Anyone hear about this?JPost reported this as well.

“Several thousand US troops headed to Israel for unprecedented’ joint missile defense exercise”

“Iran is pissed. A few days after that announcement they began a 10 day
drill in Strait of Hormuz that ended yesterday, it’s gotten lots of
press in the U.S., and yet no mention of the US troop deployment to
Israel ever.”

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/jpost-several-thousand-us-troops-to-israel-for-unprecedented-joint-missile-defense-exercise.html

Or this?

Please?  Cuts to increases in millitary spending are NOT cuts to the Millitary!  They are cuts to the increase in the millitary!   After wars, there is almost always a reduction of millitary forces.  That should equal a reduction of Millitary Budget.�
   I am a veteran, and rather pro-millitary, but this is ridiculous.

The Iowa caucus made for some humorous listening!  There will probably be more humor from the rest of the political races!

How much, of which minerals, would be profitable to bring from the moon?�
   A feasible colony on the moon would be a little insurance of human survival, if something drastic happens to Earth.  That should have a worth of its own.
   Research stations on the moon could gather a lot of scientific data, but there needs to be a commercial venture, to assure continuity.

The correct term for the race in Iowa is a statistical tie.  A photo finish, (a term used in horse racing), the difference in the two candidates would amount to about 1/8th of an inch.  Not a measurable distance on a photo of two horse noses.  8 votes is 0.000266578 difference.  To claim a win in a system of hand counted votes indicates lack of  understanding of math, or willing dishonesty.

How about talking about the new bill obama signed that allows the government to arrest U.S. citizens without due process? New Year eve no doubt

Of course as we know the government would never abuse a law or powers.

emo got busted. the laws states that a review will occur every 3yrs.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-3-2012/lockup-everyone

lol
http://www.theonion.com/articles/president-signs-controversial-defense-bill,26928/

Obama goes scorched earth on nominees and now has the power to assassinate Americans.  That’ll take care of the opposition.

“No real man wants to vote for Mitt Romney”
Quote of the day.

Wouldn’t it be horrible if we had to cut military spending to the point that we could only fight one mistake war, instead of two mistake wars simultaneously? I mean, if we attack iran, we might have to stop invading afghanistan…such a disaster for the USA.

Stand by to hear the right arguing that all the offense spending stimulates the economy and creates jobs, although no other gvt spending stimualtes the economy and creates jobs according to the voodoo econ bible.

I’m officially done with pretending that I respect the intellect of the WSJ editorial board.  

Tom says there’s been upward redistribution of wealth, Kimberly responds, well, the wealthy pay more taxes now, too.

They sure do!  That’s *exactly* what you would expect to happen, all things being equal, when a group of people takes home more cash!

You’re not even trying.  I’m unable to convince myself that you actually, really believe the things you’re saying.

-dan
Boston, MA

Bailouts and stimulus started during Bush and Barney Frank (both), Barney looking over banking and finance for many years, and agreement of congress So both parties own the origins of those doubtfully successful moves.

The Republicans seem to forget that they didn’t vote for Obama to do the things he’s done, because they didn’t vote for him in the first place.

“I have never said that Barack Obama is a Socialist,” says the WSJ editorial member.

She’s another failed hack. Usually they have to call in; why is she on a mic?

Can someone mention the fact that Santorum forced his children to spend the night cuddling with, and singing to, a dead fetus?  It is something to think about, especially when you are hiring a guy who wants his finger on “the button”, who is looking forward to Armageddon, and wants to give the Pope more control over US laws.

I’m so tired of the “turnaround” thing. The economy was not at a low point when Obama came into office – it was in free fall. If it had continued it would have made the Depression look like a cake walk. Credit or blame who you want – the economy turned around.

A good jobs report — and a good year

The December jobs report is good news. Very good news. 

And, in many ways, 2011 was a better year for the economy than it seemed at the time. As more accurate data has streamed in, the Bureau of Labor Statistics have revised its estimates upwards for many months. For instance: The December jobs report is the best jobs report since September, when the economy added 210,000 jobs. But we only know that now. When the September jobs report came out, the initial data showed that we added 103,000 jobs. What seemed like a disappointment was actually a very strong month for the economy.  

If we are adding jobs more slowly than we need to be, that is, in large part, the fault of Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who refuse to sign onto tried-and-tested methods of creating jobs in recovering economies. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-good-jobs-report–and-a-good-year/2011/08/25/gIQAQqvqeP_blog.html 

Kimberly Strassel’s comments have been strikingly misinformed and full of propaganda.  Her comments have been highly irresponsible for a journalist.  Please don’t ever invite her back on the show. 

Sorry for all the typos!  I think I still made my point.

I’d like to know why Social Security is called an entitlement? I’ve been loaning the government my own money for 30 years. How am I entitled by calling in that loan when I retire? Would the Republicans rather I not get that money back???

A ticket of President Obama nnd Hilary Clinton would be hard to beat, because of their popularity. From the pro-life point of view, it would be like the devil and his sister, or the devil and her brother.

Concerning the comments already posted primarily those focusing on Strassel’s boilerplate rants (and that maybe is too polite a term), let me add a few reactions and facts. First, when the caller noted how off base she was in arguing that Obama is a socialist and the rest, Tom turned to her and she said something to the effect of “I didn’t call him a socialist,” and then proceeded with the big “but” to return right back to the blather about he is a European leaning. . . fill in the blanks. Mercifully Fineman came back shortly after and took down her nonsense. But Tom should have immediately confronted her in the first place that she was resorting to the same tropes. More could be said, but Fineman was right on.

Let’s add more flesh to the bones of what to say not only to Strassel but what should be said to any of the current Republican candidates (and Boehner, Cantor and McConnell and the rest) who equally rant on about job creators, an unstable economic set of parameters and policies (I though entrepreneurs were the type of people who love that kind of swashbuckling environment). Where were the jobs under Bush II? Here are the facts: During Clinton’s eight years in office (let’s not argue who all should claim credit), the tax and budget policies that he drove led to over 20 million new jobs or about 200,000+ per month for those eight years. Under George W. Bush a net in the same eight years time frame of 700,000 new jobs or approximately 7000 per month. These were with the Bush tax cuts, the rich (the job creators?) getting richer and government spending going through the roof because of and we can say this repeatedly as a fact: two massive tax cuts, two wars, and the prescription drug benefit unpaid for. So if Obama and his policies have re-righted the ship so we are in the 125-150,000 per month new jobs created situation we are at least headed toward the Clinton years’ accomplishments.

Also, TARP: passed by a Republican President (as Fineman pointed out in his response to Strassel) with bipartisan congressional support and all paid back except for the Fannie and Freddie portions and we know in what bad shape they were and why. And the auto “loans”: fully paid back with interest. That is, as taxpayers we made money. And Romney opposed it as did many other conservatives. So let’s see: maybe his business acumen isn’t all it is cracked up to be. Obama will not have a tough time iterating and reiterating these “facts.”

I thought Bush 1st stimulus was a refund to taxpayers? Anywhere from 300-1200 dollars.
Obama’s takeover the GM/Chrysler has not proved to be successful. Taking the assets of those companies and giving them to the UAW vice the bondholderes/shareholders was a very shameful act. The idea that keeping paying unemployment check to stimulate the economy has failed. That money will have to be paid back by employers via their unemployment insurance and those rates have been going up. This will prevent employers from hiring more workers.

Unbelievable, Tom! I can’t believe you let Kimberly Strassel get away with the statements she made in the 32nd minute of this program today when she was railing on President Obama in such a way that was so deceitful and jingoistic. She was using terms like “Obamacare”, “Socialism”, “Redistribute..take their money and use it for priorities I think are better”, “you have a government dramatically increasing in its size and scope”, “taking money away from job creators”. You did to your credit spar a little with her, but in the end, you let her win “yep,yep,yep” I just replayed it. This jingoism cannot take the place of serious discussion, but you let the propaganda happen on your watch. Not objective in-depth discussion, only spitfire sound bites and false challenges to the irrationality or illogical thinking used by idealogues like this guest. She must have been hand-picked by Rupert Murdoch when he bought the WSJ.

The best rebuttals of Strassel were from the callers.  Feinman was good on rebutting the “European” nonsense, but then he went on to spout the Beltway crap about “entitlement reform” and actually praise the innumerate and heartless Ryan Plan.  What was shocking was that Ashbrook went along with that, and complained that no one was doing anything about reforming “entitlements.”

The truth is that social security with no changes can pay full benefits until 2037 and 75% for 50 years after that.  With slight changes like increasing the cap on payroll taxes, it can be solvent through the next century.

There real problems are with Medicare and medical spending in general, but that is beginning to be addressed by the “dreaded” Obamacare, which is already demonstrating savings.  Medicare and other healthcare spending crises are caused by the grotesque overspending on healthcare in this country.  (twice as much as most dreaded “European” countries, with 40 million not even getting coverage.

It infuriates me that not just Strassel, who is an over the top ideologue but Feinman and even Ashbrook keep blithely talking about “entitlements” without even mentioning the real life effects of cuts in these programs.

The policies of the likes of Strassel, abetting by acceptance of some of them by “insiders” like Ashbrook and Feinman would impoverish millions.

I don’t mind that people like Strassel are on shows like this, but if they are on, there must be others who can immediately rebut their lies.  Jack Beatty is often good, but even he dropped the ball on the entitlements issue tonight.

The impact of President Obama’s recess appointments (CFPB and NLRB) on credit creation, business confidence, and further extension of the payroll cut, or any additional progress on issues like mortgage credit (see Fed white paper), is unlikely to be positive.  In other words, if the working environment in Washington was already strained, Wednesday’s ‘recess’ appointments seem to have only added to the tension. 

Dollars to doughnuts she’s not a Democrat.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/06/video-mother-with-a-gun/

Although solidly part of the establishment, The Wall Street Journal was revered for many years for its straight reporting.  I guess that’s changed since the Murdoch Empire acquired it. I assume you invited Kimberly Strassel on your show to provide some insight, and analysis. Instead Kimberly Strassel chose to be a stand-in for the Republican National Party Chairman.  She offered no analysis, but just spouted the Republican, anti-Obama talking points.  She is obviously a partisan Republican. but I believe on your show she should have made an effort to be somewhat objective.

Great show.  However, I have to say Ms. Strassel’s contribution was just boilerplate Fox News she’s grown used to chanting on Fox News.  Is there anyone left alive who doesn’t roll his eyes whenever someone refers to the wealthy as the “Job Creators”?    It’s always great to hear Major Garret’s analysis, and I’m sure there are plenty of conservative pundits out there who can contribute something original and something based at least in part on fact to the show. 

To:  Tom Ashbrook                                                                                                                                                          1/8/2012

        On Point radio          

Dear Tom,

I listen frequently to “On Point” and enjoy its range of topics.  Your breadth and depth of knowledge in
discussion with your expert guests is often remarkable.  Your obvious belief that big government
serves the people is usually just a minor distraction.  Last Friday’s discussion of the Republican
race in New Hampshire was an exception.

Guests who were critical of Republican positions received your joyous
support.  Those who would commend a
Republican position encountered your immediate challenge.  Any criticism of Democrat positions met your
rejoinder that there was precedence in some earlier Republican (like Regan)
behavior.  Past behavior doesn’t justify
present error.  Then you went over the
top.  Your reaction to a suggestion that
Obama preferred and intended a European socialist body politic was far beyond a
comment.  Your plea sounded as a desperate
wail; “that can’t be true!  Is there any
factual support for that?  Is that anything
beyond political philosophy?” or words to that effect.  You then collected comforting opinion from
Obama supporters.

Yes, Tom, there is factual support.�
It is a matter of record and contained in the President’s own
actions.  As President he is charged with
forming a plan for the government and committing that plan to a budget for
Congressional consideration.  His first
budget for FY 2010 is usually described as reducing the deficit by about $1.5
trillion.  The annual deficit is about
$1.5 trillion, so the 10 year reduction goal is at best about a 10%
solution.  But another dimension of his
plan was to increase the national debt by about $8 trillion over those 10
years.   His spending for bigger
government creating only an $8 trillion debt addition is a consequence of a
pie-in-the-sky forecast of average GNP growth of 4.5% during those ten
years.  The tax benefit (to government)
of that growth won’t happen.  So his plan
was (and is) for government spending wildly beyond what we experience now.

Of course the President didn’t encourage a Congressional vote on his FY2010
budget despite overwhelming control of both Houses of Congress by his
party.  He preferred avoiding the issue
of the economy.  He kept Congress
occupied on his addition of health care control to the range of government
domination in our society.  That plan was
promoted as cost saving but those savings were only to the government with the
plans’ additions shoved off on the private sector. 

The President has submitted two more budgets since that first effort.  Both contain dimensions similar to the
first.  We still have no annual budget.
We have a President who has formally deflected the obligation for budget creation
off onto Congress.  So Tom, there is
factual evidence that the President intends a European socialist style of
government for the US even as it is becoming apparent that it does not work
there.  

In your declared pursuit of impartiality, I have suggestions for future
“On Point” discussions.

1.      1.�
Why has
the national media been so willing to overlook the trivial size of the
reduction proposals and leave the American public generally uninformed of the
size of the planned future additions to the public debt?

2.      2.
Why have the Republicans been willing to join in
an argument over the content of such a trivial approach to our problem of
deficits and debt?  Why not attack the
insufficiency of the President’s plans?

3.      3.
Has the “political class” hijacked the
government of the US to the benefit of its members?

4.      4.
Is autocratic control by the government the
inevitable consequence of spending which drives the government close to
insolvency?

I don’t hear your program every day but I’m sure I will hear of it if
your programming touches anything like that agenda.

Thanks for listening,

�
Ken Hammer,  Barnet, VT  05821 �
kfh777@earthlink.net