employment or infrastructure, physical and human, at that time.

    Instead, I believe he was planning, negotiating, and attempting to line up support for his Grand Health Insurance Reform.

    I also will state that he categorically used the wrong approach on both. During the first 100 days, the president had the opportunity to do much more than he did-- I was stating these points at the time, if you remember.

    This time period got lost, wasted, however you want to put it. His plans didn't pan out, and he stayed the course.

    HE then gave us Bob Dole's health insurance reform. Now he's walking back from that in The Grand Compromise.

    He had control of the house, the senate, and the White House. It's hard to screw that up, but he managed, for two years.


    He had surficial control (none / 0) (#62)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:31:33 PM EST
    I believe that the Senate--with Liebermann, Landrieux, Nelson, and maybe Pryor, e.g.--differed in many respects when it came to their pecurniary vision of big spending. I challenge that the votes were there in reality at the time...and the real dilemma involved the important first big move be a winner. While my agreement with Krugman from the outset--about the wanting nature of a small stimulus--has been of record, I cannot fault a President opting for a victory at the first test. (And, as we all certainly see by now, the Repubs served as a stronger than usual obstacle at every turn...esp in view of the Democratic Senatorial composition.)

    Same must be said for ACA. That is the issue that has been my driver--for many reasons, some quite personal for family members--since at least teenager-hood. For me, it was important to move; to make gains; to get legislation that reformed insurance practices; to expand toward universal care; to get & seal it; and, come back & get more. And, most most definitely, not to fail in getting anything again. (One of the sadder days, IMO, in the legislative process was the almost-last-minute knife in the back from Liebermann preventing the expansion of Medicare & an opt-in approach there.) Votes for the whole enchilada were not there...and, many of us have had enough of the falling-on-the-sword for another twenty years approach. Whew...that's why I congratulate Obama for beginning the real consolidation process in this area. (BTW, my goal is for single-payer...always has been.)


    If you think the stimulus (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 06:24:06 PM EST
    that we got was insufficient, we agree. The answer was to allow the stimulus to fail, so a larger, more cohesive one could have been passed.

    Unlike you, I think that the stimulus was designed as the president wanted, not what the country needed. There was no reason to only push for an incremental stimulus.

    Everything that has followed on the economic path and on the Bob Dole inspired ACA have either resulted, or have been indicators, of inadequate leadership domestically. I would also argue that foreign policy, especially concerning Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Libya has been lacking.


    Cannot agree on allowing something to fail (none / 0) (#72)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:52:55 PM EST
    on principle. The humans out there who would be immediately effected, IMO, trump my philosophy and trump my druthers. I'm not cavalier (at this stage of my life)...and, so, even saying & believing that the best option was & continues to be to move with what you can get to alleviate the present-day suffering...even with that, I also see your point of view. Y'know, Jeff, the type of issue we are discussing is the real meat of history and of philosophy classes. And, I believe, that arguments must be made on both sides. That is not a dodge; it is that how we choose to address the greater good depends on many things...what are looking at right now, what will we look at tomorrow, do we believe that we staunch the bleeding somewhat or focus on the longterm. I do not believe that anyone can say that there is only one ethical answer to the questions a method raises.

    On ACA: Heck...Bob Dole is not the greatest inspiration. But, I suspect, you know that my retort would be that the name associated with it does not matter. I would invoke the name of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, and his oft-repeated regret that he wanted it all when he should have supported the Nixon compromise. Life hands us all sorts of things, in retrospect & in futuro.

    Foreign policy: In my life, I've contested every President's foreign poligy. I'm pleased to see that the inherited Afghanistan & Iraq (both of which I opposed) are officially in drawdown mode. (That is probably as much as one could expect from any President.) On Egypt: Given the 50 or so years of recent history, Obama did a commendable job of encouraging democracy on the rebels' terms (with the result that was called for) while treading gradually away from the entanglements of those many years. Liya? I'm in a wait & see mode, as I think we will learn a lot about where the US treads in future...what is the role of helping insurgent would-be Democrats, how can that role be limited, what does the 21st century mean in terms of finding a median between dominant/war lord/perceived aggressor and UN participant/world player/humanist helper? Many questions about the real meaning of Libya....


    I associate Bob Dole with it (none / 0) (#79)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 11:53:20 AM EST
    not because of the name, but because of the content of the old Dole plan. Kennedy's plan was entirely different. When Kennedy said he would have accepted Nixons plan, it was based on the knowledge that years after the fact, no reform had been made.

    As far as proposing big for a stimulus, that, in my opinion, was the time to go big, not on a grand compromise. The republicans were on the ropes, McConnell was still building his support, and the revenue crisis (a function of unemployment as much as borrowing or spending in the Obama term) could have been abated.

    A grand deal now is negotiation from a far worse position than two years ago.

    I don't think we need a deal to 'stauch' the problems of deficit spending now. Deficit spending during a depression or a deep recession, historically, must be used. However, not using them for jobs creation simply maintains the revenue issue. Taxes coming in from workers AS WELL AS increased purchasing by the government of non-military items-- at least the big ticket single-use items such as weapons, bombers, even munitions, don't stimulate jobs and people buying.

    I sincerely believe if the federal government had decided to spend 250 billion purchasing paper, computer chips, washers and dryers and heavy equipment made in the USA, even mixers and smaller items, put them in a big warehouse, and let them sit, for eventual distribution to the parts of the government that need them, this act could have put more directly into the economy where needed. I'm sure others can think of items manufactured here that would have done the same.

    My read and your read differ tremendously. I look at the 'stimulus' as a bank stimulus and a market stimulus. it worked. But here's the issue-- banks and the market don't make jobs. they make profits.

    So, here are my critiques and these are based in the times the occurred:

    1.) Too small and too ineffective a stimulus (GM and Chrysler excepted);

    2.)Poor targeting of the original inadequate stimulus;

    3.) Not adjusting the stimulus, but 'staying the course.'

    4.) squandering before the fact on the stimulus and subsequently the health incurance reform bills the power of 80 percent approval and the 'Bully Pulpit;'

    5.) The Affordable Care Act itself-- something we can discuss when I diary it, just let me say that I think no bill would be only slightly worse than the act-- I also support single payer;

    6.) not passing, in November or December, when Democrats controlled the House And Senate, the legislation for the debt increase as a standalone, but instead negotiating from weakness;

    7.) not passing in November and December significant aid to unemployment compensation, COBRA, and/or some educational aid;

    8.) The seating of the catfood commission-- just that alone indicated goals;

    9.) not using arm-breaking techniques to pass a domestic budget;

    10.) not establishing a governmental reform commission to look into duplication, etc.
    INSTEAD of the catfood commission.

    11.) Increasing funding to DEA-- although without a line-item veto this one is semi-moot. But his proposal increased funding;

    12.) FISA and domestic spying;

    13.) Not using the bully pulpit to propose and promote a Democratic view that undercuts the Tea Party and the Republican stances;

    14.) negotiating at the end from weakness for a "grand Compromise. The last grand compromiser, Henry Clay, doesn't get placed at the top of the list for legislators, although he is famous for many things.

    15.) No Cramdown, no HOLC. With the issues of underwater mortgages, fraud, and other issues, this program, if properly targetted and funded, could have made a serious difference;

    15.) Tentativeness. My observations lead to the belief that Mr. Obama is a ditherer. He seems afraid to act in a timely fashion, either domestically or in international policy. And for examples, many of the abovementioned support my thesis. I guess internationally we can discuss in another thread or a diary.

    I think we need to engage in discussion of these issues. I'm the point man here for health care, unemployment, the 'new normal' of no growth, no jobs, older workers, and other areas... because of my particular life position.

    So I don't see a need to stanch the flow of spending at the moment. I received a chart from the Concord Coalition showing that revenues exceeded expenditures from about 1998-2001.

    What happened during the post 9-11 miasma boom to revenues? 9-11 did hurt the economy, but that was short-term...

    So... enough said for now... time to take the boy to eat and play. I'll be back on shortly.



    In many ways, my philosophical beliefs (none / 0) (#83)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 04:01:59 PM EST
    accord with yours about the economy. Where the divergence comes, IMO, is how we might view governing as the "art of the possible." ToWit: The original stimulus & the lay-of-the-land in terms of votes (with the corollary: What is the strategy to pursue if the votes are not there.)

    That divergence in how we define what was doable in terms of actual votes in 2009. That leads us in two different directions about was is essentially the bona fides of our President. Without rehashing the reasoning, it seems to me that I can make my case & you can make yours. (As I have said elsewhere, the matter of the amount of stimulus initially will be visited again & again by Presidential historians, depending on the outcome in a year or so. As to getting a second stimulus: No national figure who had to vote on that or wrote about it could find the needed political support for it--a rotten slap in the face to re-upping the proposal.)

    In a comment to one of my comments today, Anne supposes that I am frustrated because I can't make headway or some such here in terms of persuasion. Well...that is a load of BS, ftr.
    Yet, I am saddened--that seems to be the best word that fits right now--saddened because so much of the discussion about the debt ceiling here reads/feels/suggests the kind of pitched battle we all have been witnessing in so many areas these days. "Compromise" or even the ability to have full discussions with others without assigning one who disagree to the ranks of evil-doers or similar looks to have disappeared.  

    I'd love to be able to agree with a group. But, agreeing here for the sake of agreeing for me would be intellectual dishonesty on my part. The saddest thing of all is that the debate--from what I have seen--is gradually turning here to a "with me or agin me" pattern. An almost holy war of words. There has got to be a way of strong, honorable disagreemen ABOUT GOVERNING & attendant strategies without it transforming into a morality play.

    Thank you, Jeff. I needed to say that. (BTW, your comments related to the style of this President hit a good point...while my own preference is for a more aggressive initial pattern, tho, we can't expect all Preisents to mirror our personalities.)


    christine, (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 04:43:18 PM EST
    I enjoy our discussions/debates. we're parallell in so many areas.

    I think it goes back to the assumptions/starting points. We don't seem together there. Which allows us to offer alternatives that, while similar, are actually very divergent.

    I love a good discussion on real and important matters. I don't know if we can find a compromise, but we can certainly make our cases.


    Obama didn't try for a larger stimulus (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:30:42 PM EST
    package. How about I repeat that statement. Obama made absolutely no attempt to get a larger stimulus.

    He asked for the smallest amount possible and got pretty much what he asked for. This at a time when the Dems controlled the WH, Senate and House. Failed to take any strong action on job creation and on foreclosures.  

    At every turn in the run up to the 2010 elections, he and the Dems sold out different segments of the traditional members of his base and he and his spokespersons ridiculed them when they had the audacity to object.



    It was evident that the votes were not there (none / 0) (#63)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:36:07 PM EST
    You get what you can in these kinds of situations OR you fall on the sword for nothing.

    It is one of those areas bound for dispute for years, tho. Clearly. Just as clearly bound for dispute is the opinion of many economists who have stated publicly that the smaller stimulus provided not only movement, but probably avoided a Depression.


    Gee isn't it wonderful that Obama uses (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 06:10:26 PM EST
    his bully pulpit non stop to generate support and twist arms to vote for $4 trillion in cuts which Obama, himself says, "include a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense and  an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, never accepting that the votes are not there. Yet, by the same token he could not use the same bully pulpit even once try and garner support for an adequate stimulus package to create jobs for ordinary citizens when the Dem controlled the WH, the Senate and the House.

    Willing to fall on his sword to cut safety net programs but not to create jobs.  


    okey, dokey...we disagree (none / 0) (#68)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:20:52 PM EST
    When this latest DC imbroglio is over...let's talk some more. I do get your point; it is simply that--to me--it was a lot closer call than you are willing to consider (the original stimulus legislation)...because the vote counting was well-known.  

    Learning from the past is one thing...perhaps, he would have risked the first loss now, in hindsight. But, given that $$$ were needed in the economy in short order then, who knows. The point: Both positions are legitimate.  Now, the question is whether we stay in the past...or, what we--given the reality of Repub votes & intransigence that noone can fail to see--would do step by step. And, there are going to be legitimate differences there as well. For me, I think that fighting to a philosophical draw from here to the elections is unacceptable. Unacceptable in view of the fact that, without any movement on legislation of any sort (& that is what the Repub record in this Congress is to date), the people that we profess to care about would end up with nothing or far less than half-loaf. That is the reality.


    It is funny where Obama chooses do (none / 0) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:03:32 PM EST
    little or nothing and where he choses to to go all in. Little effort on jobs and all in to make sure that the average person winds up with little or nothing after he negotiates away the things that they need to survive.

    Why should we tolerate let along feel grateful when Obama forces through policies that require the average person to settle for half a loaf so that he and his savvy friends can accumulate more more and more wealth.

    H&ll, it won't even be half a loaf. By the time Obama is through cutting the domestic programs as well as SS, Medicare and Medicare many won't even have crumbs let alone have half a loaf.  


    Attn: Left of the Left (none / 0) (#77)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 10:47:47 AM EST
    You may regard yourself as "left," but one who cannot tolerate debate and plays the rating game in a way that is not justified is something other than what you think. To use the "ratings" equivalent of spitting--without cause--needs to be called out.

    While what you think about my views does not affect them, the mechanism you appear to choose in expressing whatever-it-is-that-you-are-expressing is little more than a display of an authoritarian bent on the part of the rater.


    I don't presume to speak for (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 12:42:25 PM EST
    anyone but myself, but my impression is that you got that rating because the content of your comment was largely a lot of apologist mumbo-jumbo; we already know that Obama is averse to the disappointment that comes with reaching for something and failing, and your comment seems to  accept that aversion which results in him only reaching as far as he has to to "win," even if the content of the victory isn't a win for those affected by it.

    As for ratings, I'm pretty sure you don't rant about getting high ratings, do you?  I'm sure you don't see any "5" you get as evidence of an authoritarian bent - you no doubt feel pleased that someone has recognized and appreciates the value of your comment.

    I think the real problem is that you haven't found too many buyers for your point of view, and you're frustrated about that; I appreciate your willingness to explain your points of view in a deliberate and articulate way, but that doesn't mean that others find what you say to be any more credible than if you had just said, "Hey!  He's doing the best he can!"  I'm sure you can just as easily condense my comments, too, so feel free to do so if that would make you feel better.

    We're all frustrated, and some of us are angry, and we're not really open to being told that if we just understood the inside game, we'd know we have no reason to feel or believe what we do.

    The time to apologize or cheerlead or enable is over, christine - it's not getting us better policy or getting us where we need to be.


    Polite and pointed answer. (none / 0) (#81)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 03:11:45 PM EST
    You speak for me here, also, Anne.

    Trans: Your comments really state (none / 0) (#82)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 03:29:11 PM EST
    "Don't bother if you don't agree with the group." What I said was a part of genuine debate. If individuals have such problems with disagreement in our society, then it is those who believe that we must follow their way or the highway that have problems with the democratic system of government.

    I did not read it (none / 0) (#86)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 04:44:20 PM EST
    that way, Christine. just sayin'

    I don't think it's up to you to determine (none / 0) (#87)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 07:58:47 PM EST
    how or in what form people communicate their disagreement, but that being said, I almost have no idea what you are saying in your response to my comment; I've read it at least three times and it still makes no sense to me.

    In my opinion, we could do with a lot more - even a little more - of "my way or the highway" because this constant effort to give and compromise and defer and submit is only serving two purposes: (1) it is diluting beyond recognition whatever position the Democrats started with - which gives an appearance of them really not believing very deeply in their position to begin with, and (2) it's resulting in some really bad policy.

    I will leave you with a comment by David Dayen, which I believe deserves your serious consideration:

    Politics cannot survive on incrementalists alone. It cannot survive with only an inside game, and a political science conception of the art of the possible. Ultimately it needs people on the outside who look at what the incrementalists have produced, and say "No." It doesn't make those people juvenile, it doesn't make them unrealistic. It makes them an integral part of the democratic process.

    Food for thought.


    Also the Dems had the Republicans (none / 0) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 01:18:00 PM EST
    on the ropes once again when the House Republicans voted for the Ryan plan. This gave the Dems the opportunity to run against that vote and opened the door for the Dems to take back the House.

    Obama firmly closed that door by pursuing his Grand Bargain which includes cuts to the safety net programs.


    I think we ought to start a campaign (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 08:51:59 PM EST
    urging Obama to change his party affiliation; I mean, if he's going to govern from the right, push conservative policies - why shouldn't he do it as a Republican?

    He could switch parties, spend his billion dollars fighting off Republicans in primaries and caucuses, try to prevail over the Cavalcade of Clowns who have thrown their hats into the ring - which would keep him busy and maybe out of our hair - and meanwhile, we could find someone with real Democratic bona fides to run - as a Democrat.

    It makes a lot more sense that standing by while both the Republican and Democratic parties run Republicans for president.

    That's it - that's all I've got.  Obama's going hell-bent-for-leather to out-Republican the Republicans, demanding spending cuts is a down economy, and looking to chisel away at the meager benefits most seniors depend on to keep going.

    Time to call on him to be true to his ideology.

    What I don't get (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 10:53:57 PM EST
    is that the President's approval ratings are really low, and yet he seems hell-bent on the current course vis-a-vis debt ceiling, SS, etc.  How much lower than 43% approval (with much higher disapproval) must the polls go before someone gets the message -- including the Dems in Congress who, with few exceptions, have shown a deafening silence.

    Gallup's Frank Newport, the director, (none / 0) (#24)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 11:45:22 PM EST
    wrote about the relatively good positional average for the last several months & the last month that these ratings are for the President & in comparison with other modern day Presidents. He points out, e.g., that both Clinton and Reagan before him had dipped into the 30s at about this time in their first terms.

    A lot rides on how the public perceives the outcome...was it the President or the Congress that acted in the interests of the country as a whole and acted reasonably in being dedicated to a resolution of the "crisis." We'll see....


    I just checked Gallup (none / 0) (#88)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jul 27, 2011 at 06:12:37 PM EST
    and by mid-1995, Clinton's approval rating was up to 50% - up from 40% at the beginning of the same year.  President Obama's approval ratings have been steadily declining, with the exception of the short-lived bounce following the killing of Bin Laden.

    that's a great idea anne. (none / 0) (#30)
    by cpinva on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 01:00:53 AM EST
    only one teeny, tiny, itsy, bitsy problem:

    that "real" democrat you crave exists only in our imaginations. ok, maybe al franken.


    The 2012 Repub commercials keep a comin' (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 09:08:23 PM EST
    Nothing like a sitting Dem prez yapping yet again, and even more dimly, about how willing he is to toss granny into the pit toilet.  

    Hey, Harvard, you like apples?


    Love the film reference. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 09:11:29 PM EST
    Had it going through my mind a lot lately, for some reason. That particular statement, not the restof what I consider to be a well-acted and well written movie.

    Thank God it fell apart (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:13:27 AM EST

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:23:35 AM EST
    but I never know what to think. Maybe Obama will offer up "more" in hope of a "deal".

    The Obama administration is horrible at messaging where they stand on anything but I guess that's just reflective of the way Obama is.


    as yeats might say, (none / 0) (#38)
    by observed on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:20:41 AM EST
    The center cannot hold.

    Thank goodness for intransigent Republicans! W/out (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by jawbone on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:23:44 AM EST
    Obama's offer of raising the age for Medicare to 67 might be heading for a vote.

    But Obama didn't succeed. Yet. Obama wants to do this really badly (pun intended), and he will be back trying again and again and again.

    All those unemployed, under employed holding on by their fingertips until they turn 65 would be shit out of luck.  Two more years without insurance. Meh, just another interest group. F*ck'em.

    I thought I heard on NPR this morning that Obama said Pelosi had agreed to raising the Medicare age, but I can't find that in the transcript of Obama's Friday 5PM announcement. He was making the point that he'd made all these great offers to Boehner.

    Maybe Boehner is just a bit more savvy politically and realizes that even if Obama offers it, if the Repubs agree they will have a sh*tstorm on their hands with people furious about raising the Medicare age.

    Obama is most likely to the right of Boehner, if so!!!

    It was an early segment on today's Weekend Edition.

    Was anyone here listening? Did I misremember, hear things wrong?

    Can't get replay until noon.

    BUT -- if it is true that Pelosi has agreed on that, that does it completely. NO MORE DEMS.

    From the transcript:

    OBAMA: Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense.  We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.  We believed that it was possible to shape those in a way that preserved the integrity of the system, made them available for the next generation, and did not affect current beneficiaries in an adverse way.

    In addition, what we sought was revenues that were actually less than what the Gang of Six signed off on.  So you had a bipartisan group of senators, including Republicans who are in leadership in the Senate, calling for what effectively was about $2 trillion above the Republican baseline that they've been working off of.  What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking taxes -- tax rates, but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could have lowered rates generally while broadening the base.

    So let me reiterate what we were offering.  We were offering a deal that called for as much discretionary savings as the Gang of Six.  We were calling for taxes that were less than what the Gang of Six had proposed.  And we were calling for modifications to entitlement programs, would have saved just as much over the 10-year window.  In other words, this was an extraordinarily fair deal.  If it was unbalanced, it was unbalanced in the direction of not enough revenue.

    But in the interest of being serious about deficit reduction, I was willing to take a lot of heat from my party -- and I spoke to Democratic leaders yesterday, and although they didn't sign off on a plan, they were willing to engage in serious negotiations, despite a lot of heat from a lot of interest groups around the country, in order to make sure that we actually dealt with this problem. (My emphasis)

    Yup, users of Medicare are just one of those "interest groups." Like the unemployed, disemployed. Like those who want to breathe clear air and swim in clean waters.

    Some interest groups are useful to politicians, like those banksters with the big bucks to donate.  Little people's interest groups? Pols like Obama laugh at us.

    That phrase (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 12:14:25 PM EST
    "interest groups" made me see red yesterday, too.

    I don't see anything in that, though, saying that Pelosi has agreed to raising Medicare eligibility age-- which is, I have to say, one of the more insane ideas I've ever heard.  Take the healthiest and least expensive cohort out of the system in order to reduce costs?  It's completely nuts.


    Love this part: (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:41:18 AM EST
    The President wanted an additional 400 billion, but said that was negotiable.

    Boehner: Negotiable, hmm? O.K. "Mr. President, the 400 B is out!

    Obama: Oky, Doky, strike the 400B.

    "Now you see, Mr. Speaker, how much we can accomplish for the American people when we negotiate in a bi-partisan manner."

    According to White House officials (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 11:11:04 AM EST
    they were very close to getting a deal to raise the nation's debt ceiling before Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) backed away. Included in the deal:

    On Medicaid, the differences were minuscule, an administration source said. And the two sides were not apart at all on Medicare, the other health entitlement that has been a part of the discussions.

    "On Medicare, we were identical," the official claimed, saying the president had agreed with Republicans on eligibility, cost-sharing, premiums and other facets of the program.
    Every other major issue was basically agreed to, including raising the eligibility age of Medicare from 65 to 67 years old "over a long period of time," the administration official added.

    Other general areas of agreement included extending the payroll tax, extending unemployment benefits and altering the Consumer Price Index on Social Security.

    Some of the figures being discussed would cut $150 billion in healthcare provider payments, raise $150 billion in premiums and $125 billion in Medicaid reductions.


    Do you believe this? (none / 0) (#74)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 07:15:35 AM EST
    They're actually bragging about the totality of their capitulation.

    I guess this  really is "change you can believe in." I mean, he did promise to "change the way Washington works." And he did. Before Obama, they screwed you, but lied about it. Obama's saying, "screw you...and I mean it!"


    Obama is not, I repeat NOT (none / 0) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 08:49:19 AM EST
    capitulating. Complicity is not capitulation.

    I do agree that they are bragging about the wonderful new cuts to the safety net programs that they have agreed to implement.


    Ouch! I just felt a sting across my palm (none / 0) (#76)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 09:45:51 AM EST
    Were you ever a school teacher?

    How about unindicted co-conspirator?


    Maybe a product of a (none / 0) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 11:35:15 AM EST
    Catholic grade school when the nuns used such methods.

    Sorry, if your palm stings. I'm just a little frustrated with the theme that Obama is bending to Republican pressure rather than pursuing his own agenda. An agenda which he started as early as 2007 with not a Tea Party member in sight. An agenda he pursued when the Dems held the WH, the Senate and the House.

    To me there is sufficient evident that this is Obama's agenda which he continues to pursue relentlessly and only the need to feel better about Obama to believe that he is being forced to capitulate.



    Barack Obama: (none / 0) (#9)
    by shoephone on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 08:58:20 PM EST
    The Worst Democratic President of the Last 100 Years. What an unmitigated embarrassment he is. What a disaster for the party and for the country.

    And right about now he's telling Michelle, "But I kissed so much GOP a$$! And I invoked the almighty Ronald Reagan at every turn! What more could they want from me???"

    If* the president uses the walkout (none / 0) (#14)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 09:25:07 PM EST
    as a pretext for going 16th Amendment on Congress, then I have no problem. Coin Seignurage(sp) has been mentioned, and between the two, I don't see an issue.

    the * (none / 0) (#15)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 09:25:44 PM EST
    indicates a mighty big if.

    i assume you meant (none / 0) (#31)
    by cpinva on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 01:02:01 AM EST
    14th amendment, since the 16th established the federal income tax.

    yep (none / 0) (#45)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:38:22 AM EST
    Lawrence o'Donnell is (none / 0) (#16)
    by kenosharick on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 09:30:51 PM EST
    still insisting this is all part of a grand strategy to play the repubs that Obama has been running from the beginning.  I myself am quite doubtful.

    Does O'Donnell think that (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 09:36:55 PM EST
    the person in office is President Bartlett?

    Why are you watching him? (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 09:51:50 PM EST
    Is O'Donnell thinking the GOP doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 10:55:37 PM EST
    hear his commentary?

    Good grief, is there nothing they won't spin (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 01:08:49 AM EST
    for Obama?  Is O'Donnell this big an idiot or does he just think that we are?

    I dunno (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by itscookin on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 07:35:06 AM EST
    Christine thinks we're idiots.

    BHO (none / 0) (#19)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 10:29:24 PM EST
    may be lining up things to run against a "do-nothing" Congress in 2012.

    how will a 'give them (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by observed on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 11:08:49 PM EST
    "Gosh darn it, the GOP is mean!"  Obama'  campaign work out? Interesting questiom.

    Watch how this plays out. (none / 0) (#25)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 11:49:38 PM EST
    I am inclined--more so with each passing day--to agree with O'Donnell. The riff on revenue enhancement today could not have been better in the circumstances--from the MD appearance to the expression projecting disappointment with anger this evening.

    Right (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by lilburro on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 12:17:21 AM EST
    the President is acting in bad faith with everyone, except us.  That's logical.  Wake me up when the cuts are done.

    According to Pew (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 11:38:51 AM EST
    Notably, the GOP gains have occurred only among white voters; a 2-point Republican edge among whites in 2008 (46% to 44%) has widened to a 13-point lead today (52% to 39%). In sharp contrast, the partisan attachments of black and Hispanic voters have remained consistently Democratic.

    While Republican gains in leaned party identification span nearly all subgroups of whites, they are particularly pronounced among the young and poor. A seven-point Democratic advantage among whites under age 30 three years ago has turned into an 11-point GOP advantage today. And a 15-point Democratic advantage among whites earning less than $30,000 annually has swung to a slim four-point Republican edge today.

    1) Being the adult in the room doesn't work. There is a theory in certain Democratic circles that postulates that independent and moderate voters will come home to Democrats en masse if Democrats just show themselves to be the reasonable alternative to an increasingly extremist Republican Party. This isn't so much a theory of triangulation (though it suits the Third Way crowd nicely as well), as it is a theory that trusts that the center of opinion among the American public remains constant, that the public pays enough attention and has enough understanding about current events to know who has extremist views and who does not, and that voters will make rational choices in their own self-interest so long as the facts are laid bare for them.

    None of the above is correct. The endless parade of Republican extremism since the 2010 election has not served to significantly weaken the GOP's position, beyond the normal loss of a honeymoon period shortly after Boehner took the gavel. The willingness of the Obama Administration to act the straight man to the GOP's clown has not won the Democrats any friends among independents. In fact, the reality is quite the opposite.
    2) It is clear that the Democratic Party is not offering much of value to less-educated, younger white voters. The Democratic Party has pretty much abandoned them. As a Democratic official and volunteer, I can see that every day, and hear it every time I phonebank on behalf of a candidate. link

    Boehner (none / 0) (#26)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 12:12:06 AM EST
    Boehner has himself said that "In the end, we couldn't connect, not because of different personalities, but because of different visions for our country. The president is emphatic that taxes have to be raised. The president is adamant that we cannot make fundamental changes to our entitlement programs"

    Boehner speaks the truth! (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by lilburro on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 12:18:21 AM EST
    But only now!  OK!!  Let me know when he's telling the truth again!

    What motivation would Boehner have (none / 0) (#40)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:35:24 AM EST
    in telling people that he wanted to make fundamental changes to entitlement programs which the Prez opposed, unless it really happened?

    Uhhhhmmmm ... because his base ... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:43:18 AM EST
    ... and/or the teapartiers love that kind of talk, and they actually want fundamental changes to "entitlement" programs.

    BTW - Did Boehner actually define "fundamental changes", as opposed to the "structural changes" the WH was offering?


    To clarify (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:46:56 AM EST
    Boehner's idea of "fundamental changes" is probably just broader (i.e. privatization) than the WH's offer of "structural changes" (i.e. cuts).

    Didn't the GOP House support the Ryan plan? (none / 0) (#48)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 11:14:58 AM EST
    this is not news.

    in context: (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by observed on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 12:23:51 AM EST
    Obama is willing to slash SS and Medicare, but not to privatize them . Boehner's statement cannot be taken to mean that Obama will not touch those programs, given what we know  from other sources.

    A little pushback, observed (none / 0) (#54)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 03:13:55 PM EST
    The word "slash" may be more opinion than reality. Again, we have heard "cuts" and "restructuring" etc.  Even with the "here is what I offered" at the presser last night, there is no definitive info about how the division of "cuts" would be made, precisely.

     One thing we all know (& anyone who has worked with government budgets can affirm) is that assumed "cuts" to methodology, "waste, fraud, & abuse," delivery systems can be easily located in any large program...and, do not require "cutting" benefits. For example, a number of experts (incl. liberals such as Krugman) say that Medicare delivery systems have $$ glitches that would work better if duplication & fraud prevention (and associated $$ were addressed.)

     My pushback then is: There is no evidence that "slash"ing would occur. People can portray any cut as a "slash," but that doesn't make it so. It is important to see if there is tacit agreement to trumpet the kinds of "cuts" akin to "cuts" we could all make in our own $$-handling, and package that as huge savings for the American people--a tactic, btw, quite common in legislative practice over the years. E.g., while I am no mathematician, my math professor cousin confirms that--in the land of legislation today--$1 trillion over a decade (even without inflation) factors into the equivalent of less than 5% of an annual budget (and, in the likelihood, that the $$ are apportioned more toward the back-end, even that effect is lessened.) The old Sen. E. Dirkson's "A million here, a million there, and soon you're talking about real money" has grown some.

    Lastly, negotiators throw around a lot of ideas, proposals, head-fakes, pushes & pulls, and testing posturing language. That was my life in government negotiation on a much smaller scale...and, legal/policy negotiation out of the limelight is nothing like the thrusts & feints of this highest level of negotiations.


    I hope you get your analgesics ... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 03:36:49 PM EST
    ... in bulk.

    All that contorting would leave an Olympic gymnast in some serious pain.


    Cute...but, not really responsive. But, (none / 0) (#58)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 04:01:15 PM EST
    thanks for the laugh.

    His record on such leaves me... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 04:23:00 PM EST
    unimpressed. Having dealt with budgets, there are three giant straw men, Mr. Waste, Mr. Fraud, and Mr. Abuse.

    There's also the disincentive to have any money left at the end of the year. Nothing mentioned has encouraged government savings EXCEPT the 'stimulus.'

    No new thinking, just the same three little pigs.

    This debt ceiling time is NOT the time to worry about overlap or duplication of services.


    To be fair, it's hard to be responsive ... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:46:56 PM EST
    ... to one-sides flights-of-fancy, speculation, conjecture and an active imagination.

    The polarization here can be so thick (none / 0) (#84)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 04:09:11 PM EST
    on this subject, yman that...you are saying exactly what I think. 'Guessing tho that we are thinking about different commenters. :)

    Link, please? T/U (none / 0) (#44)
    by jawbone on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:24:59 AM EST