What Will Happen to the GOP?

When I was a young man each party had a right wing and a left wing: There were the Rockefeller Republicans and the Goldwater Republicans; the Dixiecrats and the Hubert Humphrey liberals. Compromise was possible back then as politicians were willing to talk to one another. It was said that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, and with time the GOP became the conservatives and the Democrats became the liberals. Today there are similarities with the British political system of the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. In both countries separate ideologies have led to polarization.

In the past six to eight years the Tea Party has grown and now controls the Republicans. They carried guns and signs to Town Hall meetings and said outrageous things about our President and the government. There was a time when conservatives like William F. Buckley would stand up to the John Birch Society and the KKK and tell them they were outside the mainstream; today Rush Limbaugh and Fox News promote extreme positions and no moderate Republican will stand-up to the right wing for fear of being primaried. Boehner condones their bad behavior and Romney pandered to them.

I don't see a strong, moderate GOP emerging. The Tea Party is unwilling to give up any of its power and with a vacuum of moderate leadership, the Tea Party will continue to primary any reasonable Republican who opposes them. Being unwilling to compromise on its policies, the Tea Party would rather lose in a general election than find common ground with members of their own party. This struggle for leadership and a split vision of the future is the core of the Republican civil war.

As a Progressive, I do not want to see the GOP engage in a circular firing squad. It is important for the country that we have two strong parties that can debate ideas and compromise. As Republicans begin to take rational positions, it puts pressure on Democrats to sharpen their thinking as well. When that happens, America wins, but I don't see that happening for some time.

President Obama’s legacy ultimately could be determined over the next few months by a series of
showdowns — over guns. Immigration. Climate change. Debt and spending. These are big issues that the two parties (and their presidents) have tangled with for decades and for which no easy solutions present themselves.

Solve them and Obama will write his name in the history books as one of the most influential presidents of the modern era. (Don’t forget he has already achieved a major overhaul of the nation’s health-care system.)

There’s little question of how Obama sees himself — particularly following his reelection victory in November. In a series of speeches since then, Obama has cast his proposals — on guns, the “fiscal cliff,” the sequester — as designed to help people achieve the American dream.

“It can feel like for a lot of young people that the future only extends to the next street corner or
the outskirts of town, that no matter how much you work or how hard you try, your destiny was determined the moment you were born,” Obama said, discussing his proposal to curb gun violence in a speech in Chicago this month.

Later, he added, “We all share a responsibility to move this country closer to our founding vision that no matter who you are or where you come from, here in America, you can decide your own destiny.”

Dire consequences of the Sequester:

The White House has released a breakdown showing how deep spending cuts (starting this week) would affect every state and every district. We just type in the name of our state to get the info: 51 fact sheets describe the next 7 months...should the Sequester take effect. It is indeed, a terrible picture.

""...the pain will be immediate and acute. Though furloughs of federal workers won't begin in earnest until April, notices could begin rolling out before the March 1 deadline. On Friday, cash-strapped governors and mayors will be notified of cuts to social-service grants and reductions in education funding that will impact the coming school year. And actual federal payouts will decline immediately for at least two programs: Emergency unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed and nutrition assistance for women, infants and children, known as WIC."We have a very diverse parade of horribles," said a top White House budget official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss implementation plans. "It's going to be all over the map . . . and it's going to hit both Democratic and Republican constituencies in a significant way.""

"It's true that the impact does "tend to get worse over time," the official said. "But the pain points are there."
Independent budget analysts agree that some high-profile agencies will be unable to avoid sharp cuts to critical services, including border patrols and airport security screenings."'"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/sequestration-state-impact/

Are we finally getting through? It's a serious question to the media. It's a serious question to republican presidential candidates.

Daily Kos:

David Gregory: Here are some statistics, state to state, Massachusetts to Louisiana that reflect kinda more services less taxes and the different results. Put that up there. You have a bigger population in Massachusetts. You see that there. The high school graduation rate much higher in Massachusetts. The median income about 20,000 higher. The percentage of population without healthcare insurance much higher in Louisiana. The percentage of the population on food stamps much higher in Louisiana. So does this, do results break a little along some of the ideological and philosophical lines about taxes and the amount of government services?

Gregory makes it a question even though his above mentioned facts prove Liberal policies that are humane and balanced intrinsically effect a better educated and more prosperous populace. Conversely, the touted Republican policies that have had free reign in Louisiana, a state blessed with an abundance of oil and other hydrocarbons, the Mississippi River, agriculture, and a large segment of the petrochemical industry, continue to lag in all metrics that matter to the middle class.

This is not an isolated comparison of one state to another. The ten poorest states in our country are Red States. Moreover, Red States are mostly welfare states as they receive more from the federal government than they pay in. That the media does not cover this fact is a disservice to the entire American population. If America knew what policies worked throughout the nation it would be impossible for the GOP to continue to hold middle class policies hostage to a failed ideology.

________________________________

Instead of the Republican Party continuing their revolving door of presidential candidates, perhaps someone should just visit them and present them with a gift - a 2013 calendar, with a photo of who our president is at the moment is. Because right now what we're seeing is one candidate after another drop from the coveted #1 spot for the 2016 election. They are dropping because instead of educating themselves, they are stuck in another time, another place.

Wouldn't it be easier if they just rethought things instead of parading one candidate out after another, only to be shot down by people who actually pay attention to their policies and hold them accountable.

GOP wants to make sure all its rich donors are on steroids, and Republican policies have made the poor live on life-support (in this recession).

Good one Beverly. LoL!

However, watching Barbra Streisand and Shirley Bassey perform made up for it.

Of the second-term issues where Obama’s legacy will be made (or not), immigration reform seems to be the one with the highest probability of a “big” solution — given that a bipartisan group of senators is working on a compromise proposal.

Even there, however, passage of a major piece of legislation will be a heavy lift.

Obama wants to go big. But he oversees a legislative and political process that seems forever bent toward incrementalism.

And, as much as his allies insist that Obama can do little about the alleged intransigence of Republicans in Congress, he will almost certainly need to find a way to bend the other party (or at least a few dozen members) to his political will if he wants to leave the sort of mark on the presidency — and the country — that he so clearly desires to do.

Hey, Beverly

They [McCain & Graham] both deserve Oscars.

Yeah..they are both Follies from Follywood, for sure. I hope they don't trip over their skirt when getting on stage to pick up their oscars.

They both deserve Oscars.

As does President Obama for his true to life portrayal of the last five years as "The Manchurian Candidate". He'll get that one for the next four years too.

The Sequester: Are You Ready?

“Unfortunately, many Republicans in Congress refuse to ask the wealthy to pay a little more by closing tax loopholes so that we can protect investments that are helping grow our economy and keep our country safe,” the reports say. “By not asking the wealthy to pay a little more, Republicans are forcing our children, seniors, troops, military families and the entire middle class to bear the burden of deficit reduction.”

The top lines: This year alone, across the country...
70,000 children would lose access to head start

2,100 fewer food inspections could occur

as many as 12,000 scientists and students would be hit by cuts to research and innovation

up to 373,000 mentally ill adults and children would go untreated

small businesses may see $900 million in reduced loan guarantees.
Security and law enforcement would also be hit

The White House estimates that the FBI could lose over 1,000 federal agents
customs

border patrol would effectively lose some 5,000 employees

both the Federal Aviation Administration and Transportation Security Administration would have to furlough most of their workers.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/white-house-state-by-state-sequester-harm.php

To see White House’s state-by-state reports (.pdf) of sequester damage.

Click on: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/02/21/balanced-plan-avert-sequester-and-reduce-deficit

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ummm. GOP you cannot blame the sequester on our President. 174 Republicans voted for it!!!

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the results will be cataclysmic. Every The CBO predicts a l.3 percent contraction of the economy during the six months after the sequester takes effect, which will catapult us back into recession.

The GOP wants to destroy the economy in hopes it would destroy Obama's legacy. In essence it will bite the GOP in its ass

Sequester This!!!

From the article above:

While both the Obama White House and congressional Republicans have warned about the dangers associated with these cuts, and have blamed one another for their creation, this weekend saw no new plans of compromise, no new meetings, and no real work as Congress stayed on its recess.

Courtesy of The New York Times

Answers to Questions on Capital’s Top Topic

By JONATHAN WEISMAN Published: February 21, 2013

Q. What is the origin of the sequester?

A. It emerged from the refusal of House Republicans to raise the debt ceiling in 2011 without significant deficit reduction. In response, the two parties agreed to the Budget Control Act, which cut domestic spending over the next 10 years by about $1 trillion. Democrats refused to agree to more cuts without additional revenue from taxes, and Republicans refused to agree to tax increases.

Instead, Congress set up a committee to find further deficit reduction. To push the committee to reach a deal, negotiators established a fallback mechanism meant to be so onerous it would never happen: $1.2 trillion in across-the-board, automatic cuts to both military and domestic programs, set to begin this year.

Q. Whose idea was it?

A. That is in dispute. Republicans say the White House came up with the idea. Democrats agree, to a point. But Democrats explain that the president proposed a mix of automatic tax increases and domestic cuts.

Republicans rejected that mix and said they would instead accept another idea they had traditionally opposed: military cuts. Regardless, the Budget Control Act, including the cuts, passed on a bipartisan vote that included almost all Republican leaders, and President Obama signed it.

* * *

Of course its President Obama’s sequester. He’s the only one in Washington man enough to bring down the deficit. Didn’t he offer Boehner 4.2 Trillion dollars in debt cutting, twice???

But Bourbon Boehner caved in to Grover Snortcrack and the Mad Hatter Tea Party again.

Yes we all know Republicans are great at running up the nation’s credit card bill on two wars, big Pharma, tax cuts for the rich, bailouts for the banks, and schmoozing the oil barons and war lobbyists only to default on our loan thus downgraded our credit rating in front of the whole world.

Republicans created the Government’s largest bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security. They LOST 8 billion dollars in cash in the Iraq war. They ran up the tab for all their “no bid contract” mobsters and then dumped it on the American people and President Obama.

They caused America to go over the Fiscal Cliff and now they bitch because Democrat President Barack Obama is the only one in Washington actually bringing down our national debt.

Spending and wasting Tax payers’ money like drunken sailors on shore leave in Tortuga (thanks to Captain Jack Sparrow) is exactly who the Republicans are. Bending over full-moon Gangnam Style to make all the Thurston’s Howell’s grotesquely wealthy is what they do best.

The next manufactured crises the Republicans, Rush and Faux sNewzzzzz will hype up is the Sequester Sequel on March 27^th when the remaining cuts go into effect, and as always, the Poor and Middle Class suffer while the Boehner Tea Party Madness continues.

We now interrupt this program to bring you the following message:

“Mr. Boehner, where are the jobs?”

Keith Olbermann

Salud

While there's a lot of poverty in the US It's still not enough to satisfy the republicans. Poverty, and punishment for the unemployed. That's what the republicans are about.

bev --rahm's kind of people -- louis farrakhan said yesterday -- "The Second Amendment has no relevance to the black community in this sense," he said. "All your weapons are illegal and you're using them like a savage people."

sure would not want anyone, like chic, coming to your town to upset this mentality.

Posturing & rhetoric- this is all we've come to expect from the democraps. Here we are with such serious cuts looming and it's business as usual. So far the only things that came out of this administration of spending addiction is for wars, ending wars while starting new ones, employing drones throughout the country mysteriously without any explanation to the taxpaying people, a horrible health care system, and cash for clunkers which was a joke. But the voters wanted more! Yea!

Well ya got it! Enjoy! Meanwhile how about the 1st lady on the Oscars last night! Nice dress- how much did that set us all back?

Simply a good start.

Congress has spent us into the corner and the most difficult and hardest hitting cuts are yet to come. It's about time that both side argue the devastation. Their wasteful spending and lack of fiscal responsibility is to blame. Now to move the cuts from 85B to over 800B. That will be a fun, but necessary ride.

Oh Boy here we go. This could be the hottest week in years. Tuesday, Hagel conformation. Will it happen finally? I'm betting yes. Lew also gets confirmed this week, Should be an easy one. BUT, HERE COMES THE THREE HEADED MONSTER. THE SEQUESTER ON FRIDAY. Run for your lives. Take to the hills. It's the end of the World. Who will buckle first? The President or the Republicans. Or will they let our Country sink like the Titanic. I'm betting on the Republicans folding. They've got far more to lose if the let the Country slip into another Recession. You know they'll get the blame. We could see the beginning of the end of the Republican Party. My,My, wouldn't that be a great lose. HA!

@pigotry......"Obama has already overhauled Healthcare".... really.... NOT.He pushed through a plan which has not taken effect and likely never will.

So far it would be like Maine voting to ban mosquitoes.... It sounds good but that is it

It makes you wonder what All of them would do if their jobs were on the line and they did not have the fat banking account.........

“DANGER AHEAD”

I'll try to keep this simple, so even the 'low information voters' will understand.

In EVERY INSTANCE where a government has significantly increased the paper money supply faster than the economy grows, it has led to significant Inflation after a lag of a few short years. Simply put, a doubling of the money supply will typically lead to a doubling of prices (100% Inflation).

The Federal Reserve has been dramatically increasing the money supply (M1) recently to finance the Deficits – It has increased M1 from about $1.4 Trillion a few years ago to about $2.5 Trillion now (a 79% increase). Massive Inflation is coming – SOON.

Of course, when it happens, politicians will 'blame' anything and everything except the true cause – their monetary policy.

Here's more detailed information for those interested - Quote on the subject from Wikipedia “Economists generally agree that high rates of inflation and hyperinflation are caused by an excessive growth of the money supply." - see the link below for information on how the money supply affects inflation;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism

Further Note – China is no longer buying our Debt – in fact, they have actually reduced their holdings of U.S. Debt by about $200 Billion in the last year or so because they don't want to be stuck holding debt that is quickly declining in value. For those technically inclined, I would recommend Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman's book “Money Mischief” - Chapter 8, entitled 'The Cause and Cure of Inflation' where he demonstrates numerous past examples (including in the United States) where there was a perfect correlation between big increases in the money supply and resulting inflation.

The headline describes the Obama Presidency to a tee.

Posters above should realize that people don't want to read a page full of comments. It's selfish to deprive others the opportunity to comment when you over-post.

And as someone who voted for Obama, I am disgusted that he is SELLING ACCESS to the President for $500,000 plus. I don't have $500K and I am AGAINST undermining democracy by putting it in the hands of BRIBERS!

What happened to his PRINCIPLES? Wasn't this president opposed to big money in govt? Why can't the average Joe who donates $25 have quarterly access to the president...

We don't count; we just get to post comments on forums.

Pat Boston-7793618

Good one Beverly. LoL!

However, watching Barbra Streisand and Shirley Bassey perform made up for it.

Indeed they were Pat

I love Barbara Streisand.

The entire Obama presidency has been all talk. Blame, excuses, and the race card are all that has worked for Obama. But the reason Obama fails is that his liberal supporters can't see the difference between talk and leadership, so they never hold him accountable.

I was very disappointed John McCain was not nominated for Best Actor

Beverly! LOL!

Surely McCain will win an Emmy for most frequent guest on Meet The Press. (What liberal media?)

Let's see now;

The estimated spending cut for 2013 is about $60 Billion.

The federal spending for this year is about $3.6 Trillion.

That's a cut of only about 1.6% - does anyone think that the federal government will be 'devastated' by a 1.6% cut in their bloated spending?

By the way - Federal spending for 2009 increased by $535 Billion (+18% over 2008), and even after the 'stimulus' spending supposedly ended 2 years ago, the Obama Administration has not cut spending back at all.

THINK PEOPLE - Do you REALLY think 'the sky is falling'?

Peek-A-Boo, The time has come to put Chips in the Republicans heads so we can control their Stupidity by Remote "Wink Wink" !!!

Sequester

The $85 Billion in cuts is 2.4% of the entire budget however since the cuts only apply to 36% of the budget (Defense & Discretionary) the $85 Billion becomes a 6.6% cut to those areas. In addition, just like any company there are fixed costs that cannot be cut. The focus will then be on the labor portion of the budget that will result in layoffs, furloughs and reduced services.

The end result will feel like about an 11% cut or the equivalent of a $390 Billion cut over the next year.

Sequester is NOT like a Government shutdown.

The sequester does NOT allow funds to be moved around.

Do not think that unessential operations can be shut down or cut back to fund essential operations according to the wording in the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Keen insight, you do have access to the president, and as a matter of fact it don't cost a cent. Go whitehouse.gov. and look around, there is a comment page that the president quite frequently answers the question posed. Oh, you voted for Obama and didn't know that. Right.

Bev - Why don't you worry about your hometown, Chicago. That the Democrats have destroyed, Forbes has it ranked as the 4th most miseralbe city! 120+ school closings, 400 million out of education to pay of the unions, murder capital of America, and your worried about someone else? The Democrats are trying to move thier plague nation wide, and Republicans are trying to stop them.

Ron Indiana:

Very neat and concise post on the state of our political system. However, it may be nothing more than conventional - but erroneous - wisdom that the two-party system has value, at least at this point in our history.

The Republican Party may once have been the bastion of conservative thought, but that doesn't seem to be true any longer. (I digress to point out spending was wildly out of control, when Republicans held all three branches of government from 2001-2007. There wasn't a shred of fiscal responsibility.) Even as Republicans were spending like drunks, they rolled out the carpet for extremists holding stunningly regressive positions. We see this today, as the G.O.P. panders to the alleged pro-lifers who are anything but pro-life. They are the home of the crazed gunner segment of firearms owners. They are attacking women's right on a massive scale. They welcome the Taliban segment of "Christianity" and so on.

As you point out, it is these groups that threaten mainstream Republicans. Now, there's an endangered species for you. Fact is, Democrats should be pushing their extremists out of the picture and welcoming refugees of the genuine conservative element of the Republican Party. After all, I don't know a single lefty who supports irresponsible government spending. That's one of those idiotic memes/mantras promoted by the puppet masters of the extreme right.

Democrats have a fantastic opportunity to marginalize both the extreme right and the extreme left. That should be the task right now. Let Republican extremists battle each other. Democrats must take the security and well-being of the entire nation as their primary responsibility.

You don't need two parties, when one of them is bent on the destruction of the United States. The G.O.P. was in full destruction mode in President Obama's first term, and they show every indication that is precisely where they will remain in his second term. To hell with them.

Amy B. Portland, ME "I was very disappointed John McCain was not nominated for Best Actor"

That award should go to Obama for his role in "The sky is falling".

ProFreedom-5130956

Well ya got it! Enjoy! Meanwhile how about the 1st lady on the Oscars last night! Nice dress- how much did that set us all back?

Best guess is $0.00. Either the Academy paid for it or a designer advertised himself gratis. It was probably cheaper than your shot.

FR:

Where was President Obama’s compromise offer?

Didn't he already make an offer that included both revenue increases and spending cuts? What the beltway media seems to think is a "compromise" is Obama simply caving in to all the extremist Republicans' demands and agree to a bill with zero revenue increases and budget cuts that are even worse than the sequester, with all the cuts falling on domestic programs and none on defense, as in the sequester.

As for Bob Woodward, why does anyone take him seriously anymore? After he went around on talk shows downplaying the Bush administration's scandal over blowing the cover of CIA agent Valerie Plame, it's been obvious that he's just another Republican shill. The only thing he ever did of merit was Water Gate, and that was forty some years ago.

Of COURSE the White House is moving the goal posts... They always do. Just a couple months ago they wanted new revenues in return for cuts... They called it their balanced approach... The republicans gave in on the tax increases (as they always do) and postponed the cuts for 60 days. Now the 60 days is up, it's time for the cuts, and once again the White House wants a "balanced approached" (which means a SECOND tax increase!).... These cuts that are to take place March 1st are to "balance" the tax increases put through 60 days ago.

Let's face it. This president does NOT bargain in good faith and simply cannot be trusted. He will go to the well again and again for more "balance" in the form of more tax increases now for promised cuts later.... And guess what? "Later" never comes!

Hey Pat...

Massachusetts is ranked 4th biggest welfare state...superseded by California and Maine, bastions of conservatism

http://www.golocalworcester.com/news/ma-named-4th-biggest-welfare-state/

Wow what a string of hardliners we got this morning!! You all sound like congress. No movement on any position that might interfer with your own personal likes and dislikes. And you wonder why congress can't come to a decision. Obama called for the sequester, that's been confirme by the media, now he wants to blame the GOP. Let Obama sit in his own hot water. He seems to be the problem on this now. The GOP would love to get the country moving again, but they don't own the Senate.

One has to wonder what Bob Woodward's motivation is when he talks about goalposts being moved. He neglects to tell what "game" was being played. Does he have a personal interest here?

In his op-ed piece Woodward states this:

His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story_1.html

So he agrees the President's balanced approach is right, but wants to focus on imaginary goalposts? Why? Seems like he's looking to direct a little attention his way.

"Pope Benedict XVI holds his final day as pope"

================

Still just find this to funny....the bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter, chief of the whole Church, and the Vicar of Christ on earth.....please leave your pager, laptop, robes and badge with your Manager before leaving the premise.

Who knew being "the Pope" was merely an employment contract?

Talk to the Hand

They both deserve Oscars.

As does President Obama for his true to life portrayal of the last five years as "The Manchurian Candidate". He'll get that one for the next four years too.

And you deserve the "Dodo" Award for making such an insane statement; Talk to the Hand.

The President's plan for sequestration is on the table. Another very smart and hard working Chicagoan , Gov Patrick Deval had to break it down like a fraction to a batty Republican on "Meet The Press"

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2013/02/patrick_on_meet_the_press_challenges_gop_on_sequestration

Where is the one from the GOP DRAMA QUEENS?

Houston! "What the beltway media seems to think is a "compromise" is Obama simply caving in to all the extremist Republicans' demands"

Let's see now;

Obama got his $600 Billion increase in taxes on the 'rich', and didn't have to cut spending at all.

Yup, that Obama sure is 'caving in to all this extremist Republican demands' isn't he?

Sequestration only represent the 2 % of the annual Government expenses, but Obama can't cut a dime, Reid already have 2 bills from Republicans hiding bellow his desk, however they demand more bills. According to Washington Post Sequestration was born in the White House even Democrats want to denytheir own child, shame of them. So, why Obama use the police and first responders to announce Obamalypse when those are paid for local ans state government , no federal government, scare tactic from the WH. The sky is falling , the sky is falling!!!!!!. The Oscar for the fictional movie goes to??????

You bet the GOP is at a disadvantage if sequestration has ill effects, they will take the bulk of the political heat. The pentagon will get a 40 Billion cut if it cost jobs they will have a hard time selling that cuts in the government is what is needed to fix our economy and provide job growth. Pretty hard to convince someone that loses their job or gets their hours cut that this was the good medicine you realy needed.

roy @ 1.36 -- very good. maybe we should refer to BO as Chicken Little? He doesn't seem to get enough of the scare tactics which is unbecoming of a president but appropriate for an imaginary character.

murder capital of America,

And yet another day of Geo parroting one of his favorite squawking points, that Chicago is the murder capital of America. Yesterday it was small business employs 80% of all workers. Odd, there isn't a statistic around that supports any of Geo's bogus claims, yet the troll just cant' stop himself from posting lie after lie.

FR:

Some of the Tea Party types and other conservatives are so frustrated by the inability of Washington to EVER cut spending, they’d take sequester over nothing.

Why is it that the media can't admit that spending HAS been cut already before the sequester took place. And why is it that the media cannot mention the fact that the ONLY reason there is a sequester is because sequester was the ransom Obama had to pay to get House Republicans to raise the debt ceiling and avert a global financial catastrophe in 2011?

It seems that the media cannot talk about anything that has transpired more than a week ago for fear of the public realizing there's been a pattern of bad Republican behavior for the past four years that's been responsible for the sluggish recovery and for potential future catastrophes either because of the sequester or yet another artificial debt ceiling crisis they've scheduled for later this year. The media just cannot let go of their False Equivalency narrative no matter what for fear of being accused of liberal bias.

geo-1957883

Bev - Why don't you worry about your hometown, Chicago. That the Democrats have destroyed, Forbes has it ranked as the 4th most miseralbe city! 120+ school closings, 400 million out of education to pay of the unions, murder capital of America, and your worried about someone else? The Democrats are trying to move thier plague nation wide, and Republicans are trying to stop them.

Well, if the Republicans did something about gun control, the President's J-O-B-S Act, and education, we wouldn't have that problem, now would we; geo?

BTW: where do you leave ? You seem to be very miserable.

red virginia,

[Reid already have 2 bills from Republicans hiding bellow his desk]

No he does not … those bills were from the 112^th Congress. The 113^th
House has not passed any bill to deal with the sequester … and why is that?

Bills do not carry over from one Congress to the next.

I was very disappointed John McCain was not nominated for Best Actor and that Lindsey Graham was not nominated for Best Supporting Actor.

They both deserve Oscars.

Oscar the grouch that is, they should get grouchies!

Allen - Omaha

.....please leave your pager, laptop, robes and badge with your Manager before leaving the premise.

Too funny, Allen.

Perhaps he is on his way to Corpus Christi for Spring Break!!!

Salud

How can one say Republican without getting Sick is just beyond me ???

KeenInsight, #1.24- EXCELLENT!!! You NAILED IT!

This whole Article just NAILS IT! Talk about AGAIN moving the goal post on "WE, THE LITTLE PEOPLE". And that is actually what he campaigned on the first time around with Michele Obama out there talking about how the bar keeps getting moved on People and how that just wasn'r cool to be doing. NO CREDIBILITY!

ROY WILSON-336103

Let's see now;

Obama got his $600 Billion increase in taxes on the 'rich', and didn't have to cut spending at all.

There were no budget cuts in the bill that was passed earlier because the legislation was about the Bush tax cuts, most of which were EXTENDED. Obama wanted the taxes to be raised only on incomes more than $250K, and settled for $450K as a COMPROMISE with Republicans. Why should there be budget cuts in a bill about not raising taxes? Only a RWNJ would expect budget cuts to be part of all legislation no matter what the actual subject of the bill is. The budget cuts came before that bill, and the deficit has decreased faster under Obama than at any other time since World War II:

http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/021213-644063-chart-should-embarrass-deficit-hawks.htm

CBO expects the deficit to shrink from 8.7% of GDP in fiscal 2011 to 5.3% in fiscal 2013 if the sequester takes effect and to 5.5% if it doesn't. Either way, the two-year deficit reduction — equal to 3.4% of the economy if automatic budget cuts are triggered and 3.2% if not — would stand far above any other fiscal tightening since World War II.

And if you think $450K is only 'rich' in quotes and not RICH in fact, then you need to manage your own finances better if that's the kind of money you're making and you're living paycheck to paycheck.

Backhouse.......terrific post.

Thanks to a cavalier attitude by the Bush administration following the 9/11/2001 attacks, when we were told to go shopping and not bother our pretty little heads, they had everything under control...sure they did. They made a lot of noise about getting Bin Laden, made some effort in Afghanistan and then turned to Iraq who had nothing to do with the attacks, sent forces overseas and put it on the national credit card in addition, giving tax cuts all around.

Their incompetence in handling the aftermath is now something we will be paying for in so many ways. As they huffed and puffed their way through 8 yrs of braggadocious bullying and bluster, here we are 12 yrs later poorer but no wiser at least not on the GOP/TP side of things. We have tremendous debt, we have lost thousands in battle, hundreds of thousands more in rehabilitation for the rest of our lives and their costs to consider and the GOP/TP just wants us to forget it all ever happened and the costs to evaporate or worse blame it on the present administration. We did irreparable harm to the Iraqi nation and its citizens, for which I don't think they'll thank us either.

But Bin Laden succeeded beyond his wildest evil dreams and the GOP/TP in their arrogance and recklessness are still trying to prove him wrong. The party of the self styled 'personal responsibility' are the biggest pikers ever known to man.

Wasn't this president opposed to big money in govt?

whoopsy daisy. In short no, he isnt/wasnt. But having the state run media in your pocket to rile up the low info's out there in an attempt at class warfare helps. its the sleight of hand from Obozo. Remember most Liberals on here, including our Esteemed Emperor Commodus Obama look to the PAST at Lenin for Insight.

"A Lie told often enough becomes the truth."

Why would anyone pay any attention to "Bob Woodward" these days. Man did pretty well with "Watergate", although since then, He's been so screwy with His propositions It makes one wonder if He wasn't just riding the back of "Carl Bernstein" then. From His book "The Maestro" up through today, Woodward has been hunting relevancy as a political pundant, while riding the mule backwards, and gwaddamn well never seems to see beyond the area under the tail. Man needs to dismount and shut up. Everyone, especially the mule, would appreciate it.

Bachhouse:

Aside from their diverging visions for the elite class, how does the impact of GOP's economic shock agenda for America differ from Bin Laden's?

Well, there is the flying planes into buildings thing. But now that the Republicans stand poised to gut the FAA and force the layoffs of air traffic controllers, who knows? They may achieve what Bin Laden did in a more roundabout manner.

I can't wait for the sequester. The fact that it is not even 85 billion but more like 44 billion this year is simply paltry. The 85 billion would have been for a full year and therefore the amounts get adjusted downward. But the only way for the sky to fall like Obama and the Democrats have been screaming is if that is their intention. These cuts don't happen overnight, they happen over time. Even transportation which has been out talking 4 hour wait times in airports had more of a budget increase for this year then the sequester will cut. So they are still spending more then last year, just like every other department. So when the sky doesn't fall, Democrats and especially Obama is going to look like a fool. When Republicans hand Obama more flexibility to target the cuts, are Democrats really going to oppose that move? Opposing it would be like saying that Democrats are only interested in making these paltry cuts as painful as possible for purely political reasons. Yeah, that should do wonders for the Democratic Party and Obama.

Let's see now;

Obama got his $600 Billion increase in taxes on the 'rich', and didn't have to cut spending at all.

Yup, that Obama sure is 'caving in to all this extremist Republican demands' isn't he?

Well Roy he out negoiated Republicans, he offered them a much much better deal right from the start, but they would have none of that, they were in their waterloo mode, and refused to compromise on that deal so in the end they got far less than they could have originally. They will get less again, and all the while they will take a political beating on top of it. A little compromise a few years ago would have served them well, they brought this all on themselves, the Republican controlled house now polls lower than a STD.

Feisty--you and Beverly and pigotry say nothing Original or Insightful, yet you rush to Defend Obama at every turn.

Do you also defend his selling White House access to Bribers at $500k+? As one poster told me, I can post on the White House forum, but my $25 won't get me an invite to a day at the White House. How effin democratic is that?

What happened to saving democracy from the Big Money Guys? From Plutocrats?

Caesar Augustus, suffering from DT's, writes:

"Remember most Liberals on here, including our Esteemed Emperor Commodus Obama look to the PAST at Lenin for Insight."

CA has forgotten that he fell back on one of his talking points recently, and was taken to task. He was chanting the "Obama is a socialist" mantra. So here came the challenge. Tell us what Socialism is? Tell us about this? Where do you suppose CA went for an explanation? Why to Vladimir Lenin of course.

He never did define socialism. Flyweight right-wingers can't. They just parrot their squawking points.

Class warfare, CA? That's the human condition and it has been documented throughout history. Grow up, boy.

Mac Forrester

Why would anyone pay any attention to "Bob Woodward" these days. Man did pretty well with "Watergate", although since then, He's been so screwy with His propositions It makes one wonder if He wasn't just riding the back of "Carl Bernstein" then.

I've read that Woodward and Bernstein have been on bad terms for years. I don't know if politics has anything to do with it, but Bernstein is relatively liberal and open about it while Woodward acts like a Republican trying unsuccessfully to fool people into thinking he's impartial. His big seller was "Bush at War," a puff piece about Bush's disastrous Iraq misadventure.

Dont_carry_it_all, #1.42- It certainly seems like Obama has decided that the goal posts of campaign 2007-2008, just like in the Article, as an example, have been moved and that's it's OKAY. (totally disregarding that HE is the one who moved them). He had a a HELL Presidency for 4 years, We the People were understanding and stuck with him AND THIS NOW WE GET? He didn't win by any kind of a big decisive margin or landslide. He won because of We the LITTLE PEOPLE who were so on-the-fence but willing to give him another try without all the pressure and determination from the Republicans to bring him to ruin and this is what he does, now of HIS OWN VOLITION? He clearly knew it was a problem back in 2007-2008 and he CHOOSES NOW to be part of the problem not part of the solution. Not only now turning his back on We, the LITTLE PEOPLE, but slapping us in the face, first, before doing so. NO EXCUSES-NO CREDIBILITY!

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

The end result will feel like about an 11% cut or the equivalent of a $390 Billion cut over the next year.

The White House is going to make sure we feel the like 99% cut , to blame evil Republican, this game will continue because this is about the midterm election 2014 and get the House back, regardless the consequences to us.

We were always going to have a big budget battle in March. It seems both sides have decided to just let the sequester roll into that battle, hoping to leverage it for blame and pressure against the other side.

At this point, our best hope is for a semi-permanent budget resolution that resolves all of the self-imposed crises at least until the next budget cycle in 2014.

red virginia,

The nonpartisan CBO agrees with the President and his cabinet

Amy

John McCain was beat out by Bob Dole as most frequent guest and Joe Biden came in number three on Meet the Press.

Rick-3416939

I can't wait for the sequester.

If you fly, you may have to do a whole lot of waiting in security lines at the airport, once the big bad government is forced to lay off TSA agent. But you can console yourself by thinking how all those extra hours of your life you waste standing in lines are helping to reduce the budget deficit.

So Bruce-308647.....

Do you believe wealthy folks should continue enjoying lower taxes than the majority of us via tax loopholes like shifting income to "capital gains"?

The (GOPeaParty) arguments for such unfairness have been heard, debunked, and rejected. We should remove such inequities from our tax code BEFORE we begin cutting essential programs to those who can least afford them.

@ Bev in Chicago

No worries. The president will make up for it, by winning another nobel peace prize for stabilizing Northern Africa and the Middle East.

I most wholeheartedly agree with David Walker, the Obama is a Socialist, Marxist, and Communist, is so old tired, and so damn silly it is pathetic. However if Republicans wish to continue to get their brains beat out politically they should just stick with that and continue to "Praise the Lard" - Rush Limbaugh.

@Byron Illiterate

So, if we subtract half a trillion from 1.3T then the last deficit should be around 800B. But it was still over 1T. So your numbers are malarkey to quote a VP, and it will only fall below the 1T mark in 2013 if the projected savings occur (you know the sequestration).

You don't need to accept "my" figures. You only need to know how to read :-

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

The numbers are as I stated. I am sorry, but you are only entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

Go read your own website dude. 2012, which still has a deficit of 1.3T is an estimate, as is 2013 when it is projected (under current law - the sequestration) to fall below 1T. Which, is still not a drop of half a trillion from 1.3T.

So, you cannot read or subtract.

He never did define socialism. Flyweight right-wingers can't. They just parrot their squawking points.

Class warfare, CA? That's the human condition and it has been documented throughout history. Grow up, boy.

Unlike powerhouse pompous arrogant @!$%#bags like David Walker, however the dictionary definition wouldnt be sufficient for Davide Walker. In fact anything i would say would be insufficient for the MENSA hack wannabe Davide. Classwarfare. I give you Obama...He wants a fair share of what? Bet you cant figure it out...back to the DDI think tank dumass.

Why to Vladimir Lenin of course.

why yes since he is the Father of modern day communism- socialism is just a stepping stone but you knew that right? Of course you did, you're super smart you tell everyone everyday your a @!$%#ing genius.

Hey David, here's your ass back.

Remember folks its all the rich and republicans fault.

I agree, the human condition of liberalism is a disease. The cure is education and work and ambition and dedication and fortitude...Virtues David lacks..

Davides' next act is to spell out his education accolades in an attempt to display is utter genius. Go on Davide, your adoring low info idiot friends await

Houston!

If you fly, you may have to do a whole lot of waiting in security lines at the airport, once the big bad government is forced to lay off TSA agent.

Rick is disapointed because his regular TSA "agent" won't be frisking him.

Salud

I most wholeheartedly agree with David Walker, the Obama is a Socialist, Marxist, and Communist, is so old tired, and so damn silly it is pathetic.

yep but calling Republicans obstructionists and faciscts isnt. Sorry Obama has this touchy feeling punishing success meme. Spreading the 'wealth', fair share, tax the rich, blah blah blah. I agree, Obama being a Socialist/Communist is so 20th century and a failed practice world over. Since he's your guy, its ok to rob Peter to Paul.

Caesar Disgustus

He never did define socialism. Flyweight right-wingers can't. They just parrot their squawking points.

Unlike powerhouse pompous arrogant @!$%#bags like David Walker, however the dictionary definition wouldnt be sufficient for Davide Walker.

In other words, Disgustus refuses to cite the definition of socialism because he KNOWS it doesn't apply to the people he hurls it at as an insult.

And why would I join a social action group that's been funded by rich white guys, the 1%, & Bankers & Corporations anyway? Are you effin kidding me?

I am left wing, a civil rights alum. I agreed with Obama when he said that we have to get BIG MONEY out of our DEMOCRACY! What happened to that? I supported him based on those principles he espoused. What happened to that?

Hey David, here's your ass back.

Ha sorry Caesar, but David's ass did not go anywhere, as your personal attack of him, and your rant about liberalism proved nothing.

The TSA budget will still be larger this year then it was last year even with the sequester. This is nothing but hype and scare tactics by liberals and Obama that don't want to cut any spending for fear the American people will realize the sky won't fall. The sequester this year will amount to roughly 44 billion out of a 3.54 trillion dollar Washington spending spree. The cuts happen over months not over night. No surprise that Obama and the Congressional Democrats think the entire country is as gullible as their liberal supporters who parrot the doom and gloom rather then question it.

Obama is going to come out of this looking like a fool. The sequester is is a cut in spending which equates to less than 1% of annual government spending. It will not be the end of the world. To the contrary actually. The confidence restored by this small token of fiscal responsibility will actually stimulate real economic growth. On the Monday after the sequester, the country will still be standing and Obama's fear mongering will have come back to bite him.

RedDevBS - Chicago had 506 murders making it the most of any city in America, therefore murder capital. Now you have a point with my false claim of 80%, the Small Business Administration, says in the last 17 years 65% of all new hires were to Small Business. My Bad. Now can you appoligize for being a Democrat? The crushers of the human spirit?

Roy Wilson -- Wasn't it Milton Friedman who called the Great Depression the "Great Contraction" and thought that the Fed failed in its duties to expand available monies?

Culus writes ...it's ok to rob Peter to Paul.

... the argument at the end of the day is who is Peter and who is Paul. That pendulum swings. Our resident genius of cheap slurs is landlocked and pretends to use "Greek Fire". There is no navy in his navel.

In other words, Disgustus refuses to cite the definition of socialism because he KNOWS it doesn't apply to the people he hurls it at as an insult.

to the contrary moron.

Ha sorry Caesar, but David's ass did not go anywhere, as your personal attack of him, and your rant about liberalism proved nothing.

more of the do as i say not as i do hypocrisy from you lefties...Guess David the dumazz's personal attacks are ok eh? Ok back to the Libsrus Klan hideout...time to plot some new 'strategy' eh 2.0?

Aside from their diverging visions for the elite class, how does the impact of GOP's economic shock agenda for America differ from Bin Laden's?

Backhouse, I think we can safely say that Bin Laden was a smart man. He timed his attack to coincide with a GOP takeover of American politics, and given that conservatives are ruled by fear, the GOP played right into his hands. Fear drives conservatives, and Bin Laden exploited that fear and used the GOP as puppets to drive the US into economic ruin. Thankfully, the majority of the country isn't fear driven, and while we were shocked by the attack, we finally came to our senses, and elected leadership that isn't fear based.

One other interesting GOP issue; when you live in fear, you are also the ultimate victim. Notice how the GOP for the past week+ have suddenly begun to play the victim card when it comes to sequestration? It's Obama, it's the democrats, it's everybody else's fault. That is the message coming from the GOP. Of course, they wrote, voted, and enacted sequestration, but apparently it was done against their will. Sounds similar to that fake rape vs. real rape argument the right-wingers love to talk about.

For more on the interesting study that conservative lives are dictated by fear, and ultimately victimization, enjoy this read.

http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2013/02/fear

Sequester does NOT mean CUT — it means SLOWED GROWTH IN SPENDING this is for all you low information voters who post here.

Hey Rhee -- It's very difficult to understand your post, a virtual MYSTERY. However, I will say We the People are not 'little". Are you confused?

Chicago had 506 murders making it the most of any city in America, therefore murder capital. Now you have a point with my false claim of 80%, the Small Business Administration, says in the last 17 years 65% of all new hires were to Small Business.

@Geo - and yet you can't provide one statistic to back your claim. Over and out, Chump.

ROY WILSON-336103

What's interesting is that even Keynes himself said that the quickest way to completely undermine a society was to "debauch its currency." That is exactly what we've been doing for decades now. What all the Modern Monetary Theorists failed to take into account was the corruptibility of government, which is precisely the argument against a fiat currency. Absolute power over the mechanisms of our economy has become a magnet for the corruptible.

King Fish,

John Boehner and the CBO disagree with you.

Sequester does NOT mean CUT

@King Fish - then why does Boehner call it a CUT?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dam/dailybeast/2013/02/19/Debt-Framework-Boehner.pdf

DingleB -- Or the corruptibility of and by PRIVATE INDUSTRY. That "trust the market to work anti-regulation attitude" led to the financial collapse in 2007-09.

Caesar Augustus:

All that claptrap, diversion, and deflection, and you still can't address the point. You accused others of hewing to Lenin's words. Then you turn around and do the same thing.

You are so far in over your head here, it's pathetic. You've evaded the class warfare meme. You can't define socialism. You're drowning, boy.

As far as a personal attack; you really are a flyweight, you not only parrot squawking points, you revel in them. As far as the DT's? Well, that's about the nicest construction I could put on your rants. Let me get to the point. You are abominably ignorant.

KeenInsight, #1.65- One more before I have to go off for the rest of the day and get some "LITTLE PEOPLE" stuff done. (OR ELSE, let me add, too!)

He truly seems to not get the concept that those $500,000 donors ARE NOT representative of what is really going on. How many of the Boards of these $500,000 Donors have Homeless People on them, or Minimum Wage Earners who actually have a say in anything? NONE! It's like this MoveOn.org, as just one example, I answered a survey one time and that turned me into supposedly being a Member and them purporting to "represent" me, as being a Member of theirs. (All "captured" for their own agenda and purposes that are not necessarily mine, but made out to look that way; and they've got the $500,000 and I DON'T but they then purport to be representative of me?) BULLSH!T TOXIC MIDDLEMEN who can make anything look like whatever they want on paper.

He also continues in "ignorance-is-bliss" mentality that has no concept of the old saying about not "throwing good money after BAD". IT DOES NOT WORK! Why is this coming up now? Because He just made the pitch to look like He's considering the LITTLE GUY by raising the minimum wage to $9.00? (THROWING GOOD MONEY AFTER BAD) Even though his out-of-touch Fantasyland Economist, Paul Krugman, immediately followed with "the spin" on that, for him.

Dont_carry_it_all, #1.92- No. I'm not confused. Sorry you don't understand. Is there a specific question you could ask me that might help you to understand? I'd be more than willing to take a crack at answering it, but I only have about 10 more minutes before I have to leave, until later. I'll check back :)

Spreading the 'wealth', fair share, tax the rich, blah blah blah. I agree, Obama being a Socialist/Communist is so 20th century and a failed practice world over. Since he's your guy, its ok to rob Peter to Paul.

Well here is one problem with your argument Caesar, the taxes on the rich have never been lower in anybody on this blogs lifetime. They are not even close to being robbed, chances are they pay a lower percentage of their income than you do, I know they pay a lower percentage than I do. Now you can launch into an explanation of capital gains and earned income and such, but the fact remains they make millions and pay less than 15% and a guy like me works his tail off to make 125 grand and pays much more. The electorate wants the rich to pay more, and republicans can call it anything thing they wish, Socialism, Marxism, Communism or whatever, however the fact is until republicans respond to the electorate they will continue to lose elections. Their (republicans) politics are failing them badly and hardworking Americans just don't feel like communists or whatever you want to insult them with by demanding that the wealthy pay a percentage of tax on their income closer to what they themselves do. They tried to sell the story that not taxing the rich would create jobs, and after winning big in 2010 on the promise of jobs. jobs, jobs, they did not create any jobs, they proved their own theory wrong, and the electorate is no longer buying what they keep trying to sell. That political ship has sailed on them, you don't have to believe me but you can believe the elections.

Funny as all...the MSM has perpetrated the same old scare tactics on the little sheeple. LOL

No one is losing their job! They just aren't getting a raise...

I, for one, wish that some would lose their job. Private sector have lost enough, time to be matched by the feds! CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!!!!

Re: Bob Woodward as a source for genesis of the "Sequester"

Woodward Quote......Well, on Larry King [Live on CNN], you said on the question, "Suppose we go to war and go into Iraq and there are no weapons of mass destruction," "I think the chance of that happening is about zero. There's just too much there.".......EndQuote

Woodward is a right leaning elitist who has been surreptitiously trying to undermine President Obama for the past 5 years.

Socialists generally argue that capitalism concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society that controls the means of production and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This creates a stratified society based on unequal social relations that fails to provide equal opportunities for every individual to maximise their potential,^[11] and does not utilise available technology and resources to their maximum potential in the interests of the public.^[12]

there is the philosophy. which aspect of Socialism would you like me to define?

There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism.

but perhaps the one below

Utopian socialism is a label ascribed to earlier socialists whose emphasis was on designing or imagining ideal forms of society. A utopian socialist is based on an idealist philosophy, where an ideal is envisioned and then worked towards, in contrast to Marxisms materialist methodology.

For Marxists, the development of capitalism in western Europe provided a material basis for the possibility of bringing about socialism because, according to the Communist Manifesto, "What the bourgeoisie produces above all is its own grave diggers",^[57] namely the working class, which must become conscious of the historical objectives set it by society.

or this

Modern democratic socialism is a broad political movement that seeks to propagate the ideals of socialism within the context of a democratic system. Many democratic socialists support social democracy as a temporary measure to reform the current system, but others support more revolutionary tactics to establish socialism. Conversely, modern social democracy emphasises a program of gradual legislative reform of capitalism in order to make it more equitable and humane, while the theoretical end goal of building a socialist society is either completely forgotten or redefined in a pro-capitalist way. The two movements are widely similar both in terminology and in ideology, although there are a few key differences.

The major difference between social democracy and democratic socialism is the object of their politics: contemporary social democrats support a welfare state and unemployment insurance as a means to "humanize" capitalism, whereas democratic socialists seek to replace capitalism with a socialist economic system, arguing that any attempt to "humanize" capitalism through regulations and welfare policies would distort the market and create economic contradictions.^[74]

Democratic socialism generally refers to any political movement that seeks to establish an economy based on economic democracy by and for the working class. Democratic socialists oppose democratic centralism and the revolutionary vanguard party of Leninism. Democratic socialism is difficult to define, and groups of scholars have radically different definitions for the term. Some definitions simply refer to all forms of socialism that follow an electoral, reformist or evolutionary path to socialism, rather than a revolutionary one.^[75]

the above one is great..coffee house convo LOL

or perhaps we can define leninism but yes Obama and the CCCP party seem to have adopted these philosphies for the 'benefit' of mankind.

That political ship has sailed on them, you don't have to believe me but you can believe the elections.

the alleged mandate. and the loss of voters for Imperator Obama and the fact that a third of the voting populous didnt vote. 2010 was a mandate too LOL eh? bet you beg to differ with that..hindsight is 20/20

can take no more,

While government spending increased over the last decade the actual size of government has been relatively stable both in the actual number of employees and as a percent of the population.
In fact we have fewer government employees than in the 80's with a huge drop as a percent of our population.

Number of Federal employees (excluding military)
YEAR [] Fed Emp (000) [] Population (000,000) [] % of Population
2010 [] 2,841 [] 309.3 [] 0.92% [&] Obama *
2009 [] 2,839 [] 307.0 [] 0.92% [&] Obama
2005 [] 2,702 [] 295.8 [] 0.91% [&] Bush
2001 [] 2,704 [] 285.1 [] 0.95% [&] Bush
1997 [] 2,787 [] 272.6 [] 1.02% [&] Clinton
1993 [] 3,014 [] 259.9 [] 1.16% [&] Clinton
1989 [] 3,124 [] 246.8 [] 1.27% [&] Bush
1985 [] 3,066 [] 237.9 [] 1.29% [&] Reagan
1981 [] 2,860 [] 229.5 [] 1.25% [&] Reagan
1976 [] 2,893 [] 219.8 [] 1.32% [&] Carter
*= Includes temp Census workers also the Last year data is available
http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

Dont_carry_it_all

Deregulation didn't cause the financial collapse. A government that continually props up mal-investment, lose monetary policy which greatly contributes to wealth inequality, and lack of an actual free market led to that collapse. Government intervention in the bond market contributed to that mess. If Fannie and Freddie weren't buying sub-prime mortgage securities, there likely wouldn't have been a much of a retail market for sub-prime loans. The fact that Wall Street was also engaged in such a risky activity speaks to the complete lack of consequence for that activity. If the financial industry were allowed to "fail" then we might have seen a little more restraint. Either way, it was a result of government perversion of market forces and lose monetary policies which created that mess.

RedDevBS - So The SBA facts are not enough? Just type on the computer, city with the most murders in America. What do you think will come up DUMBASS. The 10 with the highest murder-rate are Democrat stongholds as well, you know where the Democrats continue to keep African-Americans as dumb as they can! You probably went to school at one of them. 1). Flint Michigan 2). Detroit Michigan 3). New Orleans 4). St. Louis 5). Baltimore 6). Birmingham 7). Oakland 8). Baton Rouge 9). Cleveland (home of Obamaphone) 10). Memphis. All ran or should I say destroyed by Democrats.

Dont_carry_it_all, #1.97- Great post! EXACTLY!

I saw an Article the other day that the DOJ was continuing to destroy a Peanut Butter Manufacturer because of outbreaks of Salmonella. During the height of the Foreclosre Crisis the only show put on by the Senate was a bunch of puffed-up chested Senators reaming a Peanut Butter Factory Owner out because there had been an outbreak of Salmonella in Peanut Butter! (While Senator, "Oops-I-didn't-realize-that-this-slipped-in-loophole-was going-to-allow-CEOs-to-get-their-multi-million-dollar-bonuses" signed away in the next room and on the next "panel" (committee)!

The Article the other day definately alluded to it now being a big deal and the DOJ destroying them because the President realized that one of his Daughter's eats peanut butter sandwich's for lunch sometimes and could have been harmed for just simply eating a peanut butter sandwich. (Almost a little like the NRA ad using the Daughters as an example, No?) What about all the People whose lives and entire Families and Heritages were literally destroyed because they happened to have or decided to buy a home? Still puffed-up-chested cracking down on the Peanut Butter, though!

Once again, Republicans will end up looking like fools.

Now that the "low-information" voters decided to vote for Obama, the Republicans throw them under the bus. Republicans really think they have a messaging problem and will fix all this with the next election, with a new, fresh candidate (that no one wants once they meet them).

Next, the Teaparty will fracture the Republicans, leaving them in more of a minority position for a long time to come.

And to think, the Republicans were riding so high in 2010.

Golly Gee Geo, you claimed Chicago was the murder capital, yet I don't see them in your top 10 list. What happened? Did you prove yourself wrong?

By Golly Geo, the SBA claims that 50% of the private workforce is employed by small business, a far cry from your 80% claim of both private/government workers. Face it, you are loose with facts. But thanks for proving your own claims false.

The Gods are truly crazy, they have given Caesar A.... the ability to copy and paste. Like Godot, I await an original thought from the legionnaire.

Dennis,

You can't compare the number of Federal employees from the Carter Administration to today. Seriously, the work back then was much more labor intensive before computerization. I mean they were still using punch cards when Carter was in office! An much better comparison would be to the previous administration and you find a 2% INCREASE in the number if Federal employees to the Bush years. So while the rest of the nation has down-sized, government has grown.

MysteryRhee, apparently you only scanned the article about the peanut butter factory. The CEO and three others are indicted on 76 counts. NINE (9) people died because of salmonella-laced peanut butter; the DOJ has evidence that the CEO and three others in the company conspired to hide information and to ship the peanut-butter product they knew was tainted anyway. Your side demands justice for four Americans who were killed in a terrorist attack in Libya yet are perfectly willing to excuse a peanut butter factory which allegedly and willfully engaged in a salmonella-laced attack on unsuspecting consumers--many of those consumers are little children.

Caesar - the alleged mandate. and the loss of voters for Imperator Obama and the fact that a third of the voting populous didnt vote. 2010 was a mandate too LOL eh? bet you beg to differ with that..hindsight is 20/20

Well of course I beg to differ with that, if you say Obama lost voters I will say obviously republicans lost more then he did, you see Caesar the fact is Obama did win the oval office, democrats picked up seats in the senate and they picked up seats in the house as well. If not for gerrymandering and the fact that house reps do not compete in statewide elections they would have likely lost control of the house as well. If hindsight is 20/20 then republicans must realize that they lost on every front, the elections are a fact, it is not my take or spin on what happened, actual votes were counted and the people that voted, voted for democrats or against republicans, either way the republican's politics failed, now didn't they.

As far as 2010 being a mandate, if republicans had a mandate it was based on their mantra of jobs, jobs, jobs, but since they failed to produce any, and very publicly balked at any attempt the president made to produce jobs, they did him a great favor and took political ownership of the bad economy that was supposedly and historically the thing that would insure his loss. Their bad politics did wonders for the president, and democrats in general, they won, republicans lost. It did not work for them, it worked against them, so yes that political ship has sailed on them, I will stand by that comment, hell the electorate has got my back on that one.

TO: geo-1957883 who wrote:

"... The Democrats are trying to move thier plague nation wide, and Republicans are trying to stop them."

If the Republicans wanted to stop anything, why didn't they stop the Economy from collapsing in the first place, after all Republicans were the ones in charge but apparently didn't have a clue so that the entire United States Economy collapsed on Republicans' watch, just like we were hit by terrorists on Republicans' watch, Lied us Into War in Iraq, and Republicans darn near bankrupting every American Family, lost our homes, lost our jobs while Republicans pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into TARP programs to save the rich!

No, it's Republicans that need to be "stopped". Republicans are not even pretending that they're going to "fix" our Economy, just the opposite, Republicans are stalling our Economic Recovery.

Republicans double-crossed the American People for 12 years, non-stop, and have worked against the President of the United States for the past 4 years, which I consider to be treasonous, and Republicans want us to "trust" them! Trust them with what, all the same things Republicans already phucked up? No thanks.

You can't compare the number of Federal employees from the Carter Administration to today. Seriously, the work back then was much more labor intensive before computerization.

OMG - that is just hilarious. Now naturally, you would apply the same standard to private employment, right IQ22? Or are you going to claim that only the Federal Government used punch cards, and private business did something magical. Do you people think before you post? From your crack analysis, the private workforce must be massively bloated.

Go read your own website dude. 2012, which still has a deficit of 1.3T is an estimate, as is 2013 when it is projected (under current law - the sequestration) to fall below 1T. Which, is still not a drop of half a trillion from 1.3T.

Go read your own calendar, dude. It's 2013. Fiscal year 2012 ended in September of 2012.

Beyond that, it's difficult to add $44B to $901B and get more than a trillion. Unless, of course, you are a Republican.

Ok Forrest, i'll give you that. Obama won, no doubts there, however we have a (unfortunately) a two party system and Obama's win did not give him free reigns. Obama goes unchallenged in the media which is in his pocket. When the GOP does challenge him, he goes on the view or Oprah or whatever to get his populist agenda out.

I will stand by that comment, hell the electorate has got my back on that one.

for now. but the CCCP party's blame game will only go so far until the electorate realizes the GOP just isnt significant enough to hinder Obama and the CCCP... then what? how will one explain the ineffectiveness of that party? maybe it will be Global warming or the phases of the moon?

If the Republicans wanted to stop anything, why didn't they stop the Economy from collapsing in the first place, after all Republicans were the ones in charge but apparently didn't have a clue so that the entire United States Economy collapsed on Republicans' watch,

The Republicans held the Executive Branch while the Democrats held both branches of Congress. The Bush Administration was trying to increase regulation of Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae but were blocked by Dodd in the Senate and Frank in the House. Both Dodd and Frank were getting huge donations from the major mortgage lenders that polluted the system with toxic loans. All the major players in the financial meltdown were huge Democrat donors including Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and Countrywide.

Q22,

Sure just overlook all the additions to Government in recent years as demanded by Congress and even voters like the entire department of Homeland Security and many of the personnel added between 2005 and 2009 were the result of the Bush approving increases from Congressional bills. When the 2011 & 2012 numbers become available it will show, as we have seen in the monthly BLS reports, the number of Government employees will be about the same as they were in 2005, under President Bush.

or perhaps we can define leninism but yes Obama and the CCCP party seem to have adopted these philosphies for the 'benefit' of mankind.

When you say things like this, it is very obvious that you really don't understand what you are talking about. However, you are convinced you are so very clever. Your problem is that even if you can think of these clever things, it doesn't mean that reality cares.

Ok Forrest, i'll give you that. Obama won, no doubts there,

Thank you for giving us permission to realize that Obama won the election. You can be safely ignored. It is virtually guaranteed that you will never have anything worthwhile to ever add to any conversation.

@Don't_carry_it_all#1.87: Indeed, you're correct. Fact, both Milton Friedman, and John Maynard Keynes hold about the same view relative to breaking a depression. Friedman suggested dropping and strewing bags of money upon the general populace from helicopters, allowing them to spend the hell outta it. Keynes, on the other hand, suggested burying bags of money throughout the country, then paying the people to dig it up. Overwhelming government spending's what is required to break a depression. An overwhelming infrastructure spending stimulus by the Federal Government would quickly recover us from this dragging recession. Too gwaddamn many don't know a gwaddamn thing about currency balance, targeted inflation, progressive income tax, and transactional taxes and interest. Watch Roy Wilson and some of the other 2 Tum's come up with some short version of long bullsh^t, or vice versa, in response. Best regards

OMG - that is just hilarious. Now naturally, you would apply the same standard to private employment, right IQ22? Or are you going to claim that only the Federal Government used punch cards, and private business did something magical. Do you people think before you post? From your crack analysis, the private workforce must be massively bloated.

You don't get the private economy do you (or you have some moronic static view of it)? Of course there has been employment changes in the private sector. There always are. The difference is that the private sector innovations lead to new industries that didn't exist before. So, while there were fewer stenographers and punch card operators in the private business there was an explosion of jobs created in the computer industry. People who lost their jobs in the old system found new employment in the new businesses that were created by technological advances.

Government is different. Efficiencies tend to lead to smaller workforces unless government grows itself. Government has become bigger and more expensive under Obama..

Jody -- Thanks for putting the facts out there.

Mystery Rhee -- Are you suggesting they shouldn't be held accountable for harm and obstruction because they are a private enterprise? Again, your post doesn't make a lick of sense.

DingleB -- Perpetuating the lie Fannie and Freddie caused the financial meltdown? I suggest you and others read more. You write:

The fact that Wall Street was also engaged in such a risky activity speaks to the complete lack of consequence for that activity

Isn't that after the fact? How about a little PREVENTION? You failed to mention the Banks who are no longer acting like banks but instead have become "investing" behemoths.

Mac -- Well stated and spot on!

Only fools and someone like Ron beleive this is just one parties doing. Both sides have been doing thier best to buy the votes of those who do the least.

Dennis,

You are wrong.

The Obama government in 2011 is 2% higher than Bush's last year of 2008.

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/

Pink Elephant in the Room.

Obama and the Democrats are warning of economic catostrophic effects Friday. If it doesn't happen their credibility with the middle political voters will suffer. If they are correct, the Republican's will suffer. But I for one at least see the need to control spending.

Q22,

There was also a 2% growth from 2007 to 2008. Shame on Bush !!

Gee, I thought Osama Bin Laden tried to bring down the WTC back in 1993 with a truck bomb in the underground parking garage. While the President was Bill Clinton, a Democrat. My bad.

I guess the lesson here is the Terrorist known as Osama Bin Laden (now extinguished by Seal Team 6) didn't care who was running our country. He just wanted to destroy us. Why? Because the USA has the most influence over the world and if he could destroy the USA, it would enhance his stature.

Well, we all see what it got him. Nearly incommunicado for five years before being taken out. So please, don't use this thug, murder of innocents (both Democrats and Republicans) as a bully pulpit for your cause. He didn't like either party. Why? Because both parties are AMERICANS!

Caesar, what is the CCCP party? I don't know what that is.

[Caesar, what is the CCCP party? I don't know what that is.]

That's ok...neither does he, apparently.

There was also a 2% growth from 2007 to 2008. Shame on Bush !!

Yeah. What's your point?

Caesar, what is the CCCP party? I don't know what that is.

The old Soviet communist party. Don't they teach anything in schools these days?

The difference is that the private sector innovations lead to new industries that didn't exist before.

And you don't think this happens in government as well? Now who is showing ignorance?

Q22,

My point is that this should about trend and there is no serious or real trend

So please, don't use this thug, murder of innocents (both Democrats and Republicans) as a bully pulpit for your cause.

As I recall, the WTC bombing did not lead to Clinton declaring war, on say Somalia and then Yemen, all while screaming the boogeymen of those countries detonated the bombs AND have WMDs.

hey i blew my whistle and look who shows up...like i anticipated. its almost like re-runs of BJ and the Bear eh NEW YAWK....sure it is

Well Q22 please tell me then, as it's been a long time since I was school, what exactly does CCCP stand for.

Forrest - I think this describes it perfectly.

The Considerably Creamy Communist Party!

The C.C.C.P is a left wing political group who believe in a combination of Leninist-Marxism and Libertarian Socialism with the use of creamy Dairy products to implement their aims and keep the revolutionaries happy.

Struggling to gain popularity over the last few decades, this party is dedicated to the global spread of ice cream with equal rights and access for all.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=C.C.C.P

CCCP, you know the Russian letters that represent the former USSR...you're old enough to know...the modern day democrat party

Look, If we are really serious about long term correction of our economic problems we have to get serious about the greed of "Wall Street". Good example is China. The country can't sustain these one sided, warped trade shenanigans. Our economy is based on consumerism. Consumerism is based on the masses holding appropriate wealth to pay for things consumed that have been produced by working and earning wages to produce those consumables. This is totally out of balance at present. China's domestic share of consumer GDP runs at about 28% of their total GDP. About 79% of China's GDP is exports. About 68% of that export GDP is consumed in the US. This is great for wall street investors, but, It's killing the middle class, and has actually put US poverty on steroids. Doesn't take anyone with much arithmetical knowledge to know this is unsustainable. One way or the other this will change. We will either quickly come up with a new economy, indigenous to this nation, that can support us, or, we will impose tariffs sufficient to the differences we now suffer. I really have a problem with the democrats in this most vital area. Most simply won't even talk about it. Gwaddamn republicans defend it. Claim it's the best way. Feeds the greed you see. Many will argue; "Oh!, all business will then leave us". I don't think so, but, if they do, then let 'em get the hell on out. Less for new business to compete with.

@Dingle B: Your Libertarian "Austrian economics", or, more popularly called "the Austrian death machine" has been debunked longer than the time of wrinkles. Regards

Obama goes unchallenged in the media which is in his pocket. When the GOP does challenge him, he goes on the view or Oprah or whatever to get his populist agenda out. - Caesar

Geez Caesar, he had a whole media network knocking him 24/7/365 for four solid years, you have heard of Fox haven't you, what do mean the media is in his pocket, not to mention that the article above states that Bob Woodward, is all over him in the Washington Post, and they are acknowledging that here on FR. As far as Obama getting out his populist agenda, you can only do that if it is popular, and it is, that's exactly my point, the electorate is with him, the politics are in his favor, people want what he is selling. The republicans spouted their ideas non stop on Fox, but to no avail, don't act like they were muzzled, they had quite a venue, they had a campaign as well and it was quite well funded, they spent more than Obama did. You can't blame the media because the electorate wants what it wants, believe me they have been exposed to both sides points of view, the republicans are losing the political battle, and the party of personal responsibility should take responsibility, and quite blaming Obama and the media because the majority of the nation does not want what they want or cares for their politics. Both parties have full acces to the media, the media did not decide the election, the electorate did.

wow Forrest..Fox...compared to say CNN, ABC,CBS, NBC, MSDNC, etc...good job.

you're right, The GOP should take responsibilty for everything...including sequester and benghazi and Fast and Furious. again, the insignificant republican party and the Left still is unaccomplished in every form...BRAVO ZULU

We are waiting for Boehner's new sequester replacement bill!!! Time is running out. The U.S. economy and the American people are waiting.

What is being missed and never talked about to me is this...congress as a whole is our main problem. No matter what the republicans claim or the democrats for that matter, they are both to blame for the debt this nation has. Spending was their thing to do wisely...they never did nor will they ever do so the way they have our government running today. For the republicans to place all blame on Obama is a joke....The congress, both houses have a responsibility .... a job to do...neither side...but today mostly the republicans..want everything to go only their way... that is not how the government was set up to operate. It is suppose to be a government of the people and for the people..not one of the few for the few as the republicans are pushing today. Of course..neither party is really pushing for the people as a whole...most all members of congress are a part of that few...and protecting themselves is their main goal.

@Forrest Grump 2.0: CCCP? Who the hell came up with that? It's a collected archive of video compression filters for "Microsoft Windows". CCCP is a pun on the old Soviet Union. "Combined community codec pack". ?????????????????????????????

CCCP is the russian abreviation for "USSR". These latin symbols are identical to the cyrillic ones used in the Russian alphabet. CCCP is pronounced as: Soyuz Sovetskih Sosalistichiskih Republic

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cccp

CCCP is the spelling, in the Russian language, of the name of the former USSR. The USSR was a nation. It is NOT a political party.

Oh OK I guess should have known you are comparing the democratic party to the Communist Party in the USSR by calling them the CCCP. Well you miss my point and advice to republicans altogether, that is some damn silly stuff and the electorate does not buy it, republicans have spewed that silliness ad nausea and it failed, it is now political poison for the republicans to continue to insult the very people they need to vote for them, or to denigrate the president and the party that beat them. It's fine with me if republicans want to act like damn fools and spew that BS to no end, but then wonder why they are in the position they are in, I'm just telling you it is damn stupid politics, it's damned stupid civics, it's just damned stupid.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama is busy selling access to the WH

Chuck Todd on OFA Fundraising: ‘This Just Looks Bad’

OFA donors who give $500,000 get quarterly meetings with Obama

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
February 25, 2013 10:47 am

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd criticized Monday the new fundraising efforts of President Obama’s dark money group, Organizing for Action, calling a scheme for high donors to meet regularly with Obama “the definition of selling access.”

Todd was describing the quarterly meetings that will be enjoyed by OFA’s $500,000 donors, the New York Times reported over the weekend:

But those contributions will also translate into access, according to donors courted by the president’s aides. Next month, Organizing for Action will hold a “founders summit” at a hotel near the White House, where donors paying $50,000 each will mingle with Mr. Obama’s former campaign manager, Jim Messina, and Mr. Carson, who previously led the White House Office of Public Engagement.

Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House. Moreover, the new cash demands on Mr. Obama’s top donors and bundlers come as many of them are angling for appointments to administration jobs or ambassadorships.

“This just looks bad–it looks like the White House is selling access,” Todd said Monday. “It’s the definition of selling access. If you believe money has a strangle hold over the entire political system this is ceding the moral high ground.”

The perk was first reported by the Los Angeles Times earlier in February after a meeting between OFA leadership and top Los Angeles and Bay Area fundraisers for Obama’s reelection campaign.

OFA is a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) and therefore not required to disclose the identities of its donors, nor the amounts they give. In addition to major campaign donors, the organization’s leadership has been courting corporate donors.

This entry was posted in Democratic Donors, Video and tagged Chuck Todd, Jim Messina, OFA c4. Bookmark the permalink.

Go read your own calendar, dude. It's 2013. Fiscal year 2012 ended in September of 2012.

Beyond that, it's difficult to add $44B to $901B and get more than a trillion. Unless, of course, you are a Republican.

So why are you quoting a website that is out of date? So, using the actual deficit it is still above a trillion dollars. It is only estimated to fall below that by the CBO in 2013. And I'm the offical government figures and Obama has still not shaved half a trillion dollars off the deficit as you claim.

Revenues

Federal revenues will increase by roughly 25 percent between 2013 and 2015 under current law, CBO projects. That increase is expected to result from a rise in income because of the growing economy, from policy changes that are scheduled to take effect during that period, and from policy changes that have already taken effect but whose full impact on revenues will not be felt until after this year (such as the recent increase in tax rates on income above certain thresholds).

As a result of those factors, revenues are projected to grow from 15.8 percent of GDP in 2012 to 19.1 percent of GDP in 2015—compared with an average of 17.9 percent of GDP over the past 40 years. Under current law, revenues will remain at roughly 19 percent of GDP from 2015 through 2023, CBO estimates.

Outlays

In CBO’s baseline projections, federal spending rises over the next few years in dollar terms but falls relative to the size of the economy. During those years, the growth of spending will be restrained both by the strengthening economy (as spending for programs such as unemployment compensation drops) and by provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25). Although outlays are projected to decline from 22.8 percent of GDP in 2012 to 21.5 percent by 2017, they will still exceed their 40-year average of 21.0 percent. (Outlays peaked at 25.2 percent of GDP in 2009 but have fallen relative to GDP in the past few years.)

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects that, under current laws governing taxes and spending,economic activity will expand slowly in 2013 but will increase more rapidly in 2014. As measured by the change from the fourth quarter of the previous year, real(inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) is projected to increase by 1.4 percent this year and by 3.4 percent next year.

So, unless these growth estimates materialize and everything predicted comes true then yes the deficit may fall below $1T. However, considering that $60B was just allocated to cover Sandy relief, and other pork was added in, the continuing resolutions are likely to soften the sequester, and Europe is about to hit the crapper again (re: Italian elections), I think there's a pretty good chance that the deficit will hit $1T again.

Oh here's another one: The soda ban in NY. Coming soon, people will have their liberties violated to purchase a large sugary beverage.

I'm sure there's more technicalities to this but the point is, bottom line, that government is stepping in the way of freedom. This is supposed to go into effect next month and will be watched closely. So, this is a lib mayor imposing these restrictions on something as humble as American pie- and now someone else is telling you how much you, a taxpayer who earns a living, what you can/ cannot buy.

Think of it; they can get away with something as small as this, what's next? Guaranteed, this is only the beginning and you sho want 'Big Govt' are supporting the end of your own freedom.

My point is that this should about trend and there is no serious or real trend

My point is that even in a declining economy where unemployment has skyrocketed - Obama has managed to grow the government.

Things that make you go "hmm"

The Oscars have the first lady announce Argo as the winner last eve. Argo depicts a hostage rescue attempt in Iran. Isn't it interesting how they would have the first lady announce this movie as the winner while her husband dropped the ball on Benghazi. Hmmm. Interesting, and very strategically done.

As Hillary would say "What difference does it make!?" It doesn't if you don't know how to read between the lines.

David Walker

David Walker

Caesar Augustus:

..... You are abominably ignorant.

David I hope you dont order out pizza anytime soon. I think you have pissed off pizza boy

Pro Freedom -- Does the fact that NO ONE presenting knows the winner of any Oscar UNTIL the envelope is opened? Hmm?

Please go get help. You need it.

Caesar Augustus-

Ok Forrest, i'll give you that. Obama won, no doubts there, however we have a (unfortunately) a two party system and Obama's win did not give him free reigns. Obama goes unchallenged in the media which is in his pocket. When the GOP does challenge him, he goes on the view or Oprah or whatever to get his populist agenda out.

In no way is Obama asking for a free reign; if he was, he'd be slapping a carbon tax on every corporation, demanding that Obamacare be boosted with the nationalization of the health insurance industry, and calling for a 50% tax rate on the wealthiest Americans (a rate not seen since the days of, you guessed it, Ronald Reagan). What he is asking for right now is what Republicans would have died for in the 1950s.

I will stand by that comment, hell the electorate has got my back on that one.

for now. but the CCCP party's blame game will only go so far until the electorate realizes the GOP just isnt significant enough to hinder Obama and the CCCP... then what? how will one explain the ineffectiveness of that party? maybe it will be Global warming or the phases of the moon?

Ah; the old Democrats-are-closet-commies argument. Man, do I get tired of that. The electorate was not "duped" or "bribed" by the Democrats; they finally wised up to judge the GOP for who they really are; a bunch of right-wing bigots and evangelical terrorists domineered by a bunch of old rich white men worshiping their "god" Ronald Reagan. The GOP isn't your grandfather's party or even your father's party; hell, even Barry Goldwater wouldn't last 5 minutes in the current GOP. You and your fellow right-wing bastards think that the commie argument works on all Democrats; that once you call a Democrat a socialist, you've won the argument. Well I'm here to tear that concept to shreds. I am officially coming out as a socialist, a real socialist (and since most Republicans have no idea what a socialist is, my advice is to read the works of Marx and Engels). I am not an orthodox socialist, however, for I understand that pure socialism is as much a idealistic pipe-dream as pure laissez-faire capitalism. I am a European/Canadian socialist, one who believes that capitalism is the best system that we can currently come up with but that it must be tamed by a strong government lest it run out of control. Unlike you, I do not believe in pure -ism; I prefer a hybrid of the two to keep things stable. Let fire and brimstone come down to engulf me, and if not let your raving right-wing wolves tear me to shreds. I am ready, for I have Reason and Truth at my side.

@don't_carry_at_all - Ahh you're not getting it. Go grab your crayons so you can draw a picture of this so you can understand. Does the fact that people do know who the winner is going to be BEFOREHAND make it likely that the person set to deliver the news might also have privy to it? I need help? Yeah, I do, trying to explain the obvious to you pinheaded libs.

Can anyone answer a simple question:

Everyone agrees that the sequester cuts are BAD.

Why don't they just enact a law saying they are not going to happen ?

I know it would drive the Tea Party people nuts and Grover Norquist would go into a fit of apoplexy, but really, since the Republicans in the House created this mess, can't they just undo it ?

I believe they could dirp, they could do a lot of things, there may be just enough sensible republicans in the house to work with the Democrats to work something out, but Boehner is one sorry excuse for a Speaker of the House he is too weak to stand up to the Tea Party types in the house and is more worried about remaining the so called Speaker of the House even though it has proven over and again that he can not speak for his House. He won't even make a move now because he gets his clock cleaned every time he tries to negotiate anything, he is in way over his head. He can't lead his members and he can't or won't stand up to them, his legacy is that he will have presided over the worst and most unproductive Congress ever, bar none. But yeah if nothing else they could stall it for another couple of months, however that did not help them sort themselves out the first time. They own this mess, and they can't get around that no matter how long they take.

dirp

Can anyone answer a simple question:

Everyone agrees that the sequester cuts are BAD.

I know it would drive the Tea Party people nuts and Grover Norquist would go into a fit of apoplexy, but really, since the Republicans in the House created this mess, can't they just undo it ?

Everybody agrees that sequester is bad , this is why Jack Lou the WH executive chief propose this insanity to Obama and he took the proposal to Democrat head of Senate Harry Reid. The Republican House agree and Obama sign into law, to force to get an agreement to the Budget Cuts. You can get the facts from Washington Post there is an article of Bob Woodward where he explain how it happened, you need to get you fact straight. Because for Democrats and Obama we don't have an spending problem we have a problem of revenue ,they are focus in increase taxes and do cut senses, only in the military, but Republicans do not agree base on the unstopable increment that already reach 6 trillion of dollars in debt and the no intention to slow the pace.Since then all is kick the can down the road, the last time Republicans already allowed Obama increase taxes before the end of the year. The solution for sequestration for Obama is increase taxes again, to avoid sequestration, but in the agreement never was increase taxes, now Obama must cut spending. Now the White House is playing scare tactics and fear-monger and blaming Republicans for something he create in the first time.

Why don't they just enact a law saying they are not going to happen ?

Obama in said before , he won't sign any law to avoid sequestration, and in a Debate with Romney he say the sequestration won't happen, so where is his leadership in order to avoid it happens. Low information voters have bad memory this is why is so easy for the media mislead the facts.

Houston! "CBO expects the deficit to shrink from 8.7% of GDP in fiscal 2011 to 5.3% in fiscal 2013 if the sequester takes effect"

Gee, I wonder what the average Deficit as a % of GDP was under Bush? Let's see now - oh yes, it was only 2.06% of GDP.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Do you liberals think up these insults all by yourselves? Or do you get help making yourselves look like juveniles? Well at least you are able to amuse each other.

Pigotry unless you have a split personality I think you may have a clone on other threads like Feisty also.

Eventually it will get through to some on the right that their constant stonewalling through filibuster in the Senate and their refusal to negotiate and move forward in the House has made it necessary for the President to go directly to the American People to make his case.

It's called the Bully Pulpit. It is the act of our President taking it to the streets and speaking directly to the people of the country in such a way as to explain his position and why he believes his approach best addresses the needs of the American people. It is the act of a leader organizing the people from whom he draws his power and focusing their attention on exercising their patriotic duty in such a way as it achieves a goal that serves the interests of that group.

When Obama explains how we got into this mess the right wants to call that blaming. When Obama educates the electorate and leads them to vote in a specific way the right wants to call that pandering. The one thing that the Right consistently does get right is that Obama is a Community Organizer. As such, Obama has been successful at organizing a huge community of Americans and mobilizing them in a way that it entirely consistent with the best traditions of our American Democracy.

Through his leadership, Obama has won the trust of a majority of Americans. In this second term he will use that majority to bring out a vote in 2014 that will wash those who will not negotiate from the halls and replace them with representatives that are reflective of a new demographic as well as spirit in America. It's called American Politics. It moves slowly but unlike the Tea Party's House minority, it does move. Look at the numbers. They are moving in the President's (people's) direction.

Time to admit it Republicans....With help from the Karl Roves, Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world you eagerly jumped into bed with a group of fringe group radicals who have reduced what was once a great party to a group of knuckle dragging fools. If any politicians pandered to buy votes they were Republicans. (Read your platform.... deny global warming.... creationism funded and taught in public schools.... were these planks included to assure the votes of small businessmen? Were they included to assure the votes of college educated voters?) You have allowed your party to be drug to an extreme position that is not sustainable and now you have nothing to say.

campdog, terrific post. The GOP reaps what it has sown then wonders why it is stuck in quicksand.

It appears that Pig face has overdosed on pork rinds once again.

I honestly would like to see a Republican controlled Senate and see what happens when the Democrats don't like a cabinet pick. I'm willing to bet there will be talk of a filibuster. I guess that's why Harry Reid didn't want to get it tossed out. He understands, he may need it one day.

Campdog, at 2.5, you forgot to mention that all Obama has to do now is start telling Americans the truth instead of demagoguing with lies, and our country might start to head in the right direction. Obama is right now merely playing on the gullabilities of the sheep to believe everything he says, no matter how false and misleading it may be.

Obama is flat-out lying to the American people like no president ever has. The only reason he gets away with it is that so-called news networks of the mainstream media (nbc being a prominent one) fail to call him to the carpet like they did to other presidents. So until the media does its job of filtering accurate information to the people, this country will continue to go the way of our hypnotized sheep.

Think About it.....Good advice! Think about it and you will easily recall when the Republicans held the Senate because it wasn't that long ago. And when they did the Dems did not even come close to making use of the filibuster as it is being used today. This isn't about doing away with the filibuster because there is a legitimate use of the practice. Republicans leadership has manipulated the intent of the filibuster to bring the Senate to a stand still.

Realist17.... So you think Obama is just rabble rousing with lies and the overwhelming majority of Americans are just sheep who blindly follow. Odd.

How long have you been a Republican and how long has the Republican party promised an end to abortion and the re-institution of prayer in school? Last time I looked the Republican Party has had the votes to enact both into law. Why didn't they? They could have enacted legislation to take the same action as Obama has and they could have increased border security. They made the promise, they had the votes, they had the chance and yet they did absolutely nothing. For that matter, for all their talk about fiscal responsibility when was the last time a Republican Administration balanced a budget or left the White House in better financial shape than when they entered? You still voting Republican? And you call Democrats sheep?

Awww, c'mon, Campdog, it was used by the Democrats during the Bush administration. Look it up. I was just pointing out the short memories people have and why Harry Reid didn't push to do away with it. He knows it works well for the minority party as a way to be heard. I like the idea that the minority party has to be heard. It's what government is all about. To keep one party from controlling everything. I didn't like it when the Republicans controlled both the Presidency and Congress (does Afghanistan and Iraq remind you of anything) and I didn't like it when the Democrats were in control (does ACA remind you of anything). All I"m saying is the minor party has used the tools available to them when needed.

Think About it..... There are so many charts illustrating the Re-publican'srecord use of filibusters I don't know where to start. I have looked it up and teh numbers do not come close to supporting your position.

Think.... There is a use and there is a misuse or abuse of the practice. Most objective observers agree that the Republican Senate has used the filibuster not to provide time to muster votes but to thwart the will of the American people as enunciated in their election and re-election of Obama.

I

Maybe you should change your name from Pigotry to Sheepotry

Bahhh!

Hey, 1SGFitzsWife4ID

Pigotry unless you have a split personality

No, I am a PIG inside and out.

But I don't want to remain a nameless pig forever. I hope I can achieve fame by marrying famous people or even marrying a famous felon, such as Drew Peterson. Drew, I will wait for you until you are out in 38 years. I want my 15 minutes of fame. I plan to write him love letters when he finally settles down in his small cell in the big house. Pigotry is in love!!!!

"Give back seems to be a concept lost on republicans as they are the takers"

That might just be the dumbest statement on this site so far today, and that's saying a lot.

Raising taxes is taking, and that's the Democratic way. If the Democrats were givers they would not continue to take other peoples money, they would do work to actually fix the bloated government and make it efficient. Then they would have money that they could use to 'give back'. There is nothing honorable or responsible about redistributing wealth. It creates a generation of people supported by government that can't take care of themselves. Oh wait, that's what the president wants. The next Democrat voting base.

So, you have no interest in the country only yourself and your own wealth, you are the taker, not those in need. You suck as an American. I worked, I paid taxes and I understood it was for the good of the country to do so, what is wrong with you. Redistributed wealth started in 1980 with Saint Ronny, and that is what is the problem with you greedy SOB's today. I am going to repeat, you live in this country, you earn money from this country, and yet you don't want to pay your fair share, YOU are the taker.

Johntho, beautifully spoken.

Folks who are against social programs, might want to look at how the military is run.

Johntho,

Social Security and Medicare are the bedrock for any senior in our country in their retirement years.

Both are not part of the sequestration deal that Congress passed.

The GOP just use their threats to placate people like Interested Obsever.

Johntho, well said. Cheers for that reminder of good socialism, the public pension plan......from another who now sits back and enjoys retirement. Worked my entire life and never once complained about those payroll deductions toward my pension and health care. It is especially pleasant when the snow flies; I can sit inside and watch the socialist city snow-plow as it works its way to clear the street for the people; or when the refuse collector comes on Thursday. Tax dollars at work, making life in my town better for everyone.

Edit fail to my #8.5. I never resented the taxes I paid toward a strong country either; public education gave me opportunities I would never have had without it...pay it forward. Roads, bridges, paved streets, fire and police, garbage and recycle pickups...pay it forward. I have always looked at my share of taxes as the price for a civilized, strong and powerful United States. We are NOT overtaxed in this country, never have been. It seems too many conservatives view the value and strength of Country through the narrow prism of self rather than the prism of We the People, United together through taxes and individual hard work are what makes this country strong. All the millions or billions one individual has could not build a strong country.

And which democrat cleared the way for those funds to be used for other than SS payments. Now who would that be?

Johntho-

Social Security is the back bone of my retirement

I have to take issue with this. It was never supposed to be the "backbone of retirement" it was originally intended to be a supplement to retirement. I despise having to pay for something that (per my last SS "statement") I will be getting eleven dollars back for every thousand I pay in. That's not fair.

Jody-

I never resented the taxes I paid toward a strong country either; public education gave me opportunities I would never have had without it...pay it forward. Roads, bridges, paved streets, fire and police, garbage and recycle pickups...pay it forward. I have always looked at my share of taxes as the price for a civilized, strong and powerful United States

I don't take issue with these taxes at all, I use the roads, bridges, etc... My daughter now goes to public school. Yep I paid those taxes even while my daughter was going to the private school we paid tuition for.

1Sgt,

Your SS deductions are paying the SS for your grandparent, aunts and uncles each month.

When you retire, as a wife of a military person if I read your monker right, your family will have a federal pension that I am certainly willing to pay with my tax dollars.

I take issue with your statement that SS was never to be the backbone of retirement. When it was passed in the 40's most factory workers, farmers, shopkeepers did not have retirement accounts or pensions. Some might have had some savings, that was it. They depended on their family to take care of them fully in their old age.

Social Security is the safety net for many adult women who never worked but stayed at home in the fifities. Times change and today it is the basis for anyone's retirement planning. And it should be...

Jody, great post 8.6. I wish I had your gift of words. I guess that is why I get frustrated at some of our right wingers. They live here in the same country that I live in and enjoy the same benefits that I get and yet don't want to ante up anything for it. They are the takers. Those that need the help, for one reason or another, and get the help from taxes are not near the drain on the system that they are. Those on the right have forgotten where they came from. Most from the same public schools that we did, many went on to college on student loans guaranteed by our tax money, and when they get their degree and settle into a job making much more then if they went to work out of high school don't acknowledge the help they received along the way, nor do they want to pay their fair share to keep America strong and prosperous.

Zappas, stay on subject please. Your post has nothing to do with the fact our country is strong because we paid taxes to make it such.

My husband recently retired Northstar- even military has "retirement plans" my husband's is a high3 I believe, he paid into that too, kind of like a 401K. he also paid SS and medicare, so I guess that's a double dip. he pays taxes on his retirement. (so would that be a triple dip?)

I understand that our SS taxes pay for those that came before us, but I'm pretty sure it's because our government put it in the general fund instead of making it untouchable, that's not my fault. Savings were supposed to be the retirement and SS supplemented it.

They depended on their family to take care of them fully in their old age.

I find it really freeking sad that it's not this way anymore, when my Mother is too old to take care of herself my brother and I already have everything established for her to come live with one of us (her choice, even though she's resistant and saving to be put in an "old folks home") how selfish have we become that this is no longer done?

Social Security is the safety net for many adult women who never worked but stayed at home in the fifities.

I was always under the assumption this was based on their husband's SS after the husband dies? If I'm wrong please correct me.

Times change and today it is the basis for anyone's retirement planning. And it should be...

No it really shouldn't. Do you have children? I do, and I think it's completely not fair for them to fund my "retirement" that's even more selfish then those who don't want to be there for the people who gave birth to us, raised us, sacrificed for us. WE sacrifice for THEM, it shouldn't be the other way around.

Thanks Northstar, couldn't have said it better myself. While no one thinks that S.S. will be their entire retirement. Sometimes it is, the alternative is the poor house.

I sometimes wonder how many stories there are in this country like mine. I am a boomer, one of the frist. Born in Jan. 1946. My dad and mom was products of the depression. Dad quit high school in the 10th grade, money was short and he decided that was a way to help his family. It was before the war, but he ended up fighting in both the Pacific and Atlantic. Mom also quit school, she worked several odd jobs, with waitress being an example. To shorten the story, after the war dad went to work in one of the local cereal factories, was able with only a 10th grade education to not only support us, by then I had a brother. He was able to buy a house and a new car every three years. Mom worked but not for very long, her money went for our vacations and extra's. Like we had a TV before they become popular. We were the American dream.

Today, in a two parent household, I see both parents have to work. They work week to week, paycheck to pay check and have trouble making ends meet. These people are not takers. These people are hard working people. Some work more then one job. Should they have to do that in America? The only thing I see that has changed is Republicans have been in charge 20 of the last 32 years and are opposing every thing that might have a chance at fixing this country. They opt for the same things that have failed us Americans since 1980. People like Roy Wilson/1sgt, and others. Listen to millionaire talk show host telling them how bad it would be if they had to pay their fair share of taxes. Sad. What has happened to the American dream, or rather what become the obstruction to acheiving it?

That is kind of the difference 1SGt. It is not a sacrifice for anyone as they will eventually grow into it. Hopefully, if the republicans don't destroy it. I paid in, and now am on the receiving side. Without S.S. I surely would be in trouble. Life doesn't always go as planned. Bad decisions happen and so does illness. I was only able to save for about the last 20 years of my working time. Every time I would build up a savings something would happen. Ronald Reagan one time. Illness another. As a matter of fact my working career was cut short by illness. I thank FDR, and those that have extended S.S. every time I think of what my life would be like without it. You do understand we live in a country that has always taken care of our own, those that need help, should get help, we are far to rich a country to turn our back on those less fortunate then ourselves. Right? I am talking a hand up, not a hand out.

I agree for the most part Johntho, I started putting "a little away" every paycheck at age 14, I'm 37 now, and still have another 30 years to go. Yes bad things happen and yes I've had to dip into my savings every now and again over the years.

Grow into it? I will repeat these words. for every THOUSAND dollars I've paid in to SS, I will get ELEVEN dollars back (at age 65) SO let's say, like you an illness (which I am fighting now) or an accident means that tomorrow I can't work anymore. My savings will be what gets me through, not what my children are paying, nor should it. Yes we do live in a magnificent country, but we need to take responsibility for ourselves also. You saved for 20 years (obviously in a high risk area) me I put it in a savings account yes right now times are hard and I'm drawing right around 1% interest, but that will change.

btw Im not a @!$%#ing Republican and I take offense at you calling me one. I'm not sure what millionaire talk show host you speak of. I pay my fair share, I'm so far from being rich, I looked it up the other day, I'm middle class, excuse me that I worked hard to get where i am, excuse me that my husband gave up 26 years of his life "because someone had to" and guess what? He's not really retired, the military can still call him back if they need him for another 18 YEARS! OH and he works, in fact today he agreed to take a job that means he'll be driving to work to be there at 1700 till 0200 2 HOURS from home, yep he gets to drive home after.

You probably won't read this, but I am going to say it anyway. I didn't serve in the military, health issues again. However I could work and pay my taxes and that in turn paid for your husbands wages. I do not begrudge that. I also don't mind some of my money going to a teacher, police, fire, you get the idea. I also didn't mind paying into my parents retirement, and I don't mind you working and paying for me. It is your duty. I feel it is up to me to support those that do the work I can not, or will not do.

I wonder where you get the figure, $11 for every thousand, I don't believe that to be even close. As far as health issues, or an accident, that is what SSD is for, and rightfully so, we live in a country that is suppose to take care of those that for many reasons either physical or mental cannot take care of their selves.

I apologize for calling you a republican if you are not, but you certainly come across as one. There isn't much difference between what you believe in and what republicans stand for. Oh by the way, I worked 10 hour days, months on end and drove 500 miles to do it. ( - : Former over the road truck driver. Sometimes when I got where I was going I had to unload the truck. I know what work is. My hole point in this thread is I never minded giving back. That includes paying for things I don't believe in. However, I simply wrote it off as the cost of doing business. It is part of my duty to my country to help support it.