Go back and read, Let's Get the Credit Downgrade Story Right. Peter Herbert did a good job of presenting some interesting observations on where he thought credit should be assessed.

We have a good mix of regular writers and commentaries. Without question, most of us lean to the liberal or progressive side of politics. But, we have a few in the comment area that honestly challenge and offer constructive conservative opinions.

We had one commentary to Peter's and some of the others' comments, who thought it was absolutely the Democrats and Barack Obama that were responsible for the downgrade. The commenter sarcastically pointed out his amazement that we all could have missed what was so obvious to him.

In the wake of the Standard and Poors downgrade of U.S. credit, our parties and pundits are racing to spin the story for their own benefit. Predictably, top Republicans and Democrats are taking bits of S&P’s explanation for the downgrade that fit their theories and ignoring the rest. So far, both are ignoring what S&P’s ratings head, John Chambers, called the “first” and “main” reason for his decision: our recent political debt ceiling crisis. Particularly, he cited (a) “political brinkmanship” over whether America would pay its bills, (b) the fact that Congress could not decide that we would pay our bills “until the last day before they had cash management problems,” and (c) the fact that “there are very few countries that separate the budget process from the debt authorization process [as the U.S. does].”

This leaves no question who is at fault concerning the downgrade: the House Republicans – particularly John Boehner.

We are all ranting and cursing and hollering about our political leaders right now. Really, what is wrong with them? They can’t seem to get anything done! What a disgrace! How do these idiots keep getting reelected! Why can’t they be like the rest of us!

Well, an interesting reality is that comparing the demographics of the Congress to the demographics of the people will show that the Congress is not really much of a representation of the people at all. The proportions of race, gender, net worth and even religion are completely inconsistent with the people, as a whole. However, I would say that they actually represent us almost perfectly. You may be scratching your head and wondering how I am making that assertion. Well, I’ll explain that.

The current situation is not hard to grasp. Harry Reid and the President have offered the Republicans in the House more right-wing meat than Reagan or either Bush ever dreamed of (and more than I would give without a much bigger fight): huge cuts in services for poor and working Americans, with possible cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and continuing dramatic tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. They have offered this to the far, far right (even many Republicans think it is too much), in order to get the (allegedly) Tea-Party-controlled Republican House simply to agree to pay our bills – bills that Congress already agreed to pay.

Yet the Republican House so far refuses this offer, unless it can get all this AND the right to go for more in six months, thus effectively thwarting the rest of Obama’s presidency by bogging it down in a perpetual fight over whether we will pay our bills (ruining Obama’s presidency seems to be their main goal).

This idea of Mitch McConnell's that the President alone should make the call as regards the debt ceiling is very interesting and more than a little manipulative. He is a step ahead of his GOP detractors. He knows that the debt ceiling must be raised, but doesn't want the GOP imprimatur on it. His plan is they can go for bragging rights later - "WE didn't elevate the debt ceiling," as if it were a credit line or something.

The debt limit is not permission, some sort of credit line for the future. It simply says you will pay your bills up to such and such a limit. Given the Fourteenth amendment, we shouldn't have to vote on this at all. "Our national debt shall not be questioned." This is not to say the budget should not be balanced right along.

But if the President has to act because congress as a whole falls for this, the story will be that the President should be the most hated man by all because he alone is driving our country into debt. Nothing could be further from the truth. The borrowed money has already been spent.

The President didn't get us into this mess. The debt is largely due to money borrowed for unpaid war expenses.

Congressman Anthony Weiner has finally admitted that he sent an inappropriate sexual photo to a supporter via Twitter after having lied to the media about having his Twitter account hacked. His situation is similar to former Republican Congressman Chris Lee (also from New York) who resigned after sending a shirtless photo to a prospective date on Craigslist.

This is not a quid pro quo. Weiner should resign regardless of Lee's problems. Although he has now admitted his indiscretions, he must be held to a very high standard and should resign.

Should we start pulling out of Afghanistan now, ahead of schedule? I am still on the fence, but I am close to falling off onto the side of those who say yes. Yesterday, Afghan President Karzai called for an end to NATO airstrikes on houses, and he warned that NATO is in danger of becoming seen by Afghans as an “occupying power”. I don’t trust Karzai’s sincerity; but I am sure that we are seen by many Afghans as an occupying power, and I agree that our military efforts in Afghanistan are becoming ever more counterproductive – increasingly earning us more enemies than friends. Part of the problem is how we fight. Right or wrong, that isn’t going to change much. A bigger part of the problem is that we waited too long to get serious about Afghanistan. If we lost this war, we lost it back in 2003 when we chose to throw the bulk of our resources into invading Iraq rather than trying to reconstruct (or simply construct) Afghanistan. I doubt that we any longer have the political will, or the money, to reconstruct Afghanistan, and I doubt that a mainly military solution to Afghanistan’s problems, such as we are trying now, ever existed.

Here, for what it’s worth, I expand on these opinions. I welcome correction, counter-arguments, and further information. I’m still not certain what to think about this, and it seems to me like it is a topic very worth our best efforts.

Yes, I know it is an absurd notion. However, it is a just and nonpartisan notion. Regardless of which party you are, you have to believe that our troops sacrifice allot. Our troops work long hours, weekends and holidays; and that is in peacetime. In combat they spend months in harms way. Sometimes they have only the most basic of supplies. They do not quit. They do not do a half-ass job. They do not go on vacation before their work is done. They stand their watch. They say to themselves, "America will not fall, not on my watch."

The fight over spending cuts is a fight over peanuts when you look at the total national spending. Cuts are being made to the programs with the least ability to resist or the least inside connection to find the funds somewhere else in the maze of projects and programs.

A freshman congressman from the state of Washington has promised her constituents that she will find the funds somewhere else to replace the $10 million cut in funds intended for Port of Vancouver work.

A Representative from Ohio is seeking to restore funding for a project in his State that falls under the House’s budget cut. A $20 million transportation grant for N.H. falls under the axe. Senators and Representatives of N.H. and Maine are working feverishly and promising to get funding elsewhere for that project. There are many more examples of this sort that are peanuts in terms of trillion dollar deficits. Remember the Alaskan bridge to nowhere? I haven’t heard from their, now famous, ex governor suggesting that Alaska reimburse the Federal Treasury to help in deficit reductions.

Are we all in a trance, both liberals and conservatives? We sit and watch the evening news, listen to our favorite talk show hosts: Fox, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, Frog Pond Croakers, or whoever. No one seems to be able to differentiate between their BS and their own BS.

The budget wrangles in congress are not even close to addressing the issues with any sane and sensible plan. Wrangling over the difference of 6 billion or 60 billion is 'stuff and nonsense!'

It appears both sides of the aisle are content with targeting those in society, with cuts, who are least able to absorb those cuts without drastic reductions in their lifestyles. Most of those cuts won't touch the upper middle class, and will actually benefit the ultra rich.

I just read, in my local paper, what our U.S. Rep. Tim Huelskamp had to say about our economy and how we can deal with the deficits and long term indebtedness. His opposition in the next election is going to have to be extremely evil, before I choose Tim as the lessor of the two evils!