What does that really mean, when you look at real numbers? I submit that it means they shouldn't be taken seriously when they whine about the deficit.

Many people think that balancing the budget is an easy task just requiring political will, something that would not affect them personally. Many members of Congress often give the impression that all we have to do is eliminate earmarks and pork barrel spending and that would be enough.

Is that true?

Recently the ranking Republican in the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, was honest enough to actually put forward a budget that would be balanced without raising any taxes. According to the CBO, under the Ryan plan federal debt as a share of the gross domestic product (GDP) would rise from 61% this year to 100% in the year 2045 before falling to zero in 2080.

2080. That's a long time to wait. And what policy changes would have to be enacted? Ryan was honest and courageous enough to admit that the only way to eliminate the deficit without tax hikes was to cut Social Security and Medicare. Severely. In fact, by 2021 Medicare would have to be eliminated completely, replaced with vouchers that would steadily lose ground to annual costs (they would be indexed for only half the historical rate of price inflation in health care). Social Security would be privatized.

Workers would see their health benefits sharply reduced because Ryan would abolish the tax exclusion for health insurance.

Now, you may actually support some or all of these policy changes. But the reality is that the American public overwhelmingly likes and supports Social Security and Medicare. Any politician who dares even begin to speak seriously about cutting them is cut off at the knees. Bush tried very hard in 2005 to invest his re-election momentum into privatizing Social Security. He got nowhere. Clinton annihilated the GOP when they tried to cut Mediare in 1995, which in part was responsible for Speaker Gingrich's forced retirement.

Today the GOP is running from Ryan's budget as if it were the new Bubonic Plague. Yet they continue to call for a balance budget and no new taxes.

Which is why they should not be taken seriously.

--I cribbed/amended/etc. this post from the following column by conservative economist Bruce Bartlett: http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/11/cut-sp … tlett.html

A possible answer: consolidation. Small business is the great job generator. Home Depot employs lots of people, but it also puts out of work all those family-owned hardware stores.

It's important to be pro-free market, not just pro-business. It's an important distinction. As Kevin Drum points out, "Pro-business means passing laws that your business pals like, and as economists since Adam Smith have observed, what businessmen mostly like is lack of competition."

"Joey, do you like movies about gladiator?"

Religious law should govern Israel: justice minister

So now adulterous women will be stoned to death and unruly sons put to the sword!

When people as prominent as the justice minister say things like that, it speaks volumes about ISrael, and mainly for the 20% Israeli Arabs who have absolutely nothing to do with the Torah law 

On the bright side, a Jewish revolution migh catch up with the Islamic revolution and we will see rabbis vs imams in fist fights 

As they say, when in Rome..... I think Israel is finally adapting to its environment haha...

Lately it's been used to an unprecidented extent, as the loser party has decided that stopping the majority party from governing is just fine with them, the country be damned.

Here's what the very, very, centrist/milquetoast USA Today opines:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/02/ … t-gop.html

I agree.

Now the Republicans are lying through their teeth about what the nuclear option is. Republicans are knowingly misusing the term to describe the Democrats considering using the reconciliation process to pass health care reform.

The reconciliation process is entirely within existing Senate rules.

--And here's the kicker--

The reconciliation process has been used 22 times since 1980, and 16 of those times it was used by the Republicans. Using the reconciliation process for large medical bills is routine.

Ever heard of COBRA: That's the health insurance program that lets people get temporary insurance after they are laid off of work. It stands for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It was passed in the spring of 1986, when Republicans held the majority in the Senate.

Lots of sources on this. Here's one: http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2 … cceptable/

I think that for most of the planet there shouldn't be catastrohpic changes. It can be even positive for the total biomass and rainfalls.
Even rising sea levels will be small and poeple will have time to relocate.

However there are 7 billions poeple on this planet and many of them live on the edge of the climate limits. This population have grown under a certain environement, adapted to it so well and so specificaly to the point of maximum density that a re-adaptation can be made only at huge economic and demographic costs.

A change in the environement wether it be more rain, more heat, more drought will put the populations at risk in jeopardy. Not humanity.
The problem is that population at risk are disproportionate today. We have seen that in the tragedy of the tsunami in eastern Aisa in 2004. A typhoon, aforest fire, a flood inevitably wipes out hundreds of poeple and displace thousands. The economic cost of every single natural event is in the billions.

Moreover, if one million poeple die in a natural disaster it won't make any significant difference in the global or even regional population. But the pain, the economic loss, the new poverty created and the social instability is huge because of the density of the population.
And the problem will remain despite all the deaths and disapeared.

We are 7 billions on Earth but we seem incapable of relocating one million as seen for example in the Palestinian conflict.
If the sea rises one meter, we will face 500 Palestinian conflicts.
We could adapt to anything if we had room to move. But we don't.
Everywhere you go, the land is already occupied by a population and this population is already living near maximum capacity. A treshold where more immigrant is causing an imbalance and an unacceptable loss for the locals.

That's why IMO, there is a wind of panic at the global warming issue.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10463132-71.html

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/23/re … /?hpt=Sbin

How many here can live upto the test? As I sit here thinking about it the task boggles my mind.

This chart shows the 1977-2007 period P/E ratio for the S&P500, highlighting the band of where stock prices would have been if the P/E ratio had stayed within one standard deviation of their long term average.

Along the same lines, here's a chart of how much the consumer leveraged themselves up during Greenspan’s tenure: What they purchased in excess of their cash income:

Both charts from: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/02/wh … er-valued/

I am begining to wonder if there is a decent salary possible to amke people want to be teachers. I know I sure as hell wouldn't want to put up with everyones brats with the lack of control tools that have been given to educators.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art … AD9E7DF9G1

*(I know...I know. "What's Hockey?")

Why is that, do you suppose? Due to unusual levels of incompetence? Or something else?

Here's some interesting data that suggests "something else" is the answer. And the answer is the economy.

Source: http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/02/wh … e_gov.html

People trust government when times are good. They don’t trust it when times are bad.