E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSTop Talkers: The Morning Joe panel – including NBC News' Andrea Mitchell, Bloomberg News' Al Hunt and former RNC Chair Michael Steele -- discusses the tense New Year's week that resulted in a last-minute House passage of a deal to avert the fiscal cliff and the swearing in of the 113th Congress.
Who are the negotiators in the next (and upcoming) fiscal showdown?... Boehner’s tenuous grip on his caucus… Three divisions inside the GOP… Reforming the filibuster… December jobs report: 155,000 jobs added, unemployment rate at 7.8%... House GOP tries to do damage control on Hurricane Sandy relief… Congress counts the electoral votes… Gabby Giffords to visit Newtown, CT... And "Meet" has McConnell.
*** The negotiators: Looking ahead to the latest fiscal showdown -- over the debt ceiling, sequester, and government operations -- we posed this question yesterday: Who negotiates for the Republicans? (Is it House Speaker John Boehner, who has said he will no longer negotiate one-on-one with President Obama? Is it Senate Minority Mitch McConnell? What about House Budget Chair Paul Ryan?) But today, we pose this very same question for the Democratic side: Who negotiates for the Obama White House? Consider that the White House’s chief negotiator during the fiscal-cliff fight, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, has previously stated he plans to stay in his post until around the inauguration -- so late January. But is that realistic? We also know that Geithner assumed, when he made that pledge to leave in January, that an end of the year deal would include a debt ceiling extension. But that didn’t happen. So are we really going to see a new Treasury secretary before March? Is that even feasible? Does the White House want a confirmation process in the middle of negotiations over the big March cliffs staring the country in the face? Of course, the White House may believe that by simply moving current White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew to Treasury, nothing really changes on the negotiating front. But remember, congressional Republicans weren’t necessarily big Lew fans. Given all of this, does anyone believe that Geithner won’t stay through March if the president asks?
Former Obama senior campaign advisor David Axelrod and NBC's Chuck Todd discuss the four Republican Party members who openly voted against John Boehner being elected as speaker of the House. The panel also debates what items the White House and Congress must solve this term.
*** Boehner’s tenuous grip: As expected, Boehner won re-election as speaker. But also as expected, it wasn’t easy. As the New York Times writes, his re-election came “amid open dissent from conservatives on the House floor that signaled that the turmoil and division of the 112th Congress is likely to spill into the newly constituted 113th.” More: “[D]iscord was on plain display in the roll call vote for speaker as Mr. Boehner weathered defections from the rank and file to defeat Ms. Pelosi by a vote of 220 to 192. Other nominees — among them the defeated House member and Tea Party firebrand Allen B. West of Florida; Mr. Boehner’s own second-in-command, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia; and retired Gen. Colin L. Powell — drew 14 protest votes from members of both parties.” GOP Congressman Hal Rogers put Boehner’s situation this way: “It’s a little bit like being the head caretaker of the cemetery. There are a lot of people under you, but nobody listens.” Had there been a realistic alternative to Boehner, he might not have survived. But that’s what saved him. Bottom line: Boehner has a very tenuous grip on his caucus right now. In fact, the situation is analogous to where Newt Gingrich was in early 1997 -- and that didn’t turn out well for Gingrich.
*** The three divisions inside the GOP: So at the very time Republicans hold more leverage in the next fiscal fight -- because tax rates are now off the table -- they’re also more divided than ever. The New Republic’s John Judis explains that there are three current divisions inside the Republican Party. One is the divide between Senate Republicans (who were willing to sign on to the fiscal-cliff deal) and House Republicans (who weren’t). Two is the divide between the GOP interest groups (Grover Norquist and the Chamber of Commerce backed the Senate bill, while Club for Growth and the Heritage Foundation were against it.) But the third divide is the most fascinating: geography. “In the House vote on the fiscal cliff, Republican House members from the deep South opposed it by 83 to 10, while Republicans from the Northeast favored it by 24 to one, and those from the Far West by 17 to eight.” Journalist Dante Chinni, of Patchwork Nation fame, makes a similar point: Republicans representing richer and more densely populated districts were more likely to vote for the fiscal-cliff deal than GOP members from other districts. That’s right, the Republicans with fewer folks in the 1% who are seeing their taxes rise were the most likely to vote AGAINST the deal.
Roger Wollenberg / Getty Images, file
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) emerge from the White House to speak to the media on November 16, 2012.
*** Reforming the filibuster: Speaking of divisions, the U.S. Senate is divided on changing the rules governing the filibuster. The Senate will likely changes the rules; the question is by how much. The Hill: Liberal Democrats on Thursday introduced a resolution to dramatically overhaul the Senate’s filibuster rules. The sponsors, Sens. Tom Udall (N.M.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Tom Harkin (Iowa), called on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to put the reform in effect by using the nuclear option, which they call the ‘constitutional option.’ This maneuver would allow Reid to change the Senate rules with a simple majority vote, instead of clearing the 67-vote threshold needed to change rules under regular order.” More: “The most ambitious element is a call to establish the talking filibuster rule. Now senators can delay legislation for days and require a 60-vote majority to resume action merely by telling their leader or another colleague that they object to it.”
*** 155,000 jobs added in December, unemployment rate at 7.8%: The AP on today’s jobs report: “U.S. employers added 155,000 jobs in December, a steady gain that shows hiring held up during tense fiscal cliff negotiations in Washington. The Labor Department says the unemployment rate stayed at 7.8 percent last month. November's rate was revised higher from an initially reported 7.7 percent.”
*** Damage control: After not passing Hurricane Sandy relief before the 112th Congress adjourned, House Republicans today are trying to do some damage control. Politico: “Chastened by the debacle over Hurricane Sandy aid, House Republicans are moving quickly to win approval this week of a $9.7 billion increase in financing to pay flood insurance claims arising from the October storm… The Senate approved the same flood insurance increase last week as part of a larger $60.4 billion disaster aid package backed by the White House… Friday’s vote is a first step to try to begin to reconstruct it now in the 113th Congress. And Boehner has promised Northeast lawmakers a second series of votes on Jan. 15 on additional aid, but more immediate action was needed on the flood insurance request.” Per NBC’s Frank Thorp, the House will vote on this flood-insurance legislation around 10:55 am ET.
*** Counting the electoral votes: NBC’s Thorp also reports that Vice President Biden today will preside over a Joint Session of Congress in the House chamber to count the electoral votes for president and vice president. The session, which generally takes about 45 minutes, is required under U.S. Code, and is simply a formality to tally the number of electoral votes and enter them into the congressional record. Four Senate pages, Thorp adds, will carry two mahogany boxes containing the "certificates of vote" to the House chamber, and the votes are counted by four tellers who will read out the votes by state in alphabetical order. By the way, as Bloomberg reports (and as the Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman has tracked), Obama ended up winning 51.1% of the popular vote to Romney’s 47.2%, which makes Obama the first president since Eisenhower to win at least 51% in back-to-back elections.
*** Giffords to visit Newtown: Finally today, former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords will visit Newtown, CT. As NBCNews.com reported yesterday, “Former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle "Gabby" Giffords, who survived a shooting at a campaign event in Arizona two years ago and now advocates stricter gun laws, plans to be in Newtown, Conn., on Friday for a private late afternoon meeting. Giffords plans to be at a home in the town where 20 first-graders and six staffers were gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a spokesperson for Gov. Dan Malloy's office told NBCConnecticut.com.”
*** McConnell to appear on "Meet": On Sunday, NBC's David Gregory interviews Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on "Meet the Press."
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
Leave a Comment:
It is amazing the great lengths the left goes to when it refuses to take responsibility for its actions and either with sketchy third party information or just downright lies falsely blames conservatives. For the low information posters please understand that Congress is comprised of the House and the Senate. Blame Bush. Blame obstructionists. Blame this. Blame that. But refuse to lay the blame where it belongs – where a famous president proclaimed the buck stops.
Today's jobs report shows a sluggish recovery. Unemployment stays the same at 7.8% from the upwardly adjusted rate for November. This is the slowest recovery in history while real unemployment numbers are above 10%, Red flags from this report is that manufacturing dropped 11,000 and small business 6,000 – not due to the fiscal cliff but Obamacare. Construction is up but due to the temporary jobs as a result of repairing Hurricane Sandy damage. This is approximately 30,000 of the 155,000 added – either sum paltry.
Here is an example of this blog's lowest of information poster as well as one of the lowest in character trolls who must have a miserable cowardly life making all those around her miserable as well. Her vile attacks on other posters (which according to the COH is not acceptable – just sayin' and not trying to be the blog patrol) shows she is mentally unstable and has an inferiority complex but takes pleasure by cowardly attacking from behind a computer screen. One of her favorite description of others aptly describes her – pitiful. She'll probably come back with a verbal attack and/or statements that she is successful and loved by others because she knows she doesn't have to provide proof.
SeekingSanity
How pitiful this filth is the best Congress could choose as speaker.
ITHS – IT'S THE HOUSE STUPID.
Then you have all of the attacks from the right and left on Speaker Boehner for not addressing the Hurricane Sandy Bill before adjourning after saving the majority of Americans from tax increases. These attacks included Gov. Christie and Rep. Peter King. After the dust has lifted you see that the Speaker took the correct action. You see the relief aid bill that came over from Harry Reid's democrat controlled Senate was filled with PORK. I am sure that both democrats and Republicans were responsible for the pork but Harry Reid – the worst Senate president in history – showed a lack of leadership by allowing this to happen.
Now come the low information/lying posters like the one below who posted this yesterday:
Didi-376564
Unfortunately, of the $61B that has been requested for Hurricane Sandy reconstruction, only a small portion will actually go towards that end. The Republicans have padded it with so much "pork" that it's ridiculous.
But here is the truth that is conveniently ignored to continue lies and falsehoods:
Congress wrote up Hurricane Sandy Relief legislation and then Harry Reid's Senate loaded it with pork. What's in it? Many things that hardly count as relief for victims.
The pork-barrel feast includes more than $8 million to buy cars and equipment for the Homeland Security and Justice departments. It also includes a whopping $150 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to dole out to fisheries in Alaska and $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in DC.
An eye-popping $13 billion would go to "mitigation" projects to prepare for future storms.
Other big-ticket items in the bill include $207 million for the VA Manhattan Medical Center; $41 million to fix up eight military bases along the storm's path, including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; $4 million for repairs at Kennedy Space Center in Florida; $3.3 million for the Plum Island Animal Disease Center and $1.1 million to repair national cemeteries.
Budget watchdogs have dubbed the 94-page emergency-spending bill "Sandy Scam."
More:
$58.8 million for forest restoration on private land.
$197 million "to… protect coastal ecosystems and habitat impacted by Hurricane Sandy."
$10.78 billion for public transportation, most of which is allocated to future construction and improvements, not disaster relief.
$17 billion for wasteful Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), a program that has become notorious for its use as a backdoor earmark program.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/01/02/the-pork-filled-and-expensive-nonrelief-sandy-relief-bill-n1477710
Speaker Boehner is taking the right approach to see that the money is spent wisely and quickly for what is it intended and not filled with pork and should be commended. While I as a conservative praise the president for his use of drones in taking out this world's enemies – although I strongly disagree with most of his policies – the left doesn't seem to be able to reciprocate because of their deep hatred.
It is extremely evident that the left are not independent thinkers. They are the first to believe that all conservatives are Fox zombies. If that is the case, why are we here and the left's only idea of what Fox is reporting comes from the biased eyes of the Maddow and Shultz's of the world? I for one seek information from multiple sources and make my decision. The left is like the unfaithful spouse accusing the faithful spouse of infidelity – it's to cover for their own transgressions.
Yesterday I asked several of the left posters to debate issues but because the talking points that are being developed in Hawaii haven't been released yet refused to engage – a sign of a lack of independent thinking. The left who is ready at the blink of an eye to point out the findings of the "non-partisan" CBO when it tilts their way, refused to discuss or even comment on CBO's report that the Democrat's fiscal cliff fix that dealt with primarily tax rate increases will add $4 trillion to the deficit.
What the president gave his thumbs up to adds another $4 trillion to the deficit; extended unemployment benefits for one year; moves the sequester cuts two months down the road and ASSURES THAT ALL WORKING AMERICANS WILL SEE THEIR TAXES GO UP!!!!? $15 billion in spending cuts and $650 billion in spending increases??? But there are crickets from the left.
Yes, it's true from the man who campaigned on reducing the deficit by half and that those making under $250K will not see their taxes go up – you see payroll taxes FICA taxes have gone up on all. Only one – DailyKos – even reported the CBO report. It cannot be found on NBC, Salon.com, Thinkprogress, the Huffington Post, etc. Are you also happy that those in need (those who can least afford it) will see the cost of their medical devices (i.e. artificial limbs) go up due to taxes in the ACA? I hope you feel proud of your collateral damage.
Is there anyone out there that believes spending cuts, tax reform, entitlement (for lack of a better term) reform, economic growth (CBO says this deal slows growth), deficit/debt reduction, stop borrowing (you know purchasing on a China credit card), etc. should not be addressed and enacted? Are there any free thinkers on the left??? Or do you just want to talk about avatars?
.
I am re-posting this challenge to the FR lefty liberals because I got no credible responses yesterday. C'mon FR lefty liberals: Hillary is your favorite for succeeding King Barry the First in 2016, SURELY you can rise to the occasion and list five of her greatest accomplishments as SoS.
BTW, Betty, if you have a problem with this being re-posted, please go to my website and fill out my complaint form. Scroll down on the right side of the home page an click on Form FU-2.
LMFAO@U FR lefty liberals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Too many guns? Do we need new laws banning or restricting ownership? Do we need to enforce the laws we already have on the books? Do we hit the snooze button, wait for the next fusillade, and hope it's not in our neighborhood? We need answers and we need them now. We don't have time to wait, to divert, to deflect.
One single story tells us why we cannot waste time finding answers, and it's not the Newtown bloodbath. Brownell's - a company that caters to gunners - says it has sold more than a three-year supply of ammunition in three days. The big dog at Brownell's, deeply saddened by huge profits, regrets they will now be far behind in their deliveries.
What life-or-death situation faces his customers? What stokes their fear? More questions, but all are secondary to this: Are these people crazy, stupid, or both? We are fortunate to have a recent contributor on First Thoughts - Bobster-lotsanumbers - to help us answer that question. Here is what he wrote on December 20th:
That story is a lie. His alleged bad guy had committed no crime. What he did was scare the brave Bobster. There was no attack. Bobster didn't describe the "270 lb [sic] guy" to police, but to a dispatcher. The cops responded and they sure as hell weren't ecstatic because Bobster terminated a "subhuman", who "...probably killed and raped before." Probably? Bobster knew what the "violent thug" was going to do and what he probably had done? So, he killed him? Here's Bobster's wisdom on the Newtown school massacre; same day, same thread:
Seasoned shooters know Bobster is lying. No knowledgeable gun owner talks about an "....old, 6 shot .45 that must be cocked before each shot." They would refer to such a firearm as a single-action .45. They know it's a revolver, and they know it does not take seconds to pull back the hammer. Bobster doesn't know when to stop. He says he's a better shot with his handgun than with a rifle. There's not a seasoned shooter on the planet who doesn't know that's pure crap.
Bobster is a stone-cold liar and he adds emphasis to the question as to whether he's crazy, stupid, or both, and he raises another question: Does anyone want this guy - or millions of ignorant, delusional wannabes just like him - owning a firearm?
Nice Joe!
Thumbs up!
To further David Walker's post.
Re guns … The Greater Montreal murder rate in 2012 was 35 out of a population of 3 million
1 by poison, 2 by arson, 5 by stabbing, 6 by beating, and the remaining by 21 by gunshot. 40% of all homicides were gang related.
All this to say that I and my fellow citizens walk the streets unarmed with little to fear as handguns are nearly impossible to acquire.
You sure stir up a lot of Sh!t for someone that doesn't even live in the US.
Perhaps you should mind your own business :-P
In December, manufacturing employment rose by 25,000 (not -11,000), with small gains in a number of
component industries.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
@Joe -- we have just assured that the first string will be collapsed. @David Walker -- sorry but you'll be the collateral damage. I hope I'm wrong.
Hurray, First Reads back to normal. Long blog to follow. LOL
In the 20 days since the slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary, there have been 409 gun related deaths in the United States. As BCWC points out, there were only 21 in Montreal in all of 2012. There is something very wrong here. While no laws can totally eliminate shootings, we as a country have an obligation to pass sensible laws that reduce that number and at the very least, make massacres such as Sandy Hook, Aurora, Tucson less frequent.
Jody...
Montreal is a CITY. The US is a COUNTRY!
You also said 'gun related deaths'... were they all murders? BCWC was talking about MURDERS. Don't try to slant the numbers... comparing a country to a city and deaths to murders. (weak attempt my friend.)
Apples and oranges.
You see BCWC, people like sicko don't like what is the truth. Believe it or not, there was a time when you could go away in America and leave you doors unlocked. But people like sicko has changed that. Now it isn't even safe to go away as one of these gun nuts will start a gun fight in a crowd, even going so far as to want to arm 1st graders.
So, Ben, we've heard from Republicans that government doesn't create jobs. I guess that's with the exception of when a Democrat is in the White House, right, because then government is supposed to create jobs?
Lake Superior State University in Michigan every year on New Year's Day publishes an annual list of words and phrases that should be banned for "misuse, overuse and general uselessness". What a coincidence that this year's list includes "job creator".
Cut through the crap, get rid of all unnecessary items that are fillers and get the job done Washington. It doesn't need to be any more simple than that.
Ok Sick, compare it to Chicago a CITY, about the same size as Montreal, 21 Montreal V. 500 Chicago. Guns are the problem, get it.
Johntho...
First... Are you a complete idiot? Chicago has had 500 gun related murders in the last 21 days? I don't think so. STUPID!
Second, don't presume that you know me and make comments like you did ABOUT ME. You don't know anything about me except that I believe in the second amendment. SO... FU!
And btw... where I live (southern Illinois) we can still leave our doors unlocked... because would-be criminals know that stepping foot in our house could be met with the barrel of a gun. Don't believe me... just stick your nose through my door!
We should really give David Axelrod credit for 'engineering' Obama's reelection.
Why did Obama win?
Obama increased the number of people dependent on the government for assistance (the number of people getting food stamps, free health care and/or cash aid increased from about 30 million in 2008 to about 47 million in 2012). That's an increase of about 17 million getting 'free' assistance from the government.
Obama then told these people that "If Romney is elected, he will take away your food stamps".
Obama won this group by about 11 million votes, while Romney won the group that pays the income taxes to fund the welfare by only about 6 million votes – Net win for Obama of 5 million votes.
Simple, but effective 'Chicago-Style' Politics in action.
Joe in Albany,
Why are you such a mean bitter person who hates the President of the United States? President Obama has been a darn good President and the argument of high spending on the watch of Obama has been debunked over and over again.
So, why the hate?
SickOfTheBickering
What a lovely picture you would paint of your country ... that all would be peaceful if all were fearful.
Sick are you the dumbest rock in the pile? BCWC was talking about 21 deaths by gun shot ALL YEAR in Montreal. Try to follow the conversation there boy. Get that Sicko? Sicko, I know you like I shoveled the Sh!t to make you. You are another whacked out gun nut that shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.
Well, as long as we're recycling comments from previous posts, I think it was Joe in Albany yesterday who came up with this oh-so-original comment about Timothy Geithner stepping down: "Another DemocRAT scurrying off the sinking ship". For now, let's just skip over the part about how the "sinking ship" just won a convincing re-election several weeks ago and is still sailing along stronger than ever and the President is going to be President for another four years whether Joe likes it or not. Instead, let's focus on how no other administration in history has ever had this meany "rats" deserting it along the voyage.
Well, except that.....Ronald Reagan had two Secretaries of State and two of Defense while he was President - not to mention three each in Education, Energy, HHS, Treasury, and Attorney General. George W. Bush also had two different States and two in Defense, plus three each in Treasury and Attorney General, as well as FOUR separate CIA Directors, UN Ambassadors, and Press Secretaries. And hey, Bush 41 managed to go through two States, two Attorneys General and three Chiefs of Staff just in one single term!
But of course, none of them were rats deserting a sinking ship.....eh, Joe?
Hey, speaking of rats and sinking ships, anyone heard from NoJoe or Joanna Smith or Spanky lately?
No Roy, Obama won because he was the best man for the job, the best the republican party could come up with was a idiot tax cheat cultist. He is a lot like you. Never told a lie he didn't like.
My, my what a temper and judgmental to boot. Take a chill pill Johntho. Best man for the job??? OMG you ought to be on Comedy Central.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: SMALLEST INCREASES IN FEDERAL SPENDING OF ANY RECENT PRESIDENT.
"We found that Obama has indeed presided over the SLOWEST GROWTH IN SPENDING OF ANY PRESIDENT using raw dollars, and the growth on his watch was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation." (Breitbart)
"Contrary to the tax-and-spend stereotype of Democrats -- President Barack Obama has actually presided over THE SMALLEST INCREASES IN FEDERAL SPENDING of any recent president". (Politifact)
Johntho "No Roy, Obama won because he was the best man for the job"
You must be one of those 47 million that get 'freebies' from the government. Here are the FACTS;
According to Exit Polls from the election, there were about 41% of voters in the income group averaging under $30,000 per year, and 30.9 Million of them voted for Obama, vs only 19.9 Million for Romney – that's a net gain for Obama of 11 million votes, and Obama won overall by less than 5 million votes.
Another statistic I hate is the "real unemployment"... unemployment is 7.8 stop making up your own numbers, whatever number you come up with on a day to day basis does not matter.
The unemployment % is an estimation not an actual amount. When you add in all of those who gave up looking or accepted a position lower you cannot compare it to historic unemployment rates because you are using a completely different calcuation that does not factor these in either. I would think this would be obivous but apparently not. If you want to use the "real" level of unemployment please compare it to that same figure in previous years.
job -- the left sees hate in everything that is not positive about obama. he has made many mistakes and will continue to do so just like all other politiicans. he is no different.
you believe he has been a great president, i do not agree. i believe we as a country will soon see the reality of the cost of aca; the cost of the fiscal cliff; and the incessant debt conversations. we cannot tax our way out of our situation but that is exactly what the fiscal cliff legislation did. the $600B over 10 years of this new tax will cover almost half of the interest expense on the debt in the same period.
barry is not alone, republicans have also contributed to our situation but to suggest that obama has no responsibility is disingenuous.
every president until obama generally accepted the mantle of responsibility so eloquently phrased by truman -- but obama and many of his disciples continue to blame a wide variety of things but rarely -- ever? -- themselves.
just as all previous presidents are measured -- fairly or unfairly -- by what happens on their watch so must obama.
the national debt has skyrocketed beyond our wildest imaginations during his tenure and is expected to go up another $4T or so as the result of this fiscal cliiff bill.
i do not hate obama but i do not like him. i believe he is a conniving, lying politician that says anything to win an election. we are now seeing more evidence with some of his latest activities.
and we will see it again when the republicans in the house will be blamed by obama when the debt ceiling conversations begin notwithstanding his scathing indictment of bush back in 2006 of which i am sure you are familiar -- lack of leadership, unpatriotic, etc. as a paraphrase.
not hate, more like disgust.
Keep it up ben. They have no answer. Just rhetoric.
Roy Wilson: "Obama then told these people that "If Romney is elected, he will take away your food stamps".
Gee, Roy, for some reason I'm having an awfully hard time finding that quote mentioned anywhere at all on the old Internets. Would you be so kind as to post a link so we can all see it for ourselves? Thanks!
Re-elected Boehner pledges to tackle debt, why wasn't the house speaker doing this when Bush W, was in office ?
@rukidding47 -- You are right. The script hasn't been written yet. But you can bet your bippy that once the Salon's; Thinkprogress; etc. can come up with a way to skew and spin, that will be their talking points. The left can not think for themselves. They are like the Walking Dead mindless, heartless and only want to devour this country.
@jan lots of number -- Because for the 110 and 111th Congress, Pelosi was the Speaker. The left doesn't care about debt and/or deficit. The left wants this country to suffocate from swallowing its own vomit.
Roy,
Prove it, give us the "LINK" that shows a video of President Obama saying romney will take away your food stamps.
Don't worry I know you don't have the link. You just prove to everybody how silly and stupid you are. Speculations with no FACTS. Yep, sounds like Roy to me
ROY WILSON-336103
Out of curiosity, do those exit polls include the Senior Citizen (often early) vote and Military (often absentee ballot) votes? Those two groups are often under $30,000 and tend to vote heavily Republican.
Remember, Crazy doesn't win.
Bachman gleefully just put in the 1st bill....in the 113th Congress
Repeal "Obamacare"
Let the WASTED TIME BEGIN
as this woman,who MISSED the VOTE to elect Boehner...and had to be called back when they had to ASK her again who she wanted for Speaker.
Backhouse "PRESIDENT OBAMA: SMALLEST INCREASES IN FEDERAL SPENDING OF ANY RECENT PRESIDENT."
Thanks for the laugh. In Obama's first year (2009), spending went up by $535 Billion (+18%) vs spending for Bush's last year (2008) - thanks in large part to Obama's $860 Billion 'Stimulus Bill" that was passed by his compliant Democratic Congress just a few weeks after Obama took office. That was the biggest spending increase in history - BY FAR.
Since Bush never got a Budget for 2009 from the Democratic Congress to sign or veto, he only authorized spending for fiscal 2009 at the same level as in 2008 (see links below). Politifact incorrectly attributes the big spending increase for 2009 to Bush, but Bush had nothing to do with Obama's 'Stimulus' spending.
https://www.aamc.org/advocacy/washhigh/highlights2008/159056/president_signs_spending_bill.html
www.chieftain.com/news/local/bush-signs-budget/article_0d64329f-0c6f...
www.docstoc.com/docs/5109251/continuing-resolution
osr.rice.edu/forms/NIH/NIHAwardLimitsContinuingResolution.doc
Geez, Roy Wilson, the number of people receiving government assistance increased because we had a near Great Depression; in fact, many economists believe we suffered a Depression. If John McCain had one, the resulting numbers of those on assistance would have been the same. Those numbers were increasing under President G. W. Bush BEFORE President Obama was even elected. Oh, never mind, you spin what you want to be the truth, after first obtaining those talking points from right-wing media; why bother researching the underlying causes when you can make your narrative sound better without checking the facts.
But remember, congressional Republicans weren’t necessarily big Lew fans.
================
My apologizes for posting such a small comment attached to all the robust commentary above, but exactly who have Congressional Republicans ever been a fan off when the nominee was being presented by a Democratic President, let alone President Obama?
In not all too long past, a President could not only choose whom they wanted to nominate for a particular position, but outside of something crazy being discovered during the actual Senate hearings, be pretty much assured the nominee would win confirmation with some mixture of bi-partisanship.
Quickly fast forward to today and if this President even seems to jot a name on a sticky note and endless barrage of opposition commentary becomes the new norm even before the person is officially presented for consideration.
Some measure exist in both Parties, but it is truly rampant in the GOP. They serve almost exclusively to be a combative Party. They say the 'nice' things about what they have to, "...thank you for your military service...public service...you have a beautiful family......now, let's get to what you said in '86 or your position on 'x'...you piece of **it, you're unfit for..."
I and I'm certain, a large portion of the Country (bi-partisan, cross section) is sick of this narrative from today's GOP.
Roy,
Still waiting on the source or link that proves this non-sense. C'mon loud mouth, you made this specualation now show us the link, video clip, newspaper article, something....
Some very interesting morning reads.
We have old Republican talking points from the general elections (why it's over....get over it).
Threads that state that Democrats take no responsibility and blame everyone. Hmmm...where was the responsibility taking during the Bush administration and putting us into this financial crisis, only to come into a general election, yet again, with more of the same "trickle down" economics that didn't work last time?
Some certainties:
* President Obama won't be impeached.
* Republicans will lose on the cost cutting front (in more ways than one, wait till 2014).
* The Republicans of the South will will not approve illegal immigration legislation.
* Hillary will run for President in 2016, and the GOP will have a hard time finding someone to run against her.
* The economy will improve despite the "doom and gloom" of posters here.
Jody,
ROY WILSON makes up his own facts.
Common knowledge.
How many people want that crazy lady Bachmann removed from her job ?
Frankly, we have incessant debt conversations because there's a huge block of people out there who think that it's a good idea for the United States to act like deadbeat dads and just run out on what it owes instead of getting over the fact that we owe it and coming up with anything that resembles an actual plan to pay it.
You know, like you.
I'd like the liberals to explain why their president nixed the payroll tax cut, so we're paying 2% more, but EXTENDED the tax cuts for corporations like GE, Citigroup, etc. How can the he and his worshipers claim that he's for the middle class when he does that?
mom -- it is hard to please the left. yesterday people were bemoaning the lack of bills from the 112th congress and now you are complaining about the introduction of a bill. which way do you want it? only bills that are sponsored by democrats?
Repojam "ROY WILSON-336103 Out of curiosity, do those exit polls include the Senior Citizen (often early) vote and Military (often absentee ballot) votes? Those two groups are often under $30,000 and tend to vote heavily Republican."
Yes, of course - I'm sure that's why Romney got about about 19.9 million of their votes, but about 30.9 million of this group voted for Obama. Since the Senior Citizens and Military do not typically get food stamps, etc., I suspect that the real 'welfare' recipients voted for Obama by an even greater margin (perhaps 90%) and REALLY fell for the "If you vote for Romney, he will take away your Food Stamps" rhetoric.
Like I said, it was a brilliant strategy by Obama/Axelrod, but I'm not sure it is such a great idea for America to make more people dependent on the government just to get reelected.
By the way - The cost of the welfare and Medicaid programs is about $600 Billion per year - more than half of the Deficits each year.
"Contrary to the tax-and-spend stereotype of Democrats -- President Barack Obama has actually presided over THE SMALLEST INCREASES IN FEDERAL SPENDING of any recent president". (Politifact)
Hi Backhouse, The folks on the right don't like facts.
The unfortunate increase in food stamps and other government assistance is the direct result of the disasterous "Trickle Down" economic policies of GW Bush and the Republicans.
If you do ANY research at all on the increase in food stamps, you will find the the largest increase is concentrated in areas that vote overwhelmingly Republican. Here is just one example:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-05/republican-heavy-counties-eat-up-most-food-stamp-growth
MOST of the people make less than $30k or so (and don't pay any federal income tax) are the working poor that are the backbone of this country. I would guarantee you they work just as hard if not harder than those making millions, most of them just didn't win the "genetic lottery".
The simple fact is an overwhelming percentage of the rich in this country got that way by being born rich. The "American Dream" of rising to wealth from poverty still occurs, but much less frequently than before. The key factor in whether you will be wealthy is not work ethic, intelligence, or even education - it is the class status you were born in.
So stop acting like all the wealty people who voted for Romney are the only ones whose votes should have counted. In fact over 51% of AMERICAN voters voted for Pres. Obama, the first time since Eisenhower that a president got over 51% twice.
I would call that a mandate.
Roy WIlson - Don't forget that both TARP and the Auto Bailout were begun under GW Bush......
Hey Roy, the election is over, pssssst., your side lost big time. If you think things are bad for bat @!$%# crazy republicans now, just wait until 2014 when you really get handed the empty bag. The good news is with a democratic president and a all democratic congress at least the country can finally move forward.
Sick, the city of Chicago had over 500 gun-related deaths in 2012 so your point would be exactly what? In addition, what the heck difference does it make if the 409 gun-related deaths since Dec 14, 2012, were murders, suicides or accidental shootings? They WERE the result of guns.
jan-1678944 "Re-elected Boehner pledges to tackle debt, why wasn't the house speaker doing this when Bush W, was in office ?"
The House Speaker when W Bush was in office was Nancy Pelosi - she's a Democrat, and almost all of the increased spending during the Bush years was from increased spending Budgets by Pelosi and Reid. It's easy to 'blame Bush' and ignore the fact that Congress sets the spending Budget, not the President.
Great news For obamabats did you hear...
OBAMA RATED FOURTH BEST PRESIDENT.......
I just read that after fewer than four years in office, Obama has
been rated the fourth best president ever.
Of all of our past presidents:
Ronald Reagan and nine others tied for first;
Fifteen tied for second;
Eighteen others tied for third;
and Obama came in fourth
Backhouse "ROY WILSON makes up his own facts."
I quote my sources for facts (typically official government sources). I presume your 'opinion' is your's alone.
You remind me of an old saying;
"Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's already made up".
Sick, there were over 500 gun-related deaths in the city of Chicago in 2012, so your point would be exactly what? In addition, what the heck difference does it make whether the 409 gun-related deaths since December 14, 2012, were the result of murder, suicide or accidents? The result was the same: 409 additional dead people. The cause of death was the same: guns.
Sorry for the almost duplicate post; seems gremlins are at work again.
IAScooter, so what? President Reagan is no longer with us and he wasn't rated number 1 when he was in office; I doubt those others were either. Considering the Near Depression, I'd say #4 while still in office is a great.
AlexM-3929653
I'd like the liberals to explain why their president nixed the payroll tax cut, so we're paying 2% more, but EXTENDED the tax cuts for corporations like GE, Citigroup, etc. How can the he and his worshipers claim that he's for the middle class when he does that?
==============
Was not aware we had a liberal President and/or a conservative President...pretty sure we had a President of the United States, but I digress. When exactly did being for the Payroll tax cut become the new definition of caring for the middle class or not caring? The payroll tax cut may have been in effect for a couple of years, but it was not w/o a measure of controversy.
With that said, allow me turn the question...if your argument is that being FOR the Payroll Tax cut is showing care for the Middle Class, why did the same bill that the President sign into Law, pass w/a majority of Republican Senators and why did it pass the House with 80+ Republican Representatives and why did neither of those groups either amend or present a separate Bill to make permanent the 2% reduction in the Payroll tax if they themselves also claim to be the champion of the Middle Class?
The old adage you quote explains your 'nonfact-fact' approach.
Thanks.
ROY WILSON-336103
So of the top 12 states receiving food stamps, 8 went for Republicans, 4 went for the Democrats.
The states using food stamps the most heavily are Oregon, New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Michigan, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia and Maine, each clocking between 16.5% and 20.6% in food stamp use.
Of those states, they are split in the following way: Democrat - Oregon, New Mexico, Maine, Michigan. Republicans took Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia.
So if 8 of them went electorally for Romney at the count of 72 Electoral Votes versus the 32 Electoral votes going to the Romney camp, I'm not understanding the logic of "He's going to take your food stamps away, therefore of the top 12 states with food stamp issues, each clocking 16.5% to 20.6% foodstamp use, 2 to 1 went to Romney... a case of 72 electoral votes to Romney versus 32 for Obama.
What exact argument are you painting here? According to what I am finding, the states with the highest portion of population on food stamps went 2 to 1 for Romney, but Obama somehow got the food stamp vote? Does popular vote matter now?
Get over it, Roy.
The Speaker of the House for 6 of Bush's 8 years in office was Dennis Hastert. Every budget busting initiative during the Bush presidency, including both disastrous tax cuts, both disastrous wars, the disastrous unfunded Medicare Part D, and a 50% rise in the unemployment rate from 3.9% to 6.1% occurred while the Republicans controlled all three branches of government.
The bills to move away from the fiscal responsibility prior to 2000 were written by a REPUBLICAN congress and signed by a REPUBLICAN president. In fact, the tax cuts were temporary solely because they had so few Democratic votes that they had to go through the same reconciliation process that you vilified during the healthcare debate.
The decision not to do ANYTHING extra to fund the wars was made by REPUBLICANS. They didn't sell war bonds. They didn't raise taxes. They told us to go shop.
The decision to expand Medicare and not to fund the expansion was made by REPUBLICANS.
Grab a clue.
Most of our debt is coming from two Republican unfunded wars, there was no talk about debt back than, whats up with that ?
Jason797 "Roy,.......Obama then told these people that "If Romney is elected, he will take away your food stamps"........Still waiting on the source or link"
I guess you have a hard time 'connecting the dots'. It was a paraphrase - or don't you remember all of the rhetoric about Romney being 'heartless for wanting to cut spending to hurt the poor, single women (War on women), unemployed, seniors, Hispanics, Blacks, etc. etc. etc.'.
If you didn't hear Obama criticize Romney for 'wanting to cut the 'Safety Net', you weren't paying attention.
Roy Wilson is a liar " almost all of the increased spending during the Bush years was from increased spending Budgets by Pelosi and Reid." is a lie. The fact is two wars 3 trillion, a drug benefit another trillion were all started by G.W. and his band of republican congress people. In addition Homeland security another big time expenditure was started by Bush while he had a republican congress. My advice Roy is to stuff it.
And then there was the tax cuts, another big lost revenue leading to our deficit and debt.
michael -- there are a lot of ideas that have been suggested and never acted upon.
i have provided my view previously but will do the same here and see if we can have a discussion:
failure to do something like the above will just send us faster into a greek tragedy
Michael Thompson, Charlotte, NC "Get over it, Roy. The Speaker of the House for 6 of Bush's 8 years in office was Dennis Hastert."
But the spending for Bush's last 2 years under a Democratic Congress was 27% higher than when the Republicans controlled congress, so much of the spending increases under Bush came from a Democratic Congress.
Oh lets see if we can figure out how this debacle will work out. For sure they will wait until the last minute. There will be plenty of finger pointing and endless blame. Harsh words will be spoken of each party. Catch phrases such as holding the good faith and credit of the United States hostage. Or this is money that has already been spent, and defaulting is not an option. It will be tense, edge of the seat sort of drama, down to the wire, and then? A deal. Yes a deal has been struck in the waning moments that will ensure the US can meet its financial obligations. The debt ceiling has been raised to just under 20 trillion, and spending will be cut by 0.00125% in 2035 with the exact cuts to be named later. Debt crisis averted! Round of applause. The usual hoopla from the mainstream media, and the nation continues on a path toward insolvency. In other words, business as usual from the same clowns that got us into this mess.
Repojam "So of the top 12 states receiving food stamps, 8 went for Republicans, 4 went for the Democrats."
All of the States have people with food stamps, and the ones with the greatest number of recipients went for Obama - California, New York, Illinois, etc.. In fact, I've heard that almost 35% of ALL welfare recipients are in California.
The actual number of recipients in those so-called 'Red States' were miniscule when compared with the big States that went for Obama.
By the way - nice try at diverting the topic from actual votes to the Electoral College.
Johntho "Hey Roy, the election is over, pssssst., your side lost big time."
I don't have a 'side' since I'm not a Republican, nor a Democrat, but while Obama won the Presidency with 51% of the votes, the Republicans won the House with 54% of the seats, so which one really 'Won'?
Obama may think he has a 'mandate' to keep spending, but the Republicans can equally say they have a 'mandate' to cut spending.
Roy:
Are you seriously suggesting the escalation in Federal spending during the Bush years occurred in 2007-8?
Hastert
2008 - 1.8 Trillion
2001 - 1.9 Trillion
2002 - 2.0 Trillion
2003 - 2.2 Trillion
2004 - 2.3 Trillion
2005 - 2.5 Trillion
2006 - 2.7 Trillion
______________
Pelosi
2007 - 2.7 Trillion
2008 - 3.0 Trillion
Then the economic collapse occurred. There was no tendency from the Democrat congress to massively escalate the spending in government prior to that. Hastert's Republican controlled congress on average increased Federal spending by about $150 billion per year. Pelosi's Democrat controlled congress increased Federal Spending on average by about $150 billion per year.
In fact, had it not been for emergency measures taken in early 2008 to try to stem the projected recession - ie, the first Bush stimulus package, the Pelosi congress would have actually averaged less of a yearly increase than the Hastert congresses.
TNSEVOL "Roy WIlson - Don't forget that both TARP and the Auto Bailout were begun under GW Bush......"
Since the TARP funds have repaid (with interest), that is a non-issue. In fact, any funds loaned when Bush was in office were repaid under Obama, so to that extent, Bush got blamed for the increase in the Debt, but Obama got the 'credit' when it was repaid.
As for the auto-bailout, the portion authorized by Bush was repaid - only the part authorized by Obama resulted in a loss - of $Billions.
The idiot libs are out in force today. Please explain to me why the middle class taxes are going up more than the upper class? I thought Barry said that the middle class taxes would not go up one cent? He wouldnt lie now would he? People making under 200K will pay 1.7 more in taxes. Making more will pay 1.3 more in taxes. See for yourself: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256972/Middle-earners-hit-hardest-revealed-workers-making-30-000-bigger-hit-earning-500-000-new-fiscal-deal.html
Nice work libs. The party of blind sheep.
Michael Thompson, Charlotte, NC "Roy: Are you seriously suggesting the escalation in Federal spending during the Bush years occurred in 2007-8?"
No, I said that the average spending was lower under Bush when the Republicans controlled Congress than when Democrats controlled Congress. Here are the actual figures;
When Republicans controlled Congress, the spending averaged $2.242 Trillion per year.
When Democrats controlled Congress under Bush, the spending averaged $2.856 Trillion per year = +27%
Jody, Iowa "Geez, Roy Wilson, the number of people receiving government assistance increased because we had a near Great Depression; in fact, many economists believe we suffered a Depression"
I see you fall for the 'Rhetoric' that Obama used to justify his spending spree. Here are the facts from official government sources;
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2007 (recession starts) = $13.892 Trillion.
GDP in 2008 = $14.394 Trillion, an increase of 3.6%.
GDP in 2009 (height of recession) = $14.098 Trillion, a drop of only 2.0% (less than the gain in 2008).
GDP in 2010 = $14.508, a gain of 2.9%, and we have gained about 2% per year since.
In contrast, the GDP dropped by an estimated 30%during the 'Great Depression'.
It was hardly a 'Depression', and even calling it a 'Great Recession' is pushing it, but then few Americans alive today remember what a REAL Depression is like.
But we may soon find out - if we don't get our skyrocketing Debt under control.
Roy:
That completely ignores when the escalation in spending actually happened. You can make the exact same argument for Pelosi's first congress, which barely increased spending AT ALL, simply because during the first 3 years of Hastert's congresses, Federal Spending was at or below 2 Trillion per year.
But year... when someone comes in and starts out at a basement of $2.7 trillion, the 'average' of her spending is blatantly obviously going to be higher than the 'average' of the guy who came in a started out at a basement of $1.8 trillion.
You can easily do it this way too:
1: $1
2: $2
3: $3
4: $4
5: $5
6: $6
7: $6
8: $6
So using your logic, the guy who presided over years 7-8, blew up the budget because his average level of spending was $6, while the guy who presided over years 1-6 is totally fine because his average level of spending was only $3.50, even though almost ALL of the spending increases occurred under the first guy.
For the basis of your argument to fly, Pelosi and the Democrats would have had to have come in and shown a huge INCREASE in the spending trend, which they didn't. In fact, the rate of spending increase was almost exactly the same for both speakers.
Roy,
Don't give me no crap about paraphrase, you made the claim that obama told his supporters that if you vote for romney he will cut off your food stamps. I ask you to show us the source to prove that. I mean how stupid can your a$$ really be. If you claim somebody said something then that means you must have heard that person ACTUALLY say it. Screw a paraphrase, if you heard Obama say this, PROVE IT,
In post 1.58 above, Michael Thompson characterizes the Bush tax cuts as "disastrous." Now a majority of Democrats have voted to make most of those cuts permanent in the name of fairness and economic necessity. Interesting times!
Some more B.S. Roy? You are a conservative wank from the start. If not why do you make stuff up to try and sway an argument. Oh I know it is Fox facts. Roy, my advice still stands. Stuff it.
Jason, his ass can be pretty stupid, just read back through his half-truths, Fox facts and lies to find out just how stupid Roy Wilson is.
California accounts for roughly 12% of the country's population. Texas accounts for roughly 8% of the population. Most recipients for food stamps are going to benefit children (here in Texas, our big programs are WIC and SNAP). I'm picking these two states for correlation, California because it was presented previously by you, I'm picking Texas since it's a state I live in and is often upheld as a model for a strong economy. That being said, what I found for numbers is Texas is showing roughly 3.5 million recieving food stamps on a population of 25 and 1/4 million (15.4% on food stamps) versus California's 3.2 million on food stamps on a population of 37 million (or 9.7% on food stamps). If we want to get to pure numbers, you are likely going to have more food stamps recipients in much larger states. Welfare and food stamp numbers are tracked separately by most accounts. The biggest states tend to be Democratic (Democratic voters often live in larger population areas) and it's no surprise that larger states have more recipients of food stamps. That's why I prefer the correlation of percentage of food stamp users to paint a better picture. When it comes to government aid by state, again, larger population centers do receive more, but when you start measuring dollars per capita, there are some surprising figures in there.
If we're going purely on "more people in that state, more welfare" then yes, that's going to be the case. The population of Los Angeles proper is about 4 million, not counting a single suburb. That means that there are more people in Los Angeles than there are in the entire state of Mississippi, but Mississippi has a much higher rate of food stamp and government assistance use by percentage than does the state of California. Are we trying to paint a national argument that California has the most freeloaders because they're the largest state but have a lower rate by comparison? I couldn't find anything matching 35% of our recipients on Welfare being in California, the numbers I found sat at about 20% and were outdated. I'll search for more to see what I can find.
Oh, that wasn't a diverson. You stated it was why Obama *won* the election. You win the election by electoral college votes. You postulated that he won and then presented the figure using popular vote. We can use the direct "fewer people received food stamps in Mississippi than California" argument if we like because the state of Mississippi doesn't even reach the amount of people in California's largest population center let alone the entire state, but it distorts the argument heavily unless we just want to say California is a bunch of freeloaders. If you want to make the point that it's the largest state therefore has the largest amount of people on welfare I can agree with that, but by percentage of population California has a lower percentage of population receiving assistance. I try to look at trends by population, you might just want to look at raw numbers. That's why i specifically asked what argument you are painting.
Thank you for your reply.
Since we're talking about guns, I thought I'd share this.
The tragedy of Newtown is what it is, but people need to pay attention to what happens when they make a knee jerk reaction to a serious issue.
Australian Gun Law Update
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real
Figures from Down Under.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new
Law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own
Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers
More than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria
Lone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.(Note that
While the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not
And criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
Decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically
Upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed
That their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and
Assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
Safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was
Expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns....' You
Won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or
Members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the
Hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control
Laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note Americans, before it's too late!
Will you be one of the sheep to turn yours in?
WHY? You will need it.
FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST.
Was not aware we had a liberal President and/or a conservative President...pretty sure we had a President of the United States, but I digress. When exactly did being for the Payroll tax cut become the new definition of caring for the middle class or not caring? The payroll tax cut may have been in effect for a couple of years, but it was not w/o a measure of controversy.
With that said, allow me turn the question...if your argument is that being FOR the Payroll Tax cut is showing care for the Middle Class, why did the same bill that the President sign into Law, pass w/a majority of Republican Senators and why did it pass the House with 80+ Republican Representatives and why did neither of those groups either amend or present a separate Bill to make permanent the 2% reduction in the Payroll tax if they themselves also claim to be the champion of the Middle Class?
If you think obama is the president of the US, and not the liberal president then you need to wake up. The only people he supports are union workers, government workers, welfare citizens, and illegal aliens. His first term proves that.
I have no problem with the payroll tax cut expiring, because I actually care about my country. Although I do wish I had more say in where my tax dollars went since my government is obviously clueless as to where the money needs to go.
The only reason the right had to sign it as is is because obama pushed them to the deadline and they had zero time to re-negotiate. If they hadn't of signed it, then we would've had all sorts of taxes hit us. So in truth, it's the republicans that saved the middle class from tax hikes, not the president.
My questions still stands since you in no way answered it. How can you say he's for the middle class when he lets our tax cut expire, but extends the tax cuts to his corporate buddies?
Very simple question that I highly doubt any lib will answer.
Repojam "ROY WILSON-336103 ... I prefer the correlation of percentage of food stamp users to paint a better picture."
I'm sure that you do, but the fact remains that the vast majority of welfare recipients are in States that voted for Obama.
As for your comparison between California and Texas on people getting public assistance, if you would provide a 'reliable' link (not a liberal source), I will review it.
As for the Electoral College issue, we would have to break down the number of 'welfare votes' by State and then compare that with the margin of victory for Obama in each of those States to see the impact. I do not have the data to do that time consuming task, and I doubt that people would listen even if I did, but if you want to attempt that task, be my guest. I will stick with my original premise, to wit;
"Obama won because he dramatically increased the number of people getting welfare/food stamps/Medicaid, to 47 million, and then appealed with them to vote against Romney because he would take that away that 'safety net' ".
Exit polls indicate that Obama won this 'safety net' group by 11 million votes, while winning overall by less than 5 million. I believe that to be a plausible argument.
Gotta go now - things to do - Bye.
PS - I see from your 'profile' that you are also a 'Finance Guy'. I now understand why you understand facts and figures pretty well - even if we draw different conclusions from them.
Have a nice day.
Why are you posting that Australian BS?
And remember in all of this that you are comparing a nation that, on average, has about 300 TOTAL murders per year against a nation that has, on average, about 16,000 murders per year. There really is not comparison between Australia and the U.S. because Australia's gun ownership started at about 7% and dropped to 5%, while the U.S. has an estimated 45% of its population who own a gun.
The difference is night and day.
The Republican party got us into this mess years ago, now they are just starting to talk about the debt, what is this party drinking ?
ROY WILSON-336103
Mine was a combination of CBO for public assistance and the USDA for amount on food stamps and then checked versus census data and compiled by excel. The CBO data has to be digested a bit more since it states assistance but isn't stating what kind. There is a huge difference in my mind between receiving SNAP and receiving SSI for minors... I count those as two totally different things. I like to be sure I can parse the data and understand it before I actually stand up and open my yapper about it.
I don't tend to buy into the "liberal" or "conservative" sources in terms of an argument. I don't like to dismiss any data out of hand by saying "that's a (insert party reference source and is therefore invalid)". I leave it up to the person who interpreted the data and what point they are trying to make. The data I pulled and then threw into excel for comparison showed me the information i was looking at. In the case of the information I pulled, a typo could completely distort my argument so I made sure to double check census amount versus total recipients of benefits from the USDA. One thing that tips the argument regarding percentage on food stamps is several of those states were receiving benefits for disaster assistance.
In regards to the welfare vote, that is something I would be *very* interested to see. Since I work in finance, I'm typically trained to avoid calculating by those statistics due to some of the training I've received at work that transitions to my normal life.
In regards to how we can see the same data and draw different conclusions from it, that is more of where I was after in terms of what picture you were painting. I know three people can look at the same set of data and come up with 9 different conclusions.
Thank you for your reply. Time for me to put my nose down and finish out my week as well.
@Repo and Roy,
Remarkable job guys. It is so refreshing to see actual discussions over differing views well articulated and with respect for each other. Quite a change from the usual rhetoric on First Read.
JOB1
"Remember, Crazy doesn't win."
I guess you were in a coma in November because crazy did win the Presidental election.
Jody of iowa...
Please share with us the number of deaths by motor vehicle (by any vehicle category, commercial or private) in 2012 vs gun deaths? This is a direct apples to apples comparison regarding the annual number of deaths. Feel free to list the causes of any other means of death you may desire.
While Newtown was tragic and I can see restricting assault weapons and large capacity magazines, just as many deaths could have occurredwith multiple std pistol and rifle magazines.
-----------------------------------------
David walker, don't you find it interesting that gun sales go up after media fear mongering? Other than what I said above for assualt weapons, I really doubt that a ban on other types of firearms will be passed, especially in light of the fact that those committing mass homicides have been shown to have a history of mental unbalance. Goes back to the argument of guns don't kill, people do. Just how many guns discharge without an exogenous event?
Billybob,
Remember, most of the spending policies, programs and wars that added significantly to the federal deficit during Obama's first term were long in place before he took office. These include two very costly wars started by a repub-led congress and president that added significantly to the deficit during Obama's first term and a whole new department, the Department of Homeland Security, that the repub-led congress and president initiated. This also included the approximately $100 billion/year added to the deficit by the repub Medicare D passed but never funded, totally by the repub-led congress and president in 2003. The repub-led congress and president in the early 2000s also doubled the military budget; Obama has wanted to decrease this massive source of debt but has been vehemently opposed by many republicans in congress, especially in the House.
The very vital social programs that currently add to the deficit--Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and other very important programs that keep many hard working and low income people, poor children, handicapped people, very old, poor and frail seniors, etc. from starving and/or dying-- were long in place before Obama took office. One of the biggest causes of most of the debt from these programs is due to the world-record healthcare cost inflation in the USA. Obama attempted to address this and curb this source of debt through the ACA by eliminating most uninsured people, so their unpaid medical bills would not be passed on to the paying consumer, thus further inflating healthcare costs. The ACA will in the future add to the debt and has many problems that must be addressed and corrected as best as possible, but we desperately need a program like the ACA that helps assure payment to medical providers for most if not all of the people who need care and also helps control healthcare costs, without financially breaking the country or healthcare providers. Obama, himself, has already demonstrated he is more than willing to work on improving the ACA; he already cut a part of the ACA that the CBO projected would cost around $1 trillion in debt in 10 years. Of course, that does not address all of Medicare's financial problems, and reasonable and gradual spending cuts must be made to Medicare starting immediately to address this, but robbing most future seniors of the ability to pay for healthcare (which they have been promised and have paid for all their working lives) through deceptive means by privatizing Medicare, where the private insurance companies will again price seniors out of the market leaving them unable to pay for and/or access any healthcare, is totally wrong and just plain robbery.
Education, costs of government and infrastructure spending were already in place before Obama. Obama did use extra economic stimulus money to address infrastructure repairs. The Obama administration did make some bad budget decisions that cost the taxpayer, but they were just a very small portion of the debt accrued. The size of government decreased under Obama.
Liberals are out in force with the usual line of insults for anyone that has a different opinion. Must be the fact that Democrats pulled a fast one with the fiscal cliff bailout by loading up the pork with tax breaks for the rich. Or the fact that Democrats wanted to push through a Sandy relief bill also loaded with pork. Nothing like the party that blames Bush for the two biggest budgets he signed courtesy of a Democrat controlled Congress. Or that now Democrats want to pretend to be party of fiscal responsibility and back to back bills pop up proving that wrong. Yeah its all Bush's fault, or the Republicans in Congress, and has nothing to do with the Democrats in the Senate or Obama's addiction to spending. Obama might talk a good game, but the fact the annual deficit has never come down proves he hasn't done squat to address this nations fiscal crisis. 20 trillion plus in national debt will be the Obama legacy, and he has done NOTHING to stop it from happening. Obama simply does not care about deficits or the national debt, and there is nothing to prove otherwise but talk.
Rick,
Facts and history prove otherwise.
Right, fact and history prove otherwise, and watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat. A Democrat controlled congress hasn't put forth a balanced federal budget in over 40 years. Democrats haven't passed a budget for the past four years. Tax, borrow, and spend is all Democrats have to offer, and Obama is by far the king of spending. Obama hasn't actually put anything in writing for everyone to read about the cuts he talks about or any sort of actual deficit reduction plan. Plain and simple, Obama is all talk no action.
Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).
It's Irrelevant to the Deficit
Take Your Hands Off Social Security
by DEAN BAKER
Millions of people are rightly outraged to hear that Social Security is in the gun-sights of both Speaker Boehner and President Obama in their budget negotiations. There is no reason that our political leaders should be discussing cuts to the country's most successful social program.
While the promotion of budget hysteria is one of the largest industries in Washington, the most important and widely ignored fact about the budget situation is that we have large deficits today because the collapse of the housing bubble sank the economy. This is not a debatable point.
The budget deficit was just 1.2 percent of gross domestic product in 2007. Before the collapse of the housing bubble the deficit was projected to remain low for the next decade and the debt-to-GDP ratio was actually falling. This would have been the case even if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to continue.
When the bubble burst and the economy plummeted, tax collections fell. We also spent more on unemployment insurance and other benefits for unemployed workers. And we had further tax cuts and stimulus spending to try to boost the economy. The automatic and deliberate steps taken to counter the downturn fully explain the large deficits we have seen the last five years.
Record low interest rates on government bonds demonstrate that the current deficits are not a real problem. But even if they were, it is difficult to see how cutting Social Security could to be part of the solution. Under the law Social Security is not supposed to be part of the budget. It is an entirely separate program financed on its own.
This is not just a rhetorical point. We can talk about Social Security facing a financing shortfall in the future precisely because it is solely financed by its own revenue stream. One of the most widely discussed proposals to avert that shortfall is a revision in the cost-of-living calculation that would be the equivalent of a 3 percent cut in benefits over a typical retiree's lifetime. (Perversely, the impact will be largest for the oldest and poorest retirees, since people who live the longest will accumulate the largest reduction in benefits.)
An overwhelming majority of the country strongly supports Social Security and does not want to see any benefit cuts. But because of the nature of this budget negotiation process, Americans are supposed to accept the cuts with no revenue increase whatsoever to shore up the program's long-term financial position.
It is understandable that people who want to cut back or dismantle Social Security would argue for this position. It is difficult to see why anyone else would.
Rick,
War, borrow, spend, borrow, spend, war, spend, war, spend and pass on the huge deficits and the absolute NECESSITY for future tax increases, that is all Bush and the republican-controlled congress did between 2001 and 2007, and these deficits are still there and accruing interest, and many of these programs, such as doubling military spending, is still a major contributor to the federal deficit. Then, republicans, instead of raising taxes on those who can afford them most to pay for the MASSIVE debt of trillions and trillions added by their wars and doubled defense budgets alone, those repubs want to starve and harm poor, innocent children, handicapped and elderly with massive food stamps and Medicaid cuts, and they want to rob future seniors of access to healthcare by privatizing Medicare; private insurance previously priced most seniors out of the healthcare market and will certainly do so again.
And Social Security is not even adding to the deficit now!!
I am sorry to interfere in the snappy retorts to one another but I need to point out a flaw in this. I am not arguing that the names of the states aren't correct but the voting averages are...I live in Georgia. Yes, we are a "red" state but that is because the majority of the voters that actually show up are Republicans. There was less than 40% turnout of the registered voters turnout in my county alone, both parties included. It also turns out that most of those were Republican. Based on a study, and I am trying to find the source to quote exactly, is that many recipients of assistance do identify themselves as Democrats but they also do not, or are not registered to, vote.
In, let's say, Detroit, most of the registered voters that show up are Democrats but they might not be on assistance.
So, in a perfect world, IF everyone voted, you might very well be surprised what the figures show.I am not saying which way but it is food for thought.
Ahahahaha. So now it's LIBERALS who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions??? What about Republicans and their role in the credit downgrade of the United States??? What about the GOP's responsibility in the impending fiscal cliff by refusing to compromise on taxes and forcing the Democrats far to the right of where they would normally be? What about the GOP's use of the filibuster that has turned one of the most respected legislative institutions in history into the laughingstock of the world??? Yes, many of us on the left can be a little hypocritical, but don't go acting like you aren't scum. And FYI, you need both the Senate AND the House to pass something, and nowadays you need 60 votes instead of 51 to get something done in the Senate. Go back to Civics 101, Ben.
In case you haven't realized it, we are in the slowest recovery in history because we just came back from the WORST recession ever since the Depression. The Great Recession of 2009 was the worst type of recession imaginable-a financial one. Because of a lack of real wage gains since the Clinton era and an overall stagnation of middle and lower class wages ever since the rise of laissez-faire neoliberal economics in the late 70s and early 80s, many households had to rely on credit to pay for consuming ever-more expensive products. During the housing boom/bubble of the early 20th century, people turned to their houses as money-printers due to ever-increasing home values. But when the bubble burst, everything collapsed because of the housing market's close ties to finance and finance's close ties to every part of the national and global economy. In a normal recession, all the national government needs to do is increase spending, cut interest rates, and (if necessary) cut tax taxes in an effort to boost consumption; in a financial recession based on high debt loads, you have to wait for households and businesses alike to reduce debt burdens so they can invest and consume without endangering their long-term stability, and that can take years depending on the severity of the problem. The federal government could have easily aided the recovery via stimulus efforts (targeted spending increases and tax cuts, unconventional expansionary monetary policy, etc) and programs to speed up the deleveraging process, yet it wouldn't have led to a strong recovery until a while after the recession bottoms out. McCain would have been dealt with the same economic card, maybe even worse if his party's increasing slant to the right would have occurred while his party controlled the entire government and led to draconian austerity measures that would wreck the recovery.
Don't you realize that that is how Congress runs??? I admit that it isn't pretty, but that's how the cookie crumbles. You can hate pork all you want, but it is bipartisan pork and it is one of the many ways how important things get done. And denying people the flood insurance claims that they paid for via premiums because of some utopian conservative populist purity-belief is downright STUPID. And FYI, Harry Reid is NOT the Senate president; Vice President Biden is the president pro tempore of the Senate. I don't you think you have the right to critique other peoples' knowledge of our civic institutions when you yourself are deficient in your understanding.
Okay then. THAT is pork; is it pretty?? No way in hell. But it is a major part of our representative democracy (aka a republican democracy). If you don't like it, don't vote for it. If you don't want to vote for a bill with pork on it, say so. But no politician ought to go back on a promise they have made without a good explanation.
THAT is not pork; that is actual funding necessary to make sure that another storm like Hurricane Sandy NEVER happens again. How the @!$%# can that be considered pork??? Pork is money appropriated for investments of varying amounts for projects in a congressman's district. It tends to have little (if anything) to do with an actual bill's contents. This has A LOT to do with the relief effort; how else are we going to make sure that this damage isn't repeated??? Do you want more damages to our nation's coastal communities that the taxpayer will eventually have to pay for??? I thought not.
Most of that stuff above is pork; the last two aren't (at least the second-to-last one). And fyi, using a conservative website to back up your argument does NOTHING to validate your argument.
Okay then; if Boehner didn't want to hold a vote for a pork-filled disaster bill HE SHOULD HAVE SAID SO. It's that simple. He should have simply gone before the cameras and explained that he would never bring a disaster relief bill to the House floor that has been used as a vehicle to attach wasteful items that will not help the victims of the disaster. But he didn't. He didn't want to vote on the bill because he didn't want to force his conservative colleagues to vote for a major spending bill. I don't give a damn if a bill is filled to the brim with pork-barrel spending; if it gets the job done, I'll vote for it if there is nothing I can do to fix it.
Don't go with broad attacks and stereotyping; that is like saying all conservatives are Fox zombies. Essentially you are contradicting your own argument.
You idiot!! You fail to realize that UNDER the CBO's "current law" policy in which we fell off the fiscal cliff that the deficit would be ELIMINATED thanks to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the automatic sequester, among other things. The $4 trillion increase on the deficit is an increase on a cumulative deficit of ZERO. That means we have a $4 trillion deficit right now that is guaranteed unless further deficit reduction is made. And the VAST majority of those increases in the deficit were because of the EXTENSION of the regressive and expensive Bush tax cuts that REPUBLICANS have always wanted. In fact, the deficit would have increased by A LOT MORE if the Bush tax cuts were extended in their entirety, as Republicans desired. If I were the President, I would have driven this country right off the fiscal cliff and STAY off the fiscal cliff, while extending a few necessary things (doc fix, AMT patch, and unemployment insurance) and then come back with a bill for short-term stimulus totaling around $1.2 trillion in spending increases and $300 billion in tax breaks (with the payroll tax cut) over 3 years. All the spending would be infrastructure spending ($1 trillion) and aid to states for rehiring state and local workers ($200 billion).
I don't give a damn who gets a tax increase as long as it happens to EVERYONE, including the rich. While the FICA tax cut could have been extended, people have long criticized it for draining SS funds. Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that taxes were the price of civilization; if you want paved roads, good schools, and a strong safety net and defense system, you better be willing to pay for it.
Many of us on the left as well as the right are, what you call, "free thinkers." Most liberals argue about the need for spending cuts and tax reform, but the spending cuts (which are born by middle and low income Americans) must come with higher revenues from the wealthiest Americans and that tax and entitlement reform must be done in a balanced way, not hurting seniors and the poor while extending the solvency of our social safety net. And you on the right must admit that it is YOUR FAULT that we have high deficits now; the social safety net has added little if anything to the deficit as of now, and will only do so at the end of the current decade. For the last 12-13 years of the first decade of the 20th century, most of the deficits accrued by this government has occurred due to REPUBLICAN policies, including the expensive and inefficient Bush tax cuts, Medicare Part D expansion, two unpaid wars (and I mean really unpaid, not normal unpaid), and a massive increase in government spending on security after 9/11 and the subsequent "War on Terror."
If you noticed on the fiscal cliff deal that things got done when you took Speaker Boehner out of the equation. Maybe it is a good thing Speaker Boehner doesn't want to speak to the President. Maybe we can get things done if we just leave him out of any real issues.
Ugh, I guess to be fair, President Obama was out of the fiscal cliff deal as well, but his saving grace is he set up the meetings with the Senate leaders and ultimately Joe Biden, so over all, even if the President didn't work out the deal, he was the one to set up the people to get the job done.
Repojam
Thanks for the response yesterday. I had to get some things done because I'm moving my family (wife and 7 year old daughter) to Costa Rica in about a month, so I'm just getting back to this site.
I too use an Excel spreadsheet for my data, and I have complied data for GDP, Debt, Revenues, Spending and Deficits (Federal & State/Local), Defense, Employment/Unemployment, stc., etc., etc. for every year since 1969 - on both a nominal and Inflation Adjusted basis, which allows me to quickly make analyses, and counter some of the 'weird claims' many poster make - and make fun of them.
Fortunately, I will still have Internet in Costa Rica, so I will still be a 'pain in the ass' to the Liberals, but I consider myself to be Moderate on social issues, but a Fiscal Conservative. I think the biggest danger the Country faces is the coming Debt crisis, and my next Post will address this issue.
If you check back on this 'vine', I would welcome your comments - I will check back later.
Bye
We have a 2 part problem - Spending has 'skyrocketed', and tax revenues have 'tanked'. The Debt Commission recommended that Federal spending be set at about 19% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Tax Revenues be set at about 19% as well, which would create a balanced budget at some time in the future.
In 2011, Spending was 23.9% of GDP ($15.094 Trillion), which amounted to $739 Billion of excess spending.
In 2011, Tax Revenues were 15.3% of GDP, which amounted to $558 Billion in fewer taxes.
If we're going to get to a healthy financial condition, we need to have both Spending cuts AND Tax Increases. I would suggest a target of getting to Spending and Revenue Parity at 19% of GDP over 10 years – Call it a 19/10 Plan - described below.
Obama's 2013 Budget Projections calls for a GDP of $25.488 Trillion in 10 years (2022), so the Spending would be limited to gradually increase from $3.55 Trillion in 2012 to $4.893 Trillion in 2022 – an average increase of 3.3% per year.
Revenues from Taxes would also be targeted to gradually increase from $2.47 Trillion in 2012 to $4.893 Trillion in 2022 – an average increase of 7.1% per year. In 10 years, we would have a 'Balanced Budget', and the National Debt would be capped at about $22 Trillion in 2022.
Since the Democrats accuse the Republicans of 'protecting the rich' from tax increases, and the Republicans accuse the Democrats of 'spending us into oblivion', I would suggest that the Republicans be required to structure a plan to raise taxes, and the Democrats be required to structure a plan to cut spending. Then the Republicans would have to make the tough decisions on tax increases, and the Democrats would have to make the tough decisions on spending reforms. If the Congress legislated this as tax and spending 'Caps', this would remove the constant bickering and lurching from one fiscal crisis to the next that we currently suffer from.
Comments are welcomed.
Get real for a change citizensarethecountry. If you are going to quote the costs of the two wars, try doing so accurately. The average cost has been around 120 billion per year or roughly 1.4 trillion since they began. That is hardly the major driver of our debt anymore then the liberal mantra of prescription drugs for seniors, which has come in at 68 billion per year. Liberals like you do nothing but exaggerate the facts to cover for the spending of yes, our president Obama. The biggest deficit run under Bush was 460 billion, and the two biggest budgets Bush signed into law came from Democrat controlled Congress. Sure there were expenditures like the TARP, but once appropriated the deficits should have come back down, and yet they didn't. Democrats have no history of fiscal responsibility anymore then Republicans, so liberals just make up lies and ignore the truth. Why would you expect anything to change when you never hold your own party accountable?
Not really. According to a study by Brown University, the total costs of the recent wars that have been waged by the United States (Iraq, Afghanistan, and the numerous counter-terror measures in Pakistan) cost around $3.7 trillion, including at least $2.3 trillion in direct costs and $1 trillion in interests. It may even reach $4.4 trillion as former veterans, many of whom are paralyzed or maimed, make claims for federal benefits.
Actually, including the added debt service payments and increased defense spending levels (not just the military budget) and certain economic costs, we will continue to pay for the wars through claims for veterans benefits, including medical care and disability services.
Not really; while deficits under Bush are far lower than they have been under Obama, they would have grown at roughly the same rate that they have under Obama if Bush had a third term. See, TARP was a temporary measure, but what you fail to realize is that the deficit should NOT have decreased after TARP. That is because TARP only fixed the financial markets, not the rest of the economy. The economy was still depressed because of collapsed home values and high levels of debt, which limited demand for goods and thus depressed production and employment. Deficits were not only necessary to counter this effect; indeed they were inevitable. In case you were sleeping in Econ 101 (as every Republican seems to be nowadays), when you are in a recession spending automatically goes up and revenues automatically go down because fewer people are employed and pay taxes and more people are on things like food stamps and unemployment benefits. The only way to decrease the long-term deficit is to actually spend money in the short-term, boosting consumption and thus investment and production until the private sector is strong enough and/or confident enough to start spending money, allowing the government to reduce spending and increase tax revenues. Problem is, the deficit will still increase due to increasing health costs and an aging population.
Not quite; Two Democratic Presidents in the past 40 years have balanced the budget or have kept debt levels low only to have their Republican successors messing things up after them. Those two are James Carter and Bill Clinton. Let me go with the most familiar example: Bill Clinton. Clinton, with a combination of spending cuts, tax increases, and a growing economy, was able to balance the budget for 4 years, only to have George W. Bush come in and waste the entire surplus (which was estimated to be $5.6 trillion but was actually around $3.5 trillion) on two unneeded tax cuts, two unneeded wars, a jump in defense spending, and an unpaid drug program (which was still unpaid for, whether it was low cost or not). The second example is more murky; in the late 1970s, Carter had maintained a low federal debt-to-GDP level at around 31%. Unfortunately, he lost the election to supply-side disciple Ronald Reagan, who blew up the debt to 51% of GDP at the end of his term and quadrupled it's nominal value via his expensive tax cuts for the rich and massive increases in defense spending. But at least Reagan saw his mistake (somewhat) and raised taxes 11 times during his presidency to reduce the deficit, even though most of the taxes hurt lower income Americans and they only reduced the deficit by about a third. So Democrats are more fiscally responsible than Republicans, because our recent history has shown Democrats keep debt and deficit levels at responsible levels only to have Republican successors destroy their hard work with a few tax cuts for the rich and some more spending on unneeded wars. It's time America start electing Democratic presidents back to back to keep the GOP from wasted surpluses or low debt levels on stupid tax cuts or more funding for our bloated military-industrial complex.
The first one who posted, Ben, criticized the wooden side of the liberals. One could say the same about the right wing. Both sides are stuck in a rut; which is why I am glad I changed my registration to "Independent." Why are issues so clustered into certain groupings? Example: How is it that those who would favor programs to help the poor, old and sick also favor gays, gun control, and are wishy washy about national security? Why are only Republicans worried about Benghazi and the fact that a story about a video was made up to cover up a terrorist attack? Is there some reason Democrats cover up for terrorist attacks? I see no logical correlation here. It would seem that that would be a non-partisan matter. In the 1940's Democrats were very much interested in national security. Why did that change? Why is it always Democrats that hate guns? Why not the other way like having Democrats worry about Bengazi and Republicans hating guns? How do these issues get correlated with certain political parties? Our political system is weird.
What if you value the second amendment but advocate funding well the programs for the poor like food stamps? Why can't one be against oil companies and be pro-environment but also want to beef up national security and restore the CIA to its cold war abilities?
There is no political party that fits someone like me. Depending on the issue, I have sided with both liberals and conservatives on Newsvine.
Anybody out there want a new political party?
Rick,
Wrong again! Iraq was nearly $300 billion in the early years, none paid off and accruing interest; the total Iraq war tab alone was nearly $1 trillion without taking into account the 40,000-some thousand injured in some way, many very seriously and for a lifetime, who each one alone will have medical costs in the millions of dollars (which they definitely deserve, but it adds to the debt and cost of war). Then, of course, the republican neocon element doubled the size of the military from a total budget of around $400 billion annually around 2000 to close to a $1 trillion a year, and, unbelievably, they want to further increase military spending. There was over $2 trillion total just in republican-initiated defense budget spending during Obama's first term.
Freshieee
People who try to 'cost' the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan typically try to maximize the result for political reasons, so they are highly suspect as a result. Including 'interest' in the calculation is silly, because if that's the case, the 'cost' of WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc. is increasing every day, as is the 'cost' of every penny spent by Obama on the 'stimulus' bill, the Deficits under Obama, and every penny that has been 'borrowed and spent' over the last 100 years - or more.
As to including the 'cost of counter-terrorism measures', that was in response to the attack on 9/11, which required a dramatic increase in the cost of protecting the country - not a direct war costs.
The REAL cost of the 'wars' is unknown because we don't really know what the Defense costs WOULD HAVE BEEN if we didn't fight those wars (and just ignored the attack of 9/11 against us). For example, Bill Clinton spent an average of $452 Billion per year on Defense (Inflation Adjusted, 2011= $100), but under Bush, the average was $510 Billion per year (same Inflation adjustment), including the cost of the wars. So how much of that $58 Billion per year average increase ($464 Billion over 8 years) under Bush was because of the Wars, and how much might have been spent anyway - especially since Clinton made dramatic cuts in Defense spending after he took office, compared with previous Presidents, and Bush took steps to reverse some of Clinton's Defense cuts even before the wars. In fact, Obama has significantly INCREASED the cost of the war in Afghanistan since he took office above the cost level under Bush, so who's to blame for that?
As for the cost in human terms, yes - it is certainly heavy, especially for the families of those approximately 6,600 American service people killed in the last 10 years, but keep in mind that WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam resulted in over 600,000 deaths to American servicemen and women - 100 times as many. Were we wrong in fighting THOSE wars?
Democrats better not back down on changing the filibuster rules!
Enough of the PHONY filibuster threats, if they want to obstruct, make them earn their damn paycheck!
As for the unemployment rate, despite the Republican'ts throwing up every roadblock possible, it continues to improve, be it ever so slowly...
Again with that ANGER! >:O(
BTW... When GWB was still in office the dems used the filibuster (as it stands) quite frequently... and they seemed to be quit pleased with it. Now that the shoe is on the other foot they want the rules changed. Go figure!
(show me the clown nose, Fisty)
Feisty -
Sorry you couldn't get your post in before 3 gun (lots of numbers Ben). Sure he's an old loser from before the election. Seems alot of them disappeared, suddenly there's a whole new slew of Lots of Numbers newbies. Makes you wonder huuuum?
Happy New Year Feisty. Glad to see you back. Same to all my old friends too.
But sicko, the 112th congress set records, McConnell has even filibuster his own bills. What is up with that? (Show me the air bubble you have for a brain)
Hey Johntho... WHAH!
The rules were set the way they are for a reason. As I said... when they worked FOR YOU, you were fine with them... now... not so much.
Hypocrite!
Good Morning Tom and a Happy 2013 to you as well!
Something tells me, a whole bunch of these newbies are the same old idiots under "new & improved" names. Having testicular fortitide is not high on their priority list... ;o)
Johntho,
My advice is to ignore SOB, IT is one bi-polar son of a bitch, whose only purpose of being here is begging for attention!
Your First Read experience will improve greatly if you don't feed the basement dweller... ;o)
So True Tom. There are a lot of old right wing loser's that can't get over the election loss. The old saying, "Crazy doesn't win."
My, my the conspiracy theorists on here.
It's a shame he left can't address the content of posts and directly engage on the issues at hand. Shows a real tendency toward attention deficit because they want to ignore the additional $4 trillion in deficit. A pity.
Feisty,
GOP has long been blocking the Motion To Proceed, so that CRITICAL legislation cannot even come to the floor for debate.
Consequently, 2 million jobs in the American Jobs Act (since September 2011)
were not even debated or voted on, because McConnell blocked the whole process.
FILIBUSTER REFORM IS WAY, WAY OVERDUE.
Another old sane for these sore republican losers is "crazy is as crazy does".
They're back to pulling their hair out when ever the economy improves. They are still hoping the economy fails just so our President will look bad. What a bunch of sorry tea people.
Sick.. A fitting title. The filibuster count during GWB's presidency was nowhere near what the GOP has done in the Senate since Obama took office.
CA Tom, agree on that. I'd suggest that everyone start commenting on Thread 2 and leave #1 to Ben and his guns.
The filibuster rules must be changed to make it a real filibuster; to make the minority party--whichever that might be--actually debate and tell us why they oppose something or someone. The way the GOP has operated the past 6 years has been to abuse the rule in order to obstruct the majority. The Constitution established simple majority rule for everything except treaties; they knew that a 60 vote requirement for all legislation would result in the tyranny of the minority as well as dysfunction. We have witnessed both these past 4 years especially.
SOTB, Iowa's democratic Senator Tom Harkin first proposed changing the filibuster rules in the early 1990's when democrats held the majority.
wrong again, obamanation! unemployment among blacks and women actually increased in the latest report. in fact, the number of employed blacks decreased. but then again, maybe that's the plan.
After seeing what went on the last time around I like the presidents stance in regards to the debt ceiling. From a political standpoint, I would hope the president just tells the Congress there is no discussion of anything, you either pass the debt ceiling or you don't, everything else is a separate discussion. Just solve it politically, tell them they can pass the debt ceiling or take sole responsibility for the consequences if they do not, and walk out of the room. Congress approves all spending whether people want to admit it or not, it is their responsibility, they hold the purse strings, they can honor the debt they approved, or not, and they can suffer the political consequences. If I was president Obama I would do just what I said tell the Congress there is no discussion you pass it or you don't the ball is in your court fellas just let me know what you decide so I can inform the world. The debt ceiling stands alone, if you want to address the business of future cuts, expenditures, or budgets put it into a bill get it through your branch of government (Congress) and when it gets to my desk I'll sign it our explain why I must veto it. Put them in the position of just flatly passing it or not, no deals, no haggling, up or down, you keep the American government in operation or you take responsibility for the consequences, they never did this to any other president for the spending Congress has approved, and I would never let them do it to you again.
The payroll tax holiday that was instituted 2 years ago as a temporary measure expired. The payroll tax holiday in 2010 was created as a substitution for the Making Work Pay tax credit that was included in the ARRA. So the reality is that neither the tax holiday or its predecessor existed before the President came into office and both of them were instituted as emergency measures to partially offset the effects of the economic collapse.
Aren't you guys the ones who bitch and moan and piss and whine constantly about the fact that the government never allows temporary, emergency measures to sunset? And not that one has, you are going to try to use it to club the president?
Are you serious?
Feisty what do you have to say about today's BLS employment report?
Yes, the massage debt that W. Bush left us. We are paying the Bush bar tab.
The majority of the recent deficit is due to reduced tax revenue and two unfunded wars that W. Bush left off the budget. This fell back on the books under Obama. The argument of high spending on the watch of Obama has been debunked over and over again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-reality-behind-obama-and-bushs-spending-binge/2012/05/25/gJQAK8ItpU_blog.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ezra-klein-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2012/01/31/gIQAnRs7fQ_story.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
Mo
The President looks bad because he is a bad President. That's all. Nothing more or less than that.
SOTB-
Talk about Apples and Oranges - there were around double the number of Republican filibusters in Pres. Obama's first term than there were during the entire eight years of GW Bush.
No comparison.
So URkidding, you must be kidding, because he can't look that bad, he won two elections, he took every single swing state from republicans, and his party gained seats in the senate and the house. Fact is no matter how bad you think he looks, the nation decided he looked better than the republican candidate.
Some very interesting morning reads.
We have old Republican talking points from the general elections (why it's over....get over it).
Threads that state that Democrats take no responsibility and blame everyone. Hmmm...where was the responsibility taking during the Bush administration and putting us into this financial crisis, only to come into a general election, yet again, with more of the same "trickle down" economics that didn't work last time?
Some certainties:
* President Obama won't be impeached.
* Republicans will lose on the cost cutting front (in more ways than one, wait till 2014).
* The Republicans of the South will will not approve illegal immigration legislation.
* Hillary will run for President in 2016, and the GOP will have a hard time finding someone to run against her.
* The economy will improve despite the "doom and gloom" of posters here.
Job1 is back to posting lies as facts from left wing nut jobs. That's too funny. Come up with some non-partisan authored sources (the authors not publications) and I'll read. Until then, spreading lies is beneath you -- you are better than that.
Just telling the truth.
For all of those complaining about the 4 trillion dollars should maybe look at what Mr. Romney's budget was to look like,the time line of his "maybe" balanced budget.
Your right Feisty, shouldn't engage with people like sicko, or Ben for that matter. It is hard to match wits with a nit. (nit-wits) How anyone can distort the truth as much as Roy Wilson does and then look into the mirror to shave is a wonderment to all, including him.
If the parties can't get together and come to some comprimise, vote out the incumbants come mid-term.
We can sit back and bitch all we want but it's our responsibility to fire these do nothing bozo's.
With you, Forrest.
The debt ceiling for years and years, has been typed up in a few lines on a single page - and passed.
Passed in a straight forward manner.
It was non-negotiable for all those years, under all those previous Presidents.
GOP did their worst on the debt ceiling in 2011, got America down-graded by S & P for the first time --- and got their marching orders in the Election.
If the majority of the recent deficit is due to reduced tax revenue then why weren't the Temporary tax cuts allowed to expire? Obama has kept his word to end the Iraq war, it appears he will keep his word to end Afganistan, I hope the US will not enter any other wars.
Let us be clear the Bush tab has become the Obama tab. He campaigned on this tax issue and he pushed for it. He is not solely to blame, the GOP and the Democrats in Congress willingly took the easy, uncourageous route to extend the lower tax rates for good.
Yes it is a pity that outside of say Howard Dean, Bowles, Simpson and a few others everyone dropped the ball out of fear. However, I don't only blame them - I blame all of us. Each one of us that feels that we are ENTITLED to the rights and services that we receive at little or no cost via taxes. I blame each of the GOP posters above who moan about taxes. I remind each of the liberal posters above that we should pay for what we receive. Looking at the extremes, I blame the rabid Tea Partier with their twisted analogy of a family budget when discussing fiscal policy. I also blame the die hard absolutist on the left who fails to see that we need to include balanced spending cuts when talking about solutions.
I pity the fact that these tax and fiscal issues that have been kicked and pushed down the road will interfere in the possibilities of an Obama 2nd term. I would like to see movement on comprehensive immigration reform, new and renewed gun control measures, a comprehensive national energy policy and a committment to improve our infrastructure and education system. However, I fear that these important but divisive fights on fiscal policy will deter any chance at legislative success.
Ben,
I believe the ball is in your court on this one. If you want to refute job1's sources, post your own. Then all of us capable of reading and analyzing the sources can compare and reach our own conclusions. Each side simply dismissing the other sides references as lies or misinformation without providing counter sources does nothing to advance rational discussion of the issues.
backhouse -- "Republicans aren’t permitted to offer legislation or amendments in Reid’s Senate"
"The Senate is supposed to be a place where any senator can offer amendments on any bill, you have a vote on it, [and] if they don’t like it you vote against it and we move on.”
so many filibusters are essentially a response to the democrat senate refusing to allow the minority to offer ideas.
The Ship of State is sinking, and most of the passengers want to spend their time arguing about whose fault it is we hit the iceberg.
billybob - the quote you quote - is not from my post -
And is probably a large over-simplification of the realities of GOP open obstruction in Congress for the last 4 years.
job @ 2.16 -- "The majority of the recent deficit is due to reduced tax revenue and two unfunded wars that W. Bush left off the budget. This fell back on the books under Obama."
so now democrats are supporting the continuing of the reduction of tax revenue -- is that correct? when bush did the original stuff before obama agreed and extended them it was mostly positioned as benefiting the rich but now not so much? is that correct?
can you point to the budget where these things have been returned? i assume they are in each of the budgets that obama has signed so fy2010 - fy2013 should be the candidates.
thanks
Personally, I'd like to see the filibuster rules change. But I will guarantee that the same Democrats pushing this will be complaining about it when the majority changes in the Senate. And it will happen. Change happens. Look back and history and you'll see.
I see that this thread is the liberal circle jerk.
Since no libs in the other thread will answer me :
How can you support your president as being for the middle class when he lets my tax cuts expire but extends the tax cuts for his corporate/hollywood buddies?
back -- they are quotes that i put in to point out that it is simply not all of the republicans fault.
can you provide anything that refutes the point?
Job1
The author of the 3rd article you linked.
And you don't think he is biased??
The author of your second is Ezra Lein.
I've seen him be a fill in for Chris Hayes on MSNBC.
Hardly an unbiased opinion there.
The author of your first article is also Ezra Klein.
REALLY? Using two different sites using articles written by the same person?
Looks like your statement--
Has itself been DEBUNKED!!
I remember the filibuster, as a youth. Occasionally, when a subject was deemed vital, a senator would actually talk for hours! The subject was usually concerning the senator's state, in particular. Yes, some senators would re-read the "Madison Papers" or "Jefferson's Memoirs" into the Senate minutes. The news channels would, on occasion, show the senator reading to a near empty chamber! I think one senator, from a coastal fishing state, wanted to read "Moby Dick" into the record, when the subject was the whaling ban!!
Mark Great post! I do agree. The problem with taxes is even when they are implemented as temporary no one wants to see them go back up. I think the approach the president took isn't terrible. It has to be a gradual effect or else you will have people going crazy.
Also Forrest you made great points as well. I would like to see the president do exactly what you suggested. Guess we will have to wait and see it.
It's sad our politics have basically turned in to a sporting event, but I guess that is what we will have to deal with from now on.
Small problem with your calculations ~ Bush's "last year" wasn't 2008 in terms of budgetary matters. It was September 30th, 2009 for FY 2009 began on October 1st 2008 and extended nine months into the Obama term. Might want to take a look at how much was spent in the first nine months of 2009 as compared with the expenditures of the last three months. Not only will you get a clearer picture but an accurate one. Both OMB and CBO concur that spending is on the decline ~ but no one will argue that it is still too damned high.
yellowdog mark...
It was the 2008 SOFA agreement with Iraq that defined the drop dead date for troop withdrawal from Iraq.. Obama did try to create a workaround on this drop dead date with the Iraqi PM, but the Iraqi PM said that the US had to honor that drop dead date.
The 2008 Iraq-US SOFA agreement and media reports on the Iraqi PM reiterating that US troops will leave by agreement despite obama wanting to stay in Iraq are a matter of public record via internet and government sources.
BTW - in case you missed it obama wasn't POTUS until 2009.
-----------------------------------
Jim in texas, while you are technically correst in how to fiqure each administrations contribution to our national debt by tieing it to our fiscal year endings, administration changeovers can skew the debt numbers. For example, TARP was never a part of the 2009 FY so the bush administration (including the democrat controlled congress) gets the credit. The nearly $900 billion obama and companies stimulas during the 2009 FY is all credited to the left. Saying essentially the same as you, just in numbers that point to actual allocations made by the WH and congress.
Of course with senate leader reid refusing to adopt any type of budgetary plan as required by law and instead offerring up only CR's since 2009, obama will take the hit.
Spending on the decline??? If so then there really shouldn't be an increase in our debt ceiling, after all the republicans gave obama what he wanted... tax rate increases for those earning what? $450,000 + an added tax of what 3.6%% to pay for obamacare.
----------------------------------
Akeem...
You are probably right in your observation on the current political future. Commentary on this has been made by some on bloombergTV that strongly points to very little social interaction between the right & left as well as obama not only shutting out many republicans from a shared perspective on our nation but many democrats as well. Looks like obama needs to have bipartisan golf and basketball outings.
That was back in the days when a filibuster actually had to have someone talking in order to maintain it. Modern senators are too lazy to do that.
The first filibuster was senator William King in 1837 .... a Democrat
The rule allowing for the cloture of debate was adopted in 1917 by a Democratic Senate after anti-war senators blocked Woodrow Wilson from arming merchant ships. Te requirement for cloture was 2/3 of those voting.
The record for the longest one-person filibuster (24 hrs, 18 min) is held by Strom Thurmond .... a Democrat who was filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
Southern Democratic senators filibustered for 75 hours in a vain attempt to block the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In 1975, the Democrat Senate revised the cloture rule to allow 3/5 of the Senate to limit debate, under the theory that what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.
Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).
JANUARY 4-6, 2013
It's Irrelevant to the Deficit
Take Your Hands Off Social Security
by DEAN BAKER
Millions of people are rightly outraged to hear that Social Security is in the gun-sights of both Speaker Boehner and President Obama in their budget negotiations. There is no reason that our political leaders should be discussing cuts to the country’s most successful social program.
While the promotion of budget hysteria is one of the largest industries in Washington, the most important and widely ignored fact about the budget situation is that we have large deficits today because the collapse of the housing bubble sank the economy. This is not a debatable point.
The budget deficit was just 1.2 percent of gross domestic product in 2007. Before the collapse of the housing bubble the deficit was projected to remain low for the next decade and the debt-to-GDP ratio was actually falling. This would have been the case even if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to continue.
When the bubble burst and the economy plummeted, tax collections fell. We also spent more on unemployment insurance and other benefits for unemployed workers. And we had further tax cuts and stimulus spending to try to boost the economy. The automatic and deliberate steps taken to counter the downturn fully explain the large deficits we have seen the last five years.
Record low interest rates on government bonds demonstrate that the current deficits are not a real problem. But even if they were, it is difficult to see how cutting Social Security could to be part of the solution. Under the law Social Security is not supposed to be part of the budget. It is an entirely separate program financed on its own.
This is not just a rhetorical point. We can talk about Social Security facing a financing shortfall in the future precisely because it is solely financed by its own revenue stream. One of the most widely discussed proposals to avert that shortfall is a revision in the cost-of-living calculation that would be the equivalent of a 3 percent cut in benefits over a typical retiree’s lifetime. (Perversely, the impact will be largest for the oldest and poorest retirees, since people who live the longest will accumulate the largest reduction in benefits.)
An overwhelming majority of the country strongly supports Social Security and does not want to see any benefit cuts. But because of the nature of this budget negotiation process, Americans are supposed to accept the cuts with no revenue increase whatsoever to shore up the program’s long-term financial position.
It is understandable that people who want to cut back or dismantle Social Security would argue for this position. It is difficult to see why anyone else would.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/04/take-your-hands-off-social-security/
Since becoming a worker I have always had S.S. Medical and Unemployment coverage taken out of my wages.I never heard of anyone suggesting that either of those programs should be closed.Now it seems to me that many of our bloggers wish that that was so.Would all of those who claim that it costs too much ,please state at which Cos. and for how long they worked there and whether they had those coverages taken out of their wages. If you claim to be one of us participants in those programs you would be the first that I have ever known to say I paid in but do not want my paid for benefits .Other than those ,shut up as you didn't put up.
"And that's the way it" was....in 2012.
"In masks outrageous and austere/ the years go by in single file;/But none has merited my fear/ and none has quite escaped my smile." Elinor Wylie, 1885-1928
Watching this year in politics, we certainly saw the "masks outrageous and austere". The ever present filibusters, the nonstop partisan bickering, the constant fiscal cliffs, the chaos and dysfunction; the GOP legislators efforts to inflict wounds on the country to defeat (and failing badly) one man, our President; the unwillingness of the GOP and their Tea Party comrades to move an inch to help the country in the name of rigid ideology while claiming to be Patriots.
The year slipped past day by day in single file yet none was cause for fear--unless you watched FOX News or heard Rush and Glenn sell you fear for profit; as Limbaugh said, "they (conservatives) need someone to carry their message--fear and anger or whatever."
The masked ones passed in single file from town to town, and primary to primary. We watched debates with "$10K" bets, "pious baloney", "severely conservative", "Oops", "9-9-9", "I created more jobs than you", "Reagan, Reagan, Reagan"; wild cheers for the number of executions in Texas; cheers and applause at the idea of allowing the uninsured to just die; and loud boos aimed at a gay military man serving in Iraq who dared to ask a question~all gave us pause. The "outrageous and austere" of Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney were cause to fear yet we could not help but smile as each ones star rose quickly, then crashed and fell.
A photo taken after the Iowa Caucus exemplified the GOP parade: a lone Tea Party guy in an empty room, wearing a three-corner hat, knickers~looking the part of Paul Revere~slumped in his chair beneath a Bachmann poster, captioned "All is Lost!" Ahh, yes, fear slipped further and then we smiled and said thanks, Iowa, for sending bat-crap crazy Michele home.
Rick Perry outdid himself commenting on Turkey, "Obviously, when you have a country that is being ruled by what many perceive to be Islamic terrorists..."; and thus he set off an international crisis which required State Department intervention. Ahh, yes, reason to fear but smile we did when "Oops" could not remember the departments he'd eliminate!
When asked about his rise to the top, Rick Santorum declared that "sometimes the best is not that great but it's the best." Santorum believes birth control should be outlawed because "....it's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to the way things are supposed to be." Yes, another reason to first fear and then smile as Santorum's star wasn't "the way things are supposed to be."
Russia took note of the clown car the GOP put forth. When Mitt declared Russia our #1 geopolitical enemy, Medvedev said "I would recommend that all US presidential candidates...to do two things. First, when phrasing their position one needs to use ones head, ones good reason which would not do harm to a presidential candidate. Also one needs to look at his watch; we are in 2012 and not the mid 1970's." Even world leaders paused to fear before we gave them reason to smile November 6th.
David Duke gave a thumbs up to Ron Paul. Nothing like a Neo-Nazi's endorsement to give us pause. Then Mitt told us his father could "spit nails...pointy side into the wall" along with Michigan "trees are the right height" and "I like cars". Now Mitt and Ann sit side by side, riding their car elevator in style; while clutching their tax returns and pondering.....WHY? Oh, yes, we smiled.
Oh, so many things to fear as Donald Trump, Foster Friess, John Sununu and the folks on FOX continued to march down that "outrageous" road......until Clint Eastwood talked to an empty chair and we again could smile at the absurd!
Mitt Romney broke a recording during the campaign--he lied 73% of the time. How ironic that Mitt, Ann, their family, FOX were so positive that Romney would win the election. For years, FOX News has fed its viewers mostly lies, trumped up conspiracy theories, paranoia, fear, distorted truths, and convinced its viewers to disregard other media sources--those liberal biased ones. In 2012, FOX came full circle---it successfully convinced not just its viewers, the Romney campaign staff and supporters but it convinced itself that Romney would win. FOX actually believed its own hype, ignored all those other media sources and the polls. No wonder FOX, its viewers, Dick Morris, Karl Rove, the Romneys were "shocked". Touche'. "And none has quite escaped my smile" quite like FOX News....fooling itself!
Thank you Jody, for providing us the "Bat @!$%# Crazy on Parade" recap!
It should of come with a put down any beverage you might be sipping disclaimer...
Those were the days... LMAO!
Jody:
Excellent. Just excellent. It's all about perspective, and I find myself smiling.
Excellent review of the year Jody. Only one question--there are so many choices for the "Chitspa Award of the Year"--whom do you think is the best choice--or should we vote on it?
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it. FR and all the shows covered so many of the crazy quotes and happenings already so decided to take a different approach.
Feisty, it was definitely a carnival side show beginning in 2011; thankfully, most of the bat-crap crazy were sent packing early.
David W, it is about perspective; no doubt the right-wingers are stuck in fear but that's where they reside anyway so...
Nurse, I couldn't even try to pick a "Chitspa" of the Year Award even after I read my year's worth of them. But Mitt Romney would be my nominee; he was so full of chutzpah that he would win that he ignored all the polls and most of all failed to realize people, including republicans, just didn't like him or trust him.
Jody,Iowa-
Thanks, Jody, for yet another gem.
Salud
Thanks Jody another good post. I have to nominate Fox after they started believing their own hype (lies). It's one thing to spread lies, it's totally different when you start believing them.
Jody, well done & thanks for the (crazy but true) review!
Mitt Romney "lied 73% of the time".
And - he told something like 500 lies in the 3 years leading up to officially running for President...
Yet FOX/Rove convinced folks he would win the election. This strategy was beyond an insulting bluff. And now Tagg Romney says his father never actually wanted to run in the first place.
The say-anything, Republicans-for-the 0.01%, zero truth, inequality game went right over the cliff in 2012.
Jody, keep posting like this and I will have to get a new set of thumbs! The old set is just about worn out.
Good morning Jody, A great wrap for 2012! Thank You.
Also, the far right proves again that, " Crazy doesn't win."
Some very interesting morning reads.
We have old Republican talking points from the general elections (why it's over....get over it).
Threads that state that Democrats take no responsibility and blame everyone. Hmmm...where was the responsibility taking during the Bush administration and putting us into this financial crisis, only to come into a general election, yet again, with more of the same "trickle down" economics that didn't work last time?
Some certainties:
* President Obama won't be impeached.
* Republicans will lose on the cost cutting front (in more ways than one, wait till 2014).
* The Republicans of the South will will not approve illegal immigration legislation.
* Hillary will run for President in 2016, and the GOP will have a hard time finding someone to run against her.
* The economy will improve despite the "doom and gloom" of posters here.
yep off to 2013 ...this was reported today on this site.
67 billion in pork on the fiscal cliff bill that was loaded just prior to its signing .. why did you think it took so long to get off of Reids desk and onto the house,... and allow no time to read it? ..... "we have to pass it to see what is in it".... is their first accomplishment.
Next the Sandy storm which is also loaded with liberal spending. google it.
Jody-
Great Post!
I continue to be baffled by the battle over the Debt Ceiling. Apparently Congress wants the President to negotiate before they agree to pay for the tab that they (COngress) rang up?
Why should the President have to make concessions before Congress will agree to pay for spending they have already approved??
Talk about Crazy.......
Bravo, Jody---great recap. Thanks for the trip down memory lane!!
The Chitspa Award of the Year----so many worthy candidates but may I suggest Tagg Romney as a dark horse candidate for suggesting that Mitt didn't really want to be President anyway. Mitt might be nominated for a special livetime achievement Oscar because he spent 6 years acting like someone who REALLY wanted to be President.
Michele Bachmann put herself in the early running for 2013 by proposing a bill to repeal Obamacare. We should keep track of how many times the House tries to do that.
IA.Scooter, and a good deal of that fiscal pork was put in by Mitch McConnell, the republican socialist who decided that billions in subsidies to Corporate farms is a-okay with him....and his fellow GOPers.
Pork is only pork if the other side adds it; pork is only pork if some other city, district or state gets it and not yours.
MO, SF, good choices for the "Chitspa" award.
TNSEVOL, it's because the tea party and ultra-conservative republicans don't even understand what the debt ceiling is. GOPer Pat Toomey yesterday said so what if government shut down for a few days; he doesn't even grasp that the debt is money his own party ALREADY SPENT plus the compounding interest; nor does he grasp the dire consequences of the US defaulting on its debt not just in the US but the impact on the world. Lawrence O'Donnell chose an appropriate word to describe Toomey (and those like him), "ignoramous".
President Obama won't be impeached.
agreed
* Republicans will lose on the cost cutting front (in more ways than one, wait till 2014).
You say that as if you think the libs will do any meaningful spending cuts.
* The Republicans of the South will will not approve illegal immigration legislation.
I think they will, I just don't think it'll be enough for the amnesty crowd though. Republicans aren't against immigration, they're just against illegal immigration. Of course I'm talking citizens here, not politicians. This is why the left will always win in immigration. The liberal politicians want to give citizenship away for free to illegals since they'll just be increasing their voter base. They are catering the lowest denominator. The right wants illegal immigration for the cheap labor. The high majority of citizens are in fact against amnesty which is why the liberal politicians haven't been able to get it through.
* Hillary will run for President in 2016, and the GOP will have a hard time finding someone to run against her.
Even though I'm a conservative, I do not belong to the republican party due to all their issues. The GOP as it stands currently is dead. It needs a complete remake before it will be valid again. Sadly this leaves a major opening for the left which will not be good for this country either.
* The economy will improve despite the "doom and gloom" of posters here.
That is a lot up to perception. If you mean improve by it'll be better than it is now, then yes. But that could mean that unemployment only drops 1% also. With the way congress and this president can't seem to understand that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem, the economy will NOT improve as much as it would have with a different administration.
Jody - Thanks for the hi (low) lites of the year! Seems the G*NO*P wants to finish what it started 4 years ago.....at least their wish will finally come true....that Pres. Obama is now a 1 term president (4 years too late! :) :)
Of course - if Hillary runs....the G*NO*P will be sunk........and imagine a ticket of Hillary and Chris Christie????? What a pay back to the GNOP!!!
Jody....this is a federal budget.
but spin it any way you wish the FACT remains, it was Her words and obamas approval.
From WSJ "Crony Capitalist Blowout"
I will agree that pork is pork
I'm not sure if I necessarily disagree with this in theory. This offers incentives for filmmakers to make movies in places other than in Hollywood. Since films take, on average, 6-8 weeks to film, do this in economically depressed areas provides a longer term, sustained boost to small, local economies than, say, sporting events do for urban environments.
And truthfully, I would rather the next Lord of the Rings, (or equivalent), be shot in New Mexico using New Mexicans to fill out crew positions and extra slots than in New Zealand, boosting the New Zealand economy and offering New Zealanders jobs.
That's not the role of the federal government. Let market forces decide where to make movies not federal government intervention via the tax code. Let the individual states give tax incentives for production in their states if they so desire which I don't agree with either because it diverts local tax revenue from law enforcement, education, etc.
jody............
job well done. super excellent post.
Federal Assault Weapons Ban
Criteria of an assault weapon
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.
During the period when the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's flowchart of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device, except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after paragraph (29) the following:
‘(30) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means--
‘(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--
‘(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
‘(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
‘(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
‘(iv) Colt AR-15;
‘(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
‘(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
‘(vii) Steyr AUG;
‘(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
‘(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6257/text
___________________________________________________________
I hope that Sen. Feinstein’s pending Legislation and President Obama’s Council will include an updated version of Appendix (b).
It would go a long way to dispelling rumor and innuendo if the Folks that are interested in this issue could simply go to one place and see that they are really discussing a narrow range of firearms that 95% of us can take or leave.
Thank you IR. This issue cannot be allowed to be murdered by mindless gunners and the completely warped Wayne LaPierre of the NRA.
I sincerely hope that reasonable NRA members - and there are many - will make LaPierre disappear.
IR, thanks for the update.
There have been 409 gun deaths in America -
Since the tragedy at Sandy Hook school - that took the lives of 20 six and seven year-olds and 6 adults:
"Following are studies that have been conducted on the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban:
IR: Very good! I would hope that there is some required training. Remove the stigma of using the safety or clearing the chamber. Also, private sales; you want to sell your rifle do it through a licensed broker.
I wonder why the "investigative" journalism didn't break down the numbers by location??? Might it have something to do with the majority in states -- like Illinois -- where gun laws are the most strict? Just askin'.
Exito I would suggest that instead of doing it thru a licensed broker that the FBI instead quit charging a fee and make inquiry's and background checks available free to all and open up the disclosure laws.
Independent Redneck Va.-
Nice work.
Randi Rhodes discussed this last night.
Salud
Ben I'm assuming that yoiur asking a seroius question and not just horsing around and can't totally answer it because there are skewed numbers involved in both sides (You know the old saying lairs figger and all) but on quick examination Backhouses numbers are from valid sources with a large enough Baseline.........Tomas day wouldn't be complete without my Randi fix. I felt like the discusion was worth extending to this forum.....Finally how do you'll feel about extending this list to say Body Armor and such like implements. Seems to me a Civilian buying up Body armor ought to set off a Red Flag somewhere. Just asking
Hi Floyd, Great Information!
IR -- Thanks for reading. I don't question the numbers. I believe what BH posted. I just would like to see where these shootings have occurred since Sandy Hook. There are 51 states (57 according to the 2008 campaign) and I'd like to narrow this down a bit. I do not believe that individual and/or local problems can be solved collectively blanketing all of us with new rules or regulations -- but that is my philosophy.
Let's take aim (pun intended) and target the proper solutions. I for one believe that the gun show loopholes must be addressed and more extensive background checks that delve not only into criminal behavior but mental behavior as well.
IR,
That still leaves a lot of options for gun enthusiasts. Ruger's mini 14 would not be classified as an assault weapon. which it clearly is. They may need expand the list a little further.
I own a mini 14 that I purchased from a friend several years ago, who needed money for a medical procedure. If it's not an assault rifle, I don't know what is.
Although I would hate to have to give it up, I don't shoot it any more anyway. the ammo is way too expensive for me to justify buying.
I've posted on this site for many years and seen avatars come and go. The ones mocking the President or worse First Lady kind of bothered me because I admire him so but I've never said anything. I enjoy the ones that tell us a bit about the person they represent. I LOVED when we all did pink flamingoes in honor of our friend Phine. But Ben---your new avatar is so insensitive to the pain so many of us still have when we think of the events in Newtown. It really struck home to so many people and my heart still breaks for those families who have lost a precious loved one and for all the lives cut short so tragically. I can't believe you would flaunt a gun symbol when so many people are in such pain.
Ben I always read sometimes when things devolve into the silly I just don't bother to answer. As far as the shootings since Sandy Hook I don't have that right at hand but it sounds about average for America these days(just couldn't resist getting in a little dig I see but we're going to ignore that for discussion purposes) I believe that Local Problems can be solved if a baseline(minimum) is established that the Locals can then tailor to local conditions..........Fuzzy Exactly. If we establish a baseline list that we can all go to then most of us will go there and dispel so many of the Myths that are associated with this process
Also Ben you give the best example yourself for some Federal intervention. It does no good to close the Gun Show Loophole in one state and not in all of them. Just ask New York who has argued for years with my very own state of Va. over this very issue.
Steeler Fan: You are 100% right. I thought my original avatar(my cat's behind) made me the biggest jerk. No, that Ben tops me. The timing of that avatar is just so immoral. Oh, I wish the ignore button erased that symbol.
IR: Right. No gun show in NJ, just go to PA.
IR, terrific information; thank you.
Most people do not know there is no national gun registry, no national data base. What exists is incomplete; and there is no requirement for anyone who sells a gun to report that sale to a national data base. Neither our government nor local police has any idea who owns what or how much except for guns purchased at license dealers dealers and permits they may issue. It is why so often we hear or read a news report that when police enter a home for some unrelated reason, they discover a stock pile of weapons and ammunition. Most people assume there is a national gun data base.
Steeler Fan, Exito:
You may recall that Ben's avatar in December was of Mary and Joseph adoring Jesus in the manger.
His current avatar is a calloused attempt to inflame and incite, nothing less and nothing more. This guy no more mirrors the teaching of Jesus the Christ than Dick Cheney.
Obama best gun salesman ever, i have bought 3 more since December a draco 7.62.x 39 pistol, rossi ranch hand 45 long colt and a m11 9mm
1. Century you are living in?
2. Myth you are promoting?
Exito, glad you changed your avatar; never said anything but you're own words pretty much summed up what I thought of it. But yes, Ben's tops your old one by miles. Yours was tacky but Ben's is not only tastelesss, it is arrogantly and stupidly insensitive.
Ben, when I mentioned the 409 gun deaths since Dec 14 in Thread 1; you asked if they were murders. Now I haven't been back up to see if you responded to my questions to you. Your question here deserves the same response I gave earlier. Exactly what was your point in thread #1 about whether the deaths were murders and now where the shootings occurred? In addition, what the heck difference does it make where those shootings occurred, what difference does it make whether they were murders, suicides or accidental shootings?
The point is 409 additional people are dead since Sandy Hook Elementary on Dec 14 and the cause of those deaths is the same: guns. Those 409 deaths occurred in the United States in twenty days. Those numbers remind me of the nightly news reports about how many of our military died each week in Vietnam--where we were engaged in fighting a war. It's about time we recognize that America is fighting a war within our own borders, a war of guns against more guns. I feel quite comfortable in saying that when our founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment, they did not intend for people to be killing each other by the thousands each year and that we should just accept those deaths as the price of freedom to own a gun.
Sorry, Whisky but the best gun salesman in the world is the NRA who convinces people like you to keep stock piling more guns and ammunition while they take your money to the bank and smile all the way there.
whiskey eye writes:
Three? One for each hand and one to fill the crotch of your pants?
Jody: Sorry.
Be careful! You'll shoot your eye out!
Chicago has some of the most strict gun laws in the country, how's that working out for them?
Personally I don't see the use of a citizen have an assault weapon or large magazines. But on the other hand this freak out that libs are doing to take away guns isn't the solution either.
I live in a redneck town with a population of around 80k in the county. I know many families that have over a dozen guns in their house. Most are for hunting, some for self protection. We have a murder rate of next to nothing here.
Sorry, but guns are not the complete problem, they are only a small part of the problem.
But have fun with the strawman.
A Snapshot of the Current Labor Situation and how to Interpret the Numbers
The economy added 155,000 jobs on December, which really isn't news because it more or less means it's in the same holding pattern it's been in since going into recovery. Lukewarm at best and barely keeping pace with population growth.
The major problem remains that the vast majority of the American people do not have the capacity or the willingness to learn to interpret the data to which they have access.
Take, for example, this article on CNN money from today:
Annalyn Kurtz, the author of the article, asserts in the first paragraph that the reason that these 3,000,000 or so are permanently detached from the workforce is that they are all 'discouraged.' However, if you look at the source material she is citing to make this claim, you discover something entirely different:
In actuality, the BLS directly asked these longterm detached potential workers why they were not looking for work. Of the 3.2 million who did not search for work in the previous year, in actuality, only about 1 million listed 'discouragement' as their primary reason.
667k listed themselves as not available to work at all. (Unavailable is distinct from unwilling in the survey - unavailable means that the person's particular situation precludes them from having a job even if they wanted one)
222k cited family responsibilities
346k listed themselves as being in school or training
181k listed themselves as being disabled or in ill health
and 797k cited the nebulous catchall category of 'other,' which the BLS did not further itemize.
So what we have is essentially a break between 'rhetorical reality' and 'reality reality.' Is Kurtz being willfully misleading with her article? Not really. She is simply falling prey to the tendency in our country these days to leap to the 'rhetorical reality' at once. She is trying to make a 'point.' The rhetorical reality is that things are so bad that there are three million people out there who have totally given up on ever finding a job because the job market is so bad that they believe they will never find it.
Reality reality is that the situation is not nearly that bad and, in fact, is only marginally worse than it was even when people considered the economy very good.
But there are people who make their money from painting as bleak a picture as they possible can.
Look at another rhetorical reality that our right wing friends engage in quite a bit these days. It also uses the data drawn from this particular table as its launching pad. Basically, their line of argument boils down to 'America is full of lazy, shiftless people who are dependent on the government because there are more people unattached to the workforce than ever ever before and the workforce participation rate is at the lowest it's been since 1970.'
And if you look at the raw figure, you will see that the BLS indeed says that there are approximately 90 million people not attached to the workforce and that, of that 90 million, only 6 million list themselves as wanting a job.
Of course, this 90 million number does not differentiate. It does not make the distinction between those who are voluntarily unattached from the workforce - ie, students, housewives/husbands, the independently wealthy, etc, and those who are involuntarily unattached. Most of all, it does not distinguish between those who are retired and those who are not. If you look carefully at the table, you will note that approximately 54% of the 90 million are over the age of 55.
And of the ones who are over 55, less than 3.5% actually want a job. And of that 48,000,000 who are over 55 and detached from the workforce, only 247k or 0.5% list the reason that they are detached from the workforce as being 'discouraged' by the job market. So is there anything that we can draw from that?
Well, obviously, it probably means that the vast majority of that 48 million people have retired.
So here's my thought for the day. Instead of trying to scare us with big overblown numbers that are designed to scare the people and vilify a large portion of the population, the right wing would be far better served to really interpret the data they are seeing and to look at what the numbers between 16-55 really are, because the people between 16-55 are really the ones who these labor problems are most affecting and whose futures will be the most impacted by the longterm economic problems the country faces.
Or of course, they can continue to distill the data into easy talking points that are, at best, misleading and, at worst, outright wrong.
.
Michael Thompson, excellent post.
It would be nice if the right-wing would look at reality but they haven't done that for sometime. Whatever the reason is beyond me but I sometimes think it is simply the unwillingness to look beyond the top layer, intellectual laziness, or the tendency that when the right isn't in power, "scarey" political undercurrents is their game of choice. Maybe it's all three.
Look at another rhetorical reality that our right wing friends engage in quite a bit these days.
It would be nice if the right-wing would look at reality but they haven't done that for sometime.
Michael and Jody,
Once you two fully admit that your party does it also, then maybe people will listen to you. Personally I won't listen to you because I know that both sides do this, and the media is the main culprit in this. Which is why I investigate articles that interest me, I don't just take it at the journalist's word. Journalists lie pretty much the same amount as politicians, you can't believe anything they say (sadly).
But right now, we have both parties pointing the finger at each other, and claiming innocence. Take this 'fiscal deal' for example. Libs were (and still are) all over bush for corporate cronyism, and all over romney for having over seas investments. Yet obama pushed through to continue the over seas tax havens for GE, Citigroup, etc. At the SAME time, letting my 2% tax cut expire while at the same time telling me he's all about me since I'm middle class. So tell me.... is it just the right? Or is it also the left. This responsibility is shared, and until citizens of BOTH parties demand a change, there will be no change (kind of like what your president is giving us now).
Alex m/Citizens of both parties do desire changes but consider themselves,myself included,unable to effect the desired changes.We have a half-baked Democracy but one that only listens to lobbyists or people in power but not apparently their employers. it is completely outside of our control .Our only solution is not to vote for them at the next election but our true wishes are consistently ignored .If we write letters to our Representatives those letters are ignored and the only results we receive maybe That they agree with us and hope to pass on our wishes.In other words zero. This form of Democracy has prov en to be of a low effectiveness..Could we achieve a better one? who Knows ,but this form of it is better than Dictatorship but the pits as true Democracy.
Speaker Boehner...I stand corrected...I thought there would be a more serious challenge to his "leadership" but that was not the case.
term limits term limits term limits!!! There will never be change without it. Wake up America
We have term limits...they're called elections.
Feel free to not send an incumbent back.
da -- i received a response to a similar question that is consistent with yours about term limits. and i agree completely that the voting booth is the best way.
i do wonder though if career politicians are a good thing -- we have several US Senators each of whom has served around 30 years.
do you believe that public service is a career or should folks go to dc for some period of time and then leave? i had imagined 10 years for a representative and 12 for a senator.
what do you think?
The solution is to have government financed elections to get the big money out of the legislator's back pockets. These days, our legislators must spend as much time raising money for the next election as they spend actually doing the people's work. Campaign finance reform, getting big money and corporate money out of elections; and limiting lobbying. Special interest lobbies are big business and powerful ones.
Since government funding of campaigns is not likely to happen because it would be higher taxes, there are some bandaid fixes that could help. Right now, incumbents have a huge money advantage in every election. Any challenger has a difficult time competing. One idea is to level the playing field for challengers by allowing incumbents to keep say $50K in their campaign war chests after an election and any other money left be given to either charity or donated toward the national debt.
When exactly did...
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
...become...
"I need guns to keep me safe from the tyrannical government that's out to get me!"
Da,
More psychobabble from the left, I see.
I'm not exactly sure when, but I'd say it's pretty accurate. One could argue we already need protection from our own government.
No.....bernie-1722829,
You're just suffering from dysphoria with attendant dysphasia.
Ian,
Whooaa....Easy with those big words!
Remember, I'm suffering from dysphoria and attendant dysphasia. (Is that also psychobabble?)
It probably came about just about the time we got a Tyrannical government. Don't believe we have one do you? Perhaps you all should check the article about the 69.7 billion in pork that was added to the "fiscal cliff" bill. Hmmm. Roselle and the rest of you liberals were silent on that one. Probably because you don't believe it or it's a republican conspiracy or some such nonsense. Perhaps you just couldn't cheer about it.
When will you learn.If you step on a turd it doesn't matter if it's a Democrat turd or a Republican turd. You're still digging sh*t out of your shoe.
Da Noid,
You do understand what that phrase means, correct? At the time it was written and all the way back to the earliest colonial days, membership in the militia required private ownership of a weapon. If you did not own your own gun, you could not join the militia. It was only when raising an actual standing army that government provided weapons came into existence. So indeed, the framers of the Constitution were protecting private owneship of weapons so as to foster the formation of a "well regulated militia".
bernie-1722829.....you said (back in 2010):
.....you said (above):
Aren't you a psychiatrist (with your diagnosis and all)?
Maybe, you're just a quack......and/or a crackpot. Perhaps you should become familiar with basic terminology so as to foil detection.
A tyrannical government is Syria or the former USSR or Nazi Germany. A tyrannical government would have arrested a good number of folks posting on FR judging from some of their comments but here they still are, fearful and paranoid as ever--typing away.
We may not always agree with what our government does but anyone who claims it is tyrannical is suffering a severe case of ignorance which explains why those same individuals think having a stockpile of guns will protect them from ???. They forget our Government could level their home before they got off the first shot despite their multiple weapons arsenal, and do it by Drone, but since we do not have a tyrannical government, they instead have the freedom to chatter away here and elsewhere. That tyrannical government provides education to them and their children, paves the streets and roads, collects their garbage, and when disaster strikes, provides emergency aid and assistance to rebuild (unless you live in NJ or NY and the GOPers don't like your liberal views).
Who saw the Bob Woodward, Newt Gingrich, Joe Scarborough (their straight man) comedy routine on "Morning Schmo" this AM?
To hear these has-been's tell it, if John Boehner showed up late for work, it would be President Obama's fault because he didn't give Boehner a wake-up call.
It's time to start the process of cleaning up the Congressional mess. We should start immediately by revising the filibuster rules.
I know this post is late but, I can't help putting my $0.02 in...
Mika peeled Joe's head back and all he could do was sit there looking in amazement.... LOVED IT!!!!!!
Thank you for your comment, I thought that it was just me that saw the drama unfold with Humpdy, Bumpdy, and Dumpdy plus a throw in, totally bad mouth everything that this President has done or is currently doing. Yet between the lot of them, neither one said anything about the ills that the repubs attempted to do to this President from the onset of his inaguration. It was like watching a low budget "Fox" news wanna-be sitcom. And then when Mika tore into the lot of them about President Obama and his style. Joe just couldn't listen to what she had to say. It just goes to show that they can dish it out, but they surely can't take it... What a bunch of Pooppychecks
It's amazing the length both the House and Republicans go to pretend. After reading the first article of today's MSNBC concerning billions in EARMARK's for contributors and corporations. I think the entire problems are a hoak's. Mr Simpson and Mr. Boyles, who I have more respect for than any member of Congress, were shocked to see how these two parties hyped and danced and did nothing to reduce entitlements or the deficit. Let's see less news from these quacks on Capital Hill.
Dude... what the hell does 'both the House and Republicans' even mean?
BTW... the word is HOAX.
Sorry I destroyed your day. I meant the Democrats and Republicans. After a year of reading what these "leaders" were going to do and then read about "earmarks", well it is upsetting. Now we wait for two months with a threat of the Tea Party members forcing whatever. Thanks for correcting me. HNY to you and I am sick of the bickering too.
MAKE NO MISTAKE!!!!!!
This is officially Obama's economy, tax rates, "fiscal cliff", etc.....Whether it turns out good or bad........Whether it's a booming one or a bust. No one, now to blame but himself and the other LIBERAL jackwagons. Good luck to us all and our 401k's.
Bernie, finally your admitting to the truth that Bush/Cheney left office in the worse condition since the Great Depression. If Obama left today he'd be leaving with everything much better than when he started. Another couple of years of improvement on the economy, the budget, healthcare, etc. and he'll be a hero.
new,
Guess you forgot everything was fine until the 2006 DEMOCRAT Congress took over and the housing bubble burst due to Freddie/Fannie,Chris Dodd and Barney Frank!
P.S The Senate has been DEMOCRAT for the last six years, The House for the last four out of six and The White House for the last four.
P.P.S. If you think health care will "improve", I REALLY feel sorry for you!!
P.P.P.S. Whoooaa..Do you mean the dems will finally put forward a budget after four years? It's about time!!
Nope - as long as the republicans control the house and the GOP has enough votes to filibuster bills in the Senate the GOP is all in on how the economy operates. Can't hide from your responsibilities. BTW it was the Bush administration that caused the depression. 99% of the mortgages that busted the housing and banking industries were written between 2001 and early 2006.
Markinbecker you do realize to the republicans everything was great before 2009. their memories don't go back any further than that.
bernie
There you go posting details and facts again. The libs won't answer you because they are painted in.
They will just post more outlandish lies and the ignorant will believe.
Obviously, the GOPeaParty (on Newsvine and elsewhere) is (again) attempting a goal-line stand replete with personal fouls.
Who says we should not run up the score?
America on Top
From the article above:
America is back, baby!
Big Time.
86 moderate Republicans in the House, have seen the light.
A re-elected House Speaker, who got 86 Republicans to follow him and told Grover and Eric to ‘stick-it’, has seen the light.
A Republican Governor, whose big heart and gut tells it like it is, has seen the light.
Charles Krauthammer, who commented that Obama was negotiating with "great skill, and ruthless skill, and success -- to fracture and basically shatter the Republican opposition,” has seen the light.
Yes my friends, the Middle Class flexed their might, flexed their strength in numbers, scratched and clawed and shouted at the top of their lungs, and took America back from the wealthy elite and the worst congress in recent history.
And just like we Democrats have been saying all along for two fricken years, it took the Republicans in the House of Representative to compromise in order for it all to happen.
America has officially moved to the center from BOTH sides of the aisle. This is where we belong. This is our nations “Happy Place”. This is how our consumer-driven economy prospers for ALL.
When our congress works together, good things happen for the American Middle Class; Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike. I’ve seen it and lived it in my lifetime.
So please, don’t shed a tear because the uber aristocrat’s ten year run has come to an end. In fact, I bet you right now, they are toasting and laughing and joking to each other and saying “I’m surprised we’ve gotten away with screwing the bastards this long”.
* * *
“There’s a phrase we live by in America: “In God We Trust”, it’s right there where Jesus would want it: on our money.”
Steven Colbert
Salud
Obama offered Boehner 1.2 trillion in spending cuts but Boehner said NO. Then went to plan B. Then quit.
Obama offered to Boehner. Got it.
Just another opportunity for the liberals to change the rules and screw us all over again, only to get away with blaming the republicans again...
What a heck of a sweet political machine the liberals have weaved for themselves...Right now anyway.
you do mean change the rules back as the present rule has been abused to many times and therefore does not function as it should. its time all these guys earned there money!
please note: that there have been 400 killed with guns since the newtown slaughter. time to get to work!
I am a Liberal Democrat.I would assume that there are still many Liberal Conservatives. We are mainly voters as ,I assume ,you are. We are as powerless as you are. It would be wonderful if we all could change even a minority of the rules.Even our Representatives can only modify not change rules.To detest a word without knowing its meaning is rather foolish,don't you agree? Liberals,in a political meaning come in all political parties. To have a hatred for some word without understanding it's meaning is,to put nicely ,foolish.
.
The unstated motto of the southern Republicans:
Destroy the union, and the South will rise again! Hurrah, the stars and bars!
.
The bigger the lie, the more people believe it...
The more you tell the lie, the more you believe it...
Both sides are to blame. It's easy to be an armchair quarterback, now if people would just actually do something constructive instead of whining and using dumb assed words like democRAT and work together like real Americans, we just might have a chance at getting something done.
Such a shame.
Looks like there are more angry, bitter, disillusioned, America hating Faux sNewzzzzz trolls prostituting themselves for the Rush and the Koch Brothers again.
The good thing is as America moves forward, they get smaller and smaller in the rear-view mirror.
Salud
left-
ROTFLMFAO!
Right on cue, you proved my point.
That was WAY to easy.
Later Troll-bot.
Go lick Hannity's boots.
Salud
Every single one of the politicians in Washington should be ashamed at themselves at the way the government is being run. They are asking us all to pay more for their utter mismanagement of the country. We the people didn't create the mess that we are all in. It is their doing since they are the ones that pass the laws, write the regulations, and enforce the policy. Unfortunately none of them deserves the honor of representing us in Washington. The Sheila Lee Jacksons, Nancy Pelosi's, Henry Ried's and Boehner's of the world all need to be replaced. Unfortunately the country for the foreseeable future is going to be in ruins, but maybe we can correct the damage and preserve something for our children.
No debt deal, no rise in the debt limit. Let the banksters, Wall Street people along with our federal government default!
Since the last round of negotiations went so well...maybe they should get Larry, Moe and Curly this time !
From a practical standpoint I don't see where it is in the White House's best interest to negotiate with republicans about the debt ceiling. Obama should not have the last time. If the debt ceiling is not raised and bad things happen Obama will have a new set of republicans to deal with. If nothing bad happens he is still in office. Showing moderation or being reasonable will not make the conservatives like or think any better of him than they do now. If he negotiates with them they will say he is weak. If he does not they will say he is unreasonable. The party has been taken over by the right wing and nothing any democrat does will be acceptable. They don't want the ceiling raised and that will work out fine one way or the other.
Here we go again. People in government win and people in the private sector pay.
The USA is in the final stage of economic collapse with $ 1 trillion annual budget deficits, this is the real fiscal cliff. Of course this means nothing to a nation that has rendered basic arithmetic politically incorrect and inconvenient to their govt dependant lifestyle. Post WW2 americans will learn that civilization is not an entitlement. To all those drunken sailor americans who thought they could just keep kicking the can to future generations, you are in for a big surprise. You are going to reap what you have sown and that will be true justice. Keep living it up on borrowed money, the end of the USA is now on the horizon. The national debt will be $ 17+ trillion in 2013 and 1+1 will still = 2. Here stands our union Mr. Webster " a nation of fools who can't add and subtract ".
Everyone notice how every single fiscal decision that has to be made in Washington turns into a huge fight due to the Democrats refusing the cut the spending that has caused yearly deficits in the trillions? This is what you left voters voted for! You got lied to and believed it! With Obama and the democrats at the helm of this country, we are rapidly reaching the same state of affairs Europe is in.
I am thoroughly convinced that Obama and Harry Reid are more like european style socialists than anything!
so those from the south-- who have almost no 1% 'ers-- voted against the deal which raises taxes only the 1%. And they salivated for-- and will certainly vote FOR ---a deal which cuts social programs--which those in the south LIVE OFF OF !!! They get 1.50 to 2 dollars back for every dollar they pay to the govt-- but will vote to gut those programs.What does this say? It says racism is alive and well (the old "dems love blacks." They believe it down there--Archie Bunkers to the nines) and it proves that poor school systems and low income (no unions) make them all --uhhh-- "low information voters" . Ignorant is another word that comes to mind.
They will a
Are you really that ignorant? The tax hike was actually on the top .7 percent. Is your world really divided between north and south? You must live a miserable life to believe the generalized stereotypes perpetuated in the media by the likes of you.
In case you didn't know, wealthy people are leaving liberal states like the next exodus! Where are they going? Places likes Texas, in the south, with a vibrant state economy, record low unemployment, with some of the best healthcare institutions in the world, and some of the top ranked school districts in the country.
Wait for it wait for it, here comes the comments about southern states like Texas being one of the highest welfare recipients without any regard to socioeconomics in a widely rural southern region of the US or the growing number of hispanics and illegals along the southern border.
Really? Vast majority of welfare recipients are white --in the south and elsewhere. And welfare isn't even a big driver of the debt--not when 65% of the budget is ss/medicaire/caid/defense and interest. But at least you admit that the red states suck money from the federal govt-- and us blue states. Then-- of course-- like most conservatives-- your mind shuts down and you can't face what that means. It means you keep voting in Repub tea party types who-- if they get their way-- will gut the federal money which you red staters live off of-- See -- I aint mad at that like you think. I honestly think that we bluers know unions and taxes-- helping others -- educating the poor. If we got a country of idiots, with no money to buy goods etc., then we all collapse. Something you guys never get.The point I make though is the one you see, but can't admit. You geniuses in the red states fight like heck for Repub Tea Party types whose professed goal is to kill the federal flow of money which you need to survive. Yep-- call me names..a liberal, commie socialist stupid moron. I dont care. The point is you can't admit the simple fact that you have been bamboozled-fooled by the money guys..yes, fooled with racism (southern strategy of Nixon) and scare words like "commie-socialists" Fooled, genius, but you can't admit it.
The genius above forgets about population comparisons, simpleton. Vast majoirty are white? That's another lie.
here are some facts for you to chew on:
"Blacks are indeed still the most numerous group on welfare, Pace NR, with 31.9 percent of recipients. Whites are right behind them at 31.8 percent."
"In 2000, the racial breakdown of welfare was: blacks 38.6 percent, whites 31.2 percent and Hispanics 25 percent."
"Though still disproportionally represented on the welfare rolls, black usage has gone down relatively during the last decade. But Hispanics’ usage has surged. Whites have remained remarkably consistent at around 31 percent of those on welfare."
so there are about equal number blacks to whites on welfare? (including unemployment) . Super. Now-- my point was ( before you guys who say you aren't racist, jumped to only talking about welfare--even though it is only 9% of the federal budget-- not counting unemployment as welfare. If you do it is 12 %) that the red states get back 1 1/2 to 2 dollars for every dollar they pay to the feds. You cannot deny that. The Blue States get back 50-90cents for every dollar they pay. Now-- You redders still vote in Repubs who want to take that money away from you--why? For the same reason you only want to talk about "welfare" scum here. It is your default thought..You have been duped into thinking that spending is wastefull cause it is going to the "welfare queens" You STILL believe that. Yet the truth is-- the Repubs want to kill ss/medicaire.aid and gut the programs you need-- cause that is where the money is in the budget. That is why you get sucked in to the "welfare" idea --and why it is still racist. You think you wont suffer under Repubs cause they will not give gifts to...blacks and mexicans on welfare. Admit it. That is what you want. But if it is only 9 % of the budget--what are you gonna save off the deficit by only going to welfare? Nothing. Stop trying to fool yourself by dressing up your hatred disgust with poor blacks, mexicans etc by thinking your represetnatives will help you by simply cutting welfare--- again. The Repub s you vote in want to cut spending on things you need--just look at the REpub budget under Ryan. it isn't the poor black/hispanic who gets dumped (though they will too) it is you, red stater. You who we in the blue states carry with our tax dollars.
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. - Thomas Jefferson
This is only going to work if the President stops isolating himself!! He needs to get in there and get his hands dirty. I have little faith in our House and Senate right now to do anything, there are no real leaders!