With the cuts you and the rest of the Left/Democrats have in mind, cuts to the military IS no military. At least no EFFECTIVE military..

As I said, leave military matters to those who know military matters. You are WAY out of your league on this one... :D

Michale
0420

Don't feel too bad.. Every Leftist and Democrat likely feels the same way...

Nope, read it again. Here I'll even quote and embolden you: All require atmospheric domes to survive.. At no point did I say in the analogy that an effective Dome was not required. This is what you can't understand - you think 'cuts to military' means 'no military' which couldn't be further from the truth.

What you seem to believe is that an 'effective military' means 'spending more than ever other country spends on their military combined' lol. Almost every country requires some sort of effective military. NO COUNTRY ON THE PLANET spends as much as the US either in terms of $ per person, absolute $, numbers of equipment, $ per square foot of land - pretty much ANY STATISTIC THERE IS shows how over-inflated and insane the US military size is. My analogy picks up on this...

You are completely and unequivocally wrong in that regard...

Don't feel too bad.. Every Leftist and Democrat likely feels the same way...

Michale
0385

Where is the logic in that??

Sure I'll show you the logic. Let's take your analogy and apply it to America.

In your analogy's world, there are over 200 moons. All require atmospheric domes to survive.

One moon - Americamoon - decides to spend 100 times more than every other moon putting in the latest, greatest atmospheric dome with cutting edge technology. In fact, they spend so much on their 1 Dome they are spending more money on it than ALL THE OTHER MOONS SPEND ON THEIR DOMES COMBINED.

Then Americamoon runs into some fiscal problems and discovers they have been running up large debts. They look at their expenditure and see that the Moon Dome caused 30% of these debts. But they can't do anything about it because the Americamoon Republican party decides drastic cuts to the Dome are off the table and not even worth discussing. Instead the Americamoon Republican party have identified the problem is the poor/veterans/elderly living on the moon! The Americamoon Democratic party is full of people who are too scared to take on the lobbying powers of the Dome manufacturers, so they too are not willing to propose cuts or to put in a much more efficient and simple Dome system that meets their requirements.

Imagine a moon colony has a fiscal problem...

A large part of their money goes towards maintaining the atmospheric domes...

Some ignoramus (no relation to anyone here :D) suggests they could save money by cutting WAY WAY back on Dome Expenditures..

Now, I axe ya...

Where is the logic in that??

Having said that, I am sure there is some fat that can be trimmed here and there from the military budget...

But you MUST use a scalpel and trim sparingly... Intelligent way..

Not go in with a battle axe and chop anything and everything..
Democrat way....

Michale
0384

But nooooooooooo let's look at how the last 10 years $11.7t of deficit was created:

(1) Poorer than expected economic conditions - $3.5t or 30%
(2) Tax cuts - $2t or 17%
(3) Military spending (including wars) - $2.9t or 25%
(Also (4) Interest payments - $1.4t or 12% - which are a collective fault of the above 3)

Hmmmm 84% of the deficit of the last 10 years was caused by these 3 things. The logical conclusion is simple: drastic cuts to entitlement spending!! Lololololol.

You've got to give it to Republicans though - even in the face of simple facts they find a way to blame it on the poor/veterans/elderly that are not so able to defend themselves...

Of course, historically speaking, the Left in general and Democrats in particular, have never had a problem with sticking it to the military...

Michale
0377

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child.
That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

-Barack Obama

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a Sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. ...Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here'. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and Grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
-Barack Obama

Now, why on EARTH would ya'all want to argue with ya'alls lord and savior Oh Exalted Barack The First???

Michale
0376

The patriot in me is outraged...

The pragmatist in me realizes that we're not talking "a few bucks", we're talking someone's economic survival..

So, let me turn the question around and ask you.

What do YOU think about a government that forces Americans to choose between their country and their survival??

I have another question for you too. What will happen to the deficit if we go over the fiscal cliff? An astounding number of people say "the deficit will go up if we go over the cliff," but that is 100% wrong and backward. The deficit will go down.

I don't know a deficit from a doughnut.. My biggest concern in going over the fiscal cliff will be the gutting of our military.. Even more so that the Obama Administration has gutted and tainted our military already..

Michale
0373

Yes, well I guess it's Judy's job to be polite to her guest as they disseminate false information.

Oh, I saw that interview differently. PBS NewsHour has been having lots of people on to talk taxes (Paul Krugman was on an earlier segment of this series). But you could see Judy straining mightily not to have a look of incredulousness on her face the whole time. She was trying not to say something rude like "But surely you don't believe such nonsense!" the whole time. She has the look of a woman restraining herself from busting out a giant belly laugh in Norquist's face the entire time.

Maybe it's just me, but that's how I saw it. Judy was trying her hardest to be polite to Grover, ridiculous character though he is.

Michale -

Coming from a military background, as you do, what exactly would your opinion be of someone who tossed away their American citizenship for the sake of a few bucks? I'm interested.

I have another question for you too. What will happen to the deficit if we go over the fiscal cliff? An astounding number of people say "the deficit will go up if we go over the cliff," but that is 100% wrong and backward. The deficit will go down.

So, why are Republicans so afraid of it? After all, they're supposed to be all about bringing deficits down, right?

The hard truth of the matter is that both parties are arguing over HOW MUCH TO RAISE the deficit. From the baseline of what would happen if we went over the fiscal cliff, both parties are arguing for TRILLIONS in more spending over the next 10 years. The only difference is in how MANY trillions they're going to spend.

So any true deficit hawk should be happy to go over the fiscal cliff. Republicans are arguing both sides of an argument, once again. They're for cutting the deficit, and for hiking the deficit, at the same time.

-CW

Shhhhh!!! That's spose to be a secret!! :D

Michale
0372

See, michty, first you have the spin. Slow-walking. Boehner has said this same phrase several times.

(let me tell you a little something about Michale.)

I know ya'all want to spin it to make it look like it's all the Republicans fault, that Democrats are as pure as the driven snow.

Then you accuse your opponent of exactly what you're doing.

Michale is quite good at standard conservative propaganda tactics. I think he was in Psy-Ops or something.

Anyways, I don't think he really even believes in half of what he says. He just digs liberal baiting.

-David

Benghazi rears it's ugly head again..

Who WOULD have thunked that??

Oh wait.. I know.... :D

Michale
0371

It's ALL the Evil Republicans fault...

The Democrats are as pure as the driven snow...

Riiiggghhhttttt....... :^/

Michale
0370

On 2nd thought I'm being a little harsh here. Their proposal kind of addresses 2 of the 3 things that caused your deficit (stimulus for (1) and ending tax cuts for millionaires for (2)). They seem to think that going over the cliff is the only way to get through any military cuts at all (as in number (3)) and they are probably right on this, but it's the wrong way to do it.

Maybe you should actually READ my comment in [42] again before you accuse me of this. I, for one, don't see Democrats proposing military cuts (given it was one of the main 3 things to a cause your deficit). But on the other hand the Republican plan says 'we have an alcohol problem, let's cut down on cigarettes'. At least the Democrats are trying to address (part of) one of the 3 things that actually caused your deficit...

And yet, it's the DEMCORATS that are stonewalling and slow-walking things...

I know ya'all want to spin it to make it look like it's all the Republicans fault, that Democrats are as pure as the driven snow..

But most Americans have a LOT more common sense then that...

On the other hand, most Americans actually were moronic enough to vote Obama... AGAIN...

So, ya'all might have a point..

Michale
0369

Look ... everyone here had there own UNICORNS before Obama came to town with his Gangsta union thugs and communist America-hating anti-corporate feminist homosexuals trying to take away our AK-47s and God-given rights to freedom of freedom.

You just don't understand America!!!

Freedom of FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!

-David

Here's what I think we need. A better scary marketing term.

Why don't we call the Republican plan the "Fiscal Abyss"?

Because it's bigger than a cliff. See?

Then, you start saying Republicans are going to take us into the Fiscal Abyss. Then it might start to take hold.

-David

Hmmm ...

Nah. I'm sorry Michty but the odds of this actually happening in America ... not so good.

I mean ... have you read Ayn Rand?

If America swallows this pile of horseshit, we probably do deserve whatever fate becomes us.

-David

Fiscal cliff = $1.2t in cuts
Republican plan = $1.4t in cuts
Difference = +$0.2t (17%).

Nope. You're ignoring reality once again.

(This is ignoring what the cuts are made up off, almost all the new Republican plan is entitlement spending hence why they want it to be not only higher but more painful)

Now yer re-writing current events..

It's the Democrats (including our own akadjian) who are claiming that the Fiscal Cliff is the way to go...

Michale
0368

Nope. Income changes year to year. Especially INVESTMENT INCOME when your entire country/the entire world goes down the shit-hole for 2 years. Not only this, but it means you can carry forward some losses too, making your income-adjusted for tax for the 2 or 3 years after a big recession much lower. Simple tax 101, ask any accountant.

Again, YOUR claim is that the debt was not caused by an orgasm of over-spending, but rather not collecting enough taxes...

PROVE IT!!

Not exactly. The majority of the deficit from 2000 to present was caused by 3 things:
(1) Poorer than expected economic conditions
(2) Tax cuts
(3) Military spending (including wars).

I've already posted a video that I recommended you watch. Heck you can even read Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Change_in_debt_position_since_2001

A better question would be: why do Republicans not only want to go over the fiscal cliff but make it an extra 17% higher and even more painful?

"Boom Boom Boom... Another one bites the dust"
-QUEEN

:D

Michale
0367

Have you looked at recent figures since the Great Recession? No, I'd guess not because they absolutely kill your argument. Oh wells.

So, YOUR claim is that the millionaires didn't pack up and leave..

YOUR claim is that the lost all their money and were no longer millionaires..

Hmmmmmm

Well, I honestly don't believe that is a STRONGER argument, but let's run with it.

PROVE it.... :D

Me! I think the best way to reduce your deficit would be to LOOK AT WHAT CAUSED YOUR DEFICIT

Again, YOUR claim is that the debt was not caused by an orgasm of over-spending, but rather not collecting enough taxes...

Ummmmm.. Words come to mind.. Oh wait.. I know....

PROVE IT!!

:D

Michale
0366

Loooooooool amazing. Basically there were less people declaring >$1m in income AFTER THE GREAT RECESSION so this proves millionaires must have left!!

Have you looked at recent figures since the Great Recession? No, I'd guess not because they absolutely kill your argument. Oh wells.

Is there ANYONE here who thinks that any deal should have both higher taxes AND spending cuts???

Or, do ya'all think that it should just be all higher taxes....?

Me! I think the best way to reduce your deficit would be to LOOK AT WHAT CAUSED YOUR DEFICIT and then fix it. But hey, that's a crazy, maniacal plan - who in their right mind would ever agree to this when you can just shout about 'entitlement spending' instead!

Hence why I'm bored with the whole discussion - as I mentioned before it is an argument between ignorant people who are clueless to how the deficit was created (i.e. anyone using the phrase 'entitlement spending'), people who do actually know how the deficit was created who want to fix it and people who do actually know how the deficit was created but can't stomach military cuts (i.e. a bunch of spineless Democrats).

Anyway I came to post this :)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LNb1_owoDfU/UMpC_n3-QlI/AAAAAAAAKNM/0eTe0n4XKtI/s1600/a%2Bhostage.jpg

"Somehow.... 'I Told Ya So' just doesn't seem to cut it..."
-Will Smith, I ROBOT

:D

Michale
0365

I have a feeling I am going to get to remind you of this in the coming weeks... :D

But yer likely in "good" company. I am sure that's been Obama and the Democrat's plan all along..

Michale
0364

You mean like the fiscal cliff?

The deal already in place ...

-David

Is there ANYONE here who thinks that any deal should have both higher taxes AND spending cuts???

Or, do ya'all think that it should just be all higher taxes....???

Michale
0363

WITH record number of people on entitlements..

"But I am SURE you already knew that. That's what I like about you. Your attention to detail..."
-Ace Ventura

:D

Michale
0362

On the contrary, it's a perfectly logical and rational argument..

It's the argument that SHOULD have been made before the UK tried the Millionaire's Tax.. They might not be in such financial straights right now..

The simple fact is, Democrats have a spending problem. They are addicted to spending. Worse, they refuse to even admit that the HAVE that problem..

And NOW the Democrats want MORE money w/o putting ANY spending cuts on the table...

Suddenly the "what if you're wrong" argument takes center stage...

Are you will to risk the livelyhood of MILLIONS of middle class Americans just to further the Democrats agenda??

A better comparison would be to look at a time when rates were similar. Such as under Clinton.

As I said, if you want to return to Clinton Tax Rates, you have to return the government to what it was during the Clinton Years..

But Democrats don't want to do that.. They want the big collassal government they have today w/o record number of people on entitlements *AND* want the higher tax rates..

Don't you think that something will give???

Michale
0361

"What if you are wrong?" is not a very valid form of argument.

Here watch .. what if you are wrong?

I could say things like ... if you're WRONG ... MILLIONS of people are going to make LESS money. And ... we are likely to have another financial crisis because people whose vested interest is in destroying our government will be in charge of the government. AND ... some kittens will die TOO.

It's an appeal to emotion.

A better comparison would be to look at a time when rates were similar. Such as under Clinton. And look to see if the end of the world really happened.

-David

Heh. Sorry, I left out Nirvana...that was really something. I left out a lot, actually.

It was indeed a concert for the ages!

"If I'm wrong, nothing happens. We go to jail peacefully. Quietly. We'll enjoy it! But if I'm right.... And we CAN stop this thing. Lenny... YOU will have saved the lives of MILLIONS.... of registered voters."
-Peter Venkman, GHOSTBUSTERS

:D
Michale
03659

That was obviously a typo... :D

Michale
0360

You claimed above that the rich and the small business owners who are claiming that they will leave the US or shut down are just making threats..

Ignoring for the moment that I am sure the Labour Party thought the same thing in the UK, I have to ask you..

What if you are wrong?

Do you REALLY want to risk a recession, LESS tax revenue AND the livelyhood of MILLIONS of middle class Americans....

Solely on the basis of a Political agenda???

Is it worth the risk if you are wrong??

Michale
03659

It's simply another accounting trick that Democrats use...

Let me put it this way..

Let's say you borrow $20,000 a year for 4 years of college...

Now, in the 5th year, are you going to have an extra $20,000 to spend as you please??

No...

Not only are you NOT going to have $20,000 for which to spend on what you want, you are STILL in the hole for the previous $80,000...

So, while it is true you are spending LESS, the fact is, you are spending less of OTHER PEOPLE'S money..

Your more broke then when you started...

How come you didn't scream at all about any of this until Obama was elected President.

Simple.. Obama has spent more than ALL previous presidents combined..

Kinda puts it in perspective, don't it. :D

Capital letter screaming ... lack of calm reasoned analysis ... emotions run rampant

Naw, it's just emphasis... I am perfectly calm and rational.. :D

But if you want to emphasize my emphasis rather than address the TRILLIONS (emphasis added :D) that Obama and the Democrats have spent, and Americans are WORSE off now than before Obama took office...???

Well, I could have no better validation, eh? :D

Michale
0358

It ummm ... Means we spend less. Which seems to be what you're yelling about.

How come you didn't scream at all about any of this until Obama was elected President. Everything seems to come back to this one guy. Who you can't even give credit to when he does spend less. What's the obsession?

TRILLIONS spent... TRILLIONS we don't have..

Capital letter screaming ... lack of calm reasoned analysis ... emotions run rampant

Maybe we should have this conversation when you're not so yell-y?

Seriously, relax, Michale. It will be ok as it has for the past 4 years. We don't want you to have an aneurysm.

-David

I'm confused...

Wasn't ObamaCare/Tax supposed to bring Health Care costs down!????

Michale
0357

Of course, this pre-supposes that the Democrat's way IS what's best for this country.

This has all but been disproven in the last 4 years...

Michale
0356

We shouldn't have to choose between doing what's best for our families and doing what's best for our country..

That is the EXACT choice that Democrats are FORCING on America's Small Businesses...

And THAT sucks....

Michale
0355

Really??

One would never know it by the TRILLIONS of dollars they have spent in the last 4 years...

They've wound down wars.

Which won't add DICK to our coffers... It will just mean we borrow less..

I won't even bother going into the strategic military bind such winding down has put the US in..

The trouble I have with your argument Michale is that it's based on the mistaken premise that spending is out of control.

It's NOT a mistaken premise. It's a fact...

TRILLIONS spent... TRILLIONS we don't have..

If that is not the very definition of out of control spending, what is???

Michale
0354

Liz, you didn't tell me that McCartney jammed with the folks from Nirvana!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1svF1Yyhnc

-David

That's just it though. The Democrats do have fiscal discipline. They are the only party who has actually cut spending.

They've wound down wars. They compromise and include spending cuts. Government spending has dropped under Democrats They've done a much better job of being fiscally responsible than ... ahem ... a certain other party.

The trouble I have with your argument Michale is that it's based on the mistaken premise that spending is out of control.

-David

Is there ANYONE who thinks it is a smart idea to give an irresponsible teenager MORE money, when they have proven that they have no fiscal discipline??

Michale
0353

If I can, will it make any difference in your argument?? :D

Of course they're going to make threats. Wouldn't you? This is what they do when they don't get their way. And when they do get their way.

So, you think they won't follow thru??

Are you willing to bet some middle class family their livelyhood??

What if your wrong??

Obviously. They're going to look for every loophole possible.

Which is why we need to eliminate the loopholes. Of course it's going to be a fight.

And if the Democrats "win" then the country loses..

Or are you going to advocate FORCING business owners to remain in the country and continue operating their business at a loss??

1984 anyone???

BTW- Conservative lectures about spending discipline. Hilarious.

Hay now.. Let's not resort to name-calling.. :D

Michale
0352

Oh really? Can you give me any examples?

How many employers have said they are going to have to fire employees and cut back other employees' hours because of the new taxes and penalties that ObamaCare/Tax impose?

Of course they're going to make threats. Wouldn't you? This is what they do when they don't get their way. And when they do get their way.

Employers aren't going to meekly hand over more money to the government that has PROVEN it can't handle money.

Obviously. They're going to look for every loophole possible.

Which is why we need to eliminate the loopholes. Of course it's going to be a fight.

In your words, Michale, what happens when you cave in to threats?

-David

BTW- Conservative lectures about spending discipline. Hilarious.

But I DO know common sense..

And common sense tells me that, if a business owner can't make a profit with his business in the US, then they will simply close the business and fire the employees or they will move the business to a country where they CAN make a profit..

Either way, the middle class is screwed..

It doesn't take a degree in economics to see this..

It's just common sense...

Michale
0351

In other words, businesses could pay those higher taxes, because other areas allowed them to increase their profits..

But, in the here and now, Democrats want the higher tax rates *AND* want to spend money out of control with NO fiscal discipline, want to heap regulation upon regulation upon regulation on businesses to cost the business MORE money to give MORE money to a government that has proven beyond ANY DOUBT that it doesn't have ANY fiscal discipline..

Now, if you were a business owner in THAT kind of environment, would YOU want to stick around???

Remember, we're not talking about the Adelsons or the Gateses or the Soroses or the Buffetts of the world..

They can afford to pay everything the government throws at them and still live a life of privilege..

We're talking the Small Business owner, the guy who owns a couple franchises, the small town hardware store or small town sports bar...

THOSE are the people who are going to suffer. Them *AND* their employees...

I thought it was THOSE people that Democrats are fighting for??

Why are Democrats screwing those people over??

Michale
0350

That's because, under those HIGHER Rates, there was fiscal discipline and deregulation and smaller government..

There was also the DotCom bubble which skewed everything to hell and back..

But, if you want to return to Clinton Tax Rates, that's fine with me..

Return government size, entitlement expenditure, WELFARE reform, regulations and all of that other crap to Clinton Times too!

That's the problem with the position of the Democrats...

They want ALL the money, but don't want any of the discipline..

How utterly immature...

Michale
0349

You offer nothing in the way of facts that would indicate that the Rich WON'T leave the US if taxes are raised..

We have already seen it happening..

How many mega-rich have changed their citizenship in the last few months to avoid the coming taxes?

Quite a few...

How many employers have said they are going to have to fire employees and cut back other employees' hours because of the new taxes and penalties that ObamaCare/Tax impose??

Quite a few..

That's the problem that ya'all just don't seem to get..

Employers aren't going to meekly hand over more money to the government that has PROVEN it can't handle money...

Employers are simply going to restructure their business so as to give the government LESS money..

And who is going to get slaughtered???

The Middle Class...

The rich are going to take their money OUT of the US economy and put it into another country's economy..

Your analysis is fine, but it relies solely and completely on THEORY..

There is factual anecdotal and empirical evidence that shows what happens to an economy when a Stick It To The Rich plan is enacted..

Michale
0348

That's the point that ya'all seem to just NOT understand..

This country could take 100% of EVERY person making over $250K and it would keep this country solvent for about a month.. Maybe a bit longer..

We're back to the irresponsible teenage analogy again.. An analogy which NO ONE has been able to refute..

You don't give an irresponsible teenager MORE money when they are spending out of control..

You instill some fiscal discipline into them and THEN you talk about raising their allowance..

Democrats want the more money NOW and then maybe they might worry about the fiscal discipline later... Maybe...

That's simply ridiculous.

Democrats are turning this country into another PIIG...

Doing a heckuva job at it, too...

Michale
0347

Basically, the argument goes as such, give us what we want or we'll leave. At it's most basic level, the rich are in fact threatening us if we don't give them all the perks they want.

This is also the Laffer curve argument. That if taxes hit a certain rate, then revenues will decrease. And there's likely some measure of truth to this argument if taxes go too high.

There is, however, a significant difference between Britain & the U.S.

In Britain, rates on the wealthy were already comparatively high. They don't have the loopholes the U.S. wealth enjoy and they paid 40% in taxes on revenue.

Compare this in the U.S. where taxes on the wealthy are at historical lows. They've never paid less. And they enjoy tremendous loopholes.

What you also don't mention, Michale, is that in the Laffer Curve, if taxes are too low, we're not hitting optimal revenue. In other words, there is a point of optimal revenue somewhere between 0-100%.

Economists have argued that Britain's rate of 50% w/ no loopholes is too high. However, they've also argued that our rate is too low, think 15% on capital gains.

Remember, we've had these higher rates before w/ no mass exodus of rich leaving (under Clinton). And the proposals to raise taxes are extremely modest when compared to the U.K.

So don't believe it when the rich tell you they need more handouts :)

-David

In the UK, millionaires accounted for 9% of the taxes... Brit leaders got a wild hair up their arse and decided that the rich could be bled out more.

So, the British soaked the rich for more money..

Funny thing is, UK millionaires didn't stick around for the bath..

They LEFT the UK and took their money with them..

Get that? The Brits actually ended up LOSING tax revenue.

Now, after the Tax The Rich plan was enacted, British millionaires account for HALF of the total taxes that they used to..

A Tax The Rich plan has already been enacted..

And it was a dismal failure...

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/12/millionaires-flee.html

Michale
0346

I sure hope you were able to catch some of this concert which is just now in the process of winding down.

Every single performance was notable.

The phone lines are too busy to take any more calls for donations.

Very, very powerful stuff ... with visons of the destruction of Sandy on screen in the background ...

The Who are on right now - they did every song that everyone there wanted them to do and they are all lovin' it! Me too!

Bon Jovi was exceptional, as always - they did my favourite Livin' on a Prayer ...

The Stones only did two song and seemed to leave prematurely ... egos hurt b/c they didn't close???

Paul McCartney is up next..

Haven't seen a concert that has been this great and emotional in a long time if not forever ...

No ... unfortunately up late working. I wish I was. Any notable performances?

-David

I knew that. :)

Hey, are you watching the Hurricane Sandy concert?

I've known John Boehner since 1986 and if no one can see into the mind of Boehner but Boehner himself then no one can see into the mind of John Boehner.

Republicans are convinced that they're going to have all the political leverage in a few months anyway, so why not just postpone the whole fight, and make their case stringently on Fox News (and wherever else will have them) that the whole thing was a plot for an "Obama tax hike" and that everything is Obama's fault, naturally.

And wherever else will have them, indeed. Did you happen to see the PBS Newshour tonight? Grover Norquist was a guest. Judy Woodruff was the interviewer. Well, she certainly wasn't the journalist in residence. It was a disaster. But, I'm sure the speaker has already booked his appearance.

When faced with one of Norquist's usual bits of nonsense, how did she respond? She said, "Well, we can debate that another time. Heh."

Sure, they can debate that another time ... just as soon as Woodruff can learn about the issues she invites her guests to speak about. Which would be the other side of never.

I've known John Boehner since 1986 and if no one can see into the mind of Boehner himself then no one can see into the mind of John Boehner.

-David