Deal or No Deal: Why is a Default so Bad?

Nancy Pelosi says the Dems are withholding judgment and may or may not support the deal.

From the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (via the WSJ):

"Seeing a Democratic president take taxing the rich off the table and instead push a deal that will lead to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefit cuts is like entering a bizarre parallel universe--one with horrific consequences for middle-class families.

Via the National Journal: Boehner is holding out for less defense cuts, and Dems are claiming they want to protect Medicare and Social Security: [More...]

Congressional aides said Democrats also want Social Security and Medicaid exempted from the cuts imposed if Congress cannot act on a plan from the special committee. The cuts also could be applied to Medicare providers and insurers, rather than beneficiaries, the aides said.

It's not to late to call or email your Senators and Congresscritters and tell them to vote no on this deal. A default may be the better move. I don't think a default is good, but I'm not convinced there will be disastrous consequences if the debate goes on past Tuesday.

< Declare Defeat But Promise To Fight | Obama Says Debt Deal Agreed to By Leadership of Both Parties >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It isn't (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:08:19 PM EST
    but making the GOP vote for THEIR deal makes sense.

    And that, folks, is why (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by sj on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:34:03 PM EST
    he is my write-in vote.  Not that he's likely to ever learn about it.

    Ditto. (none / 0) (#6)
    by shoephone on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:48:19 PM EST
    If a pitcher walks 5 batters in a row (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:24:45 PM EST
    you bring in a new pitcher.

    Its amazing to me that no one, not even a kook, has come forward to challenge Obama in next year's election.

    I don't think that money is even the issue. People are so fed up with our "leadership," that just announcing would give a challenger huge publicity.

    The Dems always withhold judgment before voting (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by BobTinKY on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 08:37:29 PM EST
    for horrific legislation.

    Prescient (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Swiggs on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 08:43:36 PM EST
    I truly wish you were not so freaking prescient, BTD.  But you have called this outcome from the start.  It is a complete and utter rout for Democrats, who look like craven fools.  Glad to see your silver lining spin, but my prediction is that Obama lost his presidency tonight.  2012 will just be a formality.

    I believe (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:08:53 AM EST
    people commenting on this site understand the probable dangers of default.  Some damage has already been done to America's reputation but we shouldn't express relief because a catastrophe was averted because another catastrophe has occurred.

    What we've witnessed, what's happened over the past month is the introduction of hostage politics.  There's no turning back.  These tactics will be used again and again.  This is a turning point in American politics, a really terrible turning point.

    We have Obama, the man who said he'd change the tone, to thank for this.  Well, mission accomplished. He's changed the tone.  He's made it worse, he's damaged the already battered quality of American politics.

    On negotiating with "hostage" takers (none / 0) (#60)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 04:57:01 PM EST
    I'm not sure that there can be a one-size answer about "negotiating" with hostage takers.  For example: My husband & I were talking about what one does--first on a personal home-type level, then group or community level, then foreign policy level--if a dear one(s) is held hostage...do you pay ransom...does it depend on the type of situation...does it depend on the nature of the hostage situation...etc.???

    Sometimes, "talks" help in certain situations & other times they blow up everything in any event. I'm beginning to think that Joe Kennedy was quite shrewd & knew whereof he spoke when he said "Don't get mad, get even."  In a situation where Crazies have you over the coals & most esp where the Crazies don't care about you or anyone (and they are as the NYT says today "extortionists") it may be the wiser route to make your deal from a counterpunching posture, from the defense and wall off what you can and then...have someone follow them metaphorically to allow for revisiting later. IMO, the Crazies (as a result of November 2010...see Kevin Drum article today) had us in a down position because they are Crazies. Now, everyone knows it...the public knows it. My question would be "How in the inevitable revisit guaranteed by longterm relationships--i.e., Congress--do we repay the deed in a realistic way?"


    In the coming weeks (2.00 / 2) (#18)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:46:40 PM EST
    If this deal goes through it is not going to be very bad for both the short term recession or the long term battle. Tax increases are on the table for the commission and having an even split of dems and republicans will make it so that nothing is recommended without revenue increases.

    If we started this process with a relatively minor 2.4 trillion in cuts with none of the beneficiaries of the entitlements being impacted, it would have been seen as a neutral proposition. Not a win. but not some game changing loss.

    Just an expected outcome given the House control the GOP has.

    But it is not as fun to gripe about that. But I am glad that Pelosi is making a stink because we need to valance the Tea Party outrage and we need a reasonable push back against the right.

    Automatic cuts are what is coming (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:49:54 PM EST
    This House of Representatives will NEVER raise taxes. EVER.

    OK (2.00 / 1) (#41)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:57:26 PM EST
    Then we'll just let the Bush cuts expire.  Done.

    Agree, that it will be the automatic trigger (none / 0) (#61)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 05:05:11 PM EST
    in all likelihood.  Special, evely-balanced committes don't have a record of agreement. If the pattern holds, the automatic cuts would allot half to Defense, I believe? And, since Social Security & Medicaid & food stamps (& other programs designed for economic needy) would be exempted from automatic cuts, the question would be what is the amount that the agencies in toto would bear and how would their divied-up $$$ impact programmatic needs as opposed to administrative budgeting?

    Question also: My understanding is that the agreement would incorporate next year's budget in some fashion...would that be the budget resolution or authorization for total $$ that would be considered "deem & pass?"


    There you go again, (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by observed on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:51:48 PM EST
    pretending tax increases for the rich are coming.

    You're operating from the position that (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 08:08:51 PM EST
    it's necessary to make any cuts at all, and that, my friend, is the Republican position - it always is.  That it's coming from Democrats doesn't make it better policy, it just means that both parties' leadership have their collective heads up their a$$es - or more appropriately, up the a$$ses of their corporate masters.

    There is nothing "minor" about any kinds of cuts that have "trillion" before the word "dollar," and when you factor in that at least $1 trillion are to be near-term cuts, that is a guaranteed recipe for economic disaster.

    The time for pushback is not now, at the 11th hour - that time was at least a year ago, in the months leading up to Obama's Craptastic Deal; and with Pelosi acknowledging that we "have to" enter a time of austerity, I'm sorry - she's given in.

    While it may make you feel all warm and fuzzy to try to make this all about the Tea Party, the real reason this is happening is located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue: your beloved president has been pushing this for a long, long time - and now he's about to get his wish.  I don't know what kind of politician, much less what kind of person, pushes policies that will hurt real people who have no one else looking out for them, but I can tell you with certainty that such a person is not who I want "leading" my country.


    Gee, Anne, you must be having a ball (none / 0) (#37)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 09:17:32 PM EST
    Or as A.B.G said:

    "But it is not as fun to gripe about that."


    There will be no tax increases (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 08:54:14 PM EST
    I am certain about that. Pelosi should just disown this deal and say that this is a deal decided between Boehner, McConell and the President. Let Boehner collect the votes to get it passed.
    The President is seriously undermining his own reelection chances. ABG, I think you are underestimating how much unnecessary self inflicted damage he is causing himself. Hispanic, women and the young vote will be seriously depressed in 2012. Democrats will need to win  back Congressional seats with elderly populations in Western Pennsylvania, Upstate NY and Ohio, etc to get back control of the House. Pelosi should not support anything that diminishes the chances of Democrats winning back the House.

    We'll see (none / 0) (#42)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:59:14 PM EST
    Thank goodness (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 09:32:45 PM EST
    All this depessing news .... it's nice to get a hit of Hopium.

    OTOH - I wonder what people who actually know something about economics think of this deal.


    ... cr@p ...


    Not tax cuts (none / 0) (#45)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:13:25 AM EST
    Tax CODES.

    Don't be surprised if the top individual marginal rate is lowered and don't be surprised if the Corporate rate is lowered.


    How much should the weathy pay in taxes? (2.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Green26 on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 08:54:00 PM EST
    I'm all for increased taxes for the very rich and believe there should be an estate tax, have some concerns about income/wealth disparities, and also believe some taxes should go up now as part of the bargain to reduce the budget. But according to 2006 tax figures, the top 20% of households make 56% of pre-tax income and pay 86% of all income taxes; the top 10% make 58.7% of pre-tax income and pay 34.7% of income taxes ('08); and the top 1% make 19% of income and pay 39% of taxes.

    I saw a stat that said the bottom 50% of households paid 3% of income taxes.

    In 2005, under 1 in 10 filers owed more than 15% of their income in federal income tax.

    I suppose we all have different views of what paying one's fair share is, but it looks like the rich and not-so-rich are paying large amounts of taxes, and many people are paying little or nothing.

    I don't know how to respond (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 09:27:29 PM EST
    To this bit of Right Wing Dementia (which has been debunked a thousand different ways) so, I'll just say one has  to be an idiot, or a liar, to say such a thing.

    But, I'm not saying which one.


    Debuked? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Green26 on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 01:17:48 AM EST
    When I see that word, it usually makes me think that the person or article who said it actually doesn't know what he, she or it is talking about.

    Feel free to "debunk".


    From each (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:49:07 PM EST
    according to his ability, bub.

    If the economic system is as rigged as it is to keep depressing the wages of the working man and woman and fill the coffers of the filthy rich, then the filthy rich need to pay for all that infrastructure that helps make them rich and keeps them from having to step over grandma and grandpa on the sidewalk on their way into the yacht salesroom.


    "From each according to his ability. (none / 0) (#57)
    by itscookin on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 07:34:12 AM EST
    to each according to his needs." That's from the Communist Manifesto. Are you sure that's how you want to respond to a right-wing conservative? 'Cause that's playing right into his or her hands.

    Yeah, actually, because (none / 0) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 10:06:11 AM EST
    it's an entirely mainstream and rational description of a modern state.  We've obviously given up on the "to each according to his needs" part, which is why I left it out.  But "from each according to his ability" is pretty close to a universal human value.

    Also, for the religious ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 05:18:14 PM EST
    The 400 highest income families (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:31:31 AM EST
    paid an average of 16.6% of their income, which averaged $340 million, in federal income taxes.  

    The average household earning $72,000 to $102,000 paid 21% of their earnings in federal income taxes.

    Real growth in our economy depends in part on much, much higher taxes on the very wealthy.  Those families whose income averaged $340 million are a huge drag on our economy.  Taxing them at such low rates is a serious violation of the social compact.

    If it were up to me I'd tax at 75% on the excess over $5 million.  And that's generous.

    Those families with $340 million annual income suck a huge amount of wealth out of the country with small return to society.  Those families can't possibly spend all of that money.  It's invested overseas, buys excessive political influence and fails to replace the infrastructure and labor it's consumed.  Tax that money and spend it in the economy.


    Then let's tax those 400 families (none / 0) (#53)
    by Green26 on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 01:21:50 AM EST
    more. How much revenue do you think the US would get?

    The top 400 (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 02:06:34 AM EST
    are the very prominent tip of the iceberg.  There are many more ridiculously wealthy families.  The top 1% are 1,400,000 families.

    The problem with massive income gaps is the enormous drag that high incomes have on the economy.  Collecting the nation's wealth in the hands of a small number of people.  Taxing enormous wealth at very high rates is the only way a society can inject its wealth in infrastructure and institutions that strengthen the nation.  Massive income gaps in a modern society are a sign of weakness.


    i'll start with this: (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by cpinva on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:41:02 AM EST
    the reason the bottom 50% of households pay such a small part of total income taxes is because (wait for it.........) they make so little income.

    i realize that's a difficult concept to wrap your brain around, but there it is: if you don't make much, your tax liability (except for FICA/Medicare) is correspondingly low. myself, i'll happily pay a few more bucks in income taxes, to have a 7 figure income.


    I agree with you, but (none / 0) (#54)
    by Green26 on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 01:25:11 AM EST
    do you not think it's a problem in the US that 50% of the people are getting all of the benefits that everyone gets, but not paying much into the system?

    Again, I too have concerns about wealth distribution.


    Yes, obviously you favor (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by observed on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 03:13:32 AM EST
    more concentration of wealth. A couple of points.  First, the tax rate changes which started with Reagan have led to more and more wealth in the hands of the few. The high tax rates you lament are not preventing the top .1 percent from sucking up ever more wealth.  Second, you need to differentiate between wage and investment income. Third, why do you care about the rich? They do not care about you.

    NYT has some details (none / 0) (#2)
    by Madeline on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:20:33 PM EST
    Democrats appear to have held SS and 3% cut to Medicare. Also held as to how both programs will be structured for debate in the super commission or whatever.


    Not quite right. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:38:35 PM EST
    The negotiators appeared to be having a hard time defining what kind of cuts would occur at the end of the year if Congress failed to act on the committee's recommendations.

    Under the framework that negotiators were discussing today, half of those cuts would come in defense spending, while the other half would be a combination of other domestic spending, like discretionary programs and farm subsidies. Cuts to Medicare would not make up more than 3 percent of the non-military cuts.

    Those cuts would be if the commission didn't come to some agreement (which itself could touch Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, apparently) not outright as part of this deal. And it's not a 3% cut to Medicare, it's that of the non-military trigger cuts, unspecified cuts to Medicare would make up 3%. It's still unclear if that's a cut to beneficiaries or not.

    So far the most concerning thing -- what the commission's scope is, what they are looking to cut/reform -- is not in the reports. Plouffe seemed to say the commission would concentrate on tax reform and entitlements, which doesn't sound good.

    If the commission failed, these trigger cuts could reportedly also be avoided if Congress passed a Balanced Budget Amendment. I wonder if that creates an incentive for the Tea Party to sabotage the commission?


    Conversely, of course, if Congress (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Towanda on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:32:40 PM EST
    now wants to say that any amendment it passes has the force of law, without sufficient ratifications, cool:  Then the ERA becomes law.

    But I think not.  So the reporters on this may be making the usual error in not researching and understanding the Constitutional amendment process.


    I don't think that's quite right, either... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:37:57 PM EST
    ...as I stated above, the GOP is only relying on a failsafe wherein the amendment passes in Congress because they are sure the states will ratify it (look at the state legislatures, they are probably not wrong). I don't think the NYT is getting anything wrong, here. The GOP only really cares about the thing getting through Congress so they can have state-by-state battles -- even if it LOSES they still get that election issue.

    Well, okay, as a GOP election issue (none / 0) (#17)
    by Towanda on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:44:51 PM EST
    it may make some sense -- but the history of ratification campaigns does not suggest that this one would win a sufficient number of states to become law.

    And that the Dems would be even dumber than I thought, which isn't giving them a lot of props, if they agree to such a meaningless condition.


    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:52:41 PM EST
    Well, ratification is a really tough hill to climb. 38/50 states have to be involved. But 26 state legislatures are GOP-controlled. 8 are split. 15 are Democrat-controlled. I don't think they're crazy to think they can get to 38 on such an easily-demagogued issue, it's possible, though if it's not an amendment to balance over the cycle I think it's completely doomed.

    But after looking carefully at the numbers I'm more convinced by my own "state-by-state campaign issue" than I am about the GOP confidence in passage by the states. I don't know what the GOP is thinking, but I would bet against ratification. So it's a sop to the GOP, and we'll see if the Tea Party sabotages everything again to get it out to the states (if that even made it into the final bill).


    Yes (none / 0) (#26)
    by Towanda on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:57:30 PM EST
    re ratification being chancy -- our history is filled with examples of what seemed "sure things" then falling prey to the fates -- but what bothers me is if the Dems accept this as a precondition for triggering cuts to social programs and more.  

    Passage by both houses is only a stage in the process, so this is like saying that sweeping social change could be triggered by passage of a non-amendment bill by only the House and not the Senate.  In such a case, there also is no guarantee that such a bill ever would become law -- that the other party ever would have to take the tough votes to take the blame.


    Yup (none / 0) (#49)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:41:25 AM EST
    the reporters on this may be making the usual error in not researching and understanding the Constitutional amendment process

    No surprise.  Is civics even taught in school (at any level) anymore?


    There's no deal. Boehner's Not Gonna Agree to (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dan the Man on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:16:43 PM EST
    the triggered defense cuts.  Stick a fork in the deal.  It's dead.  Reid would have a better chance just voting for the Boehner plan.

    Insta-results for your prediction? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:39:41 PM EST
    An hour later, it appears you are wrong. It's still being called a "framework" by some, a "deal" by others. We'll see. Apparently the voting takes place tomorrow.

    I expect Boehner will remove the defense cuts from (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Dan the Man on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 08:34:45 PM EST
    the Reid bill and that bill would pass the House. And then the Senate will be stuck either passing the Boehner amended Reid bill or there will be no bill at all to pass.  Of course Reid Bill minus defense cuts is really nothing more than the Boehner plan.

    Wrong. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Addison on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 04:51:41 PM EST
    If Congress only passed the amendment? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Towanda on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:28:26 PM EST
    That's meaningless, really, as simply passing an amendment does not make it an amendment to the Constitution, as many have not.  (See:  ERA, et al.)

    Or is that the amendment must become law?  That would require ratification by _ (2/3? 3/4? I forget) states, which could take years, so that probably would not be in place in time.

    In sum, this doesn't make sense to me.  But then, so little in D.C. does these days.


    They want it to go to the states... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:34:11 PM EST
    ...because they are so confident the states will ratify it. So there's only a requirement that it passes out of Congress because that's where the sticking point is. So it makes sense, from their perspective.

    (And even if the states don't ratify it... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:43:38 PM EST
    ...they'd get the amendment campaigns, going on at full bore in every state, as a 2012 campaign issue -- which they feel benefits them)

    Two thirds of both houses (none / 0) (#47)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:35:45 AM EST
    and three fourths of the states.

    The incentives might be (none / 0) (#62)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 05:11:41 PM EST
    for everyone to punt to automatic. Consider this: Assuming that Cong'l leaders appoint their Committe representatives carefully to this Cong'l Committee, what does political history say about being able to agree on specific cuts to programs that one side or the other values above all others?  (My answer: While phase 2 might seem disconcerting and more at first blush, think it through. As others throughout the political world are starting to notice, getting anything through the phase that would be contentious has a lot pushing against it.)

    Wha..? (none / 0) (#15)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:42:19 PM EST
    Boehner is holding out for more defense cuts..

    If true, that is bizarro world and parallel universe in one.

    But I'm not sure if it is true.

    The article linked to in the NationalJournal says,

    Two congressional aides said Boehner is holding out to reduce roughly $350 billion in cuts to defense...

    So he may be holding out to reduce the cuts, not holding out for more cuts to the defense budget.

    I would expect that.

    I typed more instead of less (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 08:02:18 PM EST
    He wants more for the defense budget and less cuts from it. I changed it, glad you noticed.

    That's wrong (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:50:21 PM EST
    What's wrong? (none / 0) (#25)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:57:07 PM EST
    That he wants more cuts, or that he wants to cut the cuts?

    Deal? (none / 0) (#19)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:46:59 PM EST
    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by sj on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:54:31 PM EST
    for letting me know when to turn the TV off.  I don't need to suffer through the results of the deal and another of his speeches, too.

    The leaders have reached a deal (none / 0) (#28)
    by Madeline on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 08:02:46 PM EST
    right?  Caucus's have to vote on it first before it's really a done deal?

    Not caucuses, (none / 0) (#51)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:44:29 AM EST
    full House and full Senate.  Senate first has to vote cloture.  If cloture passes then a vote on the bill.

    if harry reid (none / 0) (#29)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 08:06:05 PM EST
    went to john boehner and said "look john, here's the deal i've worked out in the senate:

    1. eliminate all taxes on those making >250k per year.
    2. eliminate all taxes on unearned income & estates.
    3. eliminate all taxes on businesses.
    4. eliminate all spending, except that required to maintain the military at its present state of manpower.
    5. pass a balanced budget amendment.

    what do you think?"

    boehner still wouldn't be able to guarantee passage in the house. do you know why? simply put, the inmates in the republican asylum have taken it over. like insane people (and 5 year-olds) everywhere, what they want changes from minute to minute.

    obama would be well advised to go ahead and assert the 14th amendment solution publicly, regardless of what, if anything, lands on his desk between now and midnite, aug. 1.

    based on the cash flow (cash flow and total revenues are not necessarily parallel lines), instruct treasury to first pay the debt service on bonds, and retire those bonds scheduled for it (bet you forgot all about them, didn't you?). should funds be available, make payments to social security recipients & medicare payments (wouldn't do to have old/ill folks dying in the streets, now would it?). everyone else will have to wait until cash becomes available.

    why not pay the military first, you ask? because their contracts aren't dependent on them being paid in a timely fashion. besides, it'll be good for them, give them a chance to re-learn long forgotten lessons in foraging/living off the land. they'll become a much leaner fighting machine.

    Cuts to defense? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Babel 17 on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 08:06:20 PM EST
    Assuming they got triggered what would stop Congress from passing "emergency" bills to funnel cash to the DOD?

    nothing. (none / 0) (#50)
    by cpinva on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:44:08 AM EST
    that's exactly how bush funded the wars in afghanistan & iraq for seven years. the cost never showed up as part of the regular budgets proposed by him.

    My husband and I have been thinking (none / 0) (#43)
    by Amiss on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:59:36 PM EST
    of moving back North. I was raised in the South by a strongly democratic family. This clinches the deal for us, I wanna move to Vermont. I have really been impressed with this Independant from his beginnings. He seems to be the only one making any sense to me.

    Come to VT! (none / 0) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 10:11:16 AM EST
    It's wonderful, beautiful place to live with amazingly good-natured and humane politics.  It's not just Bernie, it's the whole state.

    When Bernie ran for the Senate, his opponent was a moderate Republican business type.  He was doing OK in the polls until he committed two unforgiveable sins: He trashed Bernie outrageously, and he had his supporters put up really ugly garish eyesore lawn signs.  He rapidly tanked in the polls.

    Are those terrific values or what!