E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIncreasing polarization helps explain why we’re on our fifth -- and counting -- fiscal showdown… That said, GOP Rep. Scott Rigell (R-VA) joins Obama on his trip to Virginia to warn against the sequester cuts… Attention Bob Woodward: Cantor tells the New Yorker that it was their plan to let the 2012 election decide the spending/taxes debate… It’s NBC/WSJ poll day!!!... Second time the charm for Chuck Hagel? Senate to hold vote on his nomination around noon ET… Gun issue dominates today’s IL-2 special primary… Republicans vs. Republicans in Virginia… Chris Christie not invited to speak at CPAC… And Lone Star rising?
J. Scott Applewhite / AP
House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, responds to President Barack Obama's remarks to the nation's governors earlier today about how to fend off the impending automatic budget cuts, Monday, Feb. 25, 2013, on Capitol Hill.
*** Increasing polarization: This current political battle over the looming automatic budget cuts known as “sequester” has become the fifth fiscal showdown -- and counting -- between the Obama White House and congressional Republicans since 2011. Part of the reason for this conflict is due simply to divided government, with Democrats controlling the White House and Senate and with Republicans in charge of the House. (After all, it was divided government that produced the political showdowns of the late 1990s, as well as 2007-2008.) But there’s something else going on, too: increased political polarization in Congress, even in the U.S. Senate. According to National Journal’s 2012 vote ratings, for the third year a row, “no Republican member of the Senate had a more liberal voting record than any Democrat—just as no Democratic senator had a more conservative record than any Republican.” And in the House, only 10 Democrats had a more conservative score than the most liberal Republicans, while just five Republicans were more liberal than the most conservative House Democrat. In other words, there are few ideological crossovers (like liberal/moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats) anymore. Democrats are liberal; Republicans are conservatives; and there’s little ground in between. For over two decades, since National Journal started these rankings in 1982, it was the norm for there to be a handful of ideological crossovers in the Senate. Now, it’s the norm for there to be purity.
*** Rigell, it, just a little bit: All of that said, President Obama has a surprise guest when he travels to Newport News, VA -- a huge shipbuilding community -- to warn of the sequester cuts at 1:05 pm ET, especially as it relates to the defense industry: local Republican Congressman Scott Rigell (R-VA). Also in attendance will be Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Dem Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA). And today’s event won’t be the only bipartisan meeting. As NBC’s Mike Viqueira, Kasie Hunt, and Kelly O’Donnell report, GOP Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham will head to the White House this afternoon at 3:35 pm ET to discuss immigration with the president. But those examples are exceptions rather than the rule. By the way, there are NO talks scheduled before Friday’s sequester kicks in. Just a lot of media events designed to lay the groundwork for the negotiations in March. That said, don’t be surprised, if simply for appearances sake, there is a last minute meeting at the White House before Friday -- simply because both sides need to be seen as pretending to try to stop the sequester, even if there aren’t any serious proposals right now to do so.
*** Attention Bob Woodward: In his profile of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and the House GOP caucus, the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza has this scoop, especially as it relates to the current sequester fight: Cantor admitted he talked House Speaker John Boehner out of accepting Obama’s grand-bargain deal during the debt-ceiling battle of 2011. “Cantor told me that it was a ‘fair assessment’ that he talked Boehner out of accepting Obama’s deal,” Lizza writes. “He said he told Boehner that it would be better, instead, to take the issues of taxes and spending to the voters and ‘have it out’ with Democrats in the election.” Lizza adds: “The bet failed spectacularly. Just as Cantor had urged, Obama and Romney spent much of the campaign debating tax and spending policies that the House Republicans had foisted on the Romney-Ryan ticket. What’s more, by scuttling the 2011 Grand Bargain negotiations, Cantor, more than any other politician, helped create the series of fiscal crises that have gripped Washington since Election Day.” So this reporting -- which Boehner’s and Cantor’s offices dispute, saying that they walked away from the 2011 talks after Obama asked for more revenue -- begs the question: If Cantor and Republicans decided to let the election determine the spending/budget debate, why are revenues off the table for them, even after the fiscal-cliff deal?
*** NBC/WSJ poll day! How do Americans view the current political debate over the sequester? What are their impressions of President Obama and the Republican Party? What do they think about immigration and gun control? Beginning at 6:30 pm ET, we’ll have answers from our brand-new NBC/WSJ poll.
*** Second time a charm for Hagel? At noon ET, the U.S. Senate is expected to reconsider Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be President Obama’s defense secretary, according to a top Democratic Senate aide. If he gets 60 votes -- which he was unable to get earlier this month, becoming the first cabinet secretary pick to be successfully blocked by a filibuster -- final passage would occur either today or tomorrow. As we wrote on Friday, all signs are pointing to Hagel getting 60-plus votes. And here are the five lessons we’ve learned from the Hagel fight: 1) political betrayal is a worse sin than being a member of the opposing party; 2) getting 60 votes remains the standard in the Senate; 3) confirmation hearings, while maybe not decisive, do matter; 4) Benghazi has become a catch-all Republican fallback, with McCain and Lindsey Graham earlier saying they wanted more answers on the subject before they support moving Hagel’s nomination along; and 5) Hagel has been wounded by the entire process. Here’s a sixth point worth making, as we’ve done before: The extra week-plus that Republicans got after filibustering Hagel seems to have revealed only that a bogus group like Friends of Hamas never existed.
*** Gun issue dominates today’s IL-2 special primary: On this VERY busy day (sequester, poll, Hagel), there’s an additional story worth paying attention today -- the Democratic primary in the race to fill Jesse Jackson Jr.’s Chicago-area congressional seat. In this multi-candidate field, Cook County Chief Administrative Officer Robin Kelly appears to be the front-runner, thanks in large part to the issue of guns, especially after Newtown and the gun violence in Chicago. (See the TV ads here, here, and here.) As one of us wrote last week, this special primary has highlighted three points: One, the NRA has become anathema to many Democratic donors (hence the TV ads blasting Kelly’s opponents, like former Rep. Debbie Halvorson, for getting an “A” with NRA). Two, Michael Bloomberg’s organizations have become a countervailing force (see the $2 million-plus they’ve spent in this race). And three, do these things apply outside of urban areas like Chicago (that’s the big question moving forward after today if Kelly wins, and it’s something that Jessica Taylor of the Rothenberg Political Report questions). Polls close at 8:00 pm ET.
*** Republicans vs. Republicans in Virginia: The state of Virginia is in today’s political news beyond President Obama’s trip to Newport News, VA today. For starters, conservative pundit Erick Erickson is heavily criticizing Virginia Bob McDonnell for raising taxes in the state’s bipartisan transportation deal. “On Friday, March 15, 2013, at 8:00 a.m. Bob McDonnell will go to CPAC and address the Faith & Freedom Coalition Prayer Breakfast. For those of you who attend this event, you will be sitting staring at a liar,” Erickson writes. By the way, McDonnell will be on MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown” today. In addition, Politico’s Martin writes that GOP business leaders aren’t all that pleased with Republican gubernatorial nominee Ken Cuccinelli. “Two prominent northern Virginia business leaders got into a heated exchange with Virginia Republican gubernatorial hopeful Ken Cuccinelli in front of a few hundred top GOP donors at a closed-door meeting Friday.” These two stories highlight the current fight within the GOP between the pragmatic conservatives and the ideologues.
*** Christie not invited to CPAC: We mentioned this last week, and it’s getting more pickup after another First Read piece noted it: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie wasn’t invited to speak at CPAC.
*** Lone Star rising? And finally at 11:00 am ET, a group of top field strategists who worked for the Obama campaign will hold a conference call announcing the effort -- called Battleground Texas -- to try to turn the Lone Star purple in future years. (San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro will be on this call.) As Politico wrote last month, the organization “plans to engage the state’s rapidly growing Latino population, as well as African-American voters and other Democratic-leaning constituencies that have been underrepresented at the ballot box in recent cycles. Two sources said the contemplated budget would run into the tens of millions of dollars over several years - a project Democrats hope has enough heft to help turn what has long been an electoral pipe dream into reality.”
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
Leave a Comment:
Chicken Little president
The sky is falling!
The sky is falling!
The sky is falling!
The sky is falling!
Tracy, it's all PR. Recall the last time Congress was holding the budget hostage? I believe the Republicans were screaming bloody murder.
Both parties are positioning themselves for effect and awe. But don't doubt for a second this ransom is the repeated creation of the Republican party.
No the sky is not falling but the stock market is. Unless, of course, you are in Russia then the sky did fall.
sies the dow went up another 150 points just yesterday...
I don't know what universe you are living in but the Dow DROPPED 217 pts yesterday. It has gained back 60+ today.
Dow up to 14355 as of 10:30 today, up 25 points from yesterday's net gain of 153.6 points. -forbesbusinessdaily
Are you looking at the US, better check again, it was down 217 Monday, we are talking this year right.
Tracy,
Unless you or your spouse are staring a furlough straight in the eyes you really are not in a position to be making the kind of statement you made.
The sequester is a catalyst. You are looking at 85 billion in cuts and saying it is a tempest in a teapot. It isn't. It is a sign that the era of "more debt no matter what the cost" is over, and there are going to be large-scale economic impacts in the US.
siestasis, I'm reading off the forbesbusinessdaily site from today and yesterday. The dow dropped 2 days ago, not yesterday.
Markets aren't open on Sunday... try again...
Oh my apologies, can you not infer I meant saturday? Sheesh nitpicking over nothing...
Markets are not open on Saturday either. You evidently are not invested in the market or you would know these things.
I agree that there is "bloat" in the DOD. But the politicians are going to hurt the very people they depend on. My son is in Special Forces and getting ready to go on a mission but they have had their training budget cut. The Army Brigade Combat Teams are having their training budgets cut so when they go to Afghanistan, there will be a lot of green troops. Were not talking about $400 toilet seats here. We are talking about people's lives. Both sides are acting like spoiled brats. The President is throwing a temper tantrum. The Republicans are protecting their friends selling the government the $400 toilet seats. When the Taliban and the Muslim Brotherhood take over, the President and the Congress will be paraded down Pensylvania Avenue as heroes.
Why does everyone think it is OK to do nothing about the sequester until mid-March? It's not. Thousands of people will lose their jobs for no reason. The economy will be harmed for no reason. This is all happening because congress people refuse to actually do the work of congress, i.e., make proposals, hammer out compromises, find a way to reach agreements that help the people and the country. Forget your g.d. ideological purity for minute and do some real work to help your constituents and the USA.
you mean the senate has done nothing. the house has passed several bills dealing with this that Harry Reid has refused to vote on or even debate.
Democrats are the party of DO NOTHINGS and Harry Reid is the leader in the Senate.
While it may be a shame to you that some federal government employees lose their jobs, it's long overdue. Cutting the federal government employees by 50% is quite feasible and should become a goal. The government is going to have to work smarter and more cost effectively, just like industry and the states have already done!
Don't forget tax paying Americans.
Democrats are the party of DO NOTHINGS and Harry Reid is the leader in the Senate.
Tracy, it's all PR. Recall the last time Congress was holding the budget hostage? I believe the Republicans were screaming bloody murder.
Both parties are positioning themselves for effect and awe. But don't doubt for a second this ransom is the repeated creation of the Republican party.
tracy, make all facts available please exactly what democrat votes did boehner even attempt to get? Any legislation which doesn't piss off both the teas and pelosi's inner circle is bad legislation. that's historical truth. Boehner hasn't compromised and it's not reid's job to fall on his sword and send back a compromised bill which boehner will never allow to pass! that's what happened in 2010 and it's not worth the effort just to placate themselves on false hopes. Neither party has been entirely graceful during this administration, but I'm sorry the GOP has shed enough of the people's blood in this mess.
It doesn't help if one side or the other does it. If you propose a bill that you know only your party can support, you haven't done any work. You've just put out a position paper. People from both sides have to work together to come up with something that can pass both houses and get us out of this mess. Look, getting the economy out of recession is a hard enough problem. We don't need congress throwing in a monkey wrench every few months with threatened shut-downs and across the board (stupid) cuts to the federal government rather than the cuts that are actually needed.
Joe, THANK YOU!
Oh contraire Joe... in the past, conservatives have "compromised us" into the sorry state we're in. Always agreeing to more spending if their constituents benefit. If compromise means more spending then screw compromise... When the debt ceiling comes due we should not raise it and go back to spending only what we bring in.... Let Oblunder learn to prioritize... it'll be a new experience for him, actually working....
Fed, it's compromise if they admit what cuts they want instead of trying to pawn off the entire blame for a shrunken economy due to those cuts on the democrats. That's where your oh so righteous GOP has fallen so far. I used to vote for them when I was in my 20s. Now I'm independent through and through because the GOP has no honor left.
Democrats are the party of DO NOTHINGS and Harry Reid is the leader in the Senate.
If you feel the Democrat party is the party of DO NOTHINGS, include this in your postings.
Tracy: Because we think, we won't!
Exactly, that's Harry Reid's mantra... "we won't".... because he knows that he'll put Dems on the spot, he won't let anything passed in the House even come up for discussion, much less a vote... talk about Obstructionist.... can't have those Libtards on the record next election.... why do you think Oblunder's budget got zero votes?
Fed up, bills passed bipartisanly in the house come up for a vote all the time. Now, exactly which of boehner's budgets got even 20 democrat votes? I'll give you a hint it's less than 1.
Wow, the left seems mathematically challenged. It really is simple math.
In 2012 the US spent 220 billion to service it's debt. The CBO just put out a report that expects that amount to double from interest increases alone. That is assumming we do not add another penny to the debt going forward. The "cuts" of 85 billion don't even bring us under what we spent in 2012, so IT IS NOT A CUT.
It's simple math:
220 > 85
If 85 billion is going to sink the economy, what about 220 billion?
It's simple math. For the mathematically challenged left:
220 > 85
I don't expect that any of the left has actually researched what will happen if this deficit spending stays at the same level going forward. The CBO has already outlined this, but the left has a very hard time comprehending reports written for adults. Basically, in the next decade debt service will be at over 1 trillion dollars per year.
Once again for the mathematically challenged left:
1,000 >> 85
That's the path we are on. Only an idiot would say this is a sound economic path.
And yet our President has cut spending. Lets cut some more. How about all those subsidy's? How about Congressman's pay? How about about eliminating tax loopholes?
What tax loopholes? You mean the 1.5 billion Hollywood gets? You mean the pay for senators who have not produced a budget in 4 + years?
Democrats are the party of DO NOTHINGS and Harry Reid is the leader in the Senate.
How about slice the DOD in half, tarriff china, cut congressional pay in half, cut away the gold plated healthcare for 1 term of service, cut away all the oil subsidies, open a lawsuit on gwb, cheney, and haliburton because we all know exactly who walked away with the cash on THAT stimulus, and bush is not brilliant enough to cover his tracks. When we get that corrupt portion of industry under control, we can finally tackle wall street, reinstate glass steagal, reregulate the central banks, force the downsizing of all the too big to fail banks which they already agreed to and have not put any effort into doing by the way, and then after all that there's still redundancies in federal services which need nixxing, and then a 2% cut across the board because let's be honest there is that much waste per program minimum.
Anyone care to disagree? Note please substantiate your opinion with facts not from ANY news source, but from actual documents of spending and economic pattern.
And get rid of the lifetime pension for a congressman who only needs to serve one term
Yup :)
When I found out that some of these losers only serve one term (2 years and then their constituents realize they make a big mistake voting them in) and they get a lifetime pension. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house, H*ll no wonder we have no hens left or money.
While many "people" attempt to counter "extremism" with the polar opposite of the other "extreme", some people get wrapped up in said extreme position.
"People" should realize that negotiations don't have to be about starting as far from the other "parties" view as possible in order to arrive at a position as close to your own as possible. It is not, or shouldn't be, about I give an inch then you give an inch. Negotiations should be more involved and complicated than that. Unfortunately, people are...well, people.
While many people get lost in the mix and hyperbole, when you get down to it most people fall in a (healthy) middle ground.
Compromise
President Obama: Here is my plan what do you think?
Republicans: We like many parts of your plan but would like to incorporate these ideas.
President Obama: So you don't want to compromise.
This is how it has been for 4 years, I don't think President Obama knows what the definition of compromise is.
Democrats are the party of DO NOTHINGS and Harry Reid is the leader in the Senate.
Tracy, it's all PR. Recall the last time Congress was holding the budget hostage? I believe the Republicans were screaming bloody murder.
Both parties are positioning themselves for effect and awe. But don't doubt for a second this ransom is the repeated creation of the Republican party.
The is no budget.
Democrats are the party of DO NOTHINGS and Harry Reid is the leader in the Senate.
tracy I call B.S. you need to review the bill history from December 2010.
President Obama: Here is my plan what do you think?
Republicans: It's a socialist piece of krap and we won't have anything to do with it.
President Obama: What if we include some of your ideas from past legislation that didn't make it into law?
Republicans: Ok. Let's add this and that and this and more of that?
President Obama: In the interest of compromise, I can live with those terms. Let's do it.
Republicans: It's a socialist piece of krap and we won't have anything to do with it. When will you begin to compromise?
This is how it has been for 4+ years, I don't think the republicans know what the definition of compromise is.
Republicans are the party of DO NOTHINGS and OBSTRUCTION and Boehner is powerless to overcome the Tea Party wackos who want a nation of poor and wealthy without a middle class.
Just making it up as you go, eh? Where's Harry the Barrier's budget?
the one from 2010 is still on boehner's desk, or maybe in his trashbin. Either way it's still there.
Didn't take long for Fiesty and the rest of the Hitler youth to bail on this discussion....Typical lib...stir the pot.....and then run and hide when you have no legitimate argument......
This was the Empty Suit's doing...he signed the bill...he's getting what he wants...why all the whining from the left???
Empty Suit obama....All Hat....No Cattle....
Jesus! Their were Hitler youth on the site? Oh, wait, you were making non sequiturs.
When you remove all the silly little labels from your prancing msg:
"...Fiesty...this discussion..." that'd be about it. Great substance, wb52 (and that would be sarcasm)
No..just identifying a typical liberal pattern.....(and that's not sarcasm)
Geo4444: Good point. But it's probably lost under all the caterwauling by the rwnjs that are attempting to take over this site. They've got nothing so they drown out the voices of reason with bullspit. That bubble they're in is made of transparisteel.
Totally drowned out by the squealing of the Obamabot deadbeat parasites methinks...
I wish Boehner would get rid of Cantor.
he can't get rid of Cantor, Cantor pulls Boehner's puppet strings for the Tea Party.
if boehner had an ounce of honor and a spine he'd kick the tea party to the curb and actually work to get a respectable minority of 30 democrat votes on a budget bill. I'd prefer 50 but you have to start somewhere.
I wish they would get rid of each other.
Grandpa, I entirely agree. Vote independent or don't vote. You're merely perpetuating the problem. 3 party minimum! The two-party system is a failure and even George Washington himself predicted it would end like this.
Would like no party system. Vote for the man. We have 3 party's one is the tea party. They need to go. Independent Party is not Germain.
The GOP/Teabeggers have no intention of ever 'compromising' with the President. The "Teabegger Caucus Conspiracy" of January 20, 2009 is alive and well. At the Caucus Steakhouse Restaurant in Washington the GOP/Teabeggers took their 'blood oath." The Teabeggers lead by little "Richie Rich Ryan," and "Crazy Cantor" sponsored the Sequester. These Teabeggers not only wrote the Sequester! They went on all the TV News Shows and bragged about how great the Sequester is going to be. The President did not want the Sequester however, the Teabeggers would not even talk without it. "Bonehead Boehner" has a severe memory deficit, and he really needs to stop drinking his meals. Now the GOP/Teabeggers are still continuing to be pathological liars, obstructionistic, and are still out to 'conspire' against our Democracy. The Sequester is all part of the "Teabegger Caucus Conspiracy" of 2009. Please read Draper's book America to understand the rest of the story. That is fact!
Compromise
President Obama: Here is my plan what do you think?
Republicans: We like many parts of your plan but would like to incorporate these ideas.
President Obama: So you don't want to compromise.
This is how it has been for 4 years, I don't think President Obama knows what the definition of compromise is.
Democrats are the party of DO NOTHINGS and Harry Reid is the leader in the Senate.
Tracy, it's all PR. Recall the last time Congress was holding the budget hostage? I believe the Republicans were screaming bloody murder.
Both parties are positioning themselves for effect and awe.
But don't doubt for a second this ransom is the repeated creation of the Republican party.
"The President did not want the Sequester"
Then he shouldn't have signed it....His call....His decision....His turd in his lap...He OWN's it!!
Imagine that....The Empty Suit actually being called out on his own actions...and he throws a hissy fit!! Big surprise.....
Empty Suit obama...All Hat...No Cattle
This is my favorite argument from the right. They've painted themselves into a corner and will be stuck soon.
If the sequester happens, they can't accuse the POTUS of not being willing to cut spending.
If they avoid the sequester while claiming the sequester is all on POTUS, they are against spending cuts.
House conservatives almost have to follow through with sequester, then they'll go back to their districts and claim they championed federal spending cuts while POTUS did nothing...and nevermind that #obamaquester sign.
wb52, continuing the prancing hitsy fit?
When you have substance, actual substance and not complete garbage maybe then would be a good time to play with the those sharing some thoughts.
You will want to delve a bit deeper on "cause and effect", along with the removing some blinders you seem to have set on narrow.
Let's not forget the sequester is actually boehner's idea from 09 which Lew then brought to obama, who then had boehner create 98% of the bill. Obama calling on the parties' failure to come to a better compromise is not hypocrisy and is not democrat fear monering. It's simply pointing out that both parties failed to do their jobs! He isn't supposed to babysit congress, and yet you people call him a dictator when he does, and a failed leader when he doesn't. Pick one and stick with it because this have it both ways crap must stop!
Loving the personal attack there Geo...I guess when you have nothing relevant to say......that's your best option......
Good going Buttercup.....
SSDD
Here is the bottom line.....look into your crystal ball 20-30 years from now.....do you think any kids in school are going to be reading about how the Republican Congress caused our economy to fall ?
NOPE.....this is going to be Obama's legacy......FAILURE
Sooo, your entire post was about fortune telling crystal balls (complete and total conjecture), followed by leaps of fancy.
How is that post good for anything but a fantasy story?
Yes they will. While POTUS normally gets 100% credit for the successes/failures of the economy during their administration, this congress has proven unwilling to help the economy in any way.
In 20 years, college students will learn about the fiscal cliff and congress refusing to pay our bills while Obama stood up against them and made them obey the US Constitution.
In 20 years, policy wonks will remember this congress fighting Obama over extending the payroll tax deduction and extending unemployment benefits. Another major victory for the citizens.
They'll learn about the one and only time in the nations history that our credit rating was downgraded and learn that Obama warned about this while House Republicans chose to do nothing and encouraged the downgrade.
But most of all, they'll remember that George Bush wrecked the economy and Obama turned it around.
Quick...Carter was a failure too....who held him back from the Republican side....?
That's what I thought......thanks for playing.....
Next...
@bear down: turned the economy around ?....
20 years from now those kids will be cursing Obama for our 25 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT, for letting North Korea and Iran develop nuclear weapons....
....and for being the LAZIEST President ever in the White House.
Reagan was a failure too, though the democrats were still too small to have a true voice of opposition until his second term. Anyone else remember the crash of reaganomics which also helped to set up for the mess known as the financial crisis?
Trouble, not if I can help it because you know who has the absolute power over spending in lieu of an enacted formal budget? The house. The senate does not even get a say in appropriations without a formal budget. So before you point one finger at obama for the debt, you need to realize he doesn't spend a cent! Not without the house approving it. And The entire world going nuclear was inevitable. It's still carter and reagan's fault for destabilizing the middle east. Afghanistan used to keep Iran in check, now they're unified against us. OOPS! Bush, reagan, and carter caused the iranian nuclear problem we have now. China is now pissed at North Korea so actually you may lose that talking point entirely.
Modern conservatism...they didn't follow politics until Obama got elected. Then they learned that there was another Democrat POTUS in the 70s. So these must be the worst POTUS in history.
Obama will be blamed for $25 trillion in debt, N. Korea and Iran? Please tell me the POTUS who has stopped N. Korea or Iran. Please tell me all we can do to stop these countries but aren't doing.
Please tell me what the national debt was when Obama took office and how he's responsible for every dollar in debt in this country's history. Please tell me what Republicans are doing to cut the debt.
NOTE: In 2011, the debt was important. Now Republicans want to give tax cuts...the debt isn't all that important.
NOTE: Republicans are giving Obama credit for the sequester which means he IS cutting spending which directly affects national debt.
You lose because your talking points contradict fact.
Bear Down: Don't forget that trickle down has 30+ years of evidence that IT DOESN'T WORK - yet that's the repub plan. Just cut taxes more and everything will be alright. Whatever you do - don't make those who benefit the most from our system pay a little more. Call them 'job creators' and worship them for being rich.
Fire all these losers,,,
Refusal and/or inability to compromise is simply proof that big centralized government doesn't work! We shouldn't have to all agree on all of this crap.
People in states who think high taxes are worth it for whatever they get from the government should be able to have that IN THEIR STATES. But they shouldn't want (or be able) to impose that on people in states who don't want it.
We're fighting over what who gets to cram what down others throats. That's not the people's government! We're not a one size fits all nation and we shouldn't want to or have to be!
*I* don't want high(er) taxes. And I certianly don't want to pay increased taxes if spending is not cut. That would be foolish.
However, one approach (without raising taxes) will not get us there. No way.
By the way, making the top earners pay their tax rate is NOT raising taxes, it is making them pay their respective tax rate on all their respective income, regardless on that income coming from dividends or other investments.
This will all get fixed, by late April is my guess.
Here's why: the President's secretaries implement the budgets set by congress. With the sequester cutting 8% across every budget line item, the secretaries must cut every program (line item) equally.
Here's the rub: every budget line item has hundreds or thousands of components. Those components do not have to be cut equally. For example, Head Start will have to be cut by 8%. The person managing that program, and managing the cuts starting March 1st, can and will cut 100% of the program in Republican districts, 0% in Democratic districts.
FDA meat inspections? The furlough will hit republican districts, causing those meat processing plants to close. Air-traffic controllers and custom agents: closing the regional airports in republican districts will allow Democratic districts to continue to thrive.
Makes sense, that the congressmen causing the problem (Republicans) will feel the pain.
They will insist that Boehner get back to the bargaining table.
Bada bing
Sounds like a plan to me! I like it.
The US debt reminds me of these people you hear about that weigh 800 pounds. One wonders why they didn’t do something about it when they reached 400 pounds or 500 pounds. Wasn’t it obvious that there was a problem?
The Republicans want to do something about it now. How bad does it have to be before the Democrats want to stop? Ever? Because if we don’t stop it will end in tragedy.
Everybody gets that, right?
jt don't play it so one sided the GOP is still responsible for 1/3 of obama's debt from the falsified wars and medicare Part D being put on a credit card and not actually being funded from the outset! Not to mention the house has absolute power of the purse when no formal budget is enacted. Why is the house allowing ANY spending, or why isn't the house taking the initiative to do the cuts they have complete power over? Take civics and then realize that both parties are screwing you!
I agree, the debt and deficit need to be reduced. But taxes need to be raised to help pay for it. I don't really want to pay more taxes, but sometimes medicine tastes bad.
Why oh why should somone in the upper tax bracket pay 10% or less? What difference, really, what difference does it make if someones income comes from a salary, hourly wage, dividends or other investment? All income, all money coming to an entity should be taxed at the same rate (wrt income tax).
Geo, I agree, and actually you could add more tax brackets and shift some of the burden off the discretionary spending middle class and stimulate the economy. A tax bracket for 2 million, 4 million, 6 million, and shift the 35% burden up there and off the 250,000 people who keep this economy running. The rich will always be rich.They don't need 1 billion more dollars to hire ten people. I'm sorry, but that is the hard truth.
No the republicans do not...they haven't proposed any budget that comes close to solving this nations problems...they have tried to redirect spending to their favorites, old people and defense welfare but to try and claim they have the nations interests at heart is to ignore 30 years of their tax cutting and spending increases...

Taxing is not meant, nor does it, make people become "not-rich". Making the "wealthy" pay their tax rate (for all their income) will not stop investing or hiring.
No fool would not invest in something because they had $200k less from $5million. An opportunity to make money is an opportunity.
When was the last time you heard someone tell their company, "you should give me a $200k raise because without that raise I won't invest in the economy which in turn will hurt and your family."?
No CEO (or similar, let's call them "job creator"--ack) would avoid highering someone in his/their company because said person has less personal income after taxes (again because they actually pay 35% on investments).
When was the last time you heard someone tell their company, "you should give me a $200k raise so that I can create more jobs".
Tax breaks and loopholes are provisions in the tax code that were put there on purpose to encourage people to engage in certain economic activities that would benefit the economy. Likes like purchasing homes and investing in municiple bonds. Take them away and it will hurt the economy. Watch and see.
But regardless, take them all away. Even if that doesn't hurt the economy, it's not enough to even scratch the debt. There is not enough rich people money to make a significant difference in reducing the debt. And as soon as you start taxing it, there will be even less.
I wouldn't care if every member of Congress on both sides of the aisle lost their seats. I have no love for either party. But right now, it appears to me that the Democrats are the ones who are threatening the economic well being of my grandchildren.
Our fathers fought and won WWII and rebuilt the country after the depression. They are called by some the Greatest Generation. What are we going to be called? What sacrifice are we making so our children and grand children can have a better life?
jt, you are apparently working on the very simple premise that the Republican slogan or mantra of "Democrats want to tax and spend" and "Republicans want to lower taxes and cut spending".
You are a victim of marketing through repetition. No one party is innocent of the mess we are and have been in.
jt, and its that type of policy which ruined the U.S. The keynesian system is when we were at our best. Moving away from that was astupid idea. Removing the penalty from short sales was a bad idea. Lowering the capital gains tax this much has ruined social mobility and increased market volatility. And I believe having interest rates so low is also a big reason for the housing loan crash and the big reason you don't have 12+% interest on your savings account anymore.
You are a victim of the GOP repeated mantra. I may not like either party, but the fear mongers in this dance are the GOP.
jt, what *I* said was tax peoples incomes. Dividends, stock gains, etc, are income. Different forms of income, but income nonetheless.
And as I stated earlier, when was the last time you heard someone tell their company, "you should give me a $200k raise so that I can create more jobs".
Imagine a CEO telling his board, I'm getting a $10million raise/bonus on my personal income so that I can help the economy and create more jobs.
Imagine, again, someone saying that even though the company is making record profits, yes companies are making record profits, since my personal investments aren't panning out I'm not going to hire anyone.
Truly asinine.
Geo4444,
I think the scenario is more like the Board offering the CEO the $10 million bonus because they believe he or she offers that much benefit to the company. If a CEO is able to increase the value of a $1 billion company by $100 million, who is to say they'd be wrong? How many jobs would be created by the growth of the company?
A bad CEO can ruin a company. Good leaders are hard to find as this administration illustrates.
jt, but companies today are growing without adding employment, hence the lack of social mobility and lack of good employment numbers. It's time we got back to brass tacks. Companies need to expand, not just financially grow, if they want to stay afloat, because if our economy collapses so goes the EU, china, Japan, and India. Where will they sell services then?
What's your point? Obama is the guy making it hard to hire people. ACA, increased taxes on small business, war on coal, war on oil, war on right to work, war on success, and now he wants to raise the minimum wage?
Why are you complaining to me?
Our values have gone so far out of alignment. How is ANYONE worth a $10 million bonus??? These boards are good-old-boy clubs giving each other enormous amounts of money they haven't earned. Why are govt employees worthless lazy POCs but business executives are pillars of the community? You do know that govt employees spend money in the US while CEOs hoard theirs in offshore accounts - right? Who is actually better for the country?
jt: Your list of wars are a war on logic and reasoning.
bleary, which war are you disputing exists? He has brought more hardship on these folks than anything the right has done to women.
bleary,
It is not your job, nor mine, nor the Left or Right, nor the Federal Governments to determine if ANYBODY is worth a $10 million dollar bonus. This is strictly between the employer and the employee. If it's a public company, then the stockholders also have a say.
How is it that liberals know what people deserve to make? Are you guys born with this sense? Is there a class you can take? How does that work?
jt, so a company that has a $5 million growth should give the CEO $10 million?!
What about the company that lost millions or billions of dollars? How about those CxO's bonus'? 100's of thousands and millions of dollars in bonus' and raises.
Yes, THOSE CEOs deserved that money. Hypocrite.
jt: "How is it that liberals know what people deserve to make?".
C'mon, REALLY?!? Liberal or not, I think we can see that when CxO's average salaries & bonus' amount to increases in the hundreds of percentages (100%+) when their respective company(ies) were faltering &/or were stealing from others pockets, I think people, wherever their political beliefs may lay, can see there is a problem. When their increases are 100%+ but the average worker salaries are near stagnant...anyone (almost anyone, sans jt) can see a disconnect.
jt, you really spout one dimensional, simple "party" line brainstorming msgs. You have not been able to backup your discussion points on this board to date.
So when a company is getting ready to offer a CEO prospect a contract, they would be wise to run it past you first? You should offer this as a service.
Would you need to ask any questions or do you know what people are worth just by closing your eyes? Are you an expert across all industries? What about CFO's and COO's. Do you know what those positions "should" pay? What about mid level managers and secretaries? Do you know what they should make? Do you want to read their performance reviews first or do you know intuitively.
Do you have any idea what it takes to be a CEO? The pressure, the hours, the education?
I'm pretty sure from your posts that the only thing you know about CEO's is what you see on TV.
Spending more than you take in is not sustainable. Who doesn't get that?
No they don't. They want to cut spending so they can give more tax cuts. They aren't on that debt and deficit bandwagon anymore.
You are sooooooo 2011.
cutting taxes when faced with a 12 trillion debt...not smart but bush and the republicans did it...next
If the GOP jumped off a bridge, would the Democrats do it "because Bush did it"?
Funny how many of you love to disparage GWB, but then set the standard so low for Obama by comparing him to Bush.
Why didn't the Democrats stop ANY of those horrible Bush policies?
mike, um, 6 years of double republican majorities making your requested action impossible? Not to mention veto when democrats managed to take back a very small majority? Get all the facts on the table please...
Why do you hold Democrats to a lower standard than the GOP?
The facts are these:
GWB had a GOP majority for 6 years. He and the GOP spent WAY too much money.
That spending INCREASED when Democrats took Congress for Bush's last two years.
That spending under Bush increased when Obama took office with a Democratic majority Congress.
The spending continues to this day under a series of CR's to keep the government open and running.
And why is it that a Democratic majority for Bush's last 2 years weren't able to control spending any better (in fact, they were worse) than the GOP? How come the GOP was able to "obstruct (read that as represent their constituents) the Dems while the GOP was the minority party, but the Democrats are absolved of ALL blame for ANYTHING that occurred during the Bush years, even when the Democrats controlled Congress?
Mike, I don't. What do you think the democrats were legislating during the 1st half of obama's first term? Mainly cancelling bush legislation.
And mike, yes, democrats arrived right as the chinese called in debt payments. You can google this. You can also check exactly where spending increased when the democrats arrived. Not a cent had gone into funding the 3 gwb pet projects until the democrats arrived. The credit card analogy is not a lie. It's what actually happened.
Republicons lie,they lost and they are sore losers.
The GOP terrorists
The sky is not falling...we need to be honest though and stop thinking that gettng rid of food stamps will fix the problem...its senior welfare and defense where the big bucks are spent...
I'm willing to sacrifice your parents and grandparents to get our budegt balanced...are you?
I'm willing to say no to more bloated military budgets..are you?
I'm willing to cut subsidies to oil drug and big farm companies...are you?
I thought so....
I am more than willing on all those points.
Good man...most will say they want cuts until those cuts affect them and their loved ones and then strangely enough they magically 'earned' those benefits...
well rick, to a point medicare and SS are earned because they are paid into. The government being able to use those trusts as a piggy bank is part of this bloated mess which they have to pay back, but the biggest kicker is cutting some welfare, hog tying big business into hiring, making it easier for small businesses to run, getting 10% of the population reemployed, gaining about 14% more revenues, cutting about 20% of the budget by eliminating welfare and foodstamp collection, and having a positive growth economy again. If you do that medicare and SS can easily be paid back. Also, see #31.3 for my suggestions on how to do that and balance the budget.
Medicare has never been paid for solely by it's taxes collected.
Medicare blew through it's initial 10-year budget projections in about 6 years, and doubled about every 4 years for its first 12 years.
SS is an elaborate Ponzi scheme destined for failure at some point. Otherwise, no adjustments would have ever had to be made to it. We used to have about 5.5 workers paying into SS, now it is down to about 2.5. We have way too many people collecting SS who never even paid into it.
mike, slow down. Bring ALL the facts to the table. Medicare blew up for 3 reasons. Baby boomer era, increased longevity, and downturned economy. SS is only a ponzi scheme when the government is allowed to withdraw from it. Now, no one expected longevity to increase by 22% at its inception. So yes the age had to be raised for withdrawal, and just as well to keep up with inflated living costs the withdrawal amount had to be increased to match. Now, raising the deposit cap and having the last of the baby boomers die off, and increasing the age by 1 year, will fix SS perfectly well. Medicare needs reform, there's no denying that, but actually the participants' taxes were supposed to be the only funding for it. We need to return to that idea and shrink medicare a little bit, but that's still not the biggest problem on the plate.
And you CANNOT withdraw SS without having paid into it. Disability is a slightly different animal, but its not like a million illegal great grandmothers are withdrawing social security without having paid into it.
SS goes to many children. Many people collect more in SS than they actually paid in. If you raise the cap on SS, you also have to increase benefits for those people, because that is part of how benefits are determined.
Medicare blew up in its first 12-15 years. Kind of hard to blame the baby-boomers for that all the way back in the 1970's and early 1980's.
Disablility payments under the SS banner have increased dramatically under the current Administration.
mike, medicare blew up because the baby boomers got old and sick can you not extrapolate 2 mental steps at a time? And just as well, no, benefits are aportioned by how much you paid in. you can overdraw that amount, but in principle you're not supposed to live long enough to do that. We need to raise the age for newcomers and increase the deposit cap to keep it solvent in the meantime. Then when the bulk of withdrawing die off from the previous generation, it'll be fine. Now, disability reform is needed and means testing are needed. Now get the GOP to agree to either of those and we'll be golden.
@bulletman: Why haven't they taken down Corzine ?
LOL.....thanks for playing
trouble, corzine's been in jail 2 years now. I'm a New Jersey native...keep up.
@Patrick: You are wrong....
He is living in the Hamptons, out of jail, not even been indicted......
YOU KEEP UP
trouble, hunterdon country ledger may 16 2011. "Governor Corzine indicted and convicted of 217 charges of fraud and embezzlement by the State Supreme Court." And that's just the headline. His hamptoms home was seized and liquidated.
My googling shows Corzine is not in jail. His Hamptons Home was sold by his ex-wife almost 2 years ago - is that seized and liquidated?
“Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war is with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.”
"He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama’s fools and Stalin’s fools share the same drink of illusion.”
"President Vladimir Putin could never have imagined anyone so ignorant or so willing to destroy their people like Obama much less seeing millions vote for someone like Obama."
Pravda 11/19/2012 By Xavier Lerma
Great.
An opinion piece from a russian newspaper.
Next, you'll be giving us the opinion of the Taliban on Obama as some kind of justification for your opinions.
@bulletman: and if you have a spare $500K.....
you can go to the White House and get a lapdance from Moochelle.....good luck with that.
take a lot of single bills....maybe you can make it rain in the Lincoln bedroom
This whole thread started off with a whopper of a lie by Backhouse, and most of you clowns fell for it, hook, line, and sinker!
He CLAIMS that if the sequester goes through, government spending will fall to it's lowest in 5 decades!
If you believe THAT tidbit of nonsense, you probably believe everything ELSE he wrote, too.
So sad to see so many gullible dupes out here.
Of course, you probably believe that President Obama is nothing short of the Second Coming, too.
mike, that's the truth if the entire sequester over 10 years is allowed to occur with all spending capped and all cuts going through on discretionary spending. Please play with all the facts and the whole facts, not half facts. He said government DISCRETIONARY spending would go to its lowest in 5 decades.
Um, Patrick, maybe you should actually read what Backhouse wrote. He NEVER once mentioned discretionary spending in his post. You can't make a fact of what you THINK he wrote when the actual words are there for all to see.
And what is YOUR source that if sequestration goes through that discretionary spending will be the lowest in 5 decades?
mike, doing the math and actually looking at where the spending is coming out of? Discretionary spending right now is about 30% of the budget. This includes a large amount of DOD spending. The sequester is built to be such a nasty economic pill that the parties compromise on better arranged cuts which don't affect discretionary spending. And you may want to check again. I have the backhouse full text pdf with me. Page 67, line 14. Specifically states discretionary spending will fall to the pre 1960s levels by percent of budget, even worse when inflation is brought into the calculation.
Maybe you are talking about a different post than I am regarding Backhouse. I am referring to post #1 on THIS thread. What are you talking about page 67, line 14? Do I have a computer glitch that doesn't allow me to see his full post? Because I seem to read your posts and everyone else's just fine!
And he also doesn't mention discretionary spending as a percentage of budget. He said clearly that spending would be the lowest in 5 decades.
mike, this news article isn't even a summary of it. There are full text documents of these reports avilable easily online if you go and look for them.
Mike
I know one thing, you are not the second coming.
Gov. Chris Christie might want to consider leaving the GOP Party, and gain the respect of the Nation.
job, no, he needs to stay in the GOP to help restore some honor to a party I once highly respected. I don't care which ticket he runs on. If Gary Johnson doesn't try again christie's got my vote. He even yells at his own party in NJ, and that's what tells you he's the genuine article.
Increasing polarization, lack of participation in the political process, increased feelings of being disconnected from the govt and nation - all these are because we got rid of the draft.
BRING BACK CONSCRIPTION!
So says the woman who wouldn't be eligible for the draft.