Especially for those who ridiculed the President for his suggestion during PM Netanyahu's May visit that Israel look at returning to pre 1967 borders as a way to break the log jam in peace negotiations with the Palestinians:

AP reports today that Netanyahu has agreed to negotiate the borders based on the cease fire on the West Bank.

"A senior official would not confirm outright that the prime minister was now willing to adopt the cease-fire line a starting point, but said Israel was willing to try new formulas to restart peace talks based on a proposal made by President Obama."

I'm sure many Israeli's are furious that their leader would even consider such a radical compromise in the effort to finally reach a peace agreement. But most Israelis want peace and realize it will take someone with uncommon courage and persistence to lead them to it. I praise Netanyahu for risking his popularity, and maybe his life, to try to accomplish something no one else has been able to do.

And Obama set the stage for this, in much the same way as he originated and attempted to negotiate an unprecedented budget reduction, an enormous compromise, which I firmly believe would have been far superior to the watered-down albatross we are left with today. With the far right already immovable and the left sure to go nuts when entitlements are on the table, we need a gifted compromiser. President Obama has proved he has the ideas, passion and more arm-twisting ability than many of his predecessors. He did not accomplish his goal entirely this time because of the debt ceiling ticking time bomb and unprecedented nonsense in Congress, but he will be more successful in the next year or so, and after he is reelected. Yes, I think Obama's reelection is one of the things which will be a direct result of the shameful debt ceiling disaster, and I think that will be a good thing.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Especially for those who ridiculed the President for his suggestion during PM Netanyahu's May visit that Israel look at returning to pre 1967 borders as a way to break the log jam in peace negotiations with the Palestinians:

AP reports today that Netanyahu has agreed to negotiate the borders based on the cease fire on the West Bank.

"A senior official would not confirm outright that the prime minister was now willing to adopt the cease-fire line a starting point, but said Israel was willing to try new formulas to restart peace talks based on a proposal made by President Obama."

I'm sure many Israeli's are furious that their leader would even consider such a radical compromise in the effort to finally reach a peace agreement. But most Israelis want peace and realize it will take someone with uncommon courage and persistence to lead them to it. I praise Netanyahu for risking his popularity, and maybe his life, to try to accomplish something no one else has been able to do.

And Obama set the stage for this, in much the same way as he originated and attempted to negotiate an unprecedented budget reduction, an enormous compromise, which I firmly believe would have been far superior to the watered-down albatross we are left with today. With the far right already immovable and the left sure to go nuts when entitlements are on the table, we need a gifted compromiser. President Obama has proved he has the ideas, passion and more arm-twisting ability than many of his predecessors. He did not accomplish his goal entirely this time because of the debt ceiling ticking time bomb and unprecedented nonsense in Congress, but he will be more successful in the next year or so, and after he is reelected. Yes, I think Obama's reelection is one of the things which will be a direct result of the shameful debt ceiling disaster, and I think that will be a good thing.

You'll get some angry responses to this one. But maybe we should re-visit your thoughtful post.

• Netanyahu's announcement is maybe more of a bombshell than most realize. He is a staunch right-wing and militant conservative. For him to agree to begin negotiation in the interest of peace, overriding his own firmly-held beliefs as well as those of his "base" constituency is a huge and welcome change of heart. By changing his stance on the sanctity of the 1967 borders, he has made a bold move for peace in the Middle East. What will the right-wing partisans who were so bitterly critical of President Obama when he suggested such a thing say now?

• I agree with you that President Obama laid out what would have been a far more acceptable plan for beginning to correct our fiscal woes than was finally negotiated by Congressional leaders. The President was willing to agree to spending cuts that would have been 67% greater than the agreement that was reached. He was willing to take the heated criticism of his base by placing both Medicare and Social Security "in play" for cuts. From what I can see, his bold proposal was rejected only because the Tea Party simply would not agree to any kind of revenue increases, even though the President's plan included simplified and reduced personal income tax rates for almost all Americans.

• I agree that the deal that was passed really is an albatross. The spending cuts were miniscule compared to what any reasonable analyst would say is necessary. Certainly the financial markets are speaking volumes in rejecting what is an obviously inadequate step towards fiscal responsibility. Some will say that the Tea Party wanted more but couldn't get it. I would say that they could have gotten more had they simply accepted the President's proposal for some tax increases on the top 1-2% of America's wealthiest and a re-work of the tax code. In this case stubborn idealism trumped an otherwise far more attractive solution.

• I have been unhappy with what I've thought has been the President's weak leadership on fiscal matters, culminating with the debt ceiling negotiations. But in thinking about it in retospect, with the wingnuts on both sides being so entrenched in their positions, so bitterly divided--could anyone have succeeded in leading those factions to any kind of compromise?

• The President will have to demonstrate a greater commitment to fiscal reform than he has so far if he is to earn my vote in 2012. Having said that, I don't see any potential challenger from the GOP who would stand a chance in beating him. His momentum and financing is simply too strong and their campaign platforms too muddled and confused to think that any of them could be successful in beating the President.

"...Netanyahu more likely is thinking about the protests called by the Palestinian Authority for September 20, the eve of a U.N. General Assembly vote which would by an overwhelming majority recognize Palestinian statehood (although with no practical effect if the move isn't endorsed by the Security Council, where the U.S. has vowed to veto it). Concerned to avoid the U.N. community codifying the international consensus on the terms of a two-state solution -- which Israel's government doesn't accept -- the Obama Administration has launched a frantic effort to head off the Palestinian U.N. bid by restarting negotiations which have failed because the gulf between the sides is too large. And Netanyahu seems to be moving to do his bit by signaling what he hopes will be viewed as a new flexibility....

........But the Israeli Prime Minister's own aides quickly rushed to assure Israeli media that Netanyahu maintains his rejection of withdrawal to the 1967 lines, and instead plans to negotiate on the basis of a "border package" that includes territorial swaps. .......

If not, and the U.N. vote goes ahead, Netanyahu's latest position will simply have been an attempt to shift the blame for intransigence back onto the Palestinians. Netanyahu and Abbas, it should be noted, have never really negotiated with one another; instead, both "negotiate", or jockey for position, with the U.S. and the wider international community. And Netanyahu's new willingness to talk about borders, but only on his terms and if the Palestinians withdraw their U.N. bid, is simply his latest move in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian battle for international public opinion.

Read more: http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/201...#ixzz1Tvx7u3fZ

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Especially for those who ridiculed the President for his suggestion during PM Netanyahu's May visit that Israel look at returning to pre 1967 borders as a way to break the log jam in peace negotiations with the Palestinians:

AP reports today that Netanyahu has agreed to negotiate the borders based on the cease fire on the West Bank.

"A senior official would not confirm outright that the prime minister was now willing to adopt the cease-fire line a starting point, but said Israel was willing to try new formulas to restart peace talks based on a proposal made by President Obama."

I'm sure many Israeli's are furious that their leader would even consider such a radical compromise in the effort to finally reach a peace agreement. But most Israelis want peace and realize it will take someone with uncommon courage and persistence to lead them to it. I praise Netanyahu for risking his popularity, and maybe his life, to try to accomplish something no one else has been able to do.

And Obama set the stage for this, in much the same way as he originated and attempted to negotiate an unprecedented budget reduction, an enormous compromise, which I firmly believe would have been far superior to the watered-down albatross we are left with today. With the far right already immovable and the left sure to go nuts when entitlements are on the table, we need a gifted compromiser. President Obama has proved he has the ideas, passion and more arm-twisting ability than many of his predecessors. He did not accomplish his goal entirely this time because of the debt ceiling ticking time bomb and unprecedented nonsense in Congress, but he will be more successful in the next year or so, and after he is reelected. Yes, I think Obama's reelection is one of the things which will be a direct result of the shameful debt ceiling disaster, and I think that will be a good thing.

Obama has no clue. Obama has no plan. All he knows is his left-leaning ideas that were instilled in him in college. He also surrounds himself with like minds. Only 8% of his administration have private sector experience.
The debt ceiling "Nonsense" as you call it, was representatives voted into office last election by the people who are tired of all the failed left-wing spending that has put us deep into the hole of debt.
With the democrats controlling the House and Senate, Obama pushed through his ill-conceived Health care bill and his failed Stimulus bill that did not create any jobs, but managed to increase unemployment.
America needs to have a real leader in the White House and real conservatives in Congress
Please vote Republican. Our grandchildren will thank you.

only the real rich grandchildren will thank you. Middle class....the tea party sold you out.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...s-year/242997/

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...s-year/242997/

Excellent graphic representations of the gravity of the fiscal problem facing the country. Too bad we have a Congress that was more than willing to negotiate a series of insignificant steps, which were designed to permit all the political factions to claim victory in the negotiations, yet will do next to nothing in addressing the problems facing the country.

All the parties to the negotiations were at fault...

The Democrats held out for continued entitlement spending and never offered a legitimate plan of obviously-needed spending cuts. While theirs was a quiet resistance, they were every bit as much the "party of no" in the negotiations as the Tea Party.

The Republicans were hogtied by disagreements within their own party. Because of the lack of unanimity in the GOP, they turned down a bargain that the President offered with $4 trillion in reduced deficits including $3 trillion in spending cuts including entitlements, but included $1 trillion in new taxes on the 1-2% wealthiest Americans. That plan actually had a reduction in corporate tax rates resultant from a re-work of the tax code. A deal with those components really could have been a "grand bargain".

The Tea Party negotiated with all the skill of a bully in the schoolyard, turning down a much more favorable bargain for the country in favor of a complete and unyielding embrace of their extremist ideology. Another "requirement" of the Tea Party was to require a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, a requirement that was politically impossible, which they knew all along. They maintained their negotiating position until the last possible minute, when only a much less favorable and less stringent deal was possible. In the process they caused incalculable damage to the U.S. economy and our reputation. They were raw and irresponsible rookies at the game and it showed...much to the disadvantage of fiscal conservatism, the U.S. economy and the country.

The President can be commended for offering up what really would have been a "grand bargain" for the country, but his inability to deliver his own party to support such a deal was as evident as John Boehner's inability to garner Republican support for his side of the bargain. It seems they both wasted a lot of time posturing and positing a deal which could never happen. The President refused to consider a balanced budget amendment requirement even though he also knew that it would have been politically impossible to achieve. That could have been a "give up" which would have never been part of any final agreement. His inability to provide any leadership to the negotiations or any of the political factions involved was painfully evident. He was a non-factor in the negotiations, not the role one would expect from the President of the United States.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Excellent graphic representations of the gravity of the fiscal problem facing the country. Too bad we have a Congress that was more than willing to negotiate a series of insignificant steps, which were designed to permit all the political factions to claim victory in the negotiations, yet will do next to nothing in addressing the problems facing the country.

All the parties to the negotiations were at fault...

The Democrats held out for continued entitlement spending and never offered a legitimate plan of obviously-needed spending cuts. While theirs was a quiet resistance, they were every bit as much the "party of no" in the negotiations as the Tea Party.

The Republicans were hogtied by disagreements within their own party. Because of the lack of unanimity in the GOP, they turned down a bargain that the President offered with $4 trillion in reduced deficits including $3 trillion in spending cuts including entitlements, but included $1 trillion in new taxes on the 1-2% wealthiest Americans. That plan actually had a reduction in corporate tax rates resultant from a re-work of the tax code. A deal with those components really could have been a "grand bargain".
[COLOR="Red"]
[B]The Tea Party negotiated with all the skill of a bully in the schoolyard, turning down a much more favorable bargain for the country in favor of a complete and unyielding embrace of their extremist ideology. [[/B]/COLOR]Another "requirement" of the Tea Party was to require a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, a requirement that was politically impossible, which they knew all along. They maintained their negotiating position until the last possible minute, when only a much less favorable and less stringent deal was possible. In the process they caused incalculable damage to the U.S. economy and our reputation. They were raw and irresponsible rookies at the game and it showed...much to the disadvantage of fiscal conservatism, the U.S. economy and the country.

The President can be commended for offering up what really would have been a "grand bargain" for the country, but his inability to deliver his own party to support such a deal was as evident as John Boehner's inability to garner Republican support for his side of the bargain. It seems they both wasted a lot of time posturing and positing a deal which could never happen. The President refused to consider a balanced budget amendment requirement even though he also knew that it would have been politically impossible to achieve. That could have been a "give up" which would have never been part of any final agreement. His inability to provide any leadership to the negotiations or any of the political factions involved was painfully evident. He was a non-factor in the negotiations, not the role one would expect from the President of the United States.

You call a halt to excess spending an "extreme ideology" ? You call it extreme to get our financial house in order? You surely must be an extreme left-wing democrat!!!

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

America needs to have a real leader in the White House and real conservatives in Congress
Please vote Republican. Our grandchildren will thank you.

Thank you for the advice but I am looking forward to President Obama's second term. And I firmly believe my grandchildren will thank me...I know my children already do.

Originally Posted by DaleMN

Thank you for the advice but I am looking forward to President Obama's second term. And I firmly believe my grandchildren will thank me...I know my children already do.

With all due respect, what exactly do they thank you for ?

With the healthcare bill not even kicking in yet and with it the high costs to your children and grandchildren....exactly what do they thank you for ?

Please let us know that you and your children are so thankful for. Do they admire the payoffs, etc. ? Have you looked around at the conditions in this country ? This is what you want to contiinue and get passed on ?

I will really look forward to your response as it will allow us all to know what might be good that this WH is doing, or has done.

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

You call a halt to excess spending an "extreme ideology" ? You call it extreme to get our financial house in order? You surely must be an extreme left-wing democrat!!!

Nope, I'll claim to be a member of the "I'm going to think about it" party. I will not accept the soundbites, the shorthand explanations written by political advisors, the summary of issues that are explained in only a few words, the campaign platforms that won't stand up to the test of thoughtful reason. I sure wish there were more who would join me here.

Originally Posted by Bucco

With all due respect, what exactly do they thank you for ?

With the healthcare bill not even kicking in yet and with it the high costs to your children and grandchildren....exactly what do they thank you for ?

Please let us know that you and your children are so thankful for. Do they admire the payoffs, etc. ? Have you looked around at the conditions in this country ? This is what you want to contiinue and get passed on ?

I will really look forward to your response as it will allow us all to know what might be good that this WH is doing, or has done.

They thank me for caring about human beings, about the environment, about social justice and equality, about opportunity for all, about unselfishness....you know, all those things that are so foreign to those that continually bash Obama and Democrats.

Originally Posted by DaleMN

They thank me for caring about human beings, about the environment, about social justice and equality, about opportunity for all, about unselfishness....you know, all those things that are so foreign to those that continually bash Obama and Democrats.

Somewhere over the rainbow........

The tea party is our friend. Vote Republican. It is your only hope.

Our only hope is to vote responsible, not caring which party the candidate is from. Watch their actions not their words.

Very few, if any in congress or the WH, care about the people. All they care about is themselves and geting re-elected. Lets surprise them and kick them out of office, take away the tax payer funded retirement/medical plans that they voted for themselves, along with the automatic pay raises, then repeal the 17th Amendment and take away the "career politican" status that they love so much.

We The People just might be able to save this country.