"Sequestration's effect will be akin to that of a slow motion train wreck." (Bipartisan Policy Center)

Let's forget who did what. Let's stop finger-pointing and deferring fixes and do what is right for us, the American people. Eight-five point three billion dollars in cuts will chop our economic growth in half. CRS predicts 1.2 million job losses for starters. We know the top 0.01% will come out unscathed.

If the Sequester goes ahead tomorrow we're inviting a 2nd dip recession. And fall into the same hole as Europe, now on its THIRD DIP RECESSION. Spain and Greece have 26% unemployment. Italy - Europe's 3rd largest economy, is on the rocks.

Do we want to walk the same path as Europe when it can be avoided? Why would we KNOWINGLY do that? Please explain. Who does business this way?

Let's call Congress + Reps today.

Scalia needs to go

"the perpetuation of a racial entitlement" - for whom Justice Scalia?

EJ Dionne wrote: Justice Antonin Scalia needs to resign from the Supreme Court. He’d have a lot of things to do. He’s a fine public speaker and teacher. He’d be a heck of a columnist and blogger. But he really seems to aspire to being a politician — and that’s the problem. So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase.

Mr. Dionne actually wrote this last June, after Scalia's remarks on immigration.

Such heartfelt programs last night on MSNBC - Rev. Al, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes. Overwhelmingly sad as they covered Scalia's remarks and the history of the Voting Rights Act.

I don't how the Supreme Court decides the cases they hear. I don't know if they are at all swayed by public opinion. I don't know if they consult with each other before rendering their opinions.

All I do know is that Scalia should be removed from the Supreme Court.

You listen to Reverend Al, Reps. Clyburn, Lewis and Cummings, heroes of the Civil Rights movement, and your heart aches. On a day when a statute of Rosa Parks is unveiled, what's the main story of the day?

Arrogant racist white entitlement BS. From a Supreme Court Justice no less.

Every single voting right for blacks had to go through the courts and Congress. Every single bit of progress they made, came at the expense of hosings, beatings, bombs and deaths. Laws were put into place for their protection and for their rights as American citizens, something Scalia never had to face. Thousands of white people across the country marched with them, fought for them. The Civil Rights movement.

And in the year 2013 Scalia just sits back in the Halls of Justice with this flowing black robe and makes the most disrespectful coded statement that smacks of nothing short of racism. Nothing short of offensive.

Voting Rights and The Supremes; Again!

Congressman John Lewis is a walking archive, Not only was he instrumental in Voter's Rights on "Bloody Sunday" at Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama; but he was also a Freedom Rider, one of the 13 original Freedom Riders, who helped shape this nation's role to end the struggle of legalized racial discrimination and segregation. He was bloodied and beaten in both instances. What I saw coming from Justice Scalia was red meat to rabid tea baggers, conservatives, Dixiecrats ( bitter, southern, Democratic, turncoats angry at President Lyndon Johnson for signing the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965), diehard white supremacists, anti-Semites, and Jim Crow adherents.

I got so angry with Justice Scaila for saying the "renewal of the Voting Rights Act is the “perpetuation of racial entitlement". No, it's not. The Voting Rights Act is a tenet of the US Constitution which Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia fails to uphold.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia should have been impeached long ago. In fact, both Thomas and Scalia should be impeached.

Justice Clarence Thomas joined Scalia when the men attended secret meetings with conservative business leaders at an event sponsored and hosted by the Koch Brothers who fund the Tea Party as well as a variety of conservative think tanks and PACs. The secret meetings were for the purpose of plotting political strategy, and both justices subsequently voted to give corporations the same free speech rights as an individual in the Citizen’s United case that allows unrestricted donations to political campaigns; including donations from foreign sources.
http://www.politicususa.com/clarence-thomas-antonin-scalia.html

Scalia and Uncle Thomas take a page from the Pope's play book; RESIGN! Chief Justice Roberts RECUSE YOURSELF since you are an opponent of Civil Rights.

BTW: I flipped over to TOXIC NEWS aka FOX as I do usually in the AM to catch the headline "LIES". But hatchetman, Roger Ailes, seems to have nothing for his bleached blonde bimbos and dunces to speak on this very important topic. Nope, nada, zilch, just the supposed President Obama sequester scare tactics AGAIN; and pundits reverberating the liar Bob Woodward's supposed threat from the White House. I guess it must be a heavy lift this time for them to re-write history on Section 5 of the Voters Rights Act. But, mark my words as soon as the dolts get their talking points from besmirch agent; Roger Ailes expect "TOXIC NEWS" to side with Justice Scaila.
After all, it was FOX pushing the voter fraud meme. These Republicans claim they are hard at work to rebrand themselves and open up the tent for minorities. Well, that's another LIE.

Thank you Congressman Lewis for your blood, sweat, tears, and hard work in the struggle. Like you said we can't go back. The truth is some Southern States never left the American Civil War. From Huffington Post--->"But damn if the South does not hold on to the war as if they never actually lost, fighting incongruously for a hopeless cause of questionable value while simultaneously wrapping themselves in the American flag representing the Union they are so proud of leaving."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

Justice Scalia's "perpetuation of racial entitlement" remark is nothing more than an implementation of a slave ship as a vehicle to Jim Crow.

The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. We as a nation of all races, especially, the 13 original "Freedom Riders" seven whites and six blacks who started that journey long ago. We will not retreat.

You may like to watch Freedom Riders when you get time. It'll give you an idea of why I say Congressman Lewis is a walking archive:

Watch the Full Film

The story behind a courageous band of civil rights activists called the Freedom Riders who in 1961 creatively challenged segregation in the American South.

Running time: 1:53:00

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/freedomriders/watch

Again the republican party is on the wrong side of history, while saying this is law was Obama's idea, a majority of them voted for it, and now refuse to fix it. The honest approach is a combination of tax hikes by removing some of the tax breaks the biggest corporations and the richest among us enjoy. It is just time that these people contribute to this country and stop taking so much.

Ursula-279622 - Sorry but that was the worst bunch of bull@!$%# I have ever read. What a tool. He does nothing but back room deals. Did the ACA show you nothing about the way he operates?

When you can't lead you try to have other people do it for you. Personally I see all this campaigning a sign of weakness. A weakness as in he is unable to work with anyone. Anyone. His ass was elected do the job he wants us to do. Who is a congress person going to listen too? They sure as @!$%# don't listen to their constituency.

Self serving? Obama's favorite person to please is Obama. If you don't give him money you won't see any action. $500k a plate for a dinner, yeah, that is for the people.

Well at least my morning started off with a good chuckle. Numbskulls.

One, political reporters should always go out of their way NOT to become part of the story.

This brouhaha is a nontroversey manufactured by Woodward to draw attention away from himself after Eric Cantor set the record straight in his interview with the New Yorker.

Woodward isn't man enough to apologize and admit his mistake, so instead he doubles down on stupid!

“I think you will regret staking out that claim.”

50+ years in the business and this dude can't run fast enough to Sean Insanity to cry on his shoulder...

How embarrassing! lol

A bit of a rough patch for anyone who knows history. We just came through an election where the right-wing pitched the lie that President Obama was encouraging class warfare. That nasty guy was pitting the growing lower class against the beleaguered and oppressed filthy rich.

What had the rich done to deserve such hatred? Nothing more than the filthy rich of any other period in history? They were doing what they always do - getting richer and accumulating more power to see to it that the lower class is powerless to fight them. The upper class has always done this, and it always will. That is the human condition.

Before the United States came into existence, there were great arguments over what the proposed government should do and who would control the government. When the United States did come into being, only free, white, male land owners, 21-years-of-age and older had a say in how this country would be run - not exactly a representative group.

More than 200 years later, the right to vote has been extended to include just about any American citizen over the age of 18. That includes uppity women, people who have skin that isn't lily-white, odious renters - enough to make any god-fearing, patriotic, right-winger's skin crawl, and they've fought to restrict voting rights as long as we've been a nation.

Yesterday, we learned that one Supreme Court Justice - Antonin Scalia - called the right to vote a "racial entitlement". Overwhelming evidence, what most of us think of as HISTORY, shows the right to vote is constantly under attack. Pick one. Justice Scalia is confused, senile, or downright stupid. Voting is a right. It is NOT an entitlement.

To accept Scalia's warped view is to believe that the government gives us power, when the fact is, we give government power. Understand that. WE GIVE GOVERNMENT POWER. Not vice-versa. We do that with our vote. Our right.

About that class warfare - If the Voting Rights Act is altered, changed, or worse - completely thrown out, what we will see is yet another victory of the very rich and more chains for the lower class. That is the essence of class warfare. The rich own the government and the lower class has nothing. That's right. Nothing!

A conservative blogger tells the truth about why the sequester will be allowed to stand as is. Dionne, in his opinion piece, explains:

And a staunch conservative has succinctly explained why this problem really is a Republican problem. In an admirably candid interview Monday with Ezra Klein on MSNBC, Ben Domenech, a conservative blogger, said the new tea party Republicans in the House don’t want their leadership to sit down with Obama to talk because “they have their doubts about the ability of Republicans to negotiate any better situation.”

Read that carefully: We are in this mess because Republicans don’t trust their leaders to bargain. Domenech added that many conservatives “don’t buy this distinction between smart cuts and dumb cuts,” a distinction that is not “all that critical.” This is astonishing: Government is bad, so all cuts are more or less the same. And you wonder why we have a crisis?

House Speaker John Boehner keeps saying that the House has twice voted for ways to replace the sequester. What he doesn’t say is that those votes were held in the last Congress, so the bills are dead. If they are so good, why doesn’t the speaker bring them up again and pass them now? The answer is almost certainly that he doesn’t have the votes. If I’m wrong, Boehner can prove it by calling the question. I’m not worried.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-ending-the-permanent-crisis/2013/02/27/32c4f81e-8119-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html?hpid=z2

Pat,

Scalia needs to go

Thanks for the article. I hadn't seen it

Again you and I are on the same page.

Bob Woodward was a hero of mine when I was a teenager, however in recent years I think he has grown into a crotchety old man. I think of him less as a reporter now, and more of a pundit, viewing the Obama administration through his own biases. I listen to what he has to say, but take it with a big grain of salt.

Let tehe sequester come- bring it on!

About that class warfare - If the Voting Rights Act is altered, changed, or worse - completely thrown out, what we will see is yet another victory of the very rich and more chains for the lower class. That is the essence of class warfare. The rich own the government and the lower class has nothing. That's right. Nothing!

_____________________________________________________

David, jealousy is an ugly emotion. It will (has already?) eat you up from the inside out.

Life is good.

Enjoy.

@ Pat, Scaila can't go that black robe is a strait jacket to the fat bigot.

White Rule down on its luck

Needs Help

Repeal the Voting Rights Act

https://twitter.com/DaRiverZkind/status/306827434861416448/photo/1

☺ smile

David- Well said. Love this line -

Understand that. WE GIVE GOVERNMENT POWER. Not vice-versa. We do that with our vote. Our right.

Bravo!

Arrogant racist white entitlement BS. From a Supreme Court Justice no less

Good Morning Pat!

What is going on makes me sick to my stomach...

Feisty, I saw this morning (I can't remember where) that all of the emails were released between Woodward and the WH.

Conclusion was Woodward was lying.

I mean seriously - haven't we ALL regretted some stance we have taken?

These hacks have to go. All of them.

____________

Beverly, I will tell you this. If there is a backlash to Justice Scalia in Washington with a march or demonstration, I'm going.

So Bob Woodward has entered the fray of FOXNewsForDumbFux realm and has begun making up stories where "HE" is the story. Yesterday, the right-wingers were all over this story like a hot potato, passing it around and around over the internet until it literally turned into mashed potatoes. Come to find out his claim of, you'll live to regret it, was nothing more than this:

I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is diffferent. Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice. Your call obviously.

Well, that is a near-death threat if I ever heard one. Which leads me to wonder, did Bob Woodward also exaggerate the Pew-Obama sequestration story? The once great investigative journalist may very well have just dug his own grave. But no worries, there is a network for yellow-journalists - it is called Fox News.

March 1 tommorow is the Pig Day, Joe in Albany, do you want to celebrate the Pig Day with me together...in this Cyber Cafe?

If there is a backlash to Justice Scalia in Washington with a march or demonstration, I'm going

I'll be there holding you hand my friend...

I was too young in 1965, but there is NO WAY I will sit this one out!

Albany Joe -- Cannot wait until the capital gains tax is raised and all your loopholes are gone.

Life is good.

Enjoy.

I'll be there holding you hand my friend...

Feisty, you just brought tears to my eyes. (hug)

So so saddened over this.

The Sequester looks like it's inevitable. Well, so be it. It won't be, as some people predict, the end of the World. After each side has shown how "tough" they are, things will settle down and agreements will be made.

On a happier note. Isn't SCOUS Judge Salia the biggest idiot you've ever seen? Civil rights is "Racism". This clown is so out of touch with reality it's pathetic. How do these fools get appointed. You can't make these things up. LOL.

Scalia exhibits scandalous behavior for a sitting judge. He needs to be removed!

As for the Weeper appearing with Gotcha......Well, no doubt Gotcha will hand him a tissue to wipe away his tears!

Antonin Scalia is just plain nuts.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Woodward isn't man enough to apologize and admit his mistake, so instead he doubles down on stupid!

“I think you will regret staking out that claim.”

50+ years in the business and this dude can't run fast enough to Sean Insanity to cry on his shoulder...

How embarrassing! lol

Thanks feisty,

FOX'S new darling ,Bob Woodward, is a LIAR!!! LOL

Woodward has been accused of exaggeration and fabrication, most notably regarding "Deep Throat," his famous Watergate informant. Even since W. Mark Felt was announced as the true identity behind Deep Throat, John Dean[20] and Ed Gray,[21] in separate publications, have used Woodward's book All The President's Men and his published notes on his meetings with Deep Throat to show that Deep Throat could not have been only Mark Felt. They argued that Deep Throat was a fictional composite made up of several Woodward sources, only one of whom was Felt. Gray, in his book In Nixon's Web, even goes so far as to publish an e-mail and telephone exchange he had with Donald Santarelli, a Washington lawyer who was a justice department official during Watergate, in which Santarelli confirmed to Gray that he was the source behind statements Woodward recorded in notes he has attributed to Deep Throat.[22]

J. Bradford DeLong has noticed strong inconsistencies between the accounts of the making of Clinton economic policy described both in Woodward's book Maestro and his book The Agenda.[23]

Some of Woodward's critics accuse him of abandoning critical inquiry to maintain his access to high-profile political actors. Anthony Lewis called the style "a trade in which the great grant access in return for glory."[24] Christopher Hitchens accused Woodward of acting as "stenographer to the rich and powerful."[25]

Woodward believed the Bush administration's claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction prior to the war, and the publication of the book At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA by former director of central intelligence George Tenet led Woodward to engage in a rather tortuous account of the extent of his pre-war conversations with Tenet in an article in The New Yorker Magazine in which he also chastised New York Times op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd for being critical of him.[26]

Woodward was also accused of fabricating his deathbed interview with CIA Director William Casey, as described in Veil; critics say the interview simply could not have taken place as written in the book.[27][28][29][30] Following Casey's death, President Ronald Reagan wrote: "[Woodward]'s a liar and he lied about what Casey is supposed to have thought of me."[31]

Commentator David Frum has said, perhaps partly tongue-in-cheek, that Washington officials can learn something about the way Washington works from Woodward's books: "From his books, you can draw a composite profile of the powerful Washington player. That person is highly circumspect, highly risk averse, eschews new ideas, flatters his colleagues to their face (while trashing them to Woodward behind their backs), and is always careful to avoid career-threatening confrontation. We all admire heroes, but Woodward's books teach us that those who rise to leadership are precisely those who take care to abjure heroism for themselves."[32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward#Criticism

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

when Bob Woodward reads emails from the White House, do the words in his head sound like they're being spoken aloud by Edward G. Robinson in the Bugs Bunny cartoons?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/woodward-obama-aide_n_2778007.html

Yeah... Joe in Albany (#1.29)

I'm thinking your ribs in the grill with some of my home brew Jack D.

Well, I have always suspected you are drunk. Now it's proven, Now pigotry will officially arrest you for 'BUI' blogging under the influence.

Don't drink and blog...that's the law.

Family Values

From the article above:

In this political environment, there is no way Boehner, McConnell and Cornyn can politically survive doing anything short of that.

Courtesy of POLITICO

By DYLAN BYERS | 2/26/13 9:35 PM EST

Rep. Ellison began the interview by calling Hannity "the worst excuse for a journalist I've ever seen." He went on to accuse Hannity of violating "every journalistic ethic I have ever heard of" and called him "a shill for the Republican Party."

Also Courtesy of POLITICO

House Speaker John Boehner told Republicans in a closed-door meeting Tuesday that the House doesn’t need to pass a third sequester replacement bill before the “Senate gets off their ass and passes it once.”

What a charming couple of douche bags the Republicans have as their leaders.

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

“My psychiatrist told me I was crazy and I said I want a second opinion. He said okay, you're ugly too.”
Rodney Dangerfield

Salud

edgraw,

$15 Billion more … that includes the unplanned, unbudgeted $60 Billion for disaster relief due to Hurricane Sandy

Sounds like $45 Billion less in spending.

Joe, probably has no interest at all in you piggie, he has no interest in anything that is good. I on the other hand will go sausage gravy and biscuts in the AM, a pork cutlet sandwhich at noon, and a pork chop for supper. Or will stand on a street corner with a sign that say's, "eat more chicken". Your call.

I see my liberal friends are as upset with Scalia--Roberts wasn't much better--as I was; should have posted my comment up here! Terrific, thoughtful comments.

Cut the defense by 50%, to the already bloated pre-9/11 level. What a total waste of money...

Come on David Poseur, cheer up...

Hey Ursula, Oblamo isnt trying to slow gun violence, he wants to ban guns...big difference. Big O is good at blaming and dividing nothing more...Oblamo was his nameo

He's taking the message to the people? Isnt that campaigning? Why lead when you can blame.

Forward right LOL

Hey JETHRO, want come fire the old AR with me? Takes the limp right out of that wrist

When "Justice" Scalia is willing to have his skull fractured for the rights of others he can lecture John Lewis on "racial entitlement."

Until then he can just continue to serve as Exhibit A to the corruption of the SCOTUS.

Albany Joe -- You're dreaming. No one is jealous of your money, Ebenezer.

Dream on. dream on....

Dennis - isn't the government supposed to be prepared for emergencies? You forget, we are talking Billions amongst Trillions... That's like taking 50 cents out of 100 dollars... not even missed. Perspective... it's a wonderful thing to pay attention to.

No one is jealous of your money

dont you support this mysterious 'Fair Share'? so yeah you are.

'A Lie told often enough becomes Truth'

So many folks don't want those people voting. They feel that many are not Real Americans with good old fashion American values. So, Minorities, Muslims, Gays, Intellectuals and anyone who does not fit the bill needs to have their vote screened.

Heck, the way it going, is you can buy a gun easier and faster than you can vote in some areas.

Well, as long as you have the same values and vote the right way. Wink, Wink!

You're dreaming. No one is jealous of your money, Ebenezer.

Who accepts Monopoly $$$ these days... anyway!

I've said it before and I'll say it again, people who have REAL money don't come to anonymous chat rooms on a daily basis to boast about it...

Nuff said!

Caesar -- Don't speak for me. What I support is a cleaned up tax code. It's called TAX REFORM. Eliminate the corruption. Income is income is income.

CA writes:

"Hey JETHRO, want come fire the old AR with me? Takes the limp right out of that wrist"

And after spending all that money on the "old AR", I'll bet you were disappointed to find out it did nothing to take the limp out of that little thing in your pants.

When "Justice" Scalia is willing to have his skull fractured for the rights of others he can lecture John Lewis on "racial entitlement."

John, thank you for this.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, people who have REAL money don't come to anonymous chat rooms on a daily basis to boast about it...

Thats because FISTY ROTTENCROTCH lives in Roselle, a 1%er community and White as snow to boot.

*Thunderbird :o)

And after spending all that money on the "old AR", I'll bet you were disappointed to find out it did nothing to take the limp out of that little thing in your pants.

This is the best you can do Poseur? Shoulda brought your B game...Tell you what sport go get Jack Off and MonkeyFuk in Ny and collectively you might be able to come up with something witty. maybe

Till then enjoy

Cheer up David Poseur

Life is good.

To: The Idiot from Albany

Fr: Nasty Dumbfux

My life is very good, thank you for your concern.

My life also revolves around much more then gorging myself on grilled river carp, minute steaks & piss warm flat beer while playing Jed Clampett on the internet every day!

You see, we laugh AT you - not WITH you!

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

edgarw

This is one of the hallmarks of a true liberal.

edgarw, Woodward has devolved.

edgraw,

The government is only as prepared for emergencies as to the extent that the Congress will fund them to be.

Show your faux outrage because you yourselves are racists. Waste your time on a non-issue. Waste your time on something you can't do a damn thing about -- sitting Supreme Court justices. Enjoy your circle jerk and diversion attempt.

My oh my the rabid cult zombies are out in force today as a well renowned, award winning journalist cuts Barack "Jim Jones" Obama down to pint-size exposing him and his administration as liars and thugs. You are too funny if you weren't so pathetic.

@edgarw -- You are correct on both of your points. Pathetic blame gamers who try to come up with faux facts and excuses. Stay the course.

if the federal government believes it is necessary to have oversight on states voting practices then it should apply to all states. i cannot imagine that it is only in the states currently covered that this activity occurs.

this is not an issue of red or blue but of what is fair.

....gotta love it, Boozy RH & Bev think since they are veteran FirstRead bottomfeeders that they have more journalistic integrity / objectivity then Bob Woodward...

...the self-righteousness that drips out of their postings is truly pitifully amusing...

...hitting the bottle a little early today, aren't ya, RH?

Thanks David, I was thinking maybe it wouldn't be a very good idea to put an AR in my hands. Especially the way I feel about its owner. He might learn to dance a bit. Those guns serve no purpose other then to kill as many first graders as it can in less then a few minutes. He should be so proud he owns one.

I see where President Chicken Little has backstepped a bit on his pathetic SCARE-QUESTRATION attempt. Even the rating service Fitch said the SCARE-QUESTRATION would not lead to a downgrade. Only not dealing with the debt/deficit would lead to a downgrade. No wonder the president can't lead -- he is an ASS.

....gotta love it, Boozy RH & Bev think since they are veteran FirstRead bottomfeeders that they have more journalistic integrity / objectivity then Bob Woodward...

what does Fisty say about Legends in their own Mind HAHAHA

Especially the way I feel about its owner. He might learn to dance a bit. Those guns serve no purpose other then to kill as many first graders as it can in less then a few minutes. He should be so proud he owns one.

yeah, S&W designed them to gun down First graders...how long have AR's been around? do you know? how many First graders vs the amount that are owned have been killed by an AR?

Stupid looks good on you Jethro...David has your back, now you're safe. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Obama has the nerve to cry the sky is falling with the cuts and now we are sending 60 million in aid to Syria. No money to keep the illegals in jail, but magically 60 million for Syrian aid. The guy is a flat out lier.

My life is very good, thank you for your concern.

_______________________________________

DumbFux: I guess that explains why your posts are ALWAYS so miserable. You ENJOY being miserable, it makes your life SEEM good.

Me??

Life is good.

Enjoy.

I like being happy and LMFAO at lefty liberals.

Thanks for the entertainment.

Beverly - edgarw, Woodward has devolved.

Then I am correct. To the liberal mind, if you change positions, or even maintain a balanced position on the news or events, and it doesn't go along with the liberal viewpoint, you devolve, at least according to you.

Is it true of all liberals that if a person doesn't agree with their ideology, they are knuckle dragging apes?

There are about a billion problems with the liberal ideology. I have to hand it to you liberals as to the great amount of tolerance you exhibit to ignore each and every one of them.

In the midst of the Republicans' sequester insanity, "Justice" Scalia comes up with more lunacy on the Supreme Court. According to him, protection of minority voting rights is a "racial entitlement." What, exactly, does THAT mean? The only conclusion I can come to is that Scalia thinks that the protection of voting rights is a gift conferred on undeserving black people by out of the generosity of the white ruling class. That kind of legal "reasoning" is definitely going to appeal to the guys in the white sheets and pointy hats.

I like being happy and LMFAO at lefty liberals.

Thanks for the entertainment.

They do make it too easy...Fisty, Bev the Racist, Jack Off, David Poseur, Jethro, Monkey, Outhouse. Quite the All Star Line Up of comedy. THey should do a tour.

The Peoples Voice - The guy is a flat out lier.

BINGO! Recognition is the first step to discovering the truth. Liberals missed the recognition gene. In it's place they received the brainwash gene. So easily deceived by liars, especially those who they worship.

This is for ALL you Woodward supporters:

In his op-ed piece Woodward states this and I AGREE:

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

Yes, WOODWARD thinks a balanced approach is REASONABLE. So do I.

@The People's Voice -- Our president has put the American citizens at risk by ordering the release of CRIMINALS from prison. He is a mean spirited petulant child hell-bent on destroying this country.

Voice,

The President cannot send money to Syria … Congress must approve the expenditure.

It is clearly up to the House to decide if they would rather fund the Rebels as John McCain says we should or use the funds to keep the non-violent illegals detained

And just as importantly, folks like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. John Cornyn -- who are both up for re-election next year and both have colleagues from their states who have become Tea Party stars (Rand Paul, Ted Cruz) – are probably more reluctant to make a deal than ever before.

So that is the bottom line. They do not want to lose their job over working and helping America.

Dennis - The government is only as prepared for emergencies as to the extent that the Congress will fund them to be.

And your point is? In this day and age of trillion dollar deficits and government overspending, along with a national debt close to $17 trillion... do you actually believe $45 billion dollars in cuts will provide any difference at all? This country is so far under water financially, it's not going to mean a hill of beans.

Without a budget that can be relied on... and no approvals from the Senate (all we hear is excuses) our government from the top down is completely corrupt. They are not doing their jobs and when I say they, I mean all of them. So the sequester is nothing but bluster and fear mongering from the president.

Maybe I'm seeing this wrong but it appears our conservitive freinds don't understand a change in voting rights effect them just as much as it does the liberals. Sorry , don't understand the mentality.

Ben-636050

I see where President Chicken Little has backstepped a bit on his pathetic SCARE-QUESTRATION attempt

http://tcf.org/blog/detail/cbo-sequester-will-cost-750000-jobs-in-2013

In testimony before the House Budget Committee, [CBO director] Elmendorf warned that the massive spending cuts scheduled to take effect in March would cost the country 750,000 jobs in 2013 alone.

Obama is not playing "chicken little". Republicans are playing with fire, and everyone is likely to get burned.

Ben,edgarw

You are right. Obama could care less about the country. He has proven that with the outright lies and deception he continually uses. Like a spoiled child he will blame someone else. ILLEGALS let out of jail and 60 million to Syria shows sjut who he cares about. It's not us. Amazing how more people don't see this

@Dennis -- wrong again. Obama is using covert aid to fund the Syrian rebels.

These Barry clowns are ridiculous, and only deserve to be laughed at.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Life is good.

Enjoy.

(or, if you are a lefty liberal, at least try to be less miserable. BTW, Outhouse: I’m talking to
you, LOL!!!)

Apparently, some people have trouble understanding what Mr Joe is going on about. It might be helpful to have a translation of what he is actually saying:

I am an absolutely miserable human being. I realize that you liberals are all better people than I am, you are decent, caring, hard-working, and you care about your country and your neighborhoods. That is why I come here every day to spew vitriol. I speak here because I hate liberals for being good people. I come here to pose and posture because for the short period of time that I do so, I find some surcease from the pain of being the pitiful creature that I am. I should apologize for what I say about Obama and liberals in general, but since all I have is my hatred, I curse you instead. I curse you for your decency. I curse you for caring about your country. But above all, I curse you because I am not you.

Ben,

Is it money provided by Congress or does it come from his personal bank account ?

Houston - Obama is not playing "chicken little". Republicans are playing with fire, and everyone is likely to get burned.

Tell me Houston - With Obama going from town to town spreading his "The sky is falling" message, how is he NOT playing chicken little? There are no cuts to the budget. There are cuts to the increase of the budget. Do you actually believe this country can't survive on more than they received last year in expenditures? Who is bullsh!tting who?

Why do liberals always have to fall prey to the... "we can't survive on less" theory generated from the tax and spend democrats?

After the sequester, and after nothing happens, what will be the liberal line?

Obama is using covert aid to fund the Syrian rebels.

Ben - I'm sure there must be thousands of articles that can be cited to support your bogus claim. Care to share any of them?

Bashing the First Read guys' journalism is one of my hobbies, but I have to give them credit for giving a concise account of this sequester madness came about. Like I've noted before, the sequester is the ransom that President Obama paid to Republicans to stop them from destroying the US economy during the first debt ceiling hostage crisis. I don't know if the Republicans are planning to kill their hostage this time, but it looks like they're going to start chopping off its fingers and toes now and then until all their demands are met.

I see Conservatives aren't stepping away from the party line on sequestration, which can be summarized as;

"Big cuts in funding will have no impact whatsoever on the functions of the government, and the catastrophic effects will be entirely the fault of President Obama."

I'm just here to see how long you all can stroke each others ego's. I am glad these cuts are coming, we didn't, can't and won't be able to get the pres. to make actual cuts any other way. We pay for more BS than I care to spout off. I'd also like to point out that sometimes the journalists say it's all the republicans fault for everyhting in a round about way but I guess they just get right to the point now. Yes everything wrong with the whole world was, is and always will be the republicans fault (according to NBC).

edgarw

Tell me Houston - With Obama going from town to town spreading his "The sky is falling" message, how is he NOT playing chicken little?

I just cited the estimate that 750,000 jobs are going to be destroyed by the sequester. That is not empty scare tactics. That's the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimate. If you persist in ignoring facts because they don't justify your hatred of President Obama, it only makes you look more like an idiot.

If you persist in ignoring facts because they don't justify your hatred of President Obama, it only makes you look more like an idiot.

Houston!

I think it's only fair I warn you, this guy, Eddie, monitors climate change with his trusty ruler and Sharpie magic marker... lol

You're talking to a brick wall, my friend! ;o)

You are right. Obama could care less about the country. He has proven that with the outright lies and deception he continually uses. Like a spoiled child he will blame someone else. ILLEGALS let out of jail and 60 million to Syria shows sjut who he cares about. It's not us. Amazing how more people don't see this

It's kind of funny. When you are President, every single low-life crawls out of the muck to express an opinion about how terrible you are. I guess that is the price we pay for free speech. You can't pick and choose which free speech. It can be as tasteless, as wrong-headed, as totally lacking perspective as anything one can imagine.

I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I just wish that my fellow countrymen weren't such idjits.

Again the hyperbole. I noticed in all the outrage on MSNBC they never once mentioned that Section 5 doesn't apply to most of the country.

So many folks don't want those people voting. They feel that many are not Real Americans with good old fashion American values. So, Minorities, Muslims, Gays, Intellectuals and anyone who does not fit the bill needs to have their vote screened.

Don't most of these groups live in the areas not covered by Section 5?

I just cited the estimate that 750,000 jobs are going to be destroyed by the sequester. That is not empty scare tactics. That's the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimate. If you persist in ignoring facts because they don't justify your hatred of President Obama, it only makes you look more like an idiot.

So if the sequester of 85B (actually 44B) can destroy 750K jobs, why did the stimulus of 850B not create 7.5 million jobs? (actually should have created 15m)

I just cited the estimate that 750,000 jobs are going to be destroyed by the sequester. That is not empty scare tactics.

You are assuming that a loss of 750,000 Americans' jobs is something that bothers them.

That's the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimate. If you persist in ignoring facts because they don't justify your hatred of President Obama, it only makes you look more like an idiot.

I'll bet you half of them are convinced that the CBO is part of a vast liberal conspiracy to take away their guns and impose Kenyan Socialism by force.

So extend Section 5 to the rest of the country.

We might need to do that anyway in order to control the rampant Republican agenda of vote suppression.

Alan, MSDNC is a waterboy for the Obama WH. Nothing more...how many times have the journalist at FR been called out, when they do respond, deflect.

I dont understand how Gays or Muslims wouldnt be able to vote..unless you have no legal rights as an American citizen. Thats right hyperbole.

'A lie told often enough becomes truth'

We might need to do that anyway in order to control the rampant Republican agenda of vote suppression.

what is voter suppression...how do you do this?

So extend Section 5 to the rest of the country.

Go for it. You love running divisive campaigns so run on that platform.

So if the sequester of 85B (actually 44B) can destroy 750K jobs, why did the stimulus of 850B not create 7.5 million jobs? (actually should have created 15m)

From http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/business/economy/01econ.html

The nation’s output shrank at an annual pace of 1 percent in the second quarter, after contracting at a rate of 6.4 percent earlier this year. Government spending, helped by the first payments from the administration’s $787 billion stimulus package, propped up activity in the latest quarter and accounted for 20 percent of the country’s output.

Not sure why you need to ask us. These are basic questions. Why don't you learn to Google?

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

If you persist in ignoring facts because they don't justify your hatred of President Obama, it only makes you look more like an idiot.

Houston!

I think it's only fair I warn you, this guy, Eddie, monitors climate change with his trusty ruler and Sharpie magic marker... lol

You're talking to a brick wall, my friend

Unlike Eddie, most brick walls don't radiate mindless rage and hatred.

Excellent point Alan. It will go right over the heads of these weepy liberals at First Read.

Houston - I just cited the estimate that 750,000 jobs are going to be destroyed by the sequester.

Did you view this figure in a crystal ball? I'd say if they were government jobs, that would be good for the economy since that much in payroll won't have to be met any longer... at least not on the taxpayer's back.

I contend there will be no job losses. I contend there will be no noticeable differences in the government at all. The ONLY thing that will occur, is more BS coming from the White House. There will be more republican slamming and more blame by this president. Not one thing will be able to be verified by any of us. The liberals will side with Obama and parrot everything he says. In other words, it will be the same ole, same ole.

Sequester or not, unemployment will rise... we will be in a recession at the end of this quarter and our economy is heading further into the abyss. Obama will use the sequester as the reason for all the economic malaise that is occurring all around us regardless of what happens on Friday. Liberals will fall for it hook line and sinker with total disregard to conditions that are not sequester related. It will bolster their hatred for republicans because that's exactly where Obama is driving his agenda.

Lets see who's opinion carries more truth... yours or mine. Look for Obama to start his new and improved campaign on Saturday during his weekly address. He has a winner with the blame game... not a truthful winner, but a winner regardless because the republicans do not know how to answer it or defend themselves.

Wow, two guys in Washington with a big enough pair to speak the truth...all in the same day. Congratulations, Mr. Woodward and Justice Scalia!

The events leading up to sequestration gave Republicans another half year to pick up "Macroeconomics for Dummies", but they are too stupid to realize that macroeconomic principles do matter.

Cutting government spending in a time of high unemployment is stupid and shortsighted. The cost savings of budget cuts may well be made up for by the higher costs of unemployment compensation (to those laid off government workers) and reduced tax revenues from the slower economic growth that results from cutting government spending (government jobs).

Americans need to be better educated about macroeconomic principles. Too many think household or business budget solutions (microeconomics) can work for the economy as a whole. They don't.

Alan -- You write:

So if the sequester of 85B (actually 44B) can destroy 750K jobs, why did the stimulus of 850B not create 7.5 million jobs? (actually should have created 15m

That's just INTELLECTUALLY dishonest! Sheesh!

I think Bob Woodward needs to keep his a$$ out of the White House since he doesn't seem to care too much for the people who live there.

It seems Mr. Woodward is feeling as though he is more important than the President of the United States.

Well, he's snot.

edgraw,

How can we be in recession at the end of this quarter when there must be negative growth for 2 quarters in a row?

As of today we have zero quarters in a row!

Democratic filth is as dirty as Republican filth, and only a moron thinks either party is better than the other.

You have senior White House administration officials threaten reporters now, just like you had under Bush W. You have Democrats governing for only one party just like the Republicans did when they were in power.

Honestly, you really have to be stupid to vote for one party and claim moral high ground. Punch yourself much?

That's just INTELLECTUALLY dishonest! Sheesh!

But the President is? I lost any respect for his Administration after the Ray LeHood press conference last Friday. It just reminded me of the flying strikes that public sector unions use in Europe. The whole argument that this is the minimum amount of money the Federal Government needs to function is INTELLECTUALLY dishonest.

ROFLMAO!

TO: Bill, Fairfax VA wrote:

"... some of Obama's MSM cheerleaders have been calling out the president and his minions for their shameless fearmongering exaggerations of the impact of the sequester..."

Well, well, well. Here goes the "denial" part of Republican "lie and deny politics".

Republicans have been hoping for one disaster after another, and calling everybody and everything "a failure". These are supposed to be American Citizens, but that talk and act like Domestic Terrorists.

So, Republicans were expected to negotiate "in good faith" and they couldn't even do that.

So now Houston makes the claim that I am hateful. What a convoluted thought process liberals have. Because I state my opinions, that makes me hateful... Only to a liberal mind. Hateful is calling someone a derogatory name... something I have never done... hateful is starting out a post with a hateful statement directed towards the other person.

I have to rescind my earlier comment about liberals not receiving the recognition gene... in it's place they received the "too sensitive" gene. That gene has been altered though... One of it's properties is... it's OK for the liberal to call a conservative anything they want. Another property is partially perceptive by thinking a sane conversation and disagreement is completely offensive to the liberal's mind thereby causing the name-calling response. Weird...

edgarw

Houston - I just cited the estimate that 750,000 jobs are going to be destroyed by the sequester.

Did you view this figure in a crystal ball? I'd say if they were government jobs, that would be good for the economy since that much in payroll won't have to be met any longer... at least not on the taxpayer's back.

So you think the sequester is only going to destroy those useless government jobs like air traffic controllers, border security agents, and the FBI? WRONG AGAIN. Note the sentence in bold font below (if you're willing to read).

http://www.examiner.com/article/private-sector-jobs-hit-hardest-from-sequester-cuts-nec-official-says

In a conference call with reporters Monday, a top official of the National Economic Council (NEC) said some of the cuts from the $85 billion in spending cuts over the next seven months, triggered by the so-called sequester, will be felt immediately while others, including a larger portion of defense versus non-defense spending, won't hit for upwards of a month.

Whenever the cuts do kick in, private sector jobs will be harder hit than public sector jobs, which themselves will cause a slowing of the economy, enough that economic experts say a recession could become reality as furloughs and spending avoidance are enacted.

Alan -- There IS MUCH WASTE in the government that could be eliminated without impacting employment and the poor. Let's start with the TAX CODE!

TO: Alan, NJ who wrote:

"... I lost any respect for his Administration..."

So why would anyone give a hoot about your opinion.

We've heard your opinion, you hate the President, now STFU already.

I'm going to have to block you, because I cannot stand even one more hate-speech-filled word that comes out of your sick mind.

I get a real laugh from the "sky is falling" statements made by Obama and the left-stream media. The years reduction in spending is $44B with a stated goal of $85B over the term of the legislation. Big government, through waste and fraud, loses more than this annually.

If Big Gov can't reduce spending1% annum, then we have elected the wrong people to represent us. If a private business can't reduct expenses 1% in any given year, then those managers would be replaced. Unfortunately, we can't remove the leader of this administration or those professional politicians who owe their seats to entitlement votes or special interest groups.

But you have to hand it to Barry, he can schedule a 10 minute meeting and only say it's my way or the highway over this thing.

Sppider,

Being allowed to vote is a racial entitlement? Saying that takes a "pair" alright, but not the way you think it means.

Re: Joe A

"No one is jealous of your money"

dont you support this mysterious 'Fair Share'? so yeah you are.

Taxing the "rich" is not about jealousy, it's about proper distribution of the burden of paying for our government. People who make the most money have (and have had) the most benefit from the fact that we have a country and a government that allows the possibility of such earnings. You wouldn't be doing that in Somalia.

Calling it "fair" is beside the point anyway. Proper function is more important than anything. Dysfunction is costing us all, the rich included. I'm not sure why you are so pennywise. What goes to the "takers" is a pittance compared to what you lose if half the country barely participates in the economy.

The "rich" do much better when the economy thrives. Quit cheering failure. It's in your best interest too.

Wow ! What a cheesy attempt by this thread to GLOSS OVER the threats made by the White House to suppress the truth from Bob Woodward !! How DARE Mr. Woodward tell the truth .... that when interviewing Obama for his book to be published, Mr Woodward was told DIRECTLY BY OBAMA that the sequester was his idea !!!

NBC loses more credibility every single day as they attempt to cover the lies of the Obama administration !!!!

The sequester was Obama's idea, he owns it and now he bitches about it !!!!! LOL, what a hypocrite Obama has become.

Alan NJ

The question should be "how many more jobs would have been lost if we hadn't spent $800 billion on the stimulus?. Our economy was losing 800,000 jobs per month when Obama took office. Revised 4th quarter 2008 growth rate was -8.5%. If 150 million Americans were employed in 2008, one year at the 4th quarter 2008 rate of growth would have cost our economy another 12.75 million jobs in 2009. Instead, with the stimulus, our job losses were reduced to less than 200,000 in the 4th quarter 2009.

There is a critical mass to employment. If 12.75 million jobs were lost in 2009, we would have continued to lose jobs through much, if not all, of 2010 due to reduced sales and falling business profits. We could have easily lost another 5 to 10 million jobs in 2010. Most economists thought that this was a distinct possibility without stimulus spending.

We would have had a Great Depression instead of a Great Recession and we would have had a much deeper (job loss) hole to dig our way out of.

So, according to these figures $800 billion in spending may have saved from 10 to 20 million jobs.

Boy, seems like each side is out in full force. Funny thing about all the bluster here, only time will tell. Will the Sequester hurt the economy, jobs, and all the other things from the Doom and Gloom side, or will it be nothing to worry about, from the "It's ok let it happen side". Time will tell.

I like the Democratic supporter (Don't_carry_it_all) of Bob Woodard on the issue of paying their fair share, yet doesn't like the fact that Woodard pointed out where the idea for the sequester came. Sounds a little wishy-washy to me.

And just so you know, I don't mind everyone paying their fair share. If the Millionaires need to pay 30% of their incomes to solve the economic problems, then shouldn't EVERYONE pay 30% of their incomes to solve the problem which affects everyone? Just saying. 30% of one Million dollars is $300,000.00, quite a bit of money. Where as 30% of $50,000.00 is ONLY $15,000.00. Shouldn't everyone share the pain in their own way? *by the way, once you take all that money away from the "millionaire", they aren't a millionaire anymore, so where does it stop?*

Not as simple once real numbers are applied. Cut the spending then let's talk about increasing taxes. I don't think that is to unreasonable. I mean, a tax hike has already been passed. Let's cut spending before we talk about another tax hike.

TO: jim-1455434 who wrote:

"Wow ! What a cheesy attempt by this thread to GLOSS OVER the threats made by the White House to suppress the truth from Bob Woodward !!..."

Bob Woodward doesn't need permission from anybody at the White House to say whatever Bob Woodward wants to say, but when he decided to talk crap about the POTUS he should expect to relinquish his White House Press Pass.

I think Bob Woodward was used to having complete and total access to the White House but he doesn't anymore, and who could blame the President. After putting out so many inflamatory stories about the President, who wouldn't say "enough is enough get him out of my face"? Look at how GWB talked about the reporters at the New York Times, no love affair there, and no hurt feelings either!

Obviously Bob Woodward doesn't care very much for the President, and the feeling seems to be mutual, so Bob Woodward is going to have to find some place else to have his lunch other than the White House Cafeteria.

"The president can still get more revenue down the road on tax reform, but he may have to fold on sequester if he wants a chance at winning in the long run. But that’s also a hard thing to ask a president who just won re-election on this very issue."

It would appear that the Republicans won with their strategy of giving in on the tax increase on the 'rich', forcing Obama into a corner on cutting spending.

Any tax increases in the future will require more spending cuts - something Obama will be loathe to consider.

So now, does Obama act responsibly and try to minimize the effect of the spending cuts by cutting fat, or does he try to maximize the pain on Americans, in a fit of anger, to get some perceived political advantage?

Dennis - I guess I wasn't current on the government revision. Initially the GDP for the last quarter of 2012 was -1%. Leave it to the current administration to paint lipstick on a pig. The numbers are all jello anyway... The way I view this administration is... the GDP could be a -5% and they'd find some way to raise it above the 0 mark... all to make Obama not look bad... We've had 4 years of this practice so nothing surprises me about Obama and his minions.

Apparently, some people have trouble understanding what Mr Joe is going on about. It might be helpful to have a translation of what he is actually saying:

I am an absolutely miserable human being. I realize that you liberals are all better people than I am, you are decent, caring, hard-working, and you care about your country and your neighborhoods. That is why I come here every day to spew vitriol. I speak here because I hate liberals for being good people. I come here to pose and posture because for the short period of time that I do so, I find some surcease from the pain of being the pitiful creature that I am. I should apologize for what I say about Obama and liberals in general, but since all I have is my hatred, I curse you instead. I curse you for your decency. I curse you for caring about your country. But above all, I curse you because I am not you.

______________________________________________

Byron Moron: LMFAO@U!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for the entertainment.

The $60 million is just a tip of the ice berg of federal overspending.

If you love this you ought to love the passage of H.R. 347 even more. Look it up and see how your first amendment rights were just turned into a felony.

Also take a look at how the White House threatened Bob Woodward of all people about the truth of who is responsible for the sequester.

"Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and (Rob)Nabors to propose the
sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid," Woodward said. "They
did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior
White House aides who were directly involved." Nabors was then the White
House's chief liaison to Congress and is now deputy chief of staff.

http://news.msn.com/politics/bob-woodward-says-white-house-told-him-he-would-regret-criticism

"In fact, research from the International Monetary Fund suggests that, if the
U.S. economy is indeed already in the early stages of a new recession, the drag
from the budget sequester could be as large as 1% of GDP. Combined with the
ongoing economic hit from the New Year's Day fiscal cliff deal, and the higher
taxes that resulted, any further Washington belt-tightening would represent a
serious and growing drag on growth."

http://money.msn.com/investing/why-theres-no-way-obama-can-win

How is that fifth year of recovery looking for the rest of you. I personally think the Congress and Administration are the most clueless individuals to ever hold a country hostage. Just a hint the nation never "recovered" when you take away the Fed's printing press.

I am so tired of the mindless name calling here by the party of no idea, inclusion, and acceptance...unless you have a different opinion than their "talking points". Truly a sad state of affairs.

Next

Why do people assume because someone works for the government, they contribute nothing to the economy? No, they're not part of a business designed to make profit, but their paycheck certainly goes to the economy. The loss of every government worker is the loss of dollars circulating back into the economy (which then gets taxed, so it's also a loss of tax revenue).

The only way the logic holds is that if the government worker who gets laid off immediately gets an equivalent private sector job, which is almost always not the case.

So go ahead and brag about how many government jobs you are responsible for ending. You might as well brag that you've contributed to the double-dip recession because the effects are the same.

TO: funnygirl2 who wrote:

"I get a real laugh from the "sky is falling" statements made by Obama and the left-stream media..."

We know that.

Republicans have a reputation for being extremely poor listeners.

Houston - So you think the sequester is only going to destroy those useless government jobs like air traffic controllers, border security agents, and the FBI? WRONG AGAIN. Note the sentence in bold font below (if you're willing to read).

Did I say that's what I thought? I said that there will be NO job losses from the sequester. You must be one of the most gullible people alive if you think Obama will do anything to shrink employment in government. That is not part of his agenda. In fact, it's just the opposite... he wants to grow government and is doing everything, including whining and threatening about a reduction in the increase, to make it so.

I guess the Examiner has a true handle on private sector jobs. If anyone hasn't informed them, as of late, private sector jobs are already being hard hit... and have been so for the past year. Just because the government refuses to print the actual number of people unemployed in this country, the liberals have this innate inability to think the government is right about everything. I guess that comes from wanting the government to control every aspect of our lives.

TO: Michael L-2295838 who whote:

"Why do people assume because someone works for the government, they contribute nothing to the economy?..."

People don't, its just that Republican bloviators love to make up a lot of crap.

edgarw

Did I say that's what I thought? I said that there will be NO job losses from the sequester.

So, why should we believe the economists in the Congressional Budget Office and with the National Economic Council say there WILL be severe job losses when we've got the "expert" opinion of some clown on the Internets who says there will be no job losses. Okee Dokee.

Several years ago I wrote an Op-Ed piece to the Washington Post expressing my feeling that "Bob Woodward" had become little more than a cheap thinking pundit looking for relevance. The piece wasn't published. I yet believe myself though.

@David Walker: "We give government power" Oh!, if only the principal was grounded in the strength of substance rather than the fecklessness of symbolism. Regards

Think about it -- You write:

I like the Democratic supporter (Don't_carry_it_all) of Bob Woodard on the issue of paying their fair share, yet doesn't like the fact that Woodard pointed out where the idea for the sequester came. Sounds a little wishy-washy to me.

Doesn't matter where the IDEA came from. Woodward tries to gloss over the WHY it came to be as well as the INTENT behind the sequestration.

We also now know for FACT that CANTOR forced Boehner to quit negotiating a GRAND BARGAIN so in reality it's the obstructionists in Congress that caused the sequestration to become a reality.

edgraw,

I understand that any elected official should be challenged … it should be our duty.

However constantly claiming that the administration is fudging the numbers is just being a conspiracy theorists.

If even near truthful the Republican controlled House (Daryl Issa) would be conducting investigations. Even the F&F investigation will turn out that there are no links to Holder or our President as the House (Issa) will drop the contempt of Congress against Holder by mid-April.

Alan NJ

I live in Pa. and we just voted Obama for president by a big margin and yet, of our 18 representives, 13 are Republican due to gerrymandering. We have largely minority districts in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh that elected Democratic Representatives with 90% of their vote. The congressional district I live in extends from State College, Pa to Erie, Pa (a 4 hour drive). It is about 40 to 50 miles wide and close to 200 miles long. This is not democracy at work. This is the result of politics played (now by) Republicans to subvert the principle of majority rule.

If anything, section 5 should be extended to include all states where the people's rights to majority rule are being undermined by gerrymandering. One simple solution is no district should be more than 1.5 times longer than its width taking into account state borders.

So, why should we believe the economists in the Congressional Budget Office and with the National Economic Council say there WILL be severe job losses when we've got the "expert" opinion of some clown on the Internets who says there will be no job losses. Okee Dokee.

Maybe they'll start issuing a statistic telling us how many jobs Obama personally saved from the sequester.

So why would anyone give a hoot about your opinion.

We've heard your opinion, you hate the President, now STFU already.

I'm going to have to block you, because I cannot stand even one more hate-speech-filled word that comes out of your sick mind.

ROFLMAO!

BTW I loved Queen Michelle at the Oscars on Sunday....just thought she looked very royal.

I can only imagine the comments here if that had been Anne Romney.

Houston - So, why should we believe the economists in the Congressional Budget Office and with the National Economic Council say there WILL be severe job losses when we've got the "expert" opinion of some clown on the Internets who says there will be no job losses. Okee Dokee.

Believe who you want. That is what makes freedom so grand! Need I remind you that the CBO gears their numbers for revisions. It has been a constant for many years... so if you choose to believe them, go right ahead... Okee Dokee.

Look at all the idiot libs excoriating Bob Woodward and demanding the head of Justice Scalia.... what a joke.

Dennis - However constantly claiming that the administration is fudging the numbers is just being a conspiracy theorists.

Conspiracy theorists? Dennis - name a month where the CBO hasn't posted a revision to their numbers in say, the past 6 years... yes, even into the Bush administration. They can't get it right. There is always a up or down number given a few weeks after their initial number comes out... and this includes everything they run. How does that belong in the category of conspiracy theorist? Unless you ignore what they initially say about anything, you aren't up on the latest and greatest being put out for public consumption.

This is the result of politics played (now by) Republicans to subvert the principle of majority rule.

You see I would agree with you if you admitted it's problem played by both parties. A simple solution would be to start in the North-West corner of the state and draw districts in squares/rectangles that have the same number of people. But funnily enough this type of solution would run foul of the Voting Rights Act as it would dilute the effectiveness of the minority vote.

So tell me again who's to blame?

'A Lie told often enough becomes Truth' -Caesar Augustus

Give it up Caesar, you constantly tell lies about people being "commies" you say it over and over, but it never becomes the truth, and it never will.

Truth is a lie told often enough just makes the teller look like a fool, you think republicans would have learned that by the last election results, the electorate is not buying the whole Commie, Marxist, Socialist line of BS republicans tried to sell. Republicans who persist in this nonsense do democrats a big favor, because as soon as they start with that nonsense they are summarily dismissed, along with any valid points they may have had. Current republican politics only serve their base, they can't expand their appeal with their goofy message that has basically been reduced to "you ignorant, lazy, commie, immoral, fools why can't you idiots, just realize you should vote republican". It's not working and now the poor republicans have immersed themselves so deep into that they can't win without their base and they can't win with their base. Instead of spending so much time and energy denigrating this president as a community organizer they should go out and find themselves one half as good as he is, they certainly could use one. Take a look at the polls, all the polls, any poll, the republican brand has been trashed.

At DCIA

Doesn't matter where the IDEA came from. Woodward tries to gloss over the WHY it came to be as well as the INTENT behind the sequestration.

We also now know for FACT that CANTOR forced Boehner to quit negotiating a GRAND BARGAIN so in reality it's the obstructionists in Congress that caused the sequestration to become a reality.

And you know for a fact that Eric Cantor "forced Boehner" to quit negotiating? Please show me where this fact is. I'd like to read it.

But thank you for agreeing that President Obama (or rather Jack Lew) came up with the Sequester situation. I keep seeing where people are blaming the House of Representatives. It's good to see the truth.

edgraw,

Tell when in the last 40+ years the CBO and BLS hasn't revised the numbers. That is why they are released as preliminary.

Even corporations have preliminary numbers from the auditors a month or two before the final quarterly number is confirmed and released to the public. I spent many late night hours working with our internal auditors and with our hired outside auditors to finalize the quarterly numbers.

Here you go Think about it, Cantor's confession to a reporter.

Cantor was one of the most influential political forces in Obama’s first term. In June of 2011, the President and the Speaker began working toward a Grand Bargain of major tax increases and spending cuts to address the government’s long-term budget deficits. Until late June, Boehner had managed to keep these talks secret from Cantor. On July 21st, Boehner paused in his discussions with Obama to talk to Cantor and outline the proposed deal. As Obama waited by the phone for a response from the Speaker, Cantor struck. Cantor told me that it was a “fair assessment” that he talked Boehner out of accepting Obama’s deal. 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 the Democrats in the election. Why give Obama an enormous political victory, and potentially help him win reëlection, when they might be able to negotiate a more favorable deal with a new Republican President? Boehner told Obama there was no deal. Instead of a Grand Bargain, Cantor and the House Republicans made a grand bet.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/03/04/130304fa_fact_lizza#ixzz2MDdngxsX

They lost that bet, by the way.

.

On the White House vs. Woodward dust-up: To be honest, we don’t have much more to say in the dust-up between the Obama White House and the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, except for these three points. One, political reporters should always go out of their way NOT to become part of the story. Two, you shouldn’t pick fights with folks who can buy ink by the barrel (or in today’s age, have unlimited bandwidth) and have banked credibility over decades to earn the benefit of the doubt. And three, if you’ve been in this business long enough, you’ve probably received emails more incendiary and threatening than “I think you will regret staking out that claim.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Let’s look at this a little deeper. Obviously Chucky, Marky, Dom and Brooke don’t feel this is significant. Of course they don’t, it implicates their incompetent boy-toy Barrack Hussein for what we real Americans have known he is for four years.

A LIAR AND A FOOL!

First of all I see the little limp-wristed Libbies hid the real story about Bob Woodward being intimidated by the Barrack Hussein White House. Most likely under orders from our Incompetent in Chief himself.

You would think a story of this magnitude would be headlined and put under "First Read' or at least in the "Politics" section.

NO!

They tuck it nicely in the "Stocks and Economy" section!!!!!!

What a bunch of cowards! A complicit hack Liberal media covering for this criminal government.

SO, THE BARRACK HUSSEIN SEQUESTER DRAMA, AND MORE, CONTINUES TO UNFOLD!!!!!!!!!!

Bob Woodward called a senior White House official last week to tell him that in a piece in that weekend's Washington Post, he was going to question President Barack Obama's account of how sequestration came about - and got a major-league brushback. The Obama aide "yelled at me for about a half hour," Woodward told us in an hour-long interview yesterday around the Georgetown dining room table where so many generations of Washington's powerful have spilled their secrets.

Digging into one of his famous folders, Woodward said the tirade was followed by a page-long email from the aide, one of the four or five administration officials most closely involved in the fiscal negotiations with the Hill. "I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today," the official typed. "You're focusing on a few specific trees that give a very wrong impression of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. … I think you will regret staking out that claim."

Thinly veiled threat or outright attempt at intimidation?

I'm sure the limp-wristed Libbies will just dismiss this as Beltway bluster and the criminally complicit Liberal media will ignore it.

Hell, CNN broke this story yesterday and already has it reduced to a sidebar story while their headlines are all about Pope Benedict. It's amazing how quickly the lamestream media becomes religious to cover for this incompetent POTUS, isn't it?

Politico has identified the White House official as Gene Sperling. Of course the WH will try to spin this as a "misunderstanding". Or they will claim that Sperling "misspoke",,,,for half an hour!

A White House official said: "Of course no threat was intended. As Mr. Woodward noted, the email from the aide was sent to apologize for voices being raised in their previous conversation. The note suggested that Mr. Woodward would regret the observation."

So, a WH official "yells" at Woodward for half an hour but he is mistaken to take it as a threat? This would be considered intimidation, coercion, workplace violence or a hate crime in the private sector. But at the Barrack Hussein WH no threat was "intended"!

What's most incredulous is that Politico claims that,,,

And while White House officials are certainly within their rights to yell at any journalist, including Bob Woodward, this very public battle with a Washington legend has become a major distraction at a pivotal moment for the president.

SINCE WHEN IS IT WITHIN THE GOVERNMENTS RIGHT TO YELL AT ANY JOURNALIST?

Bob Woodward is an American citizen. No government official has a right to yell or intimidate anyone, no less a member of the press. The free press.

The government works FOR US!

The feud also feeds a larger narrative because, like many others, Woodward thinks this is a very thin-skinned White House that does not like being challenged on the facts. He said that explains the senior aide's in-your-face email. "I think when they get their rear end in a crack here, they become defensive," he said. "This could be a huge issue if the economy takes a hit. And people are going to go back and say exactly what happened and who did it and so forth."

Thin-skinned?

ROTFLMAO!!!

This WH is so thin-skinned you can see right through them. Any challenge is dismissed and ignored. But then again the fawning media is more concerned about Barrack Husseins golf game with Tiger Woods or Moochelles Academy Award appearance than they are with a crumbling economy because we don't have a leader, we have an endless campaigner.

What Obama never says: It was his own staff that proposed sequestration, and the tax hikes he now proposes — aimed at replacing half of the cuts — were never part of that very specific plan.
The truth is exposed.

Barrack Hussein lies,,,,AGAIN!

More importantly is something that many of us have been claiming.

Woodward also said that based on his reporting for the book, Obama deserves more of the blame for scuttling the grand bargain of 2011 that would have put sequestration to rest long ago. "He changed the deal and it blew up," Woodward said. "I mean, you look at the facts, and even by the White House accounts by his aides, he was making a last-minute change."

BINGO!!!!!!

It was Barrack Hussein who moved the goal posts and caused our first, and so far only, credit downgrade!

All you Libbies must be so proud of how your golden boy is ruining our great Republic.

So, where is the fawning media who has coveted Bob Woodward for his exposure of Watergate? Where is their support of one of their own who just broke one of the main stories of this disaster Barrack Hussein created?

If this were George Bush we all know CNN would be running this as a looped-reel on the bottom of their cable network. PMSNBC's mob of liars, Chris "Tingles" Matthews, Ed "Sergeant" Schultz and Richard Maddow would be giggly and giddy as they wallow in their version of "fairness"! They would be running the video 155 times like they did with Rubio's water drinking faux pas.

The slugs on the "View" would be blathering their criticism and preening how it's the Republicans fault and the misery would be tear-jerking.

Of course now Barrack Hussein and the White House will be walking back all the apocalyptic nonsense they have been spewing to scare the American people.

He won't have to decide if he "cuts funding to poor kids or crippled kids". Teachers won't be dying in the streets. Schools will not be collapsing all over the country from lack of maintenance. Police, fire-fighters and first responders won't be powerless. Seniors won't be living under bridges and eating dog food. Airplanes won't be colliding in midair. Air traffic controllers will still be able to sleep on the job. Disease, pestilence, plague and fire-from-the-sky won’t really happen. Meat inspections won’t stop and we’ll all be poisoned. And most importantly women will still be able to get their free contraceptives!

David Gergan was on CNN last night and he admitted that Barrack Hussein was purposefully making the cuts more dramatic than they need to be to make a political statement. This White House is using this to HURT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON PURPOSE!

All for a mere $44 billion dollars out of a $3.64 TRILLION budget.

A PALTRY 1.2%

So, now not only is Barrack Hussein moving the goal posts, AGAIN, and lying to the American people, HE'S THREATENING THEM!

And you limp-wristed Libbies want gun control. You claim our government would never become a threat to us and our God given Rights, Freedoms and Liberties.

Go drink some more Kool-Aid, your boy-toy Barrack is starting to unravel.

Don't tell us we didn't warn you!

FOOLS!!!!!!!!!!

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/woodward-at-war-88212.html

Sequestration was agreed on by both sides, it was never thought of as policy, it was designed as a threat to make law makers hammer out sensible cuts and address the debt. It was supposed to be so distasteful that thy would be forced to negotiate rather than let it take effect. It is only republican house members that now say it is fine them as a matter of policy, if it goes badly they will own it politically, if there is in fact job losses and contraction for local businesses, they will have a hard time convincing those people affected in their districts that this was the good medicine they really needed, and sent them to Washington to give them a dose of. People can argue the the ill effects being projected as talk of "the sky is falling" scare tactics, but one thing is certain, nobody believes it will create jobs, or boost the economy in any way.

Ursala...

Thanks for the morning chuckle on your lead-in comment:

He’s not going to make quite, backroom deals with self-serving legislators. He’s taking the message to the people – educating them on the issues of our time – and spurring them to push those same legislators to either take action…or take a big loss next election.

Apparently my memory is better than yours. Before the media committed themselves to obama one way or another in 2009-2010 we got quite an array of reporting on all of his backroom deals on obamacare and probably on the stimulas and dodd-frank as well.

Who can forget his 2 open mike conversations as well, one on republicans and one with russia.Obama has been far from open and above board on his commentary. His comments oriented towards having a fair and/or balanced approach is by itself misleading as it promotes the 98% being against the 2%.

Anyone who cares to dwelve into the treasury and IRS government data can see that obama is merely telling the numerically larger voter base that the wealthy will pay the bills for their support.
What a guy! What a deceiver!

At least obama backpedaled last night in his speech to the business community. Seems that while the general public as well as his rabid fans here at FR can be sold on his doomsday scenario, the nations business leaders can't be.

The sequester doesn't define what personel gets cut or if it will only be catastrophic to the general public. Obama can still direct his managers to furlough departmental personel to obtain the necessary $$$. IE he can furlough the top dogs in each department one day a week rather than furlough off numerous grunts (inspectors). Based on obamas recent rhetoric though, he seems to be more rthan willing to throw the general popuklace under the bus rather than the top and middle managers.

At DCIA, WOW...that's quite a leap. You're own posting says Cantor "talked Boehner out" of accepting the President's deal. He certainly didn't "FORCE" Boehner to do anything. Seems to me, Cantor simply was a better negotiator than the President.

By the way, I read the article. The New Yorker can hardly be considered anything but a left leaning paper. The article was full of sarcasm directed at the Republican gathering. I mean, the way the reporter described Cantor can hardly be consider unbiased.

Cantor, who is forty-nine, is slight and speaks in a nasal Southern drawl. When cameras are around, he has a tendency to look frozen, as if he’d just been caught doing something wrong; his smile can look like a snarl. He’s more genial in person.

Being a Southern and damn proud of it, I find that characterization as unprofessional and derogatory. But I digress.

In reality, I think you stretched the meaning of Eric Cantor's discussion with the reporter. When you find a credible source for your stretching of the truth, please let me know. Until then, I will maintain that Eric Cantor didn't FORCE Speaker Boehner into anything.

Wow, love the spin you libs are putting on Scalia. I just read the full transcript and I don't see any where that he flat out states that voting is a racial entitlement. In fact, he describes in detail that the VRA was NEEDED at it's inception, but that time is past. It isn't needed anymore because the issue it was created to resolve, is no longer an issue. And for every case you pull up showing that it's needed, I can pull up a parallel case where you libs do the same damn action, so don't try that.

If you want more of an idea of what he's talking about with the perpetuation of a racial entitlement then check out Gail Heriot, a member of the US Commision of Civil Rights. Also check out United States vs City of New York and the fire fighters to see how racial entitlement has gone off the deep end.

You libs just love to look for something to hate.

TO: Dont_carry_it_all who wrote:

"Doesn't matter where the IDEA came from. Woodward tries to gloss over the WHY it came to be as well as the INTENT behind the sequestration.

We also now know for FACT that CANTOR forced Boehner to quit negotiating a GRAND BARGAIN so in reality it's the obstructionists in Congress that caused the sequestration to become a reality."

Correct. Not to mention Republicans' refusal to negotiate in good faith.

American Girl-724855 wrote:

TO: Alan, NJ who wrote:

"... I lost any respect for his Administration..."

So why would anyone give a hoot about your opinion.

We've heard your opinion, you hate the President, now STFU already.

I'm going to have to block you, because I cannot stand even one more hate-speech-filled word that comes out of your sick mind.

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

American Girl -- Actually I see no Hateful content in Alan's comments -- In yours however I do, so you are the guilty hateful ONE!

Just cause someone disagrees with you does NOT make them hateful! Just cause someone doesn't like you or someone else does not make them hateful! Expressing strong opinions about what one believes is NOT hateful, it is called passion(something this country lacks). Just because you can't make a valid argument against what one is stating does not make it hateful. Suck it up and be a real woman -- think for yourself.

TO: Think about it-3099387 who wrote:

"... Cantor ... didn't "FORCE" Boehner to do anything..."

Oh please, Cantor jap-slapped the crap out of Boehner and put his foot so far up Boehner's behind it took a week before Boehner could sit down.

TO: heindl who wrote:

"American Girl -- Actually I see no Hateful content in Alan's comments..."

Then you'd probably do better to address your comments to him instead of me.

I blocked him because he was making me puke.

I think Republicans DID negotiate in good faith. They agreed to a tax hike with the President for cuts in the budget later. Now the story has changed. More tax hikes to be addressed ALONG with cuts.

The Republicans trusted the President to come back with real cuts, but our President wants more tax hikes. I lauded the President for agreeing to cuts with the tax hikes he pressed home. I thought it was good for him to give on cuts to get the tax hike he pushed. So now I ask the same question. Where's the cuts?

C'mon American Girl, You know good and well, that Eric Cantor didn't " jap-slapped the crap out of Boehner and put his foot so far up Boehner's behind it took a week before Boehner could sit down."

That's just your opinion which has no basis in fact. While I can understand DCIA's stretching of the truth in what was actually written, you are just plain biased and unwilling to seek a fair resolution to the impasse in Washington.

Again Spencie continies his obsession with gay

boy-toy

limp-wristed Libbies (3x)

Think about it -- Call it what you want but don't say Cantor didn't do that.

Cantor told me that it was a "fair assessment" that he talked Boehner out of accepting Obama's deal.

They walked away from the GRAND BARGAIN that would have put us on a sounder fiscal path. They did that because THEY WERE BETTING that a Republican would win the Presidential race. THEY LOST that bet.

The people spoke. They need to get on with governing and quit obstructing and damaging the economy.

Forrest,

It is only republican house members that now say it is fine them as a matter of policy, if it goes badly they will own it politically,

They will NEVER admit to owning ANYTHING. They NEVER take responsibility for ANYTHING that goes wrong.

It's so ironic that all the righty's say Obama is the "blamer."

Dont_carry_it_all

They walked away from the GRAND BARGAIN that would have put us on a sounder fiscal path. They did that because THEY WERE BETTING that a Republican would win the Presidential race. THEY LOST that bet.

The people spoke. They need to get on with governing and quit obstructing and damaging the economy.

That's your opinion and the funny thing is I respect your opinion, I just disagree with it. As I've said many times, the devil is in the details. The "Grand Bargain" was never presented and the details could have been something that was terribly wrong. Neither you nor I were privy to the details of the "Grand Bargain" so neither of us can say if it was good or bad. And you were right, the people did speak, they spoke to the members of Congress just as they spoke to the President.

But I do agree that we need to get on with governing...BOTH PARTIES. Our history has been built on compromise and I don't see either side doing much of it. Which is what I expect from our President. To bring both sides together and govern. I just don't see him doing that. I see him "taking the message to the people". The problem with that is he should be getting both parties at the White House, put out a spread of food, lock the doors and hammer out a deal.

But then, that's MY opinion.

Think about it,

When did the GOP negotiate in good faith? In 2011, when the sequester was invented, or are you talking about just in December?

There were NO tax hikes in the December negotiation. That was one of the magic reasons why the agreement didn't happen until after January 1st.

There were ONLY TAX CUTS to 98-99% of Americans.

1-2% just DIDN'T get a CONTINUED tax cut.

For Obama to get tax increases now would be the FIRST tax increases in this whole perpetual debate.

Frankly, I think Obama blew it on the December negotiation and continues to blow it now. He's not even countering the "he got his tax hike" Bullshyte. He didn't. He gave a huge, permanent tax cut.

How can that be counted as a tax hike?

HE should have extended the Bush tax cuts another 5 years with a provision for the phasing out over another 5 years. That would have been the fiscally responsible thing to do. Now we've got the Bush tax cuts permanently until the next "biggest tax increase in American history." Good luck EVER getting that.

Read it and weep for your God>Obama and his puppet Reid:

"Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and (Rob)Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid," Woodward said. "They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved."

To SmBusOwnerinNY

Just because you don't agree with the what the Republicans have asked doesn't mean they have not been negotiating in good faith. Neither you nor I were present at any of the negotiations so to make the leap is pretty big. Disagreeing doesn't make it right. Negotiation is how government works. One party rule is nothing more than a dictatorship, so you should be thankful for the Republican Party, even though you disagree with most of its principals.

Remember, Germany was thankful for the Nazi party in 1933 because it got the economy rolling and didn't seem to mind when other political parties were driven out and we all know the rest of the story and how it turned out.

There is negotiations going on. There's posturing. There's bluster and grandstanding...ON BOTH SIDES. But the President should be above that. He should be leading and making both sides sit down and work out the details. So both sides are equally to blame.

Once people understand that, gridlock will end. But just as left leaning people blame the tea party (which I think is on the extreme end) for gridlock, the right leaning people blame the "flaming liberals". Both parties need to stop listening to the extremes and get down to business.

One more thing, I don't think our President had much choice on the Tax Cuts issue. Too many people, both Democrats and Republicans didn't like the idea of a tax increase. Remember, the Democrats felt they had the upper hand and a tax increase on all Americans would lost the upper hand for them and thus a strong negotiating position.

Think about it -- Thanks for the civil debate. We disagree on some things and we agree on other things, such as a need for compromise and governing.

Think about it

Really, a comparison to fascist Germany. the Nazis worked out a deal with the German industrialists to subsidize the industries with military purchases. Sounds more like Republicans to me, but I would not make that comparison, except in response to your false comparison.

They agreed to a tax hike with the President for cuts in the budget later

No, sequester was SPECIFICALLY a deal to raise the debt ceiling. Now Republicans want to lie about it, forgetting as always that in this day and age the internet makes it entirely too easy to research their untruths and call them out;

In an interview in his Capitol Hill office with CBS News' Scott Pelley, on August 1, 2011, the day after the last-minute debt ceiling compromise was crafted, Boehner boasted, "When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the White House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy." Talking to Pelley, Boehner showed no concern about the sequestration and didn't blame Obama for it. Moreover, he did not say revenues were out of bounds for the supercommittee:

Pelley: If this supercommittee that you talk about recommends raising revenue, can you support that?
Boehner: We'll see what it does. But I'm confident their focus will be on reducing expenditures coming out of Washington.
Pelley: Can you image Republicans backing increased taxes?
Boehner: I think that would be a stretch. It doesn't seem likely to me that that would be recommended, much less supported, but I've been surprised before

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/john-boehner-sequester-super-committee-deficit%20

As you can see Speaker Boehner made no claim of a deal to cut spending at the time, no national TV. Why should we believe him now?

Dont_carry_it_all

They walked away from the GRAND BARGAIN that would have put us on a sounder fiscal path. They did that because THEY WERE BETTING that a Republican would win the Presidential race.

Hardly.

As Bob Woodward proves, and I stated in my above post,,,,

Woodward also said that based on his reporting for the book, Obama deserves more of the blame for scuttling the grand bargain of 2011 that would have put sequestration to rest long ago. "He changed the deal and it blew up," Woodward said. "I mean, you look at the facts, and even by the White House accounts by his aides, he was making a last-minute change."

Barrack Hussein DID move the goal posts when he increased the amount of “revenue” (taxes) he wanted from $800 BILLION to $1.2 TRILLION at the last minute. This is when Cantor stepped in and told Boehner to walk away. There were no offsetting cuts to justify the increased taxes.

Barrack Hussein is a liar and he has you all believing he had nothing to do with the “Grand Bargain” collapsing.

Also, the “cuts” everyone is dwelling on are NOT REAL CUTS!!!

The cuts are simply decreases in already increased spending levels.

Our national debt will reach $17.4 trillion by the end of 2013, according to the “Mid-Session Review” published by the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Barrack Husseins own White House numbers show that by 2016 our Debt will be over $20.3 Trillion.

The debt would hit $18.4 trillion at the end of the 2014, $19.4 in 2015 and $20.3 in 2016, the report says.

When Barrack Hussein took office in 2009, the debt stood at $10.6 trillion.

This is unsustainable!

Think,

Fair enough, we weren't there. But what was reported in 2011 sure sounded like Boehnor and Obama has something in the works which would have included tax increases, budget cuts, and a debt limit extension. Cantor as much admits "you could characterize it that way" that he prevented that from happening. Now we have perpetual manufactured crisis after crisis.

I'll just ignore your reference to Germany in 1933 because this is nothing like that, and Germans eventually were not thankful.

I don't think people understanding that it's all just part of negotiation is the problem. They understand that. The problem, in my view, is that extreme right isn't willing to actually negotiate. Obama has no one to talk to. Who is he supposed to negotiate with? Obama is forced to go to the airwaves--causing the righties to blame him again for a perpetual campaign. It becomes a giant circle-jerk. Everybody pointing fingers and nobody doing anything. But I don't think there is equal blame.

DCIA, it's all about civil discussion. If our leaders could do the same thing, I think they could end the gridlock. Can we agree that the discourse we are facing in our nations capital is showing up on these boards? Very little discussion and lots of name calling and closed minds.

As for shaak322, your analysis of my comparison doesn't go deep enough. I don't have the time to outline how Hitler actual saved Germany from starvation. My comparison was nothing more than showing that believing in one party rule, no matter how good it sounds, can and will be disastrous in the end.

"Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and (Rob)Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid," Woodward said. "They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved."

So? What if Woodward reported that President Truman personally authorized the incineration of several hundred thousand Japanese civilians. That would make him guilty of one of the worst atrocities in the history of the planet, wouldn't it? Yeah, only if you leave out the fact that he did it to bring WWII to an end.

In the same way President Obama agreed to sign a sequester bill SPECIFICALLY to prevent Republicans from sacrifice the full faith and credit of the US Treasury and the health of the world economy for short term political gain. It only sounds bad if you leave out all the other facts in the matter.

Come to think of it lying by omission is something of a Conservative specialty.

To SmBusOwnerinNY, as for what is reported, I think we all need to take it with a grain of salt. The news media has chosen sides for the most part, whether here on MSNBC or Fox, both sides put their slant on it. That is why I have to forge ahead with reading as much as I can and trying like hell to form an informed opinion, which is all any of us have.

You don't believe the extreme right wants to negotiate. Funny, I agree with you, but do you agree that the extreme left doesn't want to give in on their wants for higher taxes on the rich, more government and more social programs? That's my concern. I think we need to meet somewhere in the middle, yet no one is ready to blink, hence my concern as to why our President is not being more forceful. Clinton did it. Reagan did it also. And it worked. They didn't get all they wanted, but they did make Congress come to them and they both worked with hostile Congresses. At least our President has the Senate locked up, now he must bring the House around with NEGOTIATIONS, not talking points to the people.

And as I said to shaak322, the Nazi German analysis was about one party rule, nothing more. We can all learn from history no matter how distasteful it is.

This is unsustainable!

We could throw $3 Trillion at the economy (and should have in 2009) and we would be better for it in the long run.

What's the difference between $20T in debt in 2016 and $23T?

During WWII we increased the debt by the equivalent of $10T in less than 4 years. It took 35 years to grow out of it, but growth we had because we invested in EVERYTHING and we weren't stuck in 2% GDP growth.

Investment causes growth, austerity causes stagnation.

Austerity is a stupid thing for a country like ours to do. We're way above the measures prescribed for 3rd world countries.

We can borrow money for 0.25% for crying out load. It's better than free accounting for inflation.

John, I believe you are over simplifying the President's position. He made a calculated decision to move the sequester forward believing the Republicans wouldn't cut defense as deep as the sequester would. He was wrong. The Republicans will to make the point our government needs to cut spending. I really don't think the President was so forward thinking that his approach would save the world. He was negotiating and it didn't work out like he hoped. Now he needs to get back to work and bring both parties together to fix this problem

Think,

You don't believe the extreme right wants to negotiate. Funny, I agree with you, but do you agree that the extreme left doesn't want to give in on their wants for higher taxes on the rich, more government and more social programs?

Who is the extreme left? They're not in the discussion at all.

Taxes on 1% earners going back to Clinton rates is not remotely extreme. A real "socialist" would expect much more. They're not even in the discussion. ...And there are no new social programs, just maintaining the ones we already have. Nobody's asking to expand them or anything. Extending unemployment during the largest recession since the great depression is not exactly communist. Republicans in any other era would have been just fine with it (and were under the last three Republicans in the white house, just not now--now it's socialism, making people into "takers").

So the argument is between the reasonable middle and the nut-job right. The moderate right isn't even in the discussion either because they're afraid of being "primaried" by said nut jobs.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), in an attempt to outdo President Obama’s claims that even minor cuts will bring the republic’s long run to an ignominious end, warned today that the sequester could cause “over 170 million jobs” to be lost!

134 million people CURRENTLY have jobs in America.

For the first time ever we will have unemployment over 100%!!!!!!!

What an ignant buffoon this woman is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8-d95SO_3g&feature=player_embedded#!

Think about it,

He made a calculated decision to move the sequester forward believing the Republicans wouldn't cut defense as deep as the sequester would

Now you're speculating about something you weren't there for....

I'm not saying you're wrong.

I think you're basically right, and reasonable people, like Obama, reasonably thought that there was no way anyone would allow these things to happen. Somebody's not being reasonable, and it's not Obama.

Jim,

It couldn't be that she misspoke, could it? 170,000 jobs?

You've never made a mistake have you?

Like as you say "ignant" buffoon?

To SmBusOwnerinNY,

C'mon, you can't really believe the extreme left of the Democratic party doesn't have their say? George Soros and Sean Penn are just two who are using their influence to expand social programs and raise taxes on the "rich". I'm sorry your closing your mind to all the influences that are happening. Everyone needs to keep an open mind and be willing to give or else there isn't any hope and your comparisons to the extreme right as "Nut-jobs" just shows your biased and actually, makes you no better than those who you condemn. I read your posts and try to understand your position, but you apparently don't want to open you mind and see the other's side. Good luck with your life. I think you'll need it.

Jim Spence -- The President WON THE ELECTION. THAT changed everything. (Cantor was betting they would win so he and your Party could change everything. They LOST.)

He ran on taking a balanced approach to bringing down the deficit, which included more REVENUE and spending cuts. Not the cuts in the sequester, but targeted cuts over the long term that wouldn't harm this fragile economy. The people agreed with his approach, obviously.

My mind isn't closed at all, Think about it.

Soros and Sean Penn aren't the ones negotiating. What social program is proposed to expand? It doesn't matter. What they may want isn't remotely on the table anyway

What's on the table is moderation vs nut-jobbery. Foregoing a few percent tax cut on the richest 1% of the population IS NOT ASKING MUCH, given our financial situation, don't you think? Saying "no more" tax increases is the extreme position. We need to reduce a large budget gap. You can't do it all with spending cuts. That's a moderate, reasonable position.

Sure, everyone knows Sean Penn really runs the US government.

*deep sigh*

SmBusOwnerinNY

We could throw $3 Trillion at the economy (and should have in 2009) and we would be better for it in the long run.

We already have thrown $3 trillion at the economy. We are throwing $85 billion a month into the economy. QE1-QE3 and the latest “twist” nonsense has exploded the Federal Reserve balance sheet from $800 billion to over $3 trillion today. Uncle Ben Bernanke, who in 1988 confessed that QE doesn’t work, now thinks this massive infusion of money will somehow keep inflation stable and create jobs.

How?

It can’t, and it won’t. All this money is simply benefitting the banks and corporations. They buy new factories abroad and new labor-replacing software at home. Mergers and acquisitions (larger monopolies) will be added to the benefits of the expansion of our money supply thanks to the Fed.

The Fed gives huge subsidies to the big banks via interest rate spreads and interest on excess reserves, none of which help any of us or business. The belief is that raising capital to the big banks and corporations will drive their equity values up, along with lower mortgage rates creating more housing purchases and lower corporate bond rates will encourage investment.

So now the Fed has added a third mandate to its charter:

-Full employment

-Low and stable inflation

-Higher equity valuation

Quantitative easing is supposed to produce stronger economic growth and lower unemployment, so far QE1 and QE2 have worked wonders on the stock market but their impact on GDP and jobs has been abysmal. The fed even admits its last blast of bond purchases was to drive up Wall Street, obviously because it failed so badly to achieve its purpose of bringing borrowing costs down. The inflation of the dollar has also had the unintended consequence of increasing food and fuel prices. Over the past 3 years the Fed has printed and debased our currency by more than 100%.

None of this Keynesian nonsense is working. The $timulu$ has created 5.5 million low-wage/low-no benefit jobs. Quantitative easing is building a huge bond/equity bubble. When this finally collapses, and it will, the devastation will be incredible.

But hey, the banks are giving out bigger bonuses as they lay thousands off. Corporations are sitting on mountains of money from profits because of the massive uncertainty the Barrack Hussein economy is creating.

It seems Barrack Husseins and Uncle Bens “trickle-down” isn’t working, doesn’t it?

And all this time you guys didn’t think Barrack Hussein and the Democrats love the banks and corporations.

Surprise!

BTW, the economy that rescued us from the Keynesian disaster of the Great Depression was much different that we have today. We were the only standing industrial nation to rebuild ourselves and most importantly, the rest of the world post WW II and the Depression.

We were a 53% industrial manufacturing export nation then, today manufacturing accounts for less than 11% of our economy. We are a consumption/service hybrid that will never recreate those days. We are on course for another $600 billion trade deficit. Hardly a way to dig out of this massive debt.

We haven't had a trade surplus since 1975!

SmBusOwnerinNY

Forrest,

It is only republican house members that now say it is fine with them as a matter of policy, if it goes badly they will own it politically,

They will NEVER admit to owning ANYTHING. They NEVER take responsibility for ANYTHING that goes wrong.

It's so ironic that all the righty's say Obama is the "blamer."

It matters not who the rightys blame, because the electorate blames them, that is clear by the recent elections, if this goes badly they will own it politically with the electorate and will again pat the price at the election booths.

As far as someone who alluded to the far leftys not giving in on their wish for higher taxes on the wealthy, well over 60% of the nation is in favor of that, so you think over 60% of the nation is now to the far left? No they are not the fact is raising taxes to an equitable level on the wealthy is a mainstream desire, and not the radical idea that republicans wish to portray it as. Their refusal to do so will be one more nail in their political coffin.

smbus said -- 1-2% just DIDN'T get a CONTINUED tax cut.

i think they will notice their tax responsibility is now more than it was before the cliff deal.

you can spin this all you want but you must be honest and admit that they will see an increase.

and the permanent cuts are now the obama cuts, bush was not involved

Think on it

To answer your question on why won't the president be more foreceful...

If he were he would probably simply lose his backing from the far left only to gain absolutely no help from the right.

At this point the supporters of the right will start saying idiotic things like "He is a terrible leader", "he cannot even get his own party to agree"...

So far Republicans have not shown enough good faith to bargain with. They are against things they were for a short while ago. Why go for the kick if you know they are just going to pull the ball again?

Forrest,

because the electorate blames them

I hope you're right.....what I don't understand is why it isn't MORE obvious to the electorate, and why Republican's aren't ALREADY having their hats handed to them. Maybe it just takes time.

.....

Too much information Jim.

So Monatarism and Keynesianism both don't work in your view?

Right, shrunken manufacturing because business found a way to make more money sending jobs away, and our government did nothing to impede it. They even paid for it with tax deductions for the expense of offshoring jobs. You'll remember in 2010 (a bit late, bet better than never) Democrats proposed to eliminate such a deduction. Republicans scuttled that. Who wants American jobs?

Dont_carry_it_all

Not the cuts in the sequester, but targeted cuts over the long term that wouldn't harm this fragile economy.

OK, once again, I'll play.

Name 3 of those "long term targeted cuts". When would they happen and how much would they cut. A link would be helpful also.

Billy Bob,

It's not spin. The cliff was a scheduled end to a bunch of different tax breaks. Almost all of them were continued, except those on high income levels and the temporary 2% payroll tax cut. The continued breaks were a new tax cut. A new tax cut to avoid the cliff.

I agree they are Obama's tax cuts now. I would have extended them for 5 years (or something) then phase them out over the next 5. Everybody should pay for the government we all get. Phasing in the increases would have be much less painful, and I would think we (as taxpayers) should be able to afford them 5 years down the road. Now we're never going to get those tax revenues.

Why are Republicans upset about this again???

Now the spending cuts come. Across the board, pretty sizable. Pretty much no matter what, Republicans are set to get most of them no matter what. Obama may get a little bit of loophole deletion--maybe--and the cuts may get delayed some, but the overall picture is a lot of cuts a little revenue.

Why are Republicans upset about this again???

Jim Spence -- What economic model do you follow?

Milton Friedman said the FED failed in the Great Depression by NOT EXPANDING money.

It's true. He believed GOVERNMENT should use their power to mitigate economic downturns.

Here's three:

TAX REFORM, Means testing Medicare and for SS he agreed to raises tied to CPI.

smbus -- i cannot speak for republicans. i just want the facts understood. the obama tax cuts were not extended to all taxpayers; to those that were not afforded this continued tax break it is clear that they will now be faced with a tax increase which was obama's goal all along. he is proving to be a quintessential democrat -- tax and spend.

In this finanical situation, why would anyone expect all tax cuts to be extended? Aren't we in a "fiscal crisis?"

Whatever, yes, taxes on some went up, but Obama didn't increase them, he just didn't continue the previous break. There's a difference. They're not "Obama tax increases," they're Obama tax cuts.

Republicans got 98% of the tax cut they wanted, just not 100%. How can they complain, really?

"Tax and spend" is better than "tax cut and spend" don't you think?

This was: tax very slightly and spend.

SmBusOwnerinNY

Right, shrunken manufacturing because business found a way to make more money sending jobs away, and our government did nothing to impede it. They even paid for it with tax deductions for the expense of offshoring jobs. You'll remember in 2010 (a bit late, bet better than never) Democrats proposed to eliminate such a deduction. Republicans scuttled that.

Hmmmmm,

Was it the "Create American Jobs and End Offshoring Act”, in September of 2010 that lost by a 53-45 vote?

The jobs bill from Senate Democrats that was a plan to punish firms that ship jobs overseas?

The one that failed to clear a key procedural hurdle Tuesday after some Democrats complained that the measure would hamper the ability of U.S. companies to compete in foreign markets.

Four Democrats and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) voted with a united Republican caucus to block the bill. Democrats voting to block the bill were Ben Nelson (Neb.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Warner (Va.) and Max Baucus (Mont.).

Baucus, chairman of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, complained last week that the measure would put the nation "at a competitive disadvantage."

That bill?

Seems like the Democrats "scuttled" that one doesn't it? Didn't they have a clear majority in the Senate back then?

Or was it the “Bring Jobs Home Act”.

The Bring Jobs Home Act would have created an “insourcing expense credit” equal to one-fifth of expenses related to shutting down a business overseas and re-establishing it in the United States. If enacted, this measure would have joined the pantheon of awful, politically motivated tax credits, like the ethanol tax credit — now defunct, blessedly — that was brought to us by the corn states.

The credit would have created bizarre corporate incentives. Imagine a company that’s deciding between establishing a factory costing $1 million in Honduras and establishing a $10 million factory in Massachusetts. The greater productivity here might well offset the higher costs.

But under the Bring Jobs Home Act, a smart company would open first in Honduras, then shut down and then relocate to the Bay State. The firm would get $2 million in tax credits, which would more than offset the cost of the Honduran operation. The tax code would encourage businesses to start a foreign operation first — by subsidizing the cost of later switching to the United States.

The act would provide a credit even for fully automated factories. But why should we provide tax credits for units that employ nobody?

http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2012/07/26/bring-jobs-home-act-the-wrong-way-deal-with-outsourcing/4LtC7Q46AIJxZCtq4rX3tI/story.html

Oh wait, this one was last year that made no sense either.

Nice try though.

Dont_carry_it_all

Jim Spence -- What economic model do you follow?

I'm a Fiscal Libertarian and a Constitutional Originalist.

Free market economy protected by a Constitutionally mandated government.

Milton Friedman said the FED failed in the Great Depression by NOT EXPANDING money.

He was right but for the wrong reason.

The Federal Reserve could have provided a far better solution by engaging in large-scale open market purchases of government bonds. That would have provided banks with additional cash to meet the demands of their depositors. That would have ended, or at least sharply reduced, the stream of bank failures and have prevented the public’s attempted conversion of deposits into currency from reducing the quantity of money. The Fed’s actions were hesitant and small in THIS respect. In the main, it stood idly by and let the crisis take its course, a pattern of behavior that was to be repeated again and again during the next two years.

FDR panicked during the depression. He created one “save the economy program” after another but never gave them enough time to really work. His "Revolution of 1937" was the critical point when the Supreme Court was forced to submit to his threat of stacking the bench with "extra justices". His repetitive efforts kept businesses and aggregate demand at low levels of productivity.

FDR’s own Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, explained it in its simplest form after the Depression:

"No, gentlemen, we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong, as far as I am concerned, somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And an enormous debt to boot!"

Sound familiar?

TAX REFORM, Means testing Medicare and for SS he agreed to raises tied to CPI.

Specifically, what tax reforms? What level of means testing? What level of raises tied to CPI? and how much would this all generate? links would be helpful.

SmBusOwnerin NY, I think the electorate clearly blamed republicans for the economy, it crashed under Bush and when Obama could not magically completely reverse that damage in his first term republicans thought that would surely prevent his re-election. The poor economy was the one thing that was supposedly and historically the thing that would send him packing, but the republicans were so outspokenly obstinate, and failed to pass anything whatsoever that would build infrastructure or stimulate the economy in any fashion, right after being so successful in 2010 with the mantra of jobs, jobs, jobs, that they did Obama a huge political favor (by not doing anything for the nation) and they took political ownership of the bad economy. All this talk of a businessman like Romney and Republicans having the answers fell deaf on the electorates ears because they had not one single accomplishment to back up their claims. The whole Waterloo strategy backfired on them (as well as it should because it is damn unpatriotic and Un-American as a strategy) they were so worried about making sure they deprived the president of any accomplishments that in the process they denied themselves of any useful accomplishments they could claim to there advantage. Politics is not just rhetoric at some point it has to be manifested with policy and action, they produced nothing useful. They Waterlooed themselves. The only thing they could and did proudly state is that we thwarted the presidents agenda every chance we could. They paid the price for that, and as they continue in that vein they will continue to pay the price at the voting booths. People remember when Cheney said "deficits don't matter" people remember that they never questioned the debt ceiling during any republican president's tenure, people remember these very same people saying that "it was unpatriotic to publicly criticize Bush because he is a wartime president, and by doing so it will embolden our enemies and cost American lives". You simply can not be that politically deceitful and expect to win over the American electorate and those are just some of the examples and reasons the republican brand is polling lower than a head cold. They can no longer solve their problem with just a message change they have to produce, and like it are not they have to negotiate and compromise and produce policy that the general electorate wants, they can ot just cater to their ever diminishing base, and claim the American people sent them there to do nothing more than put a wrench into the works. This is now act three in recent months of them shooting themselves in both feet before they finally hobble into negotiations, and I suspect even their base is tired of them coming out of these deals with less than they would have gotten had they considered offers previously made to them. At the rate they are going even Gerrymandering may not keep them in control of the house in 2014, and at this point republican control of the senate or the oval office in 2016 seems a very, very remote possibility. If they don't do anything but cater to their base from now until then they are toast, because their base can't carry them in a general election, and they know that, that is why they want to change the electoral college rules.

I hear the talking point that Obama offered the sequester and therefore being it's author is responsive for it happening. I also know that he offered cutting some tax loopholes of the wealthy to balancing spending cuts as well. He offered two choices. The House decided to take the sequester instead of the balanced approach. How is Obama responsible for the House taking the sequester? Because he offered it? He also offered an alternative, that the House rejected. If Obama offered to jump off a cliff and also offered not to jump off a cliff, and you CHOSE to jump off the cliff. Whose choice was that? Obama for offering it? Or the House for jumping off the cliff?

Ha terrific point psychedout!

You also have to remember that Obama offered the sequester out of duress to get the deal done. When you offer something under duress, that is not the same as he approves of it.

As I said above it was never offered as a matter of policy, but as a threat to all concerned that was supposed to be so distasteful to both sides that it would insure that sensible policy would be hammered out. Now some republican members of the house say it is fine with them as a matter of policy, and if it does in fact go into effect and goes badly, republicans will own it politically, in spite of their efforts to blame the president. The nation is sick of these people blaming the president for their own inability to govern responsibly and the last election proves it, they are now only preaching to their own choir, they have already lost the electorate on this issue.

psychedout

I hear the talking point that Obama offered the sequester and therefore being it's author is responsive for it happening. I also know that he offered cutting some tax loopholes of the wealthy to balancing spending cuts as well. He offered two choices.

OK, once again, I'll play.

Name the tax loopholes he was willing to cut. There are over 76,000 pages of tax code, this should be easy for you. Provide a link to your source.

What spending cuts did he offer also. How much did the costs amount to? Provide a link to your source.

Jim Spence -- What free market? It doesn't exist here. We have a mixed economy. Many, many distortions. One of the biggest distortions is profit is privatized and risk/loss is socialized. Do you believe that business should stand on it's own two feet?

On the quote. After much research there is no credible source from which it came.

If memory serves me well we discussed one of your Constitutionalist views in the past, I just couldn't find the comment amongst thousands. We'll debate a specific another time. Am I to believe you do not believe in SS or Medicare? Safety nets of any kind?

Michael L-2295838 "Why do people assume because someone works for the government, they contribute nothing to the economy?"

While I'm sure that there are plenty of hard-working government workers, the truth is that they are a net drain because, even though they pay taxes, the remaining expense must be funded by taxpayers.

Private sector employees, in contrast, cost the taxpayers NOTHING, and ALL of the taxes they pay help support the pay and benefits of government workers.

Which is why societies with virtually no government spending like say, Haiti and Zimbabwe are the world's leading economies.

Roy, howzabout you step out of your Austrian hot house for once and give us some real numbers that back up your assertion with something besides blind faith in the writings of Mises and Hayek?

We as a nation survived the Great Depression with a sense of common purpose and feelings of pride. Will we survive the Great Dysfunction?

The Washington conventional wisdom says we're a deeply divided nation and nothing is getting done because people don't agree. In reality nothing could be further from the truth. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/02/21/the-morning-plum-on-issues-gop-is-badly-out-of-step-with-america/

Over 3/4 of Americans realize we'll need a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to bring fiscal soundness, yet we stand on the brink of the fiscal cliff SPECIFICALLY over that issue.

Seven in ten Americans believe we should have a significant increase in the minimum wage, yet the debate centers on whether we should ELIMINATE this thing that's proven to reduce poverty and dependence on welfare programs.

A solid 2/3 of us think we need new legislation surrounding gun violence, with OVER 80% believing we need universal background checks, but yesterday's Senate hearings were pure sideshow, and everyone walked away agreeing that nothing will be done.

Over half of Americans think our first energy priority should be development of alternatives to fossil fuels, yet we can't even take tax credits away from oil companies that make billions in profit per QUARTER.

The oft-heard excuse is that Congress is close to evenly divided, but even that doesn't hold water. Historically Congress has often been closely divided, and frequently one house is held by Democrats while the other is held by Republicans. Normally our national legislature has dealt with this by passing the 80% of things on which both sides agree and compromising or setting aside the details on which lawmakers disagree. Traditionally even closely divided government in America has managed to complete those priorities most dear to the American people.

So it's time to give up on the excuses. It's time to stop pretending the opinions of American majorities don't matter. It's time to put an end to the Great Dysfunction...the great American experiment in democratic government depends on it.

John, terrific post.

Backhouse up at the top asked us to contact our reps. Please send your post to yours. I will as well. No nonsense is the only way to go at this point.

Yeah...contact our Reps.

Democracy in action

'We the People' need to speak up.

This morning I watched Frank Luntz, Republican pollster, asking a focus group, consisting of Democrats and Republican voters, to give him a one word description of Congress. Not one person had a positive opinion. The most common description was "corrupt."

My biggest fear is, our enemies, sensing weakness, will take this moment to attack. With the Congressional environment being what it is, I doubt they would work with this President to defend us.

John B, excellent post.

The only place deeply divided is Congress; too bad republicans ignore the will of the people as a whole. The fact that republicans represent more "red" areas is no excuse because polls show that even in "red" areas, the constituents are more in tune with the needs of the country as a whole than those they elected to represent them. There are some decisions for lawmakers that should not be weighed solely on the desires of their constituents because the decisions impact ALL Americans not just the "red/blue" ones who sent them to Washington. The sequester, sensible gun laws, immigration reform, tax code reform, voting reforms, the minimum wage are examples of areas which have national impact.

Amy B. Portland, ME

This morning I watched Frank Luntz, Republican pollster, asking a focus group, consisting of Democrats and Republican voters, to give him a one word description of Congress. Not one person had a positive opinion. The most common description was "corrupt."

My biggest fear is, our enemies, sensing weakness, will take this moment to attack. With the Congressional environment being what it is, I doubt they would work with this President to defend us.

Amy,

Frank Luntz's group are all FOX NOISE NATIONALIST props!

Well John B., you started with a fabulous post and Amy and Jody tagged with some more good stuff.

There's a common thread in all of this. At first blush, that would appear to be Congress, but it's not. It's us. The vast majority of citizens in this country - if you believe the polls - show we hold Congress in utter contempt. Yet, time and again we return these "corrupt" legislators to Washington.

The fact is, Congress is not divided although it appears they disagree on issues. Republicans want cuts, Democrats want small cuts but big tax increases. Republicans don't want tax increases. And so it goes. It almost looks like they disagree.

In fact, they agree on one thing, and it's the only thing that counts - Getting re-elected. That's particularly ironic on the Republican side, where they're always screaming about the horrors of government, all the while fighting to remain a part of that horrible government. That's some fine-tasting swill at the government trough.

So, they have carved out districts to make sure they're re-elected - both parties - and the vast majority take money from special interests. Legislators like Bernie Sanders are the rate exceptions.

Some times you wonder if Congressional Republicans and Democrats aren't complicit in this deception. Keep those idiotic Americans at each others throats. So it is we vote the same people back into office, and we act as though we're surprised that we keep getting the same results.

Beverly in Chicago

It bugs me CBS This Morning uses Frank Luntz without identifying him as a Republican pollster, however, the point was made, that the country as a whole is fed up with Congress.

JohnB -- You are on FIRE today!

I miss you when you're liberal voice is absent from this forum! ☺

amy -- i am saddened at your post at 2.4. imagining our country willing to be conquered because of what are often small disagreements.

do you think General Chamberlain ever considered not coming to the aid of his country after secession? i cannot imagine it crossed his mind any more than it crosses minds today.

I pity the fools who would try to invaded America. We have enough guns here to take out any invader. If that happened there would not be a left or a right we would come together as Americans and stand up for what America is all about.

Well, the Republicans in Congress were willing to risk downgrading our credit rating, and they are willing to risk losing thousands of jobs in America, while hampering our Defense, all for the sake of protecting the loopholes used by the very wealthy to pay less in taxes, so, yes, I have concerns they would not work with the President if we were attacked.

So, it is not actually a reduction, it merely slows the rate of increase. Any manager worth his salt can cut 10% or more of waste from his department. DOT, DOD Education, etc could easily cut 2% and no one except a few deadwood employees would notice. Forget I said that, I was thinking we had competent leadership in this country.

@billybob -- It only crosses the minds of those with little minds. They are cult-like zombies dragging their feet into oblivion.

ben @2.14 Your talking about the republican leaders huh.

Agenda21 pretty well sums up the insanity of the GOPTP, first by believing the conspiracy theory that is Agenda 21 in the first place, then by parroting the radio talking point that there is ALWAYS waste that can be cut.

Apparently you've never been a manager, because I've been one for many years and I've seen operations decimated by demands that I cut costs beyond what is feasible. If you think there's "always" 10% waste to be cut I suggest you throw it out here in public and tell us where to find it.

I do owe you a debt of gratitude, however, for helping illustrate how and why the Great Dysfunction is at risk of destroying this great nation.

Amy B Portland

That many people think Congress is corrupt says more about their anti-government attitudes which have been spoon fed to them by the likes of Rush Limbaugh than it says about our Congress. It is no wonder that the economics ignorant Tea Party took over the Republican Party. It is the result of a bad attitude towards government. Our Founding fathers would have been appalled.

There is little doubt that special interests exercise disproportionate power over Congress, but they do represent segments of the American people like the oil industry, the banking industry, the AARP, the insurance and health care industry, etc. But corrupt is not what Congress is. I'm sure you will find more corruption and dishonesty in any group of 550 people than you do in our Congress.

John B. To find a lot of waste, in fact in the billions, look at some of the GAO Reports over the past few years. Billions wasted in mismanagement, fraud, duplication of programs, lack oversight.

John, to lump the Agenda 21 group (which I think are just plain crazy) in with the GOP is like saying Louis Farrakan (?) is the spokesman for the Democratic Party. Both parties have their extremist.

@John B, Des Moines, IA#2.1: Very much a piece of historical truth. The people then, lent themselves to a collective agenda. Much change since then. "David Walker" #2.7, likely hits it pretty well. Ignorance, confusion, greed, and even abundant insanity have become the national normal among the people. Arithmetic principals, logic, and critical thinking are mostly regional anomalies now. Today, elected Politico's have little need to actually govern. They now enjoy the collective ease of exploitation. Regards

Lots of whining and crying from those who prefer the Great Dysfunction to an actual government, but no one has come up with $85B in things that can be cut without impacting services.

Spreading propaganda only feeds the Great Dysfunction. What are you willing to do to get government to actually WORK again?

Let's just face it, republicans are in deep denial, they simply cannot get it through their thick skulls that four months ago Americans overwhelmingly rejected their map of the future. Americans said, "enough trickle down Reaganomics, enough of this mid-evil times culture where the wealth and power are reserved to the few."..........Obama is the right leader for these times of class warfare, and more power to him.

JohnB...

Regardless of what the washington post says or doesn't say, the dysfunction still resides within the two houses of congress and the WH as well.

I realize that like david walker you believe that the left and obama can do no wrong and the right can only do wrong.

I don't buy that scenario, but I can buy the following scenario...

In 2009 where was the president in inviting the congressional minority leaders to the WH with the majority leaders to get their current input on the stimulas, obamacare and financial reform? All I ever heard from the left is that some of the ideas had come from the right in the past. Now I am not so foolish to assume that any past ideas from either side would still play in the present. After all every recession has a different triggering event and probably a different recovery plan. Seems that it was 2010 before either minority leader was asked to the WH. For me that would have been one of my first moves, you know get everyone on the same page.

I can see where the general populace expects washington to solve fiscal matters with bipartisanship, at least that is the message that the 2010 midterms and a message that the left and obama ignored. Heck they even made sure of that in the 2012 election.

There is rarely anything more irritating than one individual (supposidly in a leadership capacity) putting up another (or group) in a minority role as a subject of derision. Not really a good way to win friends or even influence people. Especially when it happens time after time. Is that any way to build trust?

Not really sure why obama thinks that phone time is so much better than face time when negotiating. I find it hard to think that is how he wooed michelle. Could it be that he feels incompetent on his body language skills. I know that when I watch many of his speeches I get the distinct impression of his body language not being insync with the rhetoric.

What was obama thinking when he didn't force senate leader reid to submit a budget plan as required by law? CR's are no way to control spending at the federal level. I don't believe in maintaining a balanced federal budget, exogenous events like war, natural disasters and recessions make it impossable, but not to even have an idea?? That is stupidity! Think about it, a reconciled budget plan from congress and approved by the WH would have made having a sequester a moot point.

Obama likes to play the part of it always being someone else fault and if only they would approve of his idea of balance and fairness everything would be just fine. Evidently that plays well with the FR liberal/progressive crowd. After all, what's better than someone else picking up the check? You can buy me supper anytime JohnB. :o)

What obama has ignored (as well as many posters) is that while everyone has a say in who gets elected POTUS, senators and house reps are elected by a more focused group of voters with agendas not in sync with the POTUS. All of our past POTUS's have shown this understanding except obama.

So no JohnB, it is not all about the right being wrong and the left being right. It is about finding common ground regardless of ideology and not trying to dance around the hard choices.

BTW JohnB, in addressing your poll numbers, we are governed as a republic not a democracy. IE, the majority is not always correct just because they are the majority. What are you going to do if your voice no longer agrees with the majority? Run off like a whipped dog hoping for a better master?

John B,

Are you saying there is no waste in government ? I also managed businesses for many years, my own, and another where as production manager I pulled them out of bankruptcy in a few months simply by replacing their hadhock system with a more efficient system where more was produced per hour of labor. The previous manager claimed he was doing everything possible with the help he had, and could only produce a profit if he had more employees.

There is a ton of waste in Social Security and Medicare, and mostly because of the changes made by Bush and a republican Congress that created supplemental "advantage' programs that allows private insurance companies to act as middle men and draw a profit from services provided by Medicare. These private insurance companies purchase small electric Chinese made air compressors called Nebulizers for $90 which helps vaporize medicine and rent them to Medicare patients who have Asthma or COPD for $137 per month for which they bill Medicare, and oxygen converting machines they purchase for $1,100 they rent to Medicare patients for $565 per month, which they bill Medicare.

Then if you look at Social Security you will see people like Senator John McCain who has a combined yearly income of $600,000 yet receives a $2,300 SS check every month. Social Security was designed as an insurance policy for those who had spent a lifetime working while in search of the American dream, but did not find it, and for those who could not search at all. It was never intended to be supplement income for those who do not need it to survive. It is an insurance policy that should be treated as such. If you are never in a wreck you do not get your auto insurance premiums back, and so it should be with SS.

I can see where the general populace expects washington to solve fiscal matters with bipartisanship, at least that is the message that the 2010 midterms and a message that the left and obama ignored. Heck they even made sure of that in the 2012 election.

So Democrats didn't actually win 3 of the last 4 elections, they just somehow managed to ignore the lessons of the one that Republicans won.

Oh, and I've already demonstrated that Democratic positions are widely favored by the American people across nearly all the current topics of debate. Does the Tea Party election of 2010 trump that as well?

And yes, a properly reconciled budget plan passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President would have made the sequester a moot point. Since all tax and spending legislation originates in the House and that body refuses to submit a budget that doesn't overturn Obamacare, contain a "personhood" clause, expand tax breaks for the rich that destroy the fiscal sanity, voucherize Medicare, or otherwise present options that are completely untenable your point is also moot.

Over 3/4 of Americans realize we'll need a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to bring fiscal soundness, yet we stand on the brink of the fiscal cliff SPECIFICALLY over that issue.

Agreed, so where are the cuts? I've seen increased spending, I've seen tax increases, and I've seen these things they call cuts which are nothing more than downgrading the next increase. I haven't seen any actual CUTS of what we are spending today.

Seven in ten Americans believe we should have a significant increase in the minimum wage, yet the debate centers on whether we should ELIMINATE this thing that's proven to reduce poverty and dependence on welfare programs.

False, it has been proven to cause more unemployment and prices to raise on product/services.

A solid 2/3 of us think we need new legislation surrounding gun violence, with OVER 80% believing we need universal background checks, but yesterday's Senate hearings were pure sideshow, and everyone walked away agreeing that nothing will be done.

This one I agree with. I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, and I see no reason why ANYONE should be afraid of having to go through a background check for any weapon purchase of any kind.

Over half of Americans think our first energy priority should be development of alternatives to fossil fuels, yet we can't even take tax credits away from oil companies that make billions in profit per QUARTER.

How are our roads funded today? The majority of the money that goes into our roads comes from the taxes we pay on gas for our vehicles. What you'll run into is exactly what Oregon is running into right now. They tax the hell out of cigarettes, and then pushed for people to quit smoking. Guess what, people did quit smoking, now the state is wondering where their revenue went. Also, green energy is going NO WHERE until it's as cheap as fossil fuels. I went down to buy a new water heater, I can't even touch a green water heater compared to a good'ol gas heat water heater. So be wary of what you ask for.

As far as I'm concerned we need to pull our oil off the world market, @!$%# OPEC and the rest of them.

ellis -- with your ss comments are you suggesting that everyone pays their entire working life but only a few should be able to collect ss?

Anyone remember "Brer Rabbit"?

Wasn't he related to Peter Rabbit Mac?

Agreed, so where are the cuts?

Well, you won't find them on the Glenn Beck show so I'm not surprised you're unaware. The facts are clearly different;

But let’s focus on this claim, from Republicans, that Obama only wants to raise taxes and isn’t serious about spending cuts. Here’s an analysis from one senior Republican aide, as relayed to ABC News’ Jonathan Karl:

The White House keeps saying it wants a ‘balanced approach’ but this offer is completely unbalanced and unrealistic. It calls for $1.6 trillion in tax hikes – all of that upfront – in exchange for only $400 billion in spending cuts that come later. Plus, the only entitlement changes they proposed come from the exact proposals in the President’s budget.

The trouble with this analysis is that it ignores history: As part of the 2011 Budget Control Act, Obama agreed to spending reductions of about $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. If you count the interest, the savings is actually $1.7 trillion. Boehner should have no problem remembering the details of that deal: As Greg Sargent points out, Boehner at the time actually gloated about the fact that the deal was "all spending cuts."

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/110606/obama-deficit-reduction-offer-spending-cut-tax-increase-boehner

Oh look, Conservatives are lying again...how unusual.

@Forrest Grump 2.0#2.29: Don't think He was actually any kin to Peter. Course one never knows. "Joel Chandler Harris" "song of the South"? Brer Rabbit. Brer Baar. The wily, Brer Fox who turned out to be not so wily. Remember?

Republicans find it easier to defend bad spending cuts than allow good tax increases

dennis -- is the definition of a good tax increase one that affects the other guy?

billybob,

In 53 years of full employment I paid more in taxes, at all levels than most people earn their entire life.

IR, I'd say it is because Speaker Boehner is mired in his own Quick Sand.

billybob, Ronald Reagan insisted the tax code be overhauled to eliminate loopholes because he said he had "no idea it had gotten" that bad....so was Reagan for good taxes that affected the "other guy"? Reagan was a wealthy man, think about it.

dennis -- congratulations, would you care to answer the question?

billybob -- Because the tax code actually contributes a great deal to inequality thus lack of mobility it's a good idea to reform the tax code by removing the gimmes that led to that. Is it a good idea to give the rich more loopholes and favorable rates on income at the expense of everyone?

Time to clean up the mess in the tax code. End the corruption. Give the lawmakers no place to hide.

Billy Bob Speaker Boehner is in typical Yahoo fashion cutting off his nose to spite his face. If we reform the Tax Code and eliminate programs that are no longer effective or are put in place to benefit the very few with 99% of the Corporations not getting any benefit from them then the possibly exists that we could reduce the top Tax Rate for all Corporations. That would be good for all I think even you would admit. By refusing to negotiate The Speaker and his Minions are simply back to where they were before the election which is doing the Least Good for the Least Amount of We the People.

billybob,

If you don’t understand what a “good” tax is then you should not be discussing any tax issues.

It's not question of a good tax increase or a bad tax increase billybob, it's a question of do we keep giving tax subsidies to the wealthy. Apparently you are comfortable giving your tax dollars to the wealthy in tax subsidies. You can call them loop holes or tax breaks, what they really are is tax subsidies to the wealthy so they can maintain their lavish live style.

Independent Redneck Va.

Speaker Boehner;

Let’s quit arguing about Policies the way that You wish they were and start arguing about the way that We want you to carry out the Policy that We Voted for instead.

I dedicate Memories by Barbara Streisand to the Boner

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-KPGh3wysw

I'm sure the Boner would just love for things to stay the way they "were". But, it's time for the Boner to get off his ass and get it to work!

dennis, it is ok if you cannot answer, i understand your reluctance.

have a nice da.

You've been answered, billybob.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Great post as always IR. This insistence that there can be no revenue in spite of the fact that the American people have a CLEAR majority opinion in favor of that is clear indication that the GOPTP is a tool of the oligarchy. Those at the very top have received the vast majority of all tax break benefits over the last 3 decades and it's proved unaffordable. Now it's time to fix that mistake and Republicans want to double down on it instead.

dcia -- i agree, i am in favor of closing all loopholes and setting a flat tax so everyone can pay their fair share.

i believe as well that both parties have contributed mightily to our unfair code but would point out that the democrats have controlled the house tax writing committee for 50 years of the last 70 years (through the end of the current session) so there may in fact be a more democrat bias in the current tax structure.

john -- thanks for your answer on behalf of dennis, usually he is more vocal.

dennis raised the issue of a good tax, i made a suggestion as to how that could be defined in the form of a question. he has not answered -- so, no, i have not received an answer.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

billybob,

In 53 years of full employment I paid more in taxes, at all levels than most people earn their entire life.

Dennis - With love from Feisty to you:

I've said it before and I'll say it again, people who have REAL money don't come to anonymous chat rooms on a daily basis to boast about it...

And for all of you "tax the evil rich more" crowd, just what the hell are you going to benefit from it? You think because they pay more you are going to be granted a break on yours? Think again. Just like the "give us the increases now and we will cut spending later" BS, GovCo will spend what they are given with NO reduction unless we the people insist on it. There will be no pay down. Not in the cards. All just "trust me" rhetoric and you buy it hook, line, and sinker.

billybob writes:

dcia -- i agree, i am in favor of closing all loopholes and setting a flat tax so everyone can pay their fair share.

So, billybob - you seem to be a bit put out that you aren't getting an answer to your question about a "good tax".

Let's see if you can answer a question or two about that flat tax. You say "everyone" can pay their "fair share". Does everyone include EVERYONE, or do you propose to exempt children, people with say, spina bifida or muscular dystrophy, people who have reached a certain age? As far as the flat tax, could you provide us with the amount you consider to be a fair share? Would that be $1,000, or maybe $2,000, or much more?

I will eagerly await your learned response.

Billybob-

Capital Gains taxes are at historic lows, and despite Republican claims to the contrary every independent study has shown ZERO correlation between lower Capital Gains rates and Increased Investment.

There is, however, a direct statistical correlation between lower Capital Gains tax rates and Income Inequality. In 2012 the CBO issued a mostly-ignored report on taxes that reported that while the federal tax burden was at its LOWEST in 60 years, the income gap was at its HIGHEST in 80 years.

Capital gains and dividends were a larger share of total income in 2006 than in 1996 (especially for high-income taxpayers) and were more unequally distributed in 2006 than in 1996. Changes in capital gains and dividends were the largest contributor to the increase in the overall income inequality. Taxes were less progressive in 2006 than in 1996, and consequently, tax policy also contributed to the increase in income inequality between 1996 and 2006.

Any reform of the tax code needs to start with the Capital Gains tax rate, especially the Carried Interest exemption.

Billy Bob I see that your still interested in playing the Blame Gain. Why can't we get past that. If Speaker Boehner could get past it and set down and negotiate then he could do more good for most people in 20 or 30 years. But right now all we are concerned with is Who's to Blame.

ir -- but it is ok for you to blame everything on boehner?

seems more like democrats what to blame everything on republicans while not accepting any of their own.

happy to get over the blaming. i'll take the lead from the president.

TNSEVOL -- Well said. There's another powerful report out that backs up the CBO's report.

In a rational world, a new study that came out today on income equality would constitute a major blow to the GOP argument on the sequester.

The new study was performed by Thomas Hungerford of the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. Though the study is not a CRS product, Hungerford's data is widely cited on both sides; he's an impeccably objective analyst.

Here's what Hungerford found: The single greatest driver of income inequality over a recent 15 year period was runaway income from capital gains and dividends.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/02/20/new-study-badly-undermines-gop-position-on-sequester/?hpid=z2

billybob -- I disagree with the single flat tax, too regressive. I'd like clean progressive tax rates.

No Billy Bob not totally blaming Speaker Boehner. He has plenty of help from his own brand of Yahoo's that are surrounding him. However I do blame the House since all Spending Bills originate here. I'll start blaming the President the very minute he throws up his hands (like the Speaker has) and quits trying to do something rather than nothing.

dcia -- interesting. which deductions/loopholes would you preserve? mortgage; charitable deductions; cars; medical; kids; spouse; disability; energy; age... i think it will be very hard.

what would be the minimum where federal income taxes would be owed?

billybob-

happy to get over the blaming. i'll take the lead from the president.

As I tell my teenage son, sometimes it IS your fault.

The President took the lead, developed a compromise plan that combined spending with tax reform, and had his party on board to support it.

Speaker Boehner took the President's proposal, failed to counter-offer, then couldnt get his party to support his alternative "Plan B".

So where would you put the blame?

billybob, yoohoo,

I figured by the time I'd finished some of my chores, I'd have an erudite response from you. No such luck. Please reply. This is a tight job market, and many pre-teens are probably wondering what kind of employment they will be able to find so they can pay their "fair share".

Worse, they don't even know what is their fair share. Please billybob, enlighten us. Based on my estimates: A 4.5-trillion-dollar budget and a population figure of approximately 300,000,000 - every man woman and child in this country is on the hook for $15,000 annually and that's the federal tax bite alone. What's an infant to do?

Reading through this thread, it appears you know how to ask questions and disregard answers, but YOU can't answer questions. One more question. Am I correct?

billybob -- There's an average effective rate that could be applied to each tier. IF I had my way clean means clean.

I have no problem with government investing in initiatives/subsidies/R&D but think each investment should be reviewed and evaluated for effectiveness, at minimum, annually.

The "place" (tax code) is a mess billybob, mired in muck. That's where all the dirty deals are made. Let's clean it up.

DCIA & billybob-

In my opinion we should eliminate most deductions, even those "sacred cows" of mortgage and charitable contributions.

All income - dividends, capital gains, earned income - should be treateed the same and taxed at progressive rates. (a side point - if gambling earnings are taxed at earned income rates, why should capital gains be taxed any differently?)

New progressive tax "brackets" should be created for higher incomes that mostly did not previously exist - we have adjusted the rates on top earners up and down, but have not taken a recent look at the distribution of higher incomes and how they should be bracketed.

Some income like Social Security and Disability should be excluded or "means tested".

Another radical idea is to fund Social Security and Medicare via the income tax - any surplus goes into the general fund, and any shortfalls are covered by general funds, why should we kid ourselves that these programs are funded by the payroll taxes? Eliminate payroll taxes on employers and employees.

I am not advocating a massive increase in tax revenue or tax rates, on the contrary most rates would be lowered substantially.

Our tax code has morphed from a means of obtaining revenue into a way to manipulate behavior.

dcia -- thanks. i agree it needs to be cleaned up.

TNSEVOL -- Great post. Our tax code is being used for social engineering. No freedom in that whatsoever!

All income should be taxed at the same rate - dividends, capital gains, earned income. A side point - if gambling earnings are taxed at earned income rates, why should capital gains be taxed any differently?

BINGO!

You're welcome billybob. Thanks for keeping things civil.

I don't think anyone would disagree on that a major revision of the tax code is needed. BUT, the devil will be in the details. That's when all this discussion will start again. Can we agree that any revisions should be revenue neutral?

Good Policy? Federal Reserve loans money to investment banks at 0% interest. Investment banks invest this in American concerns in China. Money is for cost, profit, and the Chinese governments slice. Chinese Government uses their part to buy US treasuries at 2.5%. Investment banks rake in quarterly profits of 4 to 6 % per quarter. Often more. Under present tax law the investment banks, especially the really big ones, seldom ever pay a gwaddamn penny of taxes on those profits. Good policy? WHY? How? Shouldn't these investment bankers pay at least, enough in taxes on these profits to cover the interest costs on the bonds bought by China, and some additional tax revenue to add to the general fund of the Treasury? Many other ancillary aspects to this I know, but this is the core, and It's rotten.

From: TNSEVOL

In my opinion we should eliminate most deductions, even those "sacred cows" of mortgage and. charitable contributions.

All income - dividends, capital gains, earned income - should be treateed the same and taxed at progressive rates. (a side point - if gambling earnings are taxed at earned income rates, why should capital gains be taxed any differently?)

-----

You do realize that will kill the housing market(housing prices will fall to make up the difference by the amount of mortgage interest + county taxes + city taxes) -- This will hit the middle class extremely hard(no mortgage, state tax breaks) -- Does this mean that the "standard deduction" would be reduced as well, it should, as built into this number is a "value" assigned to "sacred cows" as you call them), I believe it should and now lower/middle class will be hit harder. This will kill charitable organizations which does more for the poor than the government ever could and more efficiently.

If you change capital gains tax to be the same as standard earned income you will kill the stock market -- where will that money go overseas? offshore? It is my contention that the government does not see 50% of the boost it is expecting from increase capital gains tax.

Dennis and company...

If the spending cuts are so bad why did lew conceive the plan and obama and the senate embrace it? Surely you aren't claiming that the republican controlled house is the dog wagging the senate and WH tail?

It would be inane for the house to not insist that the sequester moves forward. Now obama and company has to address spending realistically rather than say that the promise of caps in the 2011 budget agreement is part of any balanced approach. If anything, the sequester should have been written so that the POTUS has the power to where the discretionary and military cuts are made. After all they all eminate from the executive branch, and the exemptions can be rather limiting.

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

LMAO David walker, talk about skating around an issue!

You reflect on what our debt is and what everyone would owe in a balanced plan. What was it again $15k? but you don't say what you consider to be a fair share? Or even what a "fair share" should get someone.

Heck david, even some of the northern european industrialized countries understand "fair share". Just look at their individual tax rates and their willingness to pay them vs ours.

You already know the answer to that one american. Republicans were willing to allow the US debt to default, destroying our currency forever and spinning the world economy into a new recession.

Under the circumstances what would you do?

Heindl...

Yes, eliminating all deductions will have some detrimental impact on everyone, but I would stop short of saying it would kill any one market or even impact locally collected property taxes.

Needless to say our tax codes have grown immensely since the 1986 tax reform act and need to be addressed. The simplest approach would be to eliminate all deductions except those that would benefit the public the most. This would fall into the categories of food, shelter, charities and transportation. Let the risk (investments) be at the state and local levels as a means to encourage the growth of their tax bases.

BTW - Warren buffet may have implied that he would still make investments regardless of taxes, but he oversimplified, taxes are always in the investment equation when looking at margins.

johnB - default in and by itself is not evil if it corrects an economic problem. Perhaps our politicians need to just own up to the fact that they overpromised.

I look at the republicans efforts as looking for guidence from the WH and opposing party to acknowledge that there is a spending problem. That it went so far in 2011 merely pointed out how much the left and the WH dug their heels in as well.

I will say that neither side played their cards well for the American people but there is hardly any justification to blame only one side other than how any political blog wants to play to their bloggers.

What I hear from the house is we gave in on tax rates but now we need to see real spending cuts. The sequester may do this rather bluntly but it should get obama and company to address cuts rather than just talk specific tax increases vs some imaginary cuts.

Besides you don't really think that the sequester will really go full term do you?

american lotsanumbers writes:

"You reflect on what our debt is and what everyone would owe in a balanced plan. What was it again $15k? but you don't say what you consider to be a fair share? Or even what a "fair share" should get someone."

Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about a "balanced plan". I merely demonstrated arithmetically what would happen given the scenario offered by billybob. You know? Arithmetic.

You have stalked me from post to post with your petulant whining and bottomless ignorance. It is clear you suffer from RWMS - Right Wing Memory Syndrome. You have serious memory issues. Time and again, I have all but ridiculed the notion of a "fair share" as it is purely subjective.

Again, I have repeatedly said the answer is to balance the needs of the government against revenues. The last time I put forth an answer, Alan, NJ butchered my solution so badly, I decided to no longer respond to right-wingers with solutions. That would include you.

american - default in and by itself is not evil if it corrects an economic problem. Perhaps our politicians need to just own up to the fact that they overpromised.

Wow, what an AMAZING thing for someone from the "government should live within its means" contingent to say. As it turns out we have history to indicate an inkling of what that would mean;

Once upon a time, Congress didn't want to raise the debt ceiling, and sent the country into default. It was bad, and we shouldn't do it again. The end.
Oh, you wanted to hear the rest of the story? Okay, here it is. Back in 1979, Congress waited, and waited, and waited to lift the debt ceiling, because Congress never likes taking responsibility for the tax and spending decisions it's already made. Now, Congress usually does the right thing after it's exhausted every other possibility, at least when it comes to paying our bills, and this debt limit increase was no exception. Congress did raise it right before defaulting on our obligations would have been unavoidable ... but that didn't let us avoid defaulting on our debt. At least not $120 million or so of it. That's because the logistically and technologically-challenged Treasury couldn't get the checks out in time on such short notice. As Donald Marron of the Tax Policy Center explains, the Treasury got swamped with an inordinately high demand for Treasury bills, which it couldn't meet due to a word-processing error. So we defaulted on some of them.
The government eventually paid back everyone what it owed with interest, but that didn't erase this accidental default from the market's memory. Short-term interest rates shot up 0.6 percentage points after the Treasury missed its payments, as you can see in the chart below from Terry Zivney and Richard Marcus, and remained higher than they otherwise would have been for a few months at least. It wasn't the end of the world, but it wasn't exactly something we want to repeat either.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/heres-what-happened-the-last-time-the-us-defaulted-on-its-debt/267205/

And that's what happened when we technically defaulted on a tiny portion of our national debt. What happens when the feral children of the Republican Party DELIBERATELY default on our ENTIRE debt?

David walker, stalking you?? How utterly droll.

Putting words in your mouth, really? I asked you what you considered a "fair" share to be butsince you refuse to answer with any intelligence then your default answer on a fair share must be, $15k/person/year.

Reading through this thread, it appears you know how to ask questions and disregard answers, but YOU can't answer questions. One more question. Am I correct?

Poor david a victim of his own attempt at spin and misdoirection.

LMAO JohnB...

I see you still find it hard to think about what someone posts and you copied it so well.

Apparently you stopped reading at the word "evil" and just prior to the caveat "if it corrects an economic problem".

Interesting on how the sequester has also imposed its own version of default as well. After all $$$ had already been assigned to many federal programs, Now obama and congress have to refuse to honor some of that debt.

Perhaps I should ask you the following question. Would the general populace be willing to give all of their money to the federal government to avoid default? To secure social safety nets?

I wonder if you have the intelligence to realize that when obama gave a pass to the senate for not creating a spending budget that could be reconciled with any house budget version, sequestration was inevitable. To think that jack lew and obama sponsered and promoted such a plan must make a lot of LWNJ's heads spin.

No one's asking the general populace to give all their money to the federal government.

And more insults.

The great thing about you, american, is that I can always rely on you to demonstrate that you're not only unreasonable but unwilling even to debate honestly.

Cya.

GBM, excellent reminder. Securing civil rights and voting rights was a long and violent struggle. I found the comments of several of the conservatives Supreme Court Justices disturbing. Worse, the barriers to voting are spreading to the North as conservative lawmakers and governors pass legislation to suppress the vote, and gerrymander districts because they have difficulty winning elections without rigging the system.

It is a sad, sad time in our collective history when these "activist" justices (I'm looking at you Scalia, Roberts and Thomas) are leaning toward dialing back the very tenent upon which a democracy is built - the right to vote! How can we, as a nation, ask our brave men and women in the military to risk their lives bringing democracy to oppressed nations while simultaneously attempting to revoke that same freedom in our own. Shame on those cowards for turning a blind eye on such an atrocity!

GM,

Watched the replay of LBJ speech last night. Voting is the most sacred right of our citizenry. Any laws that attempt to suppress the vote, add onerous requirements are the" modern tactics" of obstructing the right of people to vote .

"The case comes on the heels of a federal election last fall in which our nation witnessed the greatest assault on voting rights in more than a half century. Drastic cuts to early voting hours, restrictive photo ID laws, tens of thousands of registered voters being dropped from poll books due to illegitimate purges were only a few of the tactics used to keep people from voting." -CNN

Scalia should go to lunch with the 102 year old woman who had be wait hours to cast her vote, and just listen to what goes on in the real world before he opens his mouth again.

In November, the people of MN defeated a voter ID constitional amemdment put on the ballot by the Tea Party legislature. The common folks understand when they are being sold a pig in the poke.

For instruction in what SHOULD happen in this case and why there's no need to look beyond the comments of Justice Sotomayor;

“Assuming I accept your premise, and there’s some question about that, that some portions of the South have changed, your county pretty much hasn’t,” Sotomayor said of Shelby County, which is 90 percent white. “In the period we’re talking about, it has many more discriminating -­- 240 discriminatory voting laws that were blocked by Section 5 objections. … You may be the wrong party bringing this.”

“Why would we vote in favor of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with?” she asked, wondering why the Court should invalidate Section 5 if, as she argued, any formula would cover Shelby County. “Discrimination is discrimination.”

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/sotomayor-liberal-justices-defend-voting-rights-act.php

Instead we're in serious jeapardy of having this landmark legislation overturned by vicious, corrupt, partisan ideologues like Antonin Scalia.

I am so incensed at Justice Scalia's remarks---a truly low moment for the Supreme Court. And the timing of such an insensitive statement--on the day when so many of the remaining civil rights legends were gathered to honor Rosa Parks. Justice Scalia is not fit to sit on the highest court in our land if that is how he feels about his fellow citizens.

Justice Scalia is not fit to sit on the highest court in our land if that is how he feels about his fellow citizens.

I think Scalia made it very clear he doesn't view "them" as fellow citizens. Now I would just like him to clearly define what he considers a fellow citizen, or conversely, his definition of "them". Given his track record, my best guess is a fellow citizen is a White, Protestant, married, male, land owner.

Scalia should go to lunch with the 102 year old woman who had be wait hours to cast her vote, and just listen to what goes on in the real world before he opens his mouth again.

Why bother? The racist scumbag would simply retort the old black lady has enjoyed her entitlement to vote for far to long.

The remarks from yesterday's SC was very troubling in many ways. Coming from a Supreme Court Justice, Scalia's observation was a low blow. I recently viewed a 2 hour documentary on the Freedom Riders journey to march for Civil rights, an episode in the struggle for equality that took place in the Spring 1961, one of the riders was John Lewis, who today is a Congress man from Georgia and who yesterday offered a well deserved blistering attack on Justice Scalia for his outrageous remarks. Watching that documentary shows what a difficult path its been to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a major milestone in Civil Rights and how insulting Scalia's words are to someone who had his skull cracked during the Freedom Ride. Voting is not an entitlement it is a right for ALL citizens and the means to get there must not be a path of trumped up obstacles and reasons to stop people whose skin is a different color from the Founding Fathers or those who see themselves as arbitrators deciding who should or should not vote.

For someone like me who was not born here, easily becoming a citizen and voting without hassle, I am deeply offended that some native born citizens are not extended the same right as I consider they have more right than someone like me. But should the Supreme Court rule against Section 5, I will fight for them with every fiber of my being to make sure every citizen who wants to vote will be able to do so. Not to do so, is just wrong in so many ways.

One question as to the Voting Rights Act, if now is not the time to do away with Section 5, which effects 9 States and some districts in other states, when is a good time? Who is to decide that the so called "voter suppression" of minorities is no longer needed. The NAACP and the liberal voting bloc will say there will never be a time to give special protection to a specific class. Why is it o.k. to have voter ID cards in some states, but not required in all states except with DOJ approval? Everyone, left and right, knows the DOJ is as political as it gets, they are not nonpartisan, never has been and never will be.

Congress believed 98-2 that time is not yet here. Who are demonstrably corrupt Conservative bloc of the SCOTUS to decide otherwise?

John B - More crying and whining, you ask "Who are demonstrable.....SCOTUS to decide otherwise." The Constitution of the United States gave the Court, rather it be Conservative or Liberal that right.

That's hilarious...just because they HAVE the right doesn't make it RIGHT. If that were the case Plessy v. Ferguson was rightly decided.

Are you ready to make that assertion?

If that's the case everyone who disagrees with Roe v. Wade should just shut up and go away.

Are you ready to make that assertion?

I didn't think so.

John B....thanks for your nice response to sfcret........it all depends on whose ox is being gored isn't it?

In reading his post this came to mind:

"First They Came for the Jews"
By Pastor Niemoller

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

We have to speak out at injustices, it is a duty we must carry out being part of the human race and i for one, could not look in a mirror if I said nothing over this injustice.

John B - I am sure the state of LA felt they were right as did the Supreme Court at that time so yes it was rightly decided, even if I don't agree with it. As far as Roe v. Wade, I have accepted it as the law of the land (and it won't ever be overturned). I wish the Republicans would just drop any and all arguments over Roe v. Wade and I hope they will take it out of the party platform.

Even when I don't agree with a ruling of the Supreme Court, I accept it as the law, such as the ACA. So quit whining about "Citizens United" it is the law. You and Gingerbread don't like it, file a law suit against it or write your congressman/woman. Quit belittling the Justices for their decisions because you don't agree. I didn't agree when Chief Justice Roberts changed the wording or the meaning of the wording, (tax in place of fee), but I am not belittling him or whining and crying over it.

Yeah, it's the law...doesn't mean it's right. Bribery is never right, and the very fact that you'd declare otherwise makes you wrong as well.

This isn't an academic discussion over whether or not people in black robes have the right to decide law. This is OUR government and we have a say in it. That Conservatives constantly tell us otherwise only demonstrates their intent to destroy our democratic society.

John B - You and the other cry baby lefties think only you have the solution and if you lefties don't think it is right then it's somehow bribery or political favoritism. The only ones that want to destroy of society is those on the left by making everyone dependent on the government from cradle to grave.

Name calling doesn't hide the fact that you don't have the facts on your side, nor does it change the fact that your position is out of step with the vast majority of Americans;

Amid the flurry of cash directed at the presidential campaigns as well as congressional races, a new poll reveals that the American people aren’t pleased with the vast amount of fundraising now involved in elections.

An Associated Press-National Constitution Center poll found that 83% believe there should be at least some limits on the amount of money corporations, unions and other organizations are permitted to contribute to groups seeking to influence the outcome of presidential and congressional races. And 67% think that limits should also be placed on individual contributions to campaigns. That matches up with just 13% who don’t want limits on external contributions, and 28% who repudiate limits on individuals.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/16/news/la-pn-poll-citizens-united-20120916

You think your ad hominem attack creates power, but your feeble attempt to bully only amuses me.

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength." -- Eric Hoffer

John B - I have the facts, IT'S THE LAW. We don't govern by polls. I for one am glad that the Supreme Court does not care about polls since their job is to interpret the law, not please the majority. This is my last response since it is going no where. Have a good day and don't believe everything coming from the left.

Jim Crow was also once the law...that's my point.

Your unwillingness to acknowledge that is why this is going nowhere. It's also why the GOPTP is going nowhere.

Jody, I would chose that the Act be extended throughout all the States. Make all of them equal under the law and remove the perception of being singled out ... deservedly or not.

Jody,

Scalia shows us once again that Conservatives want to repeal the 20^th century.

Agree, the Act, Section 5 should be extended to include all states.

Anyone notice that the right-wing, no longer uses one of their favorite mantras 'Activist Judges"?

.....Scalia, exhibit 1 - 100, = Activist!

bcwc....Uncle Thomas is forbidden to speak!

So many folks don't want those people voting. They feel that many are not Real Americans with good old fashion American values. So, Minorities, Muslims, Gays, Intellectuals and anyone who does not fit the bill needs to have their vote screened.

Heck, the way it going, is you can buy a gun easier and faster than you can vote in some areas.

Well, as long as you have the same values and vote the right way. Wink, Wink!

If black people have been the primary beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Act it's for one simple reason.

They're the PRIMARY VICTIMS of the racism the CRA attempts to prevent.

BCWC, agree, the Act should be extended to include all 50 states. That inclusion would also reduce the gerry-mandering of districts because redistricting becomes part of the review as well.

i believe the definition of an activist judge is one with whom you disagree.

let's look at ACA and Roberts -- would he be classified as an activist judge? by the left? by the right?

jody -- you took roberts to task for his comments. how would you answer the question?

An activist judge is one who throws out 112 years of settled law in order to create a new legal reality more in keeping with the desires of a special interest with whom said judge is aligned...

...as the corrupt majority did with Citizens United.

Well tell us Johnny, where in the law does it say the U.S. can demand there must be commerce so they can turn around and regulate it ? That is what happened through Obamacare and the "non-purchase" tax, no penalty, no tax , uhhh penalty .... uhh tax as decided by John Roberts ..... only Obama still wants to call it a penalty and not allow us to deduct it on our tax returns ????????? Got it ??????????????????????????

Scalia is bad. Thomas, acting as Scalia's sock puppet is worse. Where was Thomas when the 60s unfolded?

Jody - You stated above: Chief Justice John Roberts. Intentionally ignorant. "Are citizens in the South more racist than citizens not in the South?" Ridiculous question. No, they are not more or less racist, but the South has and continues to have a history of erecting barriers to prevent blacks from voting. Roberts implied that the election of President Barack Obama, the first black president, proved the law is no longer required. That argument is irrelevant to the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act guarantees minorities the RIGHT TO VOTE, it has nothing to do with the person for whom they vote.

Do you have any actually proof the the Southern States covered under the VRA would try and deny the right to vote for minorities? I asked this question before: If now is not the time to end Section 5 of the VRA when is/would be the time? Who should decide when the law is no longer needed if not the Supreme Court, that is their job.

BTW, I didn't hear the left complaining about Roberts when he upheld the ACA law by changing the "fees" to "taxes". He was then the darling of the left and was being praised.

John B. Quit crying about "citizens united" it is the law, you liberals don't like it, have Congress rewrite the law to exclude "citizens united." BTW, the Courts have always been "activist" it just depends on which side they come down on.

Congress DID make an attempt to make the corrupt Citizens United decision transparent and palatable. It's called the DISCLOSE Act, which Republicans promptly blocked.

Now we know who stands on the side of legalized bribery.

John B - Typical liberal BS, you don't like the decision by the Court, so you label it bribery or some other asinine think. The Court ruled, get used to it, just like most of us that was against ACA, has to get used to it being the law. The left and right are never happy unless the Court ruling goes in their favor.

Is there another name for large cash payments made to public servants out of public scrutiny?

BCWC,

One person at the dinner table is a guy named Edward Blum. He is the one man crusader against any anti-discrimination laws including the Civil Rights Act. Interesting bio.

My question: who is bankrolling him to hire all the big time Washington lawyers? Definitely not Shelby County Alabama. He is their "godfather".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/edward-blum-defies-odds-in-getting-cases-to-supreme-court/2013/02/25/2d6e06ac-7b8e-11e2-a044-676856536b40_s