The tea party tweeted Jonh Boehner has betrayed us !

Micky Bachmann is disappointed with Boehner !.... to funny !

The entire Tea Party is on one Twitter account?HARD TO BELIEVE.

Good, now I can get my teams back to work. This screwed up our schedule, and robbed us of time.

Harry and Barak taking credit for an historic cut in spending. Hilarious.

this is the ending most Americans want to see..congress must work together.....great job Mr. President...great job Dem and great job GOP.....but NO thanks to Tea baggers....this group is the main trouble for this entire negotiation...

In America that is a blank check. I would like an itemization of what my counter intelligence trash at the FBI does every day using gross incompetence to conceal military rule where the President can destroy any subject he wants - using no reality law from the bottom and fantasy intelligence from the top - where the people's minds around a target get raped probing and mentally flattening each other.

@!$%#, even questioning their policy is to Taboo for the land of the free.

Over the last 10 years they can count the real bad guys they caught on one @!$%#in hand.

Once a guy almost made it to China with night vision.

My @!$%#in world would have ended.

Pfffttt...we will be back to this same spot next year.......our government could care a $h!t about us...they just care about keeping their $174,000 a year paycheck flowing without interuption.....We The People are still gonna get the $h!t end of the stick in the long run....I will wait 4 more years for any reasonable response to this post.

I wonder if you Americans really understand what a relief it is to the rest of the world to see someone so balanced, wise and reasonable as Barak Obama as President? Every time he travels OS he charms foreigners and heals rifts created by shocking past foreign policies. His affect on Indonesia was astounding in a trip less than 24 hours! This country has the biggest Muslim population in the world and so many disliked USA. Now so many have changed there minds and this is reflected in Egypt and the Middle East. Please, don't be swayed by the extremist Tea Party element and for god's sake (and the world's) RE-ELECT OBAMA! Amanda (Australian living in Indonesia)

Holy $h!t batman, did I just read Amanda's entry correctly??

Sorry, but I for one do not care what other countries think when it comes to electing our officials.  And to answer her question, the only reason why Barry can calm down muslims, because he is one himself.  He claimed to be one when talking with the news anchor on ABC, George Stephanopolis (sp).

And I knew that the repuglicans didn't have the gonads to stand up to the democraps.  WE need major cuts in government waste NOW.  Maybe I am just being selfish, but I work for a federal tax agency and most of the people I work with agreed that a shutdown needs to happen.  This agreement is just posturing and it needs to stop now.  In 2012, the people need to make their voices heard again, LOUDLY AND CLEARLY!!

everyone one please shut the hell up and pay us....stupid fools how hard is it to go...this chuck goes to active duty military...all in favor...I!! done, President Obama, Bush, Sen Ried WHO CARES get it done fast and properly! I have to or people die! yeeeesh...

NONE of this would have happened if the last 3 Republican presidents had not signed TWENTY deficit riddled budgets and pushed thru tax cuts for the wealthy that all resulted in $11T debt!

Ironically Harry Reid and the President were aware that Boehner needed a face-saving strategy that would allow him to cut a deal. They were fairly understanding of the Speaker's position and I hope this kind of sensitivity goes both ways in the budget discussions to come over the 2012 budget.

It is funny that they put quotes around "Normal Operations". This looks quite Freudian to me, as nothing about the Obama administration is Normal Operations. This whole thing was a Stage Production so that Barry could end up looking like the "great mediator". Guess what Barry? Your peeps were supposed to have this budget passed LAST OCTOBER! Way to go Barry. Put the whole country in an uproar so you could look like Moses leading the flock out of the desert. You are a bufoon.

Obama Saves The Day!!! Coincidentally in the same week he announces his reelection campaign. Give me a break.

 Mr. Northam:  Mitch McConnell FILIBUSTERED the Dem attempts at a 2011 budget more than once.  If he had not done so, a budget would be in place and all this would not have been necessary.  Of course, you wouldn't like their budget, but to say that they FAILED in their attempts is simply not true.  The Dems were prevented from doing so.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Harry Reid said that Joe Biden was really angry. I got news for Harry - there are millions of Americans who are damn mad that you didn't get a budget passed last October when you democrats controlled the House with Pelosi, the White House with Obama and you supposedly running the Senate. The first people who should take a cut in their pay and benefits are the members of the Congress and headed by the Commander-in-chief and his entire staff. That would be true leadership not just selfishness.

The president has to move to the middle to get re-elected. Congress has to compromise to get out of a tight spot (which is their own fault to begin with). Seems to me if we voted for more MODERATES we would avoid ALL of this nonsense. What we need is LESS legislation so that we can all live our lives the way we want to. And the govenment can fund and run the ESSENTIAL services that we all need. (Just like it says in the constitution.)

Go ahead boys and girls, spend just lke it grows on trees.

Think Progress:

But a look at those two deals suggests Republicans are not as interested in cutting the deficit as they claim. In both cases, Democrats made big concessions on key Republican agenda items — tax and spending cuts — in the face of intransigent opposition from the GOP. But while the appropriations deal from last night cuts $38.5 billion in spending over the next six months (through the end of the fiscal year in September), the tax cut deal deprives the government of roughly $150 billion in revenue over a similar period of time.

Extending the Bush tax cuts "would result in a $200 billion to $300 billion cost to the US Treasury compared to what had been expected" in one year — or $100 to $150 billion in six months. So while they very nearly shut down the government to extract painful spending cuts, Republicans had already wiped out those spending cuts many times over with the revenue lost from extending the Bush tax cuts.

___________________________

I am happy that the government didn't shut down. I am unhappy with this "deal". How many jobs are these cuts going to cost? Does anyone know? Yes, I know. We have to all sacrifice.

And of course, we the working people must sacrifice so that the rich can have their tax breaks.

Sorry. This is horrible. The GOP obviously are not interested in cutting the deficit. As far as Planned Parenthood goes, this looks very similar to what is going on with the unions. PP gives 99% of their campaign donations to the Democratic Party.

Is President Obama a liberal, a progressive, a blue dog, a moderate? What is he? Because this "deal" sounds like something he would have been dead set against as a candidate. He would have looked out at the crowd and said - We need to stop this.

What's next? SS? Medicare? Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

A person can only take so much President Obama. Just because the TP is angry does not make this a victory for you. Or us. You know. Us? The ones who sacrificed money we did not have to get you elected. Us. The ones who sacrificed vacation and sick days and personal time to get you elected. Time taken away from work, family & friends. Time and money we were happy to sacrifice.

So that this madness would stop.

Boehner and Reid, great job! I didn't think I would ever make that statement. It's about time congress worked together. We will need much more of this in the months ahead with the debt ceiling and next years budget. You have given me some hope! Thanks.

Looks like republicans care more about the education of poor children than democrats, doesn't it?

You don't honestly believe that, do you?

Well, seems that the battle is joined - but that the Democrats made the Republicans back down on their worst policy positions. Given that this fight is swiftly moving to the Ryan budget plan - which should be dumped completely and the Obama proposals taken up, instead - here's a post of the complete magazine-length article I recently completed about the Paul Ryan plan and its true implications:

Phony Budget Battle: Right-Wing Political Goals
Seek A New American Revolution

PAUL RYAN'S "BUDGET" USES THE POPULIST VENEER OF "DEBT AND DEFICIT REDUCTION" TO COVER OVER A MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT POLICY OBJECTIVE: VIRTUAL ELIMINATION OF A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Ryan’s budget is the mechanism for obdurate anti-government factions to eliminate a major portion of American public institutions long despised by the ultra-right, targeted by the old John Birch Society - now reincarnated as the Tea Party - and set in place an entirely new foundation of philosophy of government.

The Tea Party objective is to entirely revise the existing American “social contract” with one based on Jacksonian democracy, giving virtual “laissez faire” scope of individual or collective business behavior unhindered by law or regulation, guided by self-interest alone – and its accompanying caution, “caveat emptor,” or, let the buyer beware, and vesting power in the hands of those who have the will or resources to take and use it.

This new “social contract” has little need or use for government at any level, and absolutely no justification for social programs of any kind provided by public finance or activity.

This battle does not go back to the 2010, 2008, or 2006 elections. It has been ongoing since 1933 - and perhaps, a bit before. Some would say it began with Pope Leo XIII and his 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum, which demanded workers be paid “a living wage,” given benefits, and described other rights of workers as well as obligations of employers.

The American “Social Contract” Since 1933

Each major evolution of national government since the nation’s founding has operated on a basic assumption about the powers of government, rights of the people, and an overall concept of why the nation exists as well as what the nation wishes to accomplish – this is what “social contract” means.

The “social contract” still largely in place now, but under attack, developed as the country battled through the Great Depression, World War II and into the Reagan Administration – when the first significant changes in at least policy actions undermined the way the “social contract” was addressed. Many features of this general understanding of national purpose and interest had been coming into being during the reformist periods under Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson. A few contributions took place during the 1920’s, but the trends only coalesced into a coherent basis for government and public expectations during the Roosevelt Administration.

It did not, initially, include large public debt, deficit spending, or many of the issues today under debate. It was more of a social policy driven by desperate need across the country, the visible failure of traditional leadership cadres in business and public office, internal attacks on the basic system of government by fascist and socialist promoters such as Huey Long and Dr. Francis Townsend, and the earlier scattered programs driven mainly by the Progressive Republicans in Congress.

Herbert Hoover, after the Crash of '29, actually wanted to run up a very large deficit in his proposals to address the Great Depression, but was blocked by Republicans in Congress. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was indeed a far more conservative President at the outset who distrusted deficit spending. (For details, see Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal: 1932-1940 by William Edward Leuchtenburg , Feb 24, 2009.)

Re-shaped Government Emerges Under Roosevelt
and Successive Administrations

Over his pre-war terms in office, President Roosevelt essentially re-created the Federal establishment and put in place many of the departments as institutions of a new American system of government. That system of government’s philosophy embraced the entire population, and included:

• aid for the helpless,

• food for the starving,

• reward to the elderly for their years of work building the nation and its economy,

• encouragement to the jobless,

• protection for investors small and large from the schemes and frauds of the wily,

• recognition of the arts as a vital and uplifting aspect of national culture,

• assurance that farmers might survive drought, flood, other natural disasters, and despite world fluctuations in demand during a Depression, a minimum fair price for their products,

• fairness for workers engaged in negotiations with employers,

• defense against workplace exploitation of children and a minimum wage across the land,

• support for small business growth and stability,

• work, when none else was to be had, building and maintaining infrastructure of cities, counties, states, and the nation,

• reform of the nation’s currency and financing structure, including an end to a “hard money” gold standard.

As historians relate, from the very beginning, the New Deal achievements were under vicious attack from the Republican right, as well as a Populist segment of the Democratic Party. Some attacks ultimately were successful in the immediate post-war years, but not many.

The most virulent opposition was to Social Security, claimed to be the leading edge of “socialism” and an unearned, undeserved prop for reckless, improvident people. That was (and remains) a claim that ignored the actual character of Social Security, which was not socialism but a public monopoly, a national pension insurance pool funded entirely by workers’ and employers’ contributions and kept completely separate from the national Treasury.

Over succeeding Administrations, other Presidents (from Truman through Eisenhower, Nixon, and Carter) expanded the services and operations of the new public institutions, and added a few more – the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Cabinet-level U.S. Department of Education. New related programs included Head Start for lower-income children of pre-kindergarten age, and Medicare, established after a hard-fought political battle that ended in 1965. Later, health care for the poor was offered in the Medicaid program, and the extremely effective State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Ultimately, the civil rights campaigns, followed by efforts to expand full protections of the law to women, the disabled, and immigrants or refugees, also followed. Special attention to compensate for historical, economic, and social disadvantages suffered by a large majority of African-Americans led to preferential treatment for employment, public assistance, contracting with public agencies, college tuition subsidies and admissions, and other activities. Some of these same preferences later were extended to women and disabled persons.

Each and every addition was relentlessly attacked as expansion of government power, intrusion into private business, handouts for undeserving parasites, and in certain cases, political payoffs to gain votes of groups such as unions, the urban poor, individual minority groups, and even “liberal” Hollywood celebrities. The special preferences intended to “equalize” opportunities inherently conflicted with concepts of dispassionate equality and aroused deep resentment among a fraction of the country.

Operating Assumptions of the Post-1933 “Social Contract”

All of these institutions and programs proceeded from the broad philosophy of government that emerged during the Roosevelt Administration.

Overall, the “social contract” embraced the nation as a whole, under a Federalist principle rather than decentralized dispersion of all authority through the states, gave equal importance to all social classes of people, all racial and ethnic groups, and ultimately all persons regardless of gender, age, ability, origin, education, employment or many other distinguishing features.

The overall import of this was that government existed to serve, protect, and enable as broadly as possible the diverse needs and interests of the entire population and the private institutions of that population.

From that philosophy, several working principles had arisen:

• “the economy” did not exist apart from the nation and national interests, but rather was an integrated element of private and public life and thus an appropriate area for government interaction, including support for growth as well as regulation of practices,

• all participants in “the economy” had a stake in it and deserved to partake of its fruits - not merely bankers, investors, entrepreneurs, and stockholders, but also workers at every level, retirees and pensioners, small landholders or bank account depositors, insurance policy purchasers, and their many different dependents,

• everyone in America had a fundamental right to live safely in the society, free from hunger, sheltered, able to access medical care, offered opportunity for education and self-advancement, secure in safe and responsible workplaces, not in the sense of a socialist state, but rather with compassion and minimum support for the helpless and needy, as well as unobstructed pathways for the diligent, ambitious, thrifty, provident, gifted, and fortunate,

• diversity in all its aspects benefits the nation, but more importantly requires special public attention, because established attitudes about race, ethnic origins, native language and other features fly in the very face of “equality,” prevent access to the multiple opportunities and benefits of the greater society, limit the contributions of women, the disabled, and native-born minorities as well as of refugees and immigrants in the country and the community, and potentially create a burden on the greater society if people are targets of discrimination that represses their economic advancement,

• national stewardship vested in all levels of government included not merely protection of natural resources – air, land, water, plants and animals – but restoration as needed and possible of despoiled resources, and restraint on public and private interests where their actions continued or threatened future degradation,

• national investment ultimately repays itself in long-term, cost-effective results, whether by public or private entities, in education, workplace safety and in environmental systems, health and welfare of the disabled, disadvantaged and older people as well as mothers and children, promotion of arts and culture, natural resources restoration and protection, necessary public infrastructure and its maintenance, general public health, advanced science and technology, effective and adequate public safety organs (police, fire, courts and legal services), and as necessary in the public employment of workers, technicians, specialists, and highly-trained professionals to carry out the functions required to implement the investments.

Reality vs Principle: Successes and Failures of Public Institutions

Despite the breadth of the post-1933 “social contract” and the resulting operating assumptions that arose over time to guide public institutions, the reality of actually carrying out actions was far more difficult. Not only ideological opposition to the philosophy at times was fierce, but shifting political alliances at times turned proponents and opponents at one point into opposite positions at another. And, of course, for a long period racism and ethnic discrimination was a bold feature of opposition.

Consider the issue of public education. A great many Americans now believe that public education is a costly failure that did not live up to the assumption that everyone would have access to quality education, or that investment in public education pays dividends in the long run. To test this presumption of failure, the review needs to begin nearly a half-century ago and see what actually took place – and whether educators “failed” or not.

In the mid-1960’s, by and large American public education was successfully fulfilling the terms of the “social contract” and its operating assumptions. With the aid of Federal government initiatives, students were achieving greater heights in physical education, science, mathematics and language arts, graduating high school at higher rates, and attending either college or vocational education programs after completing high school.

The Civil Rights movement’s steady success in eliminating segregated schools and compensating for long-segregated neighborhoods spread access to quality education. Equal opportunity requirements in the workplace as well as affirmative action requirements for public employment, private contractors seeking public business, and admissions standards at most colleges and universities expanded access for African Americans and women.

“White flight” – to church schools

None of this was accomplished without protracted conflict and smoldering resentment. Across the nation, one of the first refuges for offended or resentful people – some motivated by racism or social stereotypes, others by the idea that a special group was promoted ahead of others in apparent violation of a principle of dispassionate equality – was the private church school.

Catholics for many years had agitated for either tax subsidies, tax exemptions or deductions for tuition costs, or other means of compensating for the burden parents took on when choosing to enroll their children in the private religious schools. This same goal soon arose among congregations of other denominations whose members had elected to leave the public education system.

Concurrently, a movement to eliminate public school use of religious rites and forms was steadily succeeding, from displays of crosses or the Biblical Ten Commandments to daily prayers and, ultimately, school-sponsored pre-graduation gatherings at local churches for a religious service. For devoutly religious families, secularizing public schools was more than an affront – it was perceived as an “attack” on their religious beliefs.

Schools as answers to social issues

Nor were various social justice measures and secularization of public education the only challenges confronting schools. As understanding of how poverty and hunger affect children, and of how many children attended school hungry each day, initiatives tried to mitigate those effects. Free school breakfasts and lunches became available for great numbers of students – but not for every student. Special tutoring and counseling programs became available for “disadvantaged” students – but not always for every student.

By the 1980’s, educators understood that a wealth of social ills affecting student performance, mental health, physical well-being, graduations rates, and potential criminal behavior all came to class every day, with each individual child. Special classroom requirements were created to attend to some of these factors, while administrators and other school officials were charged with attempting to ease some problems or intervene in specific ways.

The character of teaching changed with these requirements, while bureaucratic duties imposed by legislators hostile to public education diminished the actual classroom time and preparation time available to teachers.

And, of course, society was changing as well. The spread of drug use, criminal gangs, persistent poverty, continuous waves of immigrants needing to make difficult cultural and language adaptations, major changes in the nation’s economic structure, developments in technology, and more meant the schoolyard was increasingly dangerous and divided. After all, society is reflected in classroom populations.

“We won’t pay” for social programs in schools

In the midst of such challenges, rising resentment toward public schools, staff and students from disgruntled religious or politically-conservative families showed up at the school board elections and meetings, in state legislatures, and in Congress. Many school budgets were cut – or public funds for education were diverted to private schools through “voucher” programs justified because reputedly the public schools were not meeting expectations.

Teachers were pilloried, regardless of their skills or failures. Administrators were targeted as wastrels in a perceived “bloated” public education system – even though, as in Los Angeles, the inner-city schools often had leaky roofs, desks and chairs breaking apart when students sat, too few textbooks per class, and often even those in poor condition, and so few standard school supplies that private donors were asked to help.

In such an atmosphere of distrust and confrontation, opponents of public education decided that it was “failing,” although one certain means to make public education “fail” is to starve it of the funds and support essential to success.

Public education not even a job of government

Ideological enemies of public education now deny that government should even have such a role – and in the sheep’s skin of “helping turn our schools around,” the wolves would eliminate this element of the existing “social contract” through cynical restrictions of funding and unrealistic, unworkable, self-defeating requirements that distort the education process. At present in Florida, the new ultra-conservative Governor Rick Scott essentially proposes “privatizing” public education.

But there have certainly been great success under the post-1933 “social contract,” too. Both Social Security and Medicare stand out, as do Head Start, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Women, Infants and Children food subsidy program, and a myriad more. These exemplify not only fulfillment of some basic principles but also the premise that investment does, in the long run, pays off.

Breakdown: Repudiation of the Post-1933 “Social Contract”

Beginning with election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980, three successive Republican Administrations persistently eliminated important mechanisms in government that had implemented the implicit post-1933 “social contract” and several of its operating principles. Some of these measures had catastrophic consequences, both functionally and in terms of American confidence in its government and social system.

Central among these were measures that ultimately excluded most Americans from a full participation in “the economy,” that denied or diminished their participation in the fruits of economic activity, that removed services to protect stakeholders from predatory abuse, and that attacked the basic premise of equality regardless of class, race, ethnic origins, or social status.
Primary among the measures were “de-regulation” of key sectors of the national economy – banking, insurance, capital investment, transportation, energy production and delivery, and telecommunications.

In each instance, on the premise of a so-called “free market” governed purely by economic forces that were presumed more efficient than any industry affected by government intervention, “de-regulation” led to massive scandals, failures, frauds, criminal activities, and ultimately to concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of a few who are motivated by pure self-interest.

Consequences: Failure of Republican Administrations to observe the “social contract”

Participation in “the economy” by millions of employees and one-time stakeholders of all sorts in those industries, as well as other sectors of economic activity, either diminished or vanished. Average incomes and standards of living dropped. Frustration, fear, anger and resentment festered, accentuating social divisions and leaving the society unsure of most people’s place in it – and doubly furious if any persons, especially those served by the so-called social “safety net,” seemed to be benefiting at the expense of others.

When the unwise policies of the George W. Bush Administration ultimately led to a worldwide economic collapse in 2008, the calamity put even more pressure on the terms of the post-1933 “social contract.” Remarkably, then President-elect Barack Obama accepted the practical reins of power ahead of his inauguration and proceeded to restore government commitment to the implied compact as well as its operating principles.

And in keeping faith with the American’s public’s concept of the relationships between people and government, President Obama has managed to lead the nation out of a looming abyss. But the damage wrought by the economic collapse shook most Americans profoundly, while the embittered and fearful citizens who had incessantly opposed all developments since 1933, along with some still resentful of the advances of African-Americans and others, raised their voices in a shrill and uncompromising chorus of opposition.

Ye know not what ye do: The Tea Party victories of 2010

Although a victorious President, supported by a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, restored the commitments of the “social contract” in the midst of desperate economic conditions, the most committed ideological opponents of that “social contract” bellowed a rallying cry of “we want our country back!” Spurred in part by a small segment of racists deeply offended by a half-Black President, carrying the decades of resentment toward social changes regardless of race or ethnicity, and disappointed in the ultimate failure of Republican policies of 30 years’ effort, the opposition to the post-1933 “social contract” crafted an ad-hoc coalition cleverly named the “Tea Party.”

Sporting a crust of patriotism and alleged devotion to national Constitutional fundamentals – most of which were misunderstood or even completely mistaken – the Tea Party followers succumbed to a populist, oversimplified definition of national issues. Most participants did not know that the central core of their loose organization was dedicated to overthrow of the implicit “social contract” and its accompanying operating principles – but they did “know” that economic dislocation, community distress caused by fiscal distress, and simple terror at forces too great to be understood were clearly the fault of a massive government that lay as helpless, apparently, before the force of events as the individual.

Thus the election results of 2010, when frustrated voters sought new representatives to tackle the dogged economic issues, elected a wave of new officeholders intended to bring a more temperate and conciliatory approach to the long-divided partisan coteries in Washington, D.C., and fresh ideas about how to promote more rapid growth of employment. The Tea Party’s extreme ideological posture in opposition to the existing “social contract” only drew 22 per cent of voter endorsement in 2010, while 56 per cent of voters said the Tea Party was irrelevant.

However, Paul Ryan and his Tea Party colleagues in a new House Republican majority interpreted the results to their own interest. And they dug in their heels – no compromise on their principles, no change in their government targets – win the war in the trenches, essentially, or die “fighting the good fight.”

Nothing less than a revolutionary change in the American “social contract,” accompanied by radical changes in government and governance, would be acceptable.

So now the battle for the basic idea of the “American way” is in progress.

The Paul Ryan budget proposal describes a new relationship between the governed and the government. It is one in which pure self-reliance and self-interest are exalted, while communal obligations to neighbors and fellow-citizens are eliminated. It is one in which the state and national organs of government devoted to balancing individual interests in contrast with those of wealth and private power are eliminated. It is one in which the concept of a public stewardship is refuted.

It is one in which the role of the state to provide minimal basic protection and support for the needy, the helpless, and the infirm is eliminated, while the public obligation to referee the behavior of business is minimized. It is one in which the role of culture is stricken from a public engagement, where public health and safety are diminished, and in which the government’s provision of many basic services from safe roads and bridges to public education are challenged.

The Paul Ryan 2011-2012 budget proposal is nothing less than a revolutionary change in the basic philosophy of American government. It is not driven by supposed economic necessity or the stresses of fiscal difficulties, but rather by a raw desire to at last fulfill the long-festering resentments of ultra-right ideologues. It is not a proposal that most Americans would support when seen as a whole piece of public policy and fundamental revision of accepted national ideals.

Can't shut down government agencies when all that tax money is due in a matter of days!

I think they're pullin' our legs, but I'm just crazy so let's not question a thing lest we run the risk of sounding extremely negative or anything.

All you idiots who think Obama lost your wrong, the counrty lost