Reasons there would be a constitutional crisis according to one expert...

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Well, first of all this President's theory of his power I think is now so extreme that it's unprecedented. He believes that he has the inherent authority to violate federal law. He has said that. Not just the signing statements and the infamous torture memo-that Alberto Gonzales signed. It was stated that he could in some circumstances order federal officials to violate federal law and this is consistent across the board with this President. Frankly, I'm not too sure what he thought he was swearing to when he took the oath of office to uphold the Constitution and our laws. I've never seen a President who is so uncomfortable in his constitutional skin.

I like the quote by Tom Tancredo "When I took the oath of the office, it wasn't to my party or President, it was to the Constitution".

criteria is used to nominate a Nobel Peace Prize recipient. Perhaps you should address your question to the nominating committee of that organization.

I only have firsthand knowledge of what other Americans have personally told me, as I wrote above.

Maybe President Chavez has AMERICA to thank for his nomination. Without Pat Robertson publicly advocating Chavez' assassination (defended by the Bush administration of being freedom of speech), and without Bush's price-gouging buddies in the oil industry (which President Chavez is trying to offset so that heating oil will be within the financial reach of the poorest of Americans), maybe Chavez' name wouldn't have even made the list.

Again, if you want the answer to your question, I suggest you contact the Nobel Peace Prize nominating committee.

First of all, if we can get to 60 in the senate he would be able to carry out most of his plans, but that remains to be seen.

If most people get a tax cut, that leaves them more money. If people have more money they are more willing to spend it. This would mean more money from sales tax. Granted, most sales tax just goes to the states, but others also pay into the fed gov --- gasoline, whiskey, etc. In other words, there are more ways than one for the gov to get money. Also, if you combine the ideas he has of job creation (in particular green jobs) then you would have more people to tax as a whole, which would also create more revenue. I think when we look at his tax plan we have to take some of his other plans into consideration in conjunction with this.

JERUSALEM � Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim of Kenyan origins who studied in Islamic schools and whose campaign may have been financed by people in the Islamic and African worlds, Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi said during a recent televised national rally.

"There are elections in America now. Along came a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim, who had studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia. His name is Obama," said Gadhafi in little-noticed remarks he made at a rally marking the anniversary of the 1986 U.S. air raid on his country.

The remarks, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, MEMRI, were aired on AL Jazeera in June.

"All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man," continued Gadhafi. "They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency.

"We are hoping that this black man will take pride in his African and Islamic identity, and in his faith, and that [he will know] that he has rights in America, and that he will change America from evil to good, and that America will establish relations that will serve it well with other peoples, especially the Arabs," Gadhafi said.

Gadhafi went on to lament statements Obama made at a June 4 address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in which the presidential candidate stated if he is elected president, "Jerusalem would remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided."

But it seems Gadhafi was not aware that the next day, during a CNN appearance, Obama explained he meant Jerusalem shouldn't be physically divided with a partition and was not referring to the city remaining in exclusively Jewish hands.

Stated Gadhafi: "But we were taken by surprise when our African Kenyan brother [Obama], who is an American national, made statements (about Jerusalem) that shocked all his supporters in the Arab world, in Africa, and in the Islamic world.

"We hope that this is merely an elections 'clearance sale,' as they say in Egypt - in other words, merely an elections lie. As you know, this is the farce of elections - a person lies and lies to people, just so that they will vote for him, and afterwards, when they say to him, 'You promised this and that,' he says: 'No, this was just elections propaganda.' This is the farce of democracy for you. He says: 'This was propaganda, and you thought I was being serious. I was fooling you to get your votes.'

"Allah willing, it will turn out that this was merely elections propaganda. Obama said he would turn Jerusalem into the eternal capital of the Israelis. This indicates that our brother Obama is ignorant of international politics, and is not familiar with the Middle East conflict," Gadhafi said.

Gadhafi went on to express his hope if elected Obama will implement a "one state solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, meaning Israel would be flooded with millions of Palestinian Arabs who would terminate the country's Jewish nationality.

He said he was worried Obama may have a "black inferiority complex" whereby he may enact "white men" policies to prove he is no different from "white" America.

"The thing we fear most is that the black man suffers from an inferiority complex. This is dangerous. If our brother Obama feels that because he is black he doesn't have the right to rule America, this would be a disaster, because such a feeling would make him act whiter than the white, and go to an extreme in his persecution and degradation of the blacks.

"We say to him: Brother, the whites and blacks in America are equal. They are all immigrants. America belongs neither to the whites nor to the blacks. America belongs to its original inhabitants, the Indians. Both the whites and the blacks immigrated to America, and so they are equal, and Obama has the right to hold his head high, and say: 'I am a partner in America. This is my land as much as it is yours. If it is not my land, it is not yours either. It is the land of the Indians. You are immigrants, and so are we.'"

Obama repeatedly has denied he is a Muslim. His campaign site states: "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised as a Muslim, and is a committed Christian."

But as WND has reported, public records in Indonesia listed Obama as a Muslim during his early years, and a number of childhood friends claimed to the media Obama was once a mosque-attending Muslim.

Obama's campaign several times has wavered in response to reporters queries regarding the senator's childhood faith.

Commenting on a recent Los Angeles Times report quoting a childhood friend stating Obama prayed in a mosque "something the presidential candidate said he never did," Obama's campaign released a statement explaining the senator "has never been a practicing Muslim."

Widely distributed reports have noted that in January 1968, Obama was registered as a Muslim at Jakarta's Roman Catholic Franciscus Assisi Primary School under the name Barry Soetoro. He was listed as an Indonesian citizen whose stepfather, listed on school documents as "L Soetoro Ma," worked for the topography department of the Indonesian Army.

Catholic schools in Indonesia routinely accept non-Catholic students but exempt them from studying religion. Obama's school documents, though, wrongly list him as being Indonesian.

After attending the Assisi Primary School, Obama was enrolled "also as a Muslim, according to documents" in the Besuki Primary School, a public school in Jakarta.

Laotze blog, run by an American expatriate in Southeast Asia who visited the Besuki school, noted: "All Indonesian students are required to study religion at school, and a young 'Barry Soetoro,' being a Muslim, would have been required to study Islam daily in school. He would have been taught to read and write Arabic, to recite his prayers properly, to read and recite from the Quran and to study the laws of Islam."

Indeed, in Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," he acknowledged studying the Quran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school."

"In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Quranic studies," wrote Obama.

The Indonesian media have been flooded with accounts of Obama's childhood Islamic studies, some describing him as a religious Muslim.

Speaking to the country's Kaltim Post, Tine Hahiyary, who was principal of Obama's school while he was enrolled there, said she recalls he studied the Quran in Arabic.

"At that time, I was not Barry's teacher, but he is still in my memory" claimed Tine, who is 80 years old.

"I remember that he studied 'mengaji (recitation of the Quran)," Tine said, according to an English translation by Loatze.

Mengaji, or the act of reading the Quran with its correct Arabic punctuation, is usually taught to more religious pupils and is not known as a secular study.

Also, Loatze documented the Indonesian daily Banjarmasin Post interviewed Rony Amir, an Obama classmate and Muslim, who described Obama as "previously quite religious in Islam."

"We previously often asked him to the prayer room close to the house. If he was wearing a sarong (waist fabric worn for religious or casual occasions) he looked funny," Amir said.

The Los Angeles Times, which sent a reporter to Jakarta, quoted Zulfin Adi, who identified himself as among Obama's closest childhood friends, stating the presidential candidate prayed in a mosque, something Obama's campaign claimed he never did.

"We prayed, but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque. But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and went to the mosque together and played," said Adi.

Aside from a new website to fight purported smears, Obama's official campaign site has a page titled "Obama has never been a Muslim, and is a committed Christian." The page states, "Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ."

But the campaign changed its tune when it issued a "practicing Muslim" clarification to the Los Angeles Times.

An article in March by the Chicago Tribune apparently disputes Adi's statements to the L.A. paper. The Tribune caught up with Obama's declared childhood friend, who now describes himself as only knowing Obama for a few months in 1970 when his family moved to the neighborhood. Adi said he was unsure about his recollections of Obama.

"Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia," states the Tribune article.

It quotes the presidential candidate's former neighbors and third-grade teacher recalling Obama "occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers."

Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, notes the Tribune article "cited by liberal blogs as refuting claims Obama is Muslim" actually implies Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim and twice confirms Obama attended mosque services.

In a free-ranging interview with the New York Times, Obama described the Muslim call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."

The Times' Nicholos Kristof wrote Obama recited, "with a first-class [Arabic] accent," the opening lines of the Muslim call to prayer.

Some attention also has been paid to Obama's paternal side of the family, including his father and his brother, Roy.

Writing in a chapter of his book describing his 1992 wedding, the presidential candidate stated: "The person who made me proudest of all was Roy. Actually, now we call him Abongo, his Luo name, for two years ago he decided to reassert his African heritage. He converted to Islam and has sworn off pork and tobacco and alcohol."

Still, Obama says he was raised by his Christian mother and repeatedly has labeled as "smears" several reports attempting to paint him as a Muslim.

"Let's make clear what the facts are: I am a Christian. I have been sworn in with a Bible. I pledge allegiance [to the American flag] and lead the Pledge of Allegiance sometimes in the United States Senate when I'm presiding," he told the Times of London earlier this year.

(CNN) � The global economy may be undergoing a significant downturn, but the White House's dinner budget still appears flush with cash.

After all, world leaders who are in town to discuss the economic crisis are set to dine in style Friday night while sipping wine listed at nearly $500 a bottle.

According to the White House, tonight's dinner to kick off the G-20 summit includes such dishes as "Fruitwood-smoked Quail," "Thyme-roasted Rack of Lamb," and "Tomato, Fennel and Eggplant Fondue Chanterelle Jus."

To wash it all down, world leaders will be served Shafer Cabernet �Hillside Select� 2003, a wine that sells at $499 on Wine.com.

The exceedingly pricey wine may seem a bit peculiar given leaders are in Washington to discuss a possible world financial meltdown, but Sally McDonough, a spokeswoman for Laura Bush, said it "was the most appropriate wine that we had in the White House wine cellar for such a gathering.

McDonough also said the White House purchased the wine at a "significantly lower price" than what it is listed at.

"Of course the White House gets its wine at wholesale prices," she said. "Given the intimate size of the group, it was an appropriate time for The White House to use this stock."

The leaders of the U.K., France, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey and 11 developing economies have all come to Washington at the behest of President Bush in an effort to express confidence in the fundamental underpinnings of the world's economy.

SUGGESTED SOLUTION TO CARMAKER'S CRISIS, AS WELL AS SOME ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Maybe I've gone off the deep end - but I'm so sick of hearing about the big 3 bailout requests I've come up with a serious suggestion to help them.

I think its environmentally, morally, and financially irresponsible for the government to give tax breaks to those who buy NEW cars (much less bail out the manufacturers). The majority can't afford them anyway (or can't guarantee they'll have a job to make payments on them tomorrow), and we already have enough cars! Backyards and junk yards are full of cars because we can't get parts for them! How many economy cars that were good on gas are sitting in junkyards - because we don't have the parts to keep 'em on the road?

Why can't we get parts? The greedy corporate suits in Detroit figured if we couldn't get them, we'd be forced to buy new cars whether we wanted to or not! So they won't make them. I guess their plan didn't work, because when we bought new cars, we bought them from someone else.

I believe replacement parts manufacturing can be profitable - as the few little companies that make replacement parts for classic cars can prove. It might not restore the bonus of every deprived CEO in Detroit, but it could save quite a few line jobs. There is no longer a big market for new cars - but there's a constantly growing market for replacement parts. Its better than continuing the denial that Detroit has been in for the last decade - clinging stubbornly to the myth that we LIKE what they make, that we WANT it, and that we can AFFORD it, and that every one of us pines away for shiny new giant gas-guzzler in our driveway. We like what they USED to make, the muscle cars, the economy cars, the cars that were our sentimental favorites back in the day, when cars didn't cost the price of a house, and lasted longer than the 5 year warranty! They still have the blueprints to make the parts for those models, as well as parts for later-model cars past their warranty. That's what we want, what we can afford - and the sheer volume of parts purchased would make them a profit as well as helping the little guy with bad credit survive. Not everyone can get a loan for a new car - or even a used one - but those that can't could probably come up with the price of a needed part

I propose we reduce the production of new cars drastically. Instead we revamp a large number of our factories to manufacture parts for the cars that already exist (if we really MUST bail out the big 3, let's insist they put the money toward this). Alternatively, we insist that for every new car they manufacture - they must manufacture a certain number of essential repair parts for their discontinued models (which, according to recent news - will be most of them). This creates jobs, renews the jobs at some of the small non-union subcontracting plants that had to close when told to stop making the parts, or at least saves the jobs of UAW workers who were making unwanted new cars. Let them close their dealerships - but keep the dealer repair shops open. We then give tax credits for anybody who takes classes on repair - this creates jobs, as more people would rather fix it versus junk it (and can certainly afford the part easier than a whole new car). We give tax credits to anyone who gets a non-running vehicle operational again, we give tax credits for anyone who opens a repair/refurbishment shop, we give tax credits to junk yards that reduce their scrap heaps. Much better than a tax credit encouraging people to take on even more debt for a new car!

If some of elderly vehicles are unsafe by today's standards, we could manufacture parts that make them safer and update them, depending on the needs of each model. Surely the powers that be could run a scan for every VIN and get the statistics for how many models of each are currently still on the road (just like they do when there's a safety recall), and decide from there on whatever issues need addressed.

We should also consider legislation that insurance companies stop totalling vehicles without proof that their repair will be more expensive than a new car. "What a car is worth" needs to be restructured - what is the environmental/financial impact of junking it worth - the cost of a new one? If an old paid-off car ran perfectly fine before the wreck - should it be totalled because the damages came to a couple bucks more than the Blue Book value? I really don't think so! In this economy, having a paid-off vehicle with the option of keeping minimal insurance on it is nearly priceless!

We found out during the last couple years that we really can't afford a brand new McMansion, and we don't actually need one either, and we're much better off with less house than our budget can stretch to cover. Many of us know the same thing about the brand new car, but we don't have a choice because we can't fix the old one, and can't trust that the used one we buy will have parts available for it when it breaks down. That needs to change. We need more cost-effective options and we WANT the choice of fixing what we already paid for, instead of being forced to buy ever-more expensive brand new ones again and again and stuffing the landfills indefinitely!

My solution also applies to large appliances. Our landfills are full of them! The manufacturers of refrigerators, washers/dryers, riding lawnmowers, etc. should be required to produce a set number of repair parts for their older models - instead of making commercials about a lady throwing her old one off a cliff simply because she's tired of it!

Do we really want to be a nation of salesmen and consumers? I think we'd have more pride, strength and better ability to make it through these hard times if we replaced our salesmen with repairmen, blind consuming with sensible choices, and learn to one-up the Joneses with how much we saved from the landfill instead of how much we spent. Let's stop planned obsolescence and let the companies that refuse to give up the practice go belly up! They deserve it - they are trashing the environment as well as ripping off their customers - deliberately manufacturing products to break down in a couple years is just morally wrong. Lets make if fashionable to preserve and restore instead of consume and discard! I hope I'm not the only one that's tired of this - so is anybody with me on this? If you're in favor spread the idea! Discuss this with everybody!

And I'm not required to answer to you for any of them since your only purpose here is to demean people who don't agree with you. (I see that yesterday Mystic left the door wide open and invited friendly, respectful, intelligent dialogue with you below, but you chose to ignore that in favor of continuing on with your rudeness to others in your other posts.) You remind me of a pesky fly that disturbs the peace surrounding the person it invades. If this is typical Israeli behavior, then maybe it's time to take a fresh look at why Israel is having so many problems coexisting in peace with its neighbors.

For any L-I-B-E-R-A-L-S who read the L-I-B-E-R-A-L board and are interested in my reasons for posting this, I'd be glad to list them. After reading this article, these are the questions that came to my mind, and I would appreciate it if LIBERALS would add to this list any questions that are raised in their minds after reading it.

1. I'm trying to understand Hezbollah's commitment to a cease fire. I'm wondering if they would spend the time, effort and money (Iran's) to begin to rebuild if they had plans to violate the cease fire.

2. I'm wondering what impact their doing this will have on other nations of the world in relationship to how they will view Israel and the United States. Will they garner more support, and is it justified?

3. In furtherance of #2 above, will their role in the Lebanese government grow as a result of their concern (be it real or fake) for the Lebanese people whose homes have been destroyed?

4. Finally, I was wondering how long it would take the two-headed snake known as the Bush administration to compete with Hezbollah in the rebuilding of Lebanon, after arming Israel with some of the weapons that caused the destruction, and whether or not Israel will feel betrayed as a result. As you will see below, not long. (Think of all the money we spend there that could be much better used here to truly fight terrorism by keeping our ports, borders and rail systems safer. Is that really where you want your tax dollars to go? Do you want your tax dollars used to supply the weapons to tear down a nation and then supply the money to rebuild it a month later in this cat and mouse game that Bush is playing in the Middle East?)

U.S. Hopes to Rival Hezbollah With Rebuilding Effort

By Paul Richter
Times Staff Writer

August 17, 2006

WASHINGTON � The Bush administration is scrambling to assemble a plan to help rebuild Lebanon, hoping that by competing with Hezbollah for the public's favor it can undo the damage the war has inflicted on its image and goals for the Middle East.

Administration officials fear that unless they move quickly to demonstrate U.S. commitment, the Lebanese will turn more fully to the militant group, which has begun rolling out an ambitious reconstruction program that Washington believes is bankrolled by Iran.

American officials also believe that the administration must restore its influence to keep a newly assertive Syria from undermining U.S.-supported reformers in Lebanon.

A major rebuilding investment would put the United States in the position of subsidizing both the Israeli munitions that caused the damage and the reconstruction work that will repair it. Such a proposal could meet with resistance from Congress, but administration officials said that the need for action was urgent.

People have been seized by the need to do more, in a tangible way, and they're working feverishly on this, said a senior administration official who asked to remain unidentified because he was speaking about plans still in development. They know we're in a race against time to turn around these perceptions.

U.S. officials and private experts agree that the administration faces an uphill effort trying to outdo Hezbollah, which has a broad local base, well-developed social service programs and the confidence of many Lebanese.

Hezbollah is deeply integrated into Lebanese society, said Jon Alterman, a former State Department official who is head of Middle East studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

We're coming in when there's a sense that we stood by the destruction of Lebanon by an ally, with U.S. weapons, and didn't complain. So we may be too late.

Even so, Alterman said he supported the idea of trying to rebuild U.S. influence in Lebanon at a time when the political situation there is in flux.

The United States has only $50 million in the pipeline for relief and rebuilding in Lebanon, a figure dwarfed by multibillion-dollar estimates of the need. The U.S. is lagging behind some other contributors, such as Saudi Arabia, which has pledged $1.5 billion. An international donors conference is to be held Aug. 31.

But American officials say they expect to expand the effort, which is largely focused on rebuilding the airport, restoring electric power, cleaning up environmental damage and reconstructing some of the estimated 150 destroyed bridges.

The U.S. effort is aimed in part at supporting its allies in the fragile Lebanese central government, which is competing with Hezbollah for influence. Moving rapidly, Hezbollah officials fanned out across the country this week, canvassing the needs of residents and promising help. In some areas of the south, Hezbollah already had fielded cleanup teams with bulldozers.

The U.S. official said talk of a deeper rebuilding role was one of several discussions underway within the administration. He said there was talk about launching a broader diplomatic and economic initiative for the Middle East aimed at increasing involvement in mediating the Arab-Israeli conflict, as well as in regional economic development and politics.

Officials are focused on the idea that things better change, or we're going to have serious problems, he said. Many people in the region believe the United States was a co-combatant in the war, he acknowledged.

With Congress on its August break, lawmakers have not explicitly taken positions on funding for rebuilding. But some influential members have given indications.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has said he would like the United States to take a lead role in the rebuilding by giving generously and organizing meetings of donors. He has argued that the U.S. missed an opportunity by failing to do more in Lebanon last year, as Syria withdrew its troops from the country, leaving a partial vacuum.

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, voted for a resolution that called for a postwar donors conference. But he made it clear that there should be careful planning before the U.S. committed large sums, an aide noted.

Alterman, the analyst, said providing aid posed complicated challenges in Lebanon, and that the money could easily be wasted without the United States getting any advantage from it.

Lebanon is a tough commercial environment�. It's tough coming from the outside, trying to identify reliable people, he said. We could end up getting no credit � or, worse yet, it could end up in the bank accounts of the very people who are trying to get us out.

10 Reasons Why Conservatives' Fiscal Ideas Are Dangerous

By Sara Robinson, Campaign for America's Future
Posted on February 27, 2009, Printed on February 27, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/128900/

Yes, it's true. The conservatives -- that's right, the very same folks who just dragged us along on an eight-year drunken binge during which they borrowed-and-spent us into the deepest financial catastrophe in nearly a century -- are now standing there, faces full of moral rectitude, fingers pointing and shaking in our faces, righteously lecturing the rest of us on the topic of "fiscal responsibility."

I didn't think it was possible. I mean, they were mean enough drunk -- but hung over, in the clear light of morning, it turns out they're even worse.

I know. The choice is hard. Laugh? Cry? Scream? All three at once? It would almost be funny, if it weren't such clear evidence of a complete break with objective reality -- and their ideas of what that "fiscal responsibility" means weren't so dangerous to the future of the country.

The next episode in this surreal moral drama is set to take place next Monday, when President Obama will convene a "fiscal responsibility summit" at the White House to discuss the right's bright new idea for getting us out of this hole: let's just dismantle Social Security and Medicare.

As usual, this proposal is encrusted with a thick layer of diversions, misconceptions, factual errors and out-and-out lies. Here are some of the most pungent ones, along with the facts you need to fire back.

1. Conservatives are "fiscally responsible." Progressives just want to spend, spend, spend.

The comeback to the first assertion is easy: Just point and laugh. Any party that thought giving cost-plus, no-bid contracts to Halliburton was fiscally responsible (and let's not even get started on handing Hank Paulson $700 billion, no questions asked) deserves to be made fun of for using words that are simply beyond its limited comprehension.

And a quick look back at actual history makes them into even bigger fools. For decades now, liberal presidents have been far and away more restrained in their spending, and more likely to turn in balanced budgets. Part of this is that they've got a good grasp of Keynes, and know that the best way out of bad financial times is to make some up-front investments in the American people -- investments which have almost always, in the end, returned far more than we put in.

Conservatives believe wholeheartedly in investment and wealth-building when individuals, families, and corporations do it. But their faith in the power of money well-spent -- and the value of accumulated capital -- completely vanishes when it comes to government spending. They think it's morally wrong for government to ever invest or hold capital -- despite the long trail of successes that have enriched us all and transformed the face of the nation.

Under the conservative definition of "fiscal responsibility, " we'd have never set up the GI Bill and the FHA, which between them launched the post-war middle class (and made possible the consumer culture that generated so much private profit for so many). We wouldn't have 150 years of investment in public education, which for most of the 20th century gave American business access to the smartest workers in the world; or the interstate highway system, which broadened trade and tourism; or research investment via NASA and DARPA, the defense research agency that gave us the microchip and the Internet and made a whole new world of commerce possible. There wouldn't be the consumer protection infrastructure that allowed us to accept new products with easy confidence; or building and food inspectors who guarantee that you're not taking your life in your hands when you flip on a light or sit down to dinner.

What we're proposing now is not "spending." It's the next round of investment that will create the next great chapter in the American future. And the most fiscally irresponsible thing we can do right now is lose our nerve, and fail to prepare for what's ahead.

2. It's not gonna work. Everybody knows the Democrats spent us into this mess in the first place.

The only remaining "everybodys" who "know" this are the ones who are simply impervious to facts.

Ronald Reagan came into office with a national debt of less than $1 trillion. Mostly by cutting taxes on the rich, he grew that debt to $2.6 trillion. George H.W. Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge, but it wasn't enough to keep the debt from ballooning another 50 percent, to $4.2 trillion.

Bill Clinton''s aggressive budget balancing slowed the growth rate a bit: eight years later, he left office with a debt of $5.7 trillion -- and a tight budget in place that, if followed, would have paid whole thing off by 2006. Unfortunately, George W. Bush had no intention of following through with Clinton's plan: on his watch, the debt nearly doubled, from $5.7 to $10.6 trillion. So, nearly 80 percent of the current debt -- about which conservatives now complain -- was acquired on the watch of the three most recent conservative Presidents.

3. $10.6 trillion? But I got this e-mail that says we're looking at a national debt of $56 trillion...

Wow. That's a big, scary number, all right. It's also a perfect example of one of the classic ways people lie with statistics.

This particular mathematical confection was whipped up by Wall Street billionaire and former Nixon Commerce Secretary Pete Peterson, whose Peterson Foundation is the driving force behind the effort to defund Social Security. According to this group, "As of September 30, 2008, the federal government was in a $56 trillion-plus fiscal hole based on the official financial consolidated statements of the U.S. government. This amount is equal to $483,000 per household and $184,000 per American."

This "fact" is only true if you're willing to do a reckless amount of time traveling. The $56 trillion number is what you get if you project the entire U.S. debt a full 75 years into the future, which is how far out you have to go before you can get into numbers that big. In other words: we're not in that hole now -- but we might be in 2084, if we keep going the way we're going now.

Of course, it should be obvious that we're not going to keep going that way -- and that's the other fatal flaw. Peterson's calculations assume that there will be exactly no changes in Social Security and Medicare policy or inputs in the next 75 years -- something that has almost a zero chance of actually happening. Also, there's the usual problem with any kind of long-range projection: even a small error in the calculations at the start will compound over time, creating enormous errors at the end of the range. If he's off by even one percent (which is highly likely), the projection's worthless, even 20 years down the road.

Peterson and his posse are laying bets that Americans are too mathematically and logically challenged to notice the flaws in his reasoning -- even though the holes are big enough to drive an entire generation of retired Boomers through.

4. Whatever. It's still irresponsible to take on that much debt.

Even John McCain's economic adviser thinks this one's wrong. Here's what Mark Zandi said about the U.S. national debt on the February 1 edition of Meet The Press:

To repeat: Debt is never a good thing; but history is on our side here. We've carried a lot more debt than this in the past; and so have other fiscally responsible countries. And the world's investors are still flocking to buy U.S. bonds -- even though with inflation, they're getting slightly negative interest rates, which means they're effectively paying us to use their money. If they have that much faith in our economy, we're probably not wrong to have a little faith in ourselves. By world standards, we're still looking like a very good bet.

5. But Social Security is headed for disaster. It's out of control!

It's a testament to the short attention spans of the media that the cons try to launch this talking point every six months or so -- and every damned time, the punditocracy goes running flat-out after the bait, fur flying, like an eager but not particularly bright Irish Setter. And then people like us need to collar them, make them sit, scratch their ears, and calmly explain all over again (as if it were brand-new information) that Social Security is in perfectly fine shape, and the conservatives are making much ado about nothing -- again.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that the Social Security trust fund will continue to run a surplus until 2019. (More conservative fund trustees put the date at 2017.) The fund's total assets should hold out until 2046. And that's assuming that nothing changes at all.

If it turns out we do need to make adjustments, there are two very simple ones that will more than make up the difference. One is that we could raise the cap. Right now, people only pay Social Security taxes on the first $102,000 they earn; everything over that goes into their pockets tax-free. Increasing that amount would cover even a fairly large shortfall. And in the unlikely event that fails, we can talk about raising the retirement age to 70 -- a sensible step, given how much longer we live now.

6. Ending Social Security would be well worth it, because putting those deductions back in people's pockets would provide a big enough stimulus to get us out of this mess.

Anyone who spouts this is apparently not counting on the 70 million Boomers whose wallets would snap shut permanently if you withdrew their retirement benefits just a few years before they're going to need them. As Digby put it:

Bad economies get that way because people no longer trust the future, and refuse to take on the risks associated with spending, lending, or investing. Social Security was created in the first place because FDR understood that a guaranteed old-age income is a major risk-reducer -- not just for elders, but also for their working adult children. And it still is. Affirming the strength of Social Security not only raises the confidence of the Boomers, as Dean and Digby have pointed out, but also of their Xer and Millennial children, who are going to have to add "looking after Mom and Dad" to their list of big-ticket financial obligations if that promise is broken.

Breaking a 70-year-old generational promise for the sake of a little temporary financial stimulus is the very definition of penny-wise and pound-foolish.

7. OK, forget I even mentioned Social Security. Besides, the real problem is Medicare.

Finally, we come down to the truth. There's no question that exponentially rising health care costs -- both Medicare and private insurance -- are unaffordable in the long term; and that getting ourselves back on track financially means getting serious about addressing that.

On close examination, even Peterson's figures eventually reveal this truth. (About 85% of his projected 2084 debt comes from expected Medicare.) Unfortunately, though, most of his materials lump Social Security and Medicare together, creating a fantasy figure that blows the real problem so far out of proportion that you can't even begin to have a rational conversation about it -- which was, of course, the whole point of ginning those numbers up in the first place.

8. Next, you're going to tell me that some kind of government-sponsored health care is the answer.

Yes, we are. The Congressional Budget Office notes that health care costs were only 7 percent of the GDP in 1970 -- and are over double that, at 14.8 percent, now.

Much of that increase came about because in 1970, most health care providers ran on a not-for-profit basis. Hospitals were run by governments, universities, or religious-based groups; in some states, private for-profit care was actually illegal. Even insurance companies, like Blue Cross, were non-profit corporations. AdminIstrators and doctors were still paid handsomely; but there were no shareholders in the picture trying to pull profits out of other people's misfortune.

The first step to restoring affordability is to kick the profiteers out of the system. (According to the most conservative estimates, this one step would drop the national health care bill by at least $200 billion a year.) The second is to put it in the hands of administrators whose first concern is providing high-quality care instead of big bottom lines; and who are accountable to the voters if they fail to perform. Our experience with Medicare and the VA -- which, between them, currently provide care to over 70 million Americans, or about 22% of the country -- proves that we are perfectly capable of providing first-class, affordable care through the government.

9. But this Peterson guy's a billionaire Wall Streeter. Obviously, he knows something about finance...

Basically, we're only having this conversation in the first place because a conservative ideologue was willing to pony up $1 billion of his own money to fund a "foundation" devoted to killing Social Security. Given that most politicians -- both Democrat and Republican -- are extremely unwilling to touch the notorious "third rail of politics," it's pretty clear that next Monday's "fiscal responsibility summit" wouldn't even be happening if Peterson wasn't bankrolling the Beltway buzz on this terrible idea.

10. OK -- if killing Social Security isn't the answer, just how do you propose to get us out of this?

The idea of a White House summit on fiscal responsibility is a good one -- but only if it focuses on real solutions to our real problems.

Cutting health care costs by getting all Americans into a rationally-managed system that puts delivering excellent care above delivering shareholder profits has to be a central part of any long-term economic health strategy. We're also about 15 years overdue for a complete overhaul of our military budget, too much of which is still focused on fighting the Soviet Union instead of responding to the actual challenges we're currently facing. Finally, it's time to ask the wealthy -- who've profited more than anyone from the past 15 years, and yet haven't paid anywhere near their fair share -- to step in a pay up for the system that enabled them to build that pile in the first place.

There's plenty we can be doing to actually reduce the national debt, and really stimulate the economy for both the short run and the long haul, without ending Social Security and sending hundreds of millions of Americans into sudden panic over their retirement. True "fiscal responsibility" can never be achieved by breaking promises.

Sara Robinson is a Fellow at the Campaign for America's Future, and a consulting partner with the Cognitive Policy Works in Seattle. One of the few trained social futurists in North America, she has blogged on authoritarian and extremist movements at Orcinus since 2006, and is a founding member of Group News Blog.

9. Ridicule. In an interview with the Washington Post on 07/9/2008, McCain advisor and national campaign general co-chair Senator Phil Gramm was defining McCain's plans to reform the U.S. economy. Gramm explained the nation was not in a recession, stating, "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," and "We have sort of become a nation of whiners, you just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline." This would be the same Phil Gramm of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate. The legislation allowed Swiss Bank UBS to purchase several American institutions. Gramm later became a lobbyist for UBS, collecting over 750,000 USD in fees. UBS alone issues over 18 Billion USD in subprime mortgages.

8. Denial. Black Monday, 09/15/2008. John McCain: "The fundamentals of our economy are still sound." A worldwide stock market crash occurred as Lehman Brothers filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy and major investment bank Merrill Lynch was sold to Bank of America. Dow Jones Industrial Average lost more than 500 points, which is the biggest point drop (up to that point) since September 2001. FTSE 100 dropped 212 points, and it was the biggest one-day percentage drop since January 21, 2008. Hong Kong, Japan and Korea stock market suspended that day due to public holiday, and they fell over 5% on the following day. Two weeks later, we had a blacker Monday (09/29/2008) with a 777.68 point drop on the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

7. Political grandstanding. Announcement of suspending his campaign to return to DC to "lead" Congress during economic bail-out negotiations. This effort led to a defeat of the measure when the votes were cast. Tried unsuccessfully to use the bailout as an excuse to postpone the presidential debate.

5. Incoherence. Threatens to fire the chairman of the SEC if he were in office, even though the president does not have the authority to do so.

4. Theft of intellectual property. Claiming previously existing mortgage buy-out proposal as his own.

3. Avoid / change the subject. Greg Strimple, a McCain top advisor: If we keep talking about the economy, we will lose."

2. Engage the politics of division, hate, fear mongering and cultural warfare with high-gear Obama smear campaign: Ayers, ACORN, Farrakhan, Rev Jeremiah Wright, Barack Hussein Obama, etc.

1. McCain�s send message to voters is to stop whining about the economy and start focusing on attacking Obama.