Debbie Wasserman Schultz says GOP seeks 'dictatorship … spark panic' - Mike Allen - POLITICO.com

And what is Obama's compromise??? It is all smoke and mirrors and what ifs on his cuts to the budget just like the last time. Well he claims we save so much a year when the wars end but we cant count on that as savings since there is no guarantee when that will happen then you have the billions he claims he can save on fraud, once again you can count on that as savings either so most of his cuts and Reids are smoke and mirrors and what ifs not true cuts just more of the same ols i promise if you let me keep spending so no it isnt just the reps the dems offer nothing but more of the same spend spend spend and now they see a way to raise taxes and just keep on spending

Solve the problem and just cut tax breaks to the 1% as they have not produced the jobs that we are told they will produce. All I have to say is if my husband doesn't get his federal retirement and we both don't get our social security come Nov. I will be knocking on doors for every Democrate running. This is not right.

You will both get your checks, it's just a childish scare tactic. And ask a business owner why they are sitting on their money. Ask them about the tons and tons of new regulations that make it nearly impossible for a small business to operate. I have a friend that tried to get a small business loan and the banks will take absolutely NO risk right now. Why is that? Because of even more and more regulation. Some regulation is good, too much is not.

Steve Wynn, big Democrat business man, owner of Wynn Hotels in Las Vegas says it like this. Obama keeps talking about redistributing what business owners have worked and sacrificed so much to make successful. He wants to punish success and re-distribute to those who did not earn it. Go figure that they are all sitting on their money. GUESS WHAT? It's THEIR money, they can do that. You want them to cut loose and create jobs, quit saying the government is going to take everything they earn. I sure as hell wouldn't invest MY money and hard work and time to make a business successful just to have the govt take it. Would you? Really? Wynn says business owners are afraid of the government. "When the people fear the government it is tyranny, when the government fears the people it is liberty. Which would you like?

Hello Deb

I just got finished reading the article from which you mentioned Steve Wynn's supposed quote:

"When the people fear the government it is tyranny, when the government fears the people it is liberty.

That is actually Thomas Jefferson and credit in the article was given appropriate to Jefferson. In other words, you are wrong in stating this as something Steve Wynn said.

I also noted that no where in the article does the writer state that any thing you wrote here came from Steve Wynn. His name is brought up but there is never an attachment once that says the comments written are from Steve Wynn,

So I must tell you I hold all the rest of what you said here suspect as information we could readily prove or disprove shows a lack on your part for factual accuracy. :-(

(Repost)

Marine

I am sorry, but I am so getting tired of reading comments that show folks do not know what they are talking about! Your comment implies you did not read the article. That said, to answer your question...NO, one can not exchange the word Democrat and Republican to the same result. I DARE you to tell us all exactly what has the Republicans offered in sacrifice to their desires? I can, though if you really are paying attention, I should not have to offer you a list for either side and I am not even a Democrat!

It is one thing to take a party's side as you seem to be doing, but it is another thing to not be informed and take a side. Learn what is going on before you make absurd suggestions as to the equality of their views and it will help you to at least appear to have an intelligent argument.

As for the article, Wassermanis spot on. there can be no compromise if you have one side saying we will meet you half way as the Democrats have done with the President publicly stating the willingness to put entitlements on the table as well as stating ALL things were on the table, while you have Cantor refusing to stay in talks and later Boehner doing the same. The Right would declare all issues stem from the President, but not a single conversation to date (and I welcome the correction if I am wrong because I would LOVED to know that I missed it) exactly what has the Republican stated as a willing sacrifice that they would compromise on. There are about 80 new freshman Republicans which have allowed the Republicans the control of the House. They have pledged to Norquist that they would not raise taxes and are rebelling against their party to fulfill that pledge. Beyond the fact that taking a pledge to a person rather than a pledge to your country's interest first is appalling, I have yet to hear a single one of them come forward to say they have changed their position.

So the Democrats have offered and are still offering the only changes of policies and those are policies that effect only the position of Democrats while Republicans have offered nothing. If that is ANY one's version of compromise, then it is simply a matter of ignorance. Wasserman was right, instead of compromise, we are being given a form of dictatorship which began with a signing of a pledge to Grover Norquist. Frankly anyone who did this should be ran out of office. It may sound great to you now if you think it means getting your way, but what if the other side signs a pledge that says unless we have a complete liberal agenda nothing should pass? That is not how things work in America. the point of why we vote is to have varied views and free to debate and change direction as we please. If we are not going to respect that, then there is nothing left and when that sinks in, there will be a price to pay that will leave all those folks too stupid to realize they are fighting against their own interest to wonder what happened as the money makers will surely protect their own (fellow money makers) while the rest are left to suffer.

one side saying we will meet you half way as the Democrats have done with the President publicly stating the willingness to put entitlements on the table

Where are the details? All I've seen as far as cuts are accounting gimmicks. SO far the talk has been, "give us tax increases today and in 5 years we'll look into cutting programs. That is not compromise.

I never feared my government until the last 6 months or so. First of all there is no way anyone can say that I will get our social security checks. I remember when Newt Gingrich held this government hostage and the budget was not getting passed. At that time the government shut down, all except for vital parts. My husband worked as a civilian at the Veteran Hospital and because his job was considered vital he had to work but did not get his paycheck until after the budget was passed. So any who are not taking this seriously needs to understand that this can happen. We need a simple vote and pass the debt ceiling and then work on budget cuts. One has nothing to do with the other. Yes there are possible cuts and we do need to raise taxes on the 1%. We as Americans really need to believe in equality for all. There are no jobs so I don't buy that the rich will provide jobs, therefore they should pay their fair share.

SCTexan

Where are the details? All I've seen as far as cuts are accounting gimmicks. SO far the talk has been, "give us tax increases today and in 5 years we'll look into cutting programs. That is not compromise.

Accounting gimmicks? Really? Name them. Some of them. ONe of them.

I am sure you did not mean to use quotation marks as that would imply someone actually said what you made up. Then again, you may have heard this from someone on the Right, but as it was conjecture....

Gimmick has indeed after all been one of the Republicans Word (or phrase)of the Day as I like to call them. When they pick a word to emphasize and lead their people in repeating it? Let's see, some I can recall...obstructionist, radical, not engaging, death panels, the American people (one of my favs) ans of course the one you just used, gimmicks. These buzz words are supposed sent out on email each morning and we all hear them through the day(s). LOL

I will say to you what I said to Marine who never bothered to answer... name for me what the Right IS willing to compromise n! I am willing to admit I missed it but as you know and I do not, please share. AS the Right were the ones to make this an issue, surely they offered something! You know what it is, right? Well please don't keep me and others in the dark any longer because I really would love to know. On the other hand, if you can not , I will take that as a sign that you are clueless and should be dismissed as someone who has nothing to contribute to a conversation with me except meaningless excuses for the Right not taking on the issue they claimed was so important with the willingness to compromise. Tick tock, SC.

One of them

Middle East conflict savings and interest that will not be incurred by ending the conflict.

The wars should be winding down anyway, so his plan assumes it would last at full force for ten more years.

One of them

The Reid plan has cuts, it assumes that instead of a baseline increase of, lets say 10% a year, each year, they will only spend 5% more each year, so he counts that as savings.

I will say that these type of things appear in many of the plans, I want to see a true cut or at the very least holding at the same $ level. At least the Republican plans do have "some" real reductions.

Annie:

Hate to say it but there is more to this government than you getting your social security check!

Jen:

Yes, accounting gimmicks. Did you even read Reid's plan? It was a joke! It counted as "cuts" the "savings" from the fact that after we withdraw from AFghanistan, we won't be spending the money we have in Afghanistan!

You don't call that a gimmick?

As far as compromise, the dems haven't provided ONE written, over all plan to the House or the pubs for them to "Compromise" on. If you can link me to ONE actual written plan, not some crappy "statement," then we can talk.

Until then, it's the dems who are the party of no, period.

SC

May I suggest you read the CBO's report because accordingly it is Reid who has the better plan EXCLUDING the monies from war. Are you prepared to address what the Right is forfeiting or are you simply going to ignore that they too should be equally engaged in this compromise? Again I ask what are they giving up?

As for those things you mentioned being gimacks...No I do not view them as gimmicks. ANY money saved should not be overlooked, but again, even without them, the CBO says Reid has the better plan.

wmolaw

I do not recall asking you at any time for a conversation and as I can read you have NOTHING to offer as the main question still is being avoided, which is , what are the REpublicans compromising on, I agree there is nothing for us to discuss.

It is rather simple. If you start an argument then YOU should be ready to present your case. Case in this scenario would be your plan of action. The Republicans did not do this. Instead they argued that whatever was being said was not to their liking. The President met with them and Eric left the room because he did not want to negotiate. Every plan thus far is filled with things the Republicans asked for and I have read nothing that shows the Democrats have gotten something they have asked for. Now you all can play the silly games as seen on TV but this is reality time and those of us paying attention no matter what talking points you provide are still aware that the Right has given up NOTHING. Now That is obviously something you do not wish to discuss and that is fine, but it does not change it as being a fact. And that fact is something that makes this Independent say they are not compromising. The fact that they signed a pledge says to me their allegiance is to Norquitse and the Right wing extremist than it is to ALL of Americans as we are not all Republicans.

I believe in a two party system where there is give and take on both sides. Had the Right did that I would be here praising them for it but they did not and hearing about all the players who benefit says a great deal to me. Eric Cantor benefits personally if we default. That does not place him in the good faith category for me. Again, folks on the left are quoted in e mails as wanting this President to fail. If there is even the slight possibility the a soldier or a senior citizen would not get a check then I feel you have stepped over the line in pushing this issue no matter which party you are!

I dont have a particular player in this game folks, but I also do not stand on the side lines with my hands over my eyes or ears. I pay attention to BOTH sides before I make a decision and until some one shows me where the Republicans have compromised? Nothing else you say matters.

Military brat, and a PK to boot! Marine. :-) Growing up, we were stationed from Parris Island to Keneohoe Bay and a few in between. :-)

I agree you can spout out anything you want but it is nice to know where you stand so I will not take your point of view in the future seriously. At least now I know you do not speak from a perspective of being informed but just whatever you feel like saying being it truth or not. That is at least honest and I respect that.

I re-posted because I saw the community had collapsed the post and I wanted my views stated.

Jen can you tell me were the Dem's are willing to negotiate. Talk is cheap, Action is what counts. they do a lot of accusing but I see no action from their side.

Hey Marine

Were you PI, Palms or Officer? I think I must be insulting without knowing it. You are not the first to tell me this and I really did not think I was being insulting but recognizing what you were saying to me is your motivation for participating here. Some just come to hear themselves and others come to bash and even others for information. I am the latter. I really do not mind being wrong or learning something new but I do grow tired of the attacks with no substance. I wish instead that we would ALL simply discuss the issues but instead their seems to be more of an interest in why you don't like others than what we should do about policies.

In this situation, The Republicans have said from what I read, that Bush is not to be mentioned, President Obama created the debt and they want him to tell them what their plan of action should be to get out of it. They are saying that they want him to make changes but they better not include anything they want to keep. That really is what I have seen. I listen to what the politicians say and attempt to skip pundits and talk shows (though I do watch CSPAN and sporadically PBS News) as the opinions really are ridiculously flawed. I try to get most of my reading material from sources that say dot gov or dot org. I am imperfect but I resent anyone trying to dupe me and when I read and hear the foolishness from the parties, I get turned off.

I have been called a liberal which I find funny as I have voted for Republicans and Dems on every ticket of my voting life, but I do admit for the first time ever, I will vote straight Democrat because I really am sick of the lies. I am not talking about others telling me the Right lied. I am talking about pulling up info after hearing them say it and learning they were lying. I am talking about folks here who offer nothing more than disdain and anger when you dare to ask for more info. That is not who I want governing me/the country. I really want EVERY person to have some respect and some of their rights honored. I really do care if kids have food or elderly have meds. I don't think it is too much to say to folks if you can, help pay the cost of your healthcare. I do see a debt issue but I don't think holding America hostage is the way to resolve it. I also think that when what we do effects the world, we must be more mindful and know when to stop and do what is best for the country/world. We are about to lose our ratings and not pay our bills and it is not because their is no solution but because a party has said they will not allow it. Well I really do not care what the reasons are, but to so much as suggest not paying our bills alone is a reason for me to say you are not who I want in charge. Besides, I think we should be talking about jobs and the Republicans did promise that too in the last election only to not put forth a single bill to date. It does not take a genius to figure out that this is not about the citizens and all about politics. I do resent that in the present day Republicans though I was glad to see the old McCain return as he scolded his party for theiractions. So there you have it. Whatever decisions made will nto effect me much but the methods and lies have been enough for me to take a side for now.

BKWjr

Where do I start? Okay let me start with this concept...

In my world of thoughts if you are the one making a complaint, then you should be the one coming up with solutions. I think it is ridiculous to say I want a change Mr. President now please sit down and write out changes so I can tell you if I like them or not. It seems to me if I am the one who takes issues with the status quo or even the one making it an issue first, then I should be the one introducing my plan(s). I think I should introduce them and we work on them until their is mutual agreement. If as in this case both sides have things they really do not wish to give up then it means that either BOTH must give and take or neither should have to and accept the impasse.

That said, if I recall the order right, the President did accommodate the request by having Vice President Biden sit down and try to negotiate things out. As I recall Eric Cantor represented the Right and called off talks. I think I also recall a bipartisan group of six where once again I think it was Hoyer (Rep) who walked out? If it was not Hoyer, what I do remember is that it was once again a Republican. Then there were the talks directly with the President where all the leaders again there were not headways. Then lastly the President and Boehner. Now I can only speak for me, but when you bring up your wanting a change and yet it is your side that keeps leaving negotiations, then it says to me you really are not committed to this ad that is when I feel you have only a political interest.

Now the President has come forth and stated several things mentioned to which he agreed and I have not heard anyone on the Right say that he lied about those things he said yes to but what I have not heard to date is a single thing that the RIght has said they are willing to put on the table. So their you go.

It is very easy to play circle games of you should have done this and I did should not have to go first, but in the end, it really does not matter. If a person comes to me saying they want something and can not agree to anything offered, then as far as I am concerned you are your won problem. In this case the Right are complaining while offering nothing and mad at the President and the Left for expecting more from them. For me, that is the most idiotic logic and I can only hope they are just talking rhetoric as oppose to believing what they as. To know they are sincere for me would mean it is time for them to retire and they are having mental breakdowns.

Correction, it was Grassly (R) who walked away from negotiations in the Gang of Six.

Jen, let me give you an view on how the CBO works. First, they only use data provided. The current projections are using a 7% GDP growth over the coming 10 years, because that is what they were told to use. At this point in time, that appears to be impossible. That automatically puts the estimates off by a large amount.

Also, something many are over looking, is that unless a real $4t in cuts are made, the US will be downgraded, some smaller debt evaluating companies have already down graded the US. If that happens, which based on nearly every proposal out there, except maybe the CC&B plan, it will happen. That means all of our future debt will be refinanced at much higher interest rates. That means our current debt payments could double or triple. Where is that money going to come from?

What has the Republicans given in on, many do not want a debt ceiling raised at all, many do not want taxes raised at all, they have agreed to both with the tax increase by redoing the way taxes laws, removing loopholes etc.

Let me also share some DC thinking. If we held spending at the exact same levels for the next 10 years the CBO would report it as a $9.5t reduction.

I think we should consider the Mack/Paul budget proposal. Pass the debt limit, then hold the US budget spending at this years level minus 1%. This will allow the government to cut one department and grow another, just as long as next years budget is 1% less. Under that plan, we will reduce the deficit to zero in 6 years.

Jen-, The bipartisan grp. of 6 wanted to pass a bill that gave the Pres. all he wanted, And on top of that they wanted to leave congress out of the picture all together by allowing the Pres. to do what he wanted with out the votes of Congress. I would not accept that either. The Pres. has not been flexible at all. He wants what he wants and accepts nothing else. He even threw a tantrum and left in the middle of a meeting because he couldn't get his way. how is that being flexible? Saying your flexible, and then not excepting any changes to your plan is not being flexible. The Senate has stated they will not accept anything the house passes. Accepting only what they want. Our gov. is spending to much money. We spent millions bailing out the Auto industry, Banking, Housing, The gov. even spent other millions buying old cars for $5.000 a piece. That almost destroyed the used car market. The only thing wrong with Social security, and Medicare is that the Dem's took the money for their pet projects. Then you have that gran insurance scam. It steal from medicare. There is one thing I disagree with the Repub's. Make the dam Oil industry pay their taxes like the rest of us.

I have read your comment SCTexan, and raise you validation. I know you would love me to take you word as factual and accurate, but it is nothing more than an opinion unless you are now telling me you work for the CBO? My guess is that someone on TV told you this and thus it is true in your mind and if that is all it takes for you to accept something, that is fine for YOU. The CBO has been used by both partys long enough BEFORE this President without opposition for me to question why it is all of a sudden untrustworthy upon the arrival of this President and ONLY when it is to his benefit. When the Republicans created their plan for the reductions, where did they take it? When they said that is was not as high as Boehner claimed, he did not dispute them, he simply tweaked it and gave it back to them. So, unless you are telling me that the CBO can not be trusted for any group then it must be trusted for every group as rather there is any truth to your calim becomes a moot point IF all sides are using the same measure. I welcome your answers to my points as well as the validation of your points being correst. Until then they are mertely your opinion.

BKWjr

You are entitled your own opinions, but not your own facts. EVERYTHING you mentioned I have already researched in the past so I need not look it up to know that your comment is so inaccurate that I am both amazed how one can have such sound conviction about lies and have the ability to wrote this without questioning your own comment! I am actually a bit embarrassed for you!

As for your opinions, those you are allowed though they are irrelevant to a discussion where I am requiring facts IF you want me to take you seriously. Your arguments are strictly biased based on, I suspect, partyline and/or FOX . LOL

I would suggest IF you are going to expect someone to take you seriously other than those who like you are fixated on a party and not factual information available, then you must at least really know the facts. I must tell you I find myself feeing a but sad for you that the idea that the bipartisan group known as the Gang of six, coming up with a plan that our President would sign is considered by you to seemingly be a bad thing! How pathetic to so much as suggest the goal should not be that! Compromise is not signing whatever is given to you, it is a combination of what pleases AND displeases all parties involved and agreeing to it!

Jen,

Just to interject for a moment about CBO. SCTexan is correct about they only use whatever isprovided to them to do scoring but that's a simplified explanation. The economic growth figure pointed out I'm not sure about but it's not really relevant to what i wanted to add anyway as I will just use a hypothetical example.

CBO by law must make it's projections based only on current statutes and available data in doing calculations From the FAQ section of their own website at www.cbo.gov it says:

How accurate are CBO's budget projections?
By statute, CBO's baseline projections must estimate the future paths of federal spending and revenues under current law and policies. The baseline is therefore not intended to be a prediction of future budgetary outcomes; instead, it is meant to serve as a neutral benchmark that lawmakers can use to measure the effects of proposed changes to spending and taxes. So for that reason and others, actual budgetary outcomes are almost certain to differ from CBO's baseline projections.

So what happens here is not that they don't do a good job with what they have but they aren't allowed to make accurate assumptions about future trends in making the projections. For example the 10 year projection they make as a baseline to score proposals against has to take into account things that are in the law codes but never used such as the tax rate reductions that were extended instead of expiring. CBO has to assume they will be allowed to expire. With the AMT the Congress has never failed once to not exempt that every year but CBO must assume that revenue exists because it's in the tax code. Same thing with Medicare payment reductions that are law but have been waived every year by Congress making CBO projections way off because they have to assume the payments will be cut even though they never have been.

Also when scoring a proposal against the baseline they are only allowed to use the data provided to them. This has been abused by Congress as long as CBO has existed to make their proposed bills look better than they really are, it's not a new phenomenom that has come about since Obama became president, and it's been abused by both parties to meet their agendas. Anyway to get to good hypothetical example.

Let's say Congressman X sends a bill to them for scoring that says the economy is going to grow at 5% annually and his bill will lower the spending on Medicare by 5%. What CBO has to do then is project what the size of the economy will be based on 5% growth and how much the overall change is in income and expense based on the higher projected tax revenue and lower projected costs. What they can't do is use the more accurate historical data which would suggest say a 3% growth rate instead of 5%. That's how Congress is able to manipulate the numbers in their favor. CBO is non partisan but by law they can only make projections based on what Congress sends them, not by using real economic data like the GAO uses to determine true costs.

I get my facts from different sights on the Internet, Some TV. I don't watch fox news, and wouldn't watch CNN if it was the only channel on TV. I also get some info from Gov. sources. I could care less if you take me serious, and don't be embarrassed for me, you need to look in the mirror. I am only concerned about what is happening in our country. I see both party's as self destructive parasites. I an not a Democrat or a Republican, But I tend to agree more for the Republicans. I think people who support socialism are a bunch of idiots who don't have the slightest idea about it. I was all for the gang of six until they tried to bypass the Congress. READ what I posted as I posted. I did not say i was against them. From reading all your other post to others it is you who could care less about the truth.

Hi AmusedinVa

Feel free to jump in any time, but I was a bit confused as to why you felt a need to make that comment. I mean did I come across as not aware as to how the CBO works? If so, I will have to watch how I phrase things in the future, but thank you! ;-)

BKWjr

Oh my, it seems I have made you angry. * she shrugs shoulders* Oh well. You have have made me smile! Thank you! ;-)

Wmolaw, In response to your post. I am well aware that there is more to this than my social security. 1. My age group is the largest group going as we are the baby boomers. Point is that we are now receiving our social security checks and normally we cash our checks and put all of that money right back into our economy. Without the checks our needs are not met and the money will not be placed into a already hurting economy. 2. I have heard many say that there is no way that the government will come to a halt. My point was to tell you not only can it happen but it has happen. It may not bother you at this point but what do you think it will be like with no air traffic controller, no unemployment for those already hurting, no pay for our military that put their lives on the line to protect you, I have a grandson in the Navy and a nephew in the army who will not get paid. So as you pointed out this is much bigger than just my social security check. I am just saying the government can shut down as it has before. Also your state, county, city will also be hurting for money as federal funds will not be available to them. I sure hope we don't have another big flood, earthquake or tornado which will require help. This is very serious and all must be prepared for what may come if the United States is not allowed to honor their word and pay their bills.

Annie:

Maybe, then, the government should get serious about addressing pork barrel projects and fraud. What do you think?

Our Country has never "shut" down, not really. And, please note, that when it did (Gingrich, Contract with America), after it did, as a result of that, this Country entered one of the longest running economic upticks in a long, long time!

Dems love to say that the economy under Clinton was great, and it was, that the budge was balanced (which it wasn't, but the economy was good!). But they refuse to acknowledge that the REASON for that was the strong willed, tough ass positions taken by the pub congress!

THAT was real compromise, not the crap we are seeing today. And from that compromise REAL change was effected resulting in a much stronger economy!

The real issue here is when our Country, through excessive spending is no longer able to pay for all the give away programs which politicians put in place to get elected.

Then the crap will hit the fan for those that will have become used to being given things, might get a bit touchy!

Wmolaw: "Our Country has never "shut" down, not really". What do you really think happened under Newt babys shut down. When my husband had to report to work every day to the VA hospital and not receive his paycheck at the scheduled payday. When federal buildings, parks etc. are shut down what do you think happened. I remember walking a picket line, while Gingrich and his big money were having a fund raiser ($1000.00/plate) inside and I do believe that on the front line with me were our Vets who were not getting paid. Don't try to muddy the water as to what you think happened as I was on the front and I know the government shut down as we did not get paid until after the budget was approved/passed or ceased be held hostage by a specific party.

Maybe George Soros could answer ypur questions.

Sooth - you are deflecting...

many of the Republicans have signed Grover Norquist's pledge - I do not understand how this is democratic - there are people all over America who do not hold the views of Norquist

What about the millions who voted for those representatives? Don't they have the right to be represented?

Don't they have the right to be represented?

of course they do - but if the "my way or the highway" approach was used after every election, America would be in shambles -

C O M P R O M I S E is necessary - it should not be a dirty word -

I have a right to be represented too, and the republicans do not represent me at all, they only represent their fringe base of teapartiers. Lose the Bush tax cuts and close the damn loopholes and subsidies.

Sooth and Texan -

Democracy - a form of government in which all eligible people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.

not this "my way or the highway" approach!

lib50, that's why you have your own representatives, if your person isn't elected, then you are the minority in your community and if the Representative wants to be reelected, he will represent the majority as much as his own beliefs will allow. Then go back in front of the voters.

Dahlia, we are a Representative Republic, where we vote for people to represent us. You should vote for the person who most represents your values. Most of us allow for some give and take, but a wholesale sellout will not be tolerated. In truth, other than our vote, we have little to no say so, unless you are willto take some kind of action yourself.

What we are saying, SCTexan, is that a minority of representatives in the House are trying to bring down the country so they can get their way at the expense of everybody else. WTF do you think COMPROMISE means? Those couple of hundred wingnuts expect the rest of the country to sell out, and that is WRONG.

a minority of representatives

If they are a minority, they can be out voted.

SCTexan:

Sheesh, do you think these folks actually know how our government works? Clearly not!

Of course if they are a minority they can be out voted. Man, amazing.

240 republicans, 60 belong to the teaparty caucus. Some other republicans probably agree with them, the rest are too afraid to cross the wingnuts. Nothing they put up can pass the senate (since their budget isn't bipartisan), so yes, a minority of loud obtuse politicians ARE holding the country hostage. Clearly you don't understand politics.

And what is your view of a Senate leader who refuses to even hold a discussion of a bill passed by the House?

The lib's ignore that part. They only see what the Repub's are trying to do. They didn't see their Pres, throwing a temper tantrum and walking out because he couldn't get his own way. They only see the Repub, party as not playing fair. It all boils down to the dept needs to be lowered. to do that you have to cut spending.

Since republicans can't even agree amongst themselves, there IS NO BILL. And it can't pass the senate because is is NOT bipartisan. So yes, it IS republicans causing this mess.

It all boils down to the dept needs to be lowered. to do that you have to cut spending.

No, it doesn't. If you REALLY want to cut your debt you have to also raise your income. Your tired talking point on only spending cuts is bs. Why do you want to cut programs for middle America and keep the corporate and elite welfare and subsidies? Who are you trying to protect and at whose expense? And why?

Lib:

Ah it's the unfettered spending that is causing this mess.

lib let me ask you this; when you get in debt do you march into your boss's office and demand a raise, or adjust your spending?

Ah it's the unfettered spending that is causing this mess.

oh, I see,wmolaw - you mean like the unfunded wars from the Bush era -

Dahlia;

Yeah, I'm sure you mean the EXPANDED Afghan war under Obama, right? The one where more American soldiers have died in the two years of Obama's presidency, than under the ENTIRE GW presidency?

You mean the Afghan war where Obama is engaging in targeted assassinations? Where he is killing innocents left and right, and spending more and more money?

Is that the one you mean Dahlia?

Or is it Libya, is that the one you mean?

LOL, your warmonger in chief is spending TONS of dough.

But, I guess that's okay with you, right? Because it's Obama, not Bush, right?

The US is a COUNTRY, not a household. We have obligated ourselves to pay for what was spent. You all act like this is some new thing, when in reality most of the debt is from REPUBLICANS. Now we are in a recession, and you can't just cut, cut, cut and expect it not to have a negative effect on the economy. We need more revenue as well as cuts. Revenue, revenue, revenue. We did get into 2 UNFUNDED wars under Bush. Do you really believe you can just stop wars on a dime? It takes time to wind things down (ie Iraq). Afghanistan was a necessary involvement, and my biggest problem is that republicans IGNORED it for 8 years so they could take down Saddam. Now we are trying to wind that down too but it must be done with care and thoughtfulness. Do all of you teapubs have a problem with anything that requires more thought than a soundbite? By the way, my son served in Iraq, so I am well aware what is going on in the wars.

The one where more American soldiers have died in the two years of Obama's presidency, than under the ENTIRE GW presidency?

Once again, considering Bush/Cheney pretty much IGNORED Afghanistan for 8 years, they allowed the Taliban and terrorists to reconstitute themselves. Now Obama is trying to tamp it down before we withdraw. Any soldier we lose is heart wrenching.

We operate under a budget, you don't spend more than you have. The size is different but not the concept.

Here's a list of cuts possible, not that I agree with all of them, but I'd bet a lot could go and we'd never miss them.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/07/29/take-chainsaw-budget-2

The main problem I have with your point of view is that it come straight out of MoveOn.org.

Lib:

We have done nothing, absolutely nothing in Afghanistan since GW went out of office except have our soldiers killed, kill some Taliban, and lots of innocents.

When we leave, the Taliban will be back, nothing Obama has done will change that.

GW understood that, which is why he didn't really care about Afghanistan once he had disrupted their ability to support Al Queda.

Sad, but there you have it. Afghanistan is like the beach, our footsteps there will be washed away the next high tide.

lib50 -
I agree with your comments. It is apparent that some of the comments here are made by people who haven't got a clue...

the debt ceiling has been raised numerous times over the years ... this is the first time it ever became a political issue ...

the tea party freshmen are still wet behind the ears yet they have managed to do a whole lot of damage so far - to these tp youngins, this fight is a badge of honor - they are very mistaken about how to govern - good at politics but bad - very bad - at governing -

lib50, many want to say that our President has not put something out on the table. What part of "give me a clean debt ceiling increase bill that I can sign and pay our bills" Do these in the house not understand English as this was very clear. For God Sakes I'll e-mail President Obama and ask him to please write it on one of the pizza napkins and hand it to whoever will be willing to accept it.

What many seem to be missing: why has this turned into a budget battle insyead of a straight up or down vote on raising the debt limit. Easy, beacuse the bond rating agencies have told us to cut a minimum of $4,000,000,000,000 from our budget or they will cut our bond rating. So far none of the democrat talking points will do that. If, we do not cut the $4t, then all our future debt payments will sky rocket, that means our interets payments will double or triple, because we become a riskier place to invest.

Now, Democrats, how are you going to raise $4t? Let's say the Republicans give in and allow the tax increae on those making over $250k, the last estimates I saw said that will bring in $30b over the next ten years. Now we end the middle eat conflicts tomorrow, that's another $1t with $300b in interest, Where is the remaining $2.6t.

The believe the article SCTexan refers to is probably this:

http://www.klpw.com/content/robert-reich-sp-debt-warning-height-hubris

I did not read this with the same interpretation as SC. As I read it, it was something being stated AFTER the debt debate had already started and not a condition given to congress. I read that it was not agencies but an agency that was making a threat. (Standard & Poor's) I read nothing that said we had to attach the debt ceiling vote. I did read suggestions about where they felt would be a good place for our debt to be but again I read nothing that said that suggestion would influence their decision to downgrade us.

Using the the most recent information provided by the CBO as to both Boehner and Reid's budgets, here is what I found:

Boehner filed a deduction over the next ten years of of 917 Billion as of July 27, 2011.

Reid filed a deduction over the next ten years of of 2.2 Trillion as of July 27, 2011. This information was taken from: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/123xx/doc12338/SenateBudgetControlAct.pdf

S&P & Moody's, while not the final say so in bond prices, evaluate the financial stability of all levels including countries. The bond rating is their expectation that a country may default on their debt. The only hope the US has that the interest rate on our debt will not rise, is if the buyers determine that despite the risk, the US is still a better place to invest than any other choices (supply & demand). We are adding $1.4t in supply so the interest rate paid will stimulate demand.

Jen, now are you misinformed or just refuse to see? The Boehner is a two step bill while the Reid is a one time bill. The Boehner bill was to give us the needed room to move forward for something like 6 to 9 months while negotiating further cuts.

Jen, now are you misinformed or just refuse to see? The Boehner is a two step bill while the Reid is a one time bill. The Boehner bill was to give us the needed room to move forward for something like 6 to 9 months while negotiating further cuts.

Your questions does not make sense. You are asking me if I am misinformed about what? You are asking if I refuse to see what?

Are you referring to Boehner's bill? Okay, I will humor you. Exactly what is it you feel I missed? Exactly what in my sources do you feel makes me misinformed? Feel free to correct me with the facts.

You said the "Boehner plan has two steps. Are you asking me if I was aware of that? The answer is yes. Her is my response. If I have a plan that took literally months to negotiate and it prevented anything else form getting done would I want to have it come up again in a few months if there was an alternative? My answer is no. I would like congress to move on to a new issue. Jobs would be nice. So the idea of dealing with this once as oppose to twice works best for me. The idea that in his one deal, Reid has more than doubled what Boehner offered works even better for me. WE have an enormous amount of issues, SC and if someone is smart enough to come up with a solution that prevent the repetitiveness suggested by Boehner, I am all for it. SO if that is what you call being blind, well of course I have to say I do not agree. To the contrary, I call that efficient resolution.

Just in case you want to bring this up, let me also add I heard the argument that the real issue is President simply does not want it interferring with his re-election. To which I say two things: I don't blame him and there is another side. It is indeed time for campaining and I would expect him to have the same ability as other candidates if at all possible. So I have no problems with his wanting this out of the way though I have never heard him express that as a motive. Then the second part is that just as easily as I could say the President would not want this to be an issue during campaigning season as it would be a distraction one could also make the argument that it would be very helpful to the Republicans could use it not only as a distraction but as evident now a means to suggest he is not doing his job.

I may not agree with them, but I applaud the Tea Party freshman for being original and not following the "lock-step" in Washington.

I agree.

If Washington is so wise and smart, how did we get in this situation in the first place?

I can answer that but then I would be accused by some as bringing he who must not be named! Well, I will put it this way... it was two wars and Medicare part D. All under the last administration.

How many decades of Republican and Democrat damage did they inherit? More of the same isn't seeming to work. Let's also remember that was virtually the mantra of the President's last campaign, "change". Yet to me, things seem to be the same, just the names have been changed.

I don't know if this is accurate as I have not researched it, but I heard that had the last President not spent our surplus left by Clinton on the two wars and Medicare part D? We would be free of our debt today! It does sound reasonable but I have not researched it as of yet. I heard this as recently as today. (Richard Cohen, Congressional Quarterly, Senior Congressional, C-SPAN, this morning)

I ask you to refrain from bashing me for supporting, I am sure I could find something you really love and see flaws in it. ;)

I will try this again. It is not that you disagree with me. IN disagreement one can often learn valuable information. The issue I have and find constant is that folks often base their views on misinformation here. When asked to provide facts, they refuse and for me that has been mostly been from the Republican point of view. For example, I gave SC the article in question and the CBO numbers for each proposal and yet he tells me I am misinformed. He does not explain why I am misinformed. He does not express that my figures inaccurate, but I guess I am misinformed simply because he said so. That is what is typical and what is annoying as I am asked to accept truth as whatever the opinion of the moment are and that will never happen.

I have no problems with the congressman standing on their principles. I think that is admirable. What I would find fair is to expect it of everyone. If they are to have the right to say we reject tax increases for example, then you must say it is fair for the left to say we reject cutting entitlements. SO what is left is for us as voters to decide do we want the debates to always reach an impasse or do we want people who can respect that we are of varied choices and thus compromise is required. That is up to us! I would prefer compromise personally but if I can not have that (and the evidence is showing me I can not) then the next best thing is to choose a side. Today, I find the left more honorable and to my liking so instead of voting for candidates individually as I have always done, I will vote straight Democrat in hopes of increasing their numbers. They need only 24 seats to win back the Congress and nine for the Senate. I am not sue if they will get their but I will give them my vote and encourage as many as I can to do the same. That way at least our government will not be at a stand still. Have you ever looked up the votes made since President Obama has been in office? It is very interesting and shows any one without blinders that the Right has no intentions of working with the Democrats as long as he is in office. So for me, if that is the attitude, if all of a sudden EVERY vote needs a Super majority in the Senate? I want the Democrats to have that.

I don't know if this is accurate as I have not researched it, but I heard that had the last President not spent our surplus left by Clinton on the two wars and Medicare part D? We would be free of our debt today! It does sound reasonable but I have not researched it as of yet. I heard this as recently as today. (Richard Cohen, Congressional Quarterly, Senior Congressional, C-SPAN, this morning)

I'm reading a lot but not chiming in too much. The statement there is reasonably accurate but the claim is based also on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and it makes a few maybe overly optimistic assumptions about what would have happened without those cuts. As for the Medicare part D and the wars it's correct. A good chart to look at for what Marine was pointing out about the decades from both parties is this one as it just shows debt or surplus and accumulated debt by year along with which party had congress and the white house.

Today, I find the left more honorable and to my liking so instead of voting for candidates individually as I have always done, I will vote straight Democrat in hopes of increasing their numbers.

That's sad to see you say that because I was enjoying reading a lot of your comments and thought they are well reasoned. I was an actual member of the republican party for many years but even as such would not vote a straight one party ticket. That's a dangerous way to select representatives. I know it's not always a good predictor of the future but historically the US economy has done best with a democratic president and a republican congress so the better option might be to change the Senate the other way around. Of course my viewpoint now is the same it was in 2008 in that I say vote out every incumbent who's been in more than 1 term and start over with new people and new ideas.

Again, thanks for the input. AmusedinVa, I have no idea how much attention you have been giving this or how you go about reasoning out your decisions. I do not represent anyone other than myself. So I go with what I want and look for. Up to this President being in office, I have never felt that our country was making choices based on personal issues instead of what was best for us. Sure there have been some wrong choices mostly seen in retrospect, but I never questioned motivations. That has changed. Now, I have not heard or seen ANY actions to make me feel that any and all things happening politically has anything to do with care for the country but everything to do with hatred for this man. I happen to find him a good man and a fair one. I believe like me he is a Christian. Though I have continuously asked folks here to show me more than their opinions about him, I NEVER and I will repeat that NEVER get anything that shows his decision are wrong ones. Sure you may disagree but that does not make him wrong..just different from your views. That is to be expected if he does not represent your party. I don't see any difference in what he promised and what he is doing. I don't hold him responsible for not getting ANYTHING done as he must get past congress for that to happen. All of a sudden it takes a super majority for ALL appointments and all bills in the Senate. There is no desire for compromise on bills. It is manipulation everyway possible. McConnell has stated his goal is to get this President out of the WH. Wilson (SC-R), and others call him a liar. DeMint (SC-R) or Wilson I believe said they want him to have a Waterloo. Fox has made his Presidency an ongoing campaign of disproportionate exaggerations from what I read here or see on Comedy Central. These are all from one side and the sentiments point to one thing: No one on the Right has an interest today in me! I am no longer the priority.

We were told last November that the Republicans would focus on jobs. I know this because I heard it myself CONSTANTLY. To date, not a single job's bill. There has been one proposed by a Democrat, but the Republicans have refused to bring it to the floor. Now as much as we are hurting, I heard talk about renaming a post office and nothing about that jobs bill just two days ago! I believe there is only one goal for the Right and that is to derail this President anyway they can. I do not want to have another four years of that as I believe this man is a good President, so what choice do I have? I have no trust in the Republicans. When I think of them I think of Wisconsin and Michigan and NC and GA where I have read enough horror stories now that show what they campaign on is opposite of what they are doing in office. I have seen the horrific laws on voting rights, AmusedinVa and it all points to voter suppression in my opinion. There have not been enough case of fraud for all the maneuvering I see.

I am not a person who makes decisions without thought or one who follows the crowd. Independent is all I could ever be, but I sincerely believe that the Right is not interested in governing presently and I will not help them win anymore seats. I would rather have a one sided government with a chance to see if some of what this President wants to accomplish will be beneficial than watching all this uncivilized bickering and lies to the public who are too often too gullible to recognize they are being lied to by the Right and too lazy to seek truth. So yes, I will be voting straight Democrat this time around and I plan to actually get out there and talk to others about doing the same which will also be a first. I will never be a Democrat but until they win back my confidence and respect, I have voted for my last Republican!

Reid has more than doubled what Boehner offered

My questioning your understanding is that you presented the CBO numbers as though the Reid plan was superior because of the higher savings. That is why I felt it was necessary to point out the Boehner's plan was only a partial plan and will have a second round of cuts to be negotiated. I do have to ask again, you do realize that neither plan actually reduces government spending vs the current level? If you do not understand baseline budgeting, then please look it up.

As for the debt ceiling debate: you do realize that there has been a raising of the debt ceiling nearly every year for what I think has been 10 years. The reason this one is so controversial is for no other reason than the state of the worlds economy and the unprecedented spending level we have reached, plus the threat of our bond rating being down graded.

My questioning your understanding is that you presented the CBO numbers as though the Reid plan was superior because of the higher savings. That is why I felt it was necessary to point out the Boehner's plan was only a partial plan and will have a second round of cuts to be negotiated.

Thank you for the clarification and you are absolutely right. I presented the Reid plan as superior because based on the CBO report ist is indeed superior. AS I understand your view, you want time to include a second step by Boehner that is not represented and thus has no value whatsoever. Will it be higher? Will it even pass? These are things unknown and I doubt and it is indeed my guess as any thing of the future would be any one's guess, that Boehner will not be able to get anything past through the Senate as long as Reid is there. If you are watching what is happening as we write, you would appreciate why I believe this. Be it you agree or not, the Democrats feel they have been more than fair and the Republicans are playing games. If he can get his Republicans to fall in line, it will be tabled in the Senate. So yes, I do believe that whatever both sides present now is the best we will have. If you predict something different that is fine with me but based on the two plans before me now? Reid has the superior plan. If the numbers showed otherwise, I would acknowledge that too. I am dealing with the facts as presented SC as I am not clairvoyant.

I do have to ask again, you do realize that neither plan actually reduces government spending vs the current level? If you do not understand baseline budgeting, then please look it up.

You do realize that your comment here renders your point moot, right? If neither plan reduces spending, what is your point? As for asking me to look up baseline budgeting, unless you address the reason that would be relevant to our to your moot point or our discussion thus far, then it too has no relevancy. If you are asking me or anyone to look something up, then you should be specific as to why and it should have relevancy to the discussion. This reads as if your goal was to make a statement about what you think I do or do not know. That may work to subtly insult some here, but it does not work for me. I welcome learning something new when I do not know it. However, I think I do have a working understanding of baseline budgeting, though I do not see the point you are suggesting I look it up! ;-)

As for the debt ceiling debate: you do realize that there has been a raising of the debt ceiling nearly every year for what I think has been 10 years.

As I understand it, it began in 1917 after a war when fear was that the accumulated debt would not be paid. Sincethen, we have have raised it over 70 times. In more recent years, starting with Regan, we have raised it about 25 to 30 times. Regan raised it something like twenty times and Bush 7. It has been raised under President Obama two or three times already. :-)

The reason this one is so controversial is for no other reason than the state of the worlds economy and the unprecedented spending level we have reached, plus the threat of our bond rating being down graded.

I read your opinion and could not disagree more. The "state of the worlds economy" has been on the brink before the election of President Obama and the US made no effort to prevent the raising of the debt ceiling or preventing things we did not pay for. (2 wars and Medicare part D). Before you go into who agreed, that point is moot as it was still done and the President did not veto it. If I may suggest you go back and take note of the dates of the bond rating threats? That came along AFTER the debate of the debt ceiling had already begun. The rating agencies were not leading or even a part of the charge to change the debt ceiling, they joined in later. Furthermore, the argument was never not raisingthe debt ceiling, but a desire to use it as a leverage to reduce our spending. So the idea that the debt ceiling has anything to do with it is false. The debt ceiling could be raised anytime Congress decides to do so. WE could actually have a completely clean vote and still discuss the other issues if we so desire. But as the Rightwill not allow that, it is (as they like to say) hostage to them and only them and thus all fear of Aug. 2 belongs to them. They have the power to change it with a simple vote for the increase. They however, refuse to do that and rather hold us all in jeopardy.

As to why this is happening, as your have provided your opinion, I have my own. Here is my partial list:

The Republicans saw an opportunity to fulfill a self made promise that they would stop this President on any and everything they possibly can. This is one of those opportunities. I have watched as bills that the Republicans had promoted and in some cases wrote, were agreed to by this President and once he did...they voted against their own bills! That is on the record and not my opinion. So as I said, the goal is not to legislate, it is to stick it to this President at every opportunity and (in my opinion) to the detriment of the country/world if need be.

By keeping the focus on this one issue, we are not discussing other important issues such as jobs. The goal there is that high job numbers usually mean a President will not be re-elected. So, refuse to allow time for a job discussion and you keep numbers up without the gullible being the wiser.

I expect our spending to increase SC. Just as our population grow, I expect our debt to grow. Just as the Right hinder abortions, I expect those who have unexpected pregnancies to need help such as plan parenthood, medical care and hospitalization assistance. I expect they may need welfare, food stamps, assistance with providing public education. SO as all these kinds of thins grow SC, I really would expect the cost which does not stay stagnant to grow as well. So I expect spending to increase. Thus, I do not expect our spending to be what it was even ten years ago.

If you cut jobs as the Republicans have been doing mostly in those who are paid via the government: educators, police, firemen, you have indeed increased the numbers of unemployed. That is just commonsense.

Again in my opinion, if you tell me ALL things are on the table and it means al things for one side and not all things for the other (tax increases) then you have already reneged on the agreement. Taxes were never on the table. The extreme Right would not allow it and the Right caved to that. Now as I said, I do respect them standing up for what they believe but I also find it fair to expect the other side to do the same. From what I read in those CBO reports, again the issues that are being debated are almost all things that are valued by the liberals. I would also add that if you want me to believe that cutting taxes creates jobs, then you need to explain why the taxes that were cut under the last administration and continued under this one led to the highest number of job lost of my lifetime? either it creates jobs or it does not. Telling me it is uncertainty does not work because if it takes TEN YEARS for the businesses to be certain, it serves no purpose to America. Furthermore, if it is about shared sacrifice? Then I expect the businesses we are giving tax breaks to to give us and not other country's jobs. If they want us to invest in them, they need to be willing to invest in us. So an argument with me about equality is fruitless as I have read the evidence for myself that shows the Right did not place skin in the game as they say. Again showing them manipulators of the gullible who would never research it for themselves or to those who prefer to stand up for a party than stand up for fairness.

I don't think anyone can disagree that there are those who are determined to oppose anything Obama does and it reflects bad on the party in general but it's not really the type of issue that I'd assign to hundreds based on the actions of a few and even though they get a lot of attention the ones doing the most of that are a small fraction of the overall larger party.

All of a sudden it takes a super majority for ALL appointments and all bills in the Senate.

I think this a more a media inspired phenomenon then a real change in the way things are being done. The Senate has always operated with the minority party abusing to a degree the filibuster and other archaic rules to score political points. In the case of appointments specifically it seems that this was more due to the early on nominations of questionable people by Obama than a change in the way confirmations occurred. Generally speaking most previous presidents have been forced to nominate more centrist candidates after failing to get far left or far right nominees through the confirmation process. We're seeing this now with Obama too in that recent nominees like Panetta were easily confirmed but that's because they are not hardliners to one side or the other.

I've tended to look at the first couple of years of his term as being a learning curve for Obama because he didn't come into the office with similar executive experience as many past presidents have and wasn't fully prepared to deal with the constant scrutiny the job entails. Many former presidents were governors first and as such had already been through these nomination fights and budget issues, etc at a state level and therefore better understood that they had to be extremely cautious in who they select to avoid the delays in confirmation.

We were told last November that the Republicans would focus on jobs. I know this because I heard it myself CONSTANTLY. To date, not a single job's bill.

This is sort of one of those yes/no answers in that it's possible for the federal government to influence for good or bad job creation but short of actual major public works projects and government contracts they can't really create jobs. The best thing that Congress can really do is to foster an environment where businesses are confident and will expand and hire and in that respect they've tried with little success but still good effort to remove the uncertainties that prevent that expansion. Much of what the government does that helps or hinders job growth is subtle to the public at large and often overlooked because it's often given no mention in the media.

For example look at the EPA and the ruling they made declaring CO2 as a pollutant. That has a negative effect on power plants which in turn affects rates that in turn affect the bottom line costs of operations for businesses as well as consumers. when the business owners or managers can't budget costs because they don't know the impacts of these regulations on their business they will delay expansion until they can determine with reasonable certainty what their bills will look like over the next several years. For the most part though this is all irrelevant to the average worker but it's the types of things managers are constantly looking at. The current Congress has been focused on these regulations and subtle influences that don't make headline news.

If you cut jobs as the Republicans have been doing mostly in those who are paid via the government: educators, police, firemen, you have indeed increased the numbers of unemployed. That is just commonsense.

That is true but it's not really or at least shouldn't be a federal issue anyway. Those are government jobs but they are state and local level jobs and one of the reasons we have such massive debt now is that the federal government has become too intertwined in state and local budgets where it never really belonged. A city or state that counts on federal money as part of it's basic budget is not doing it's own job correctly.

I would also add that if you want me to believe that cutting taxes creates jobs, then you need to explain why the taxes that were cut under the last administration and continued under this one led to the highest number of job lost of my lifetime? either it creates jobs or it does not. Telling me it is uncertainty does not work because if it takes TEN YEARS for the businesses to be certain, it serves no purpose to America.

I'm glad to see you brought that up because it's an issue that's been distorted to a large degree. The simple answer is yes tax cuts can create jobs and unfortunately that's where the discussion usually stops at. The real explanation is that some tax cuts can lead to direct job creation and short term stimulation of the economy rather than just saying tax cuts in general as is most commonly done. It also depends to a large degree on influences outside of the reach of the cuts themselves. For the question you asked the answer is complicated. The initial tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 did stimulate job growth and for a few years we saw good growth in the economy and a downward trend in unemployment. The recent extensions of those cuts had minimal to no effect but for a different reason from why the first ones worked.

In the case of the original cuts the economy was starting into a mild recession at the time but was still very strong and the cuts stimulated new spending and borrowing as was intended that lead to recovery and good job growth. This was mainly due to the fact that people had more immediate income at their disposal and spent that money which drove job creation. Today however the extensions didn't put any additional money in any ones hands to spend it only kept them at current levels. After ten years at the reduced rate most people became accustomed to this being their rate and therefore were not motivated to spend because they weren't spending "extra" money they were just being kept at the current level so the extension was not really a cut but a maintaining of the status quo.

The job losses cross into a different and separate category from the original tax cuts. It wasn't until 2007 when things started slowing and late 2008 when the downturn really picked up speed. This had to do with multiple things really well beyond the ability of government to intervene in. The biggest driver was gas prices going over $4 a gallon which pulled tens of billions of dollars out of the economic cycle very rapidly and that started the real recession because the consumers couldn't buy consumer goods since the money was going into their gas tanks instead. Some blame the housing bubble burst or the bank failures but these followed the gas prices and they caused the greatest harm but weren't the initial cause. Today were looking at a similar situation where the economy was on an upward albeit slow recovery trend until gas prices spiked again and here we are back in or near recession again.

In specific regard to the extensions the republicans are half right and that's where I take some issues with them too. Raising taxes right now on those earning $200k as proposed would only affect mainly the upper middle class which does do a lot of the spending that drives growth. On the other hand raising taxes on those earning multiple millions or capital gains taxes on the billionaires or even the estate tax has negligible if any effect on economic growth. I think Obama screwed up in that respect when he proposed raising taxes on "high earners" because he set the threshold low and opened up the argument about small business owners who do fall into that range. Had he come out and said raise the capital gains tax or income tax on those earning over $500k instead of $200k he would have had a stronger argument.

Much of what you said is your opinion and as I always say, we are all entitled that. Now if it reflects more than that I welcome your sources.

My comments about the super majority is factual and can be found at Senate.gov. I thought I said this earlier but I do not rely on the media for validation of what I believe.

I am not sure why you assumed that the focus of my comment was federal or federal alone, but in the end, your response reads primarily as opinion so I will let that go. The same is true for your comment about cutting taxes.

Amused, I really do not take issue with others opinions , What I take issue with are their facts. I don't expect all of America to have the same views of how things work. What I personally look for are the facts. I gather that and then draw a conclusion. Now I can not speak for how others do this as I do read much that shows me we differ in this too, but as my example of of my comment about super majority becoming more of a mandate under this President disproportionately? All I needed to do was to research how often it was apply to past President and compare that to him. The same was true with confirmations. So I already know I am right.

Your completely correct that much of what I mention in 3.34 is opinion but it was also meant to just give general example of some things like the taxes. We don't really disagree that much and probably are closer in actual opinions than it might initially seem when trying to do conversation in writing like this.

The part about nominations though and general experience was not meant as a disparaging comment but rather just a basic fact that coming into the office Obama lacked the background experience that many previous presidents already had as executives from being governors. I don't fault him for that but I also don't fault the Senate for holding up questionable nominees either. I think as he's gained experience there and changed advisers to get a better overall team in place he's had more success in getting nominations through.

I am not sure why you assumed that the focus of my comment was federal or federal alone, but in the end, your response reads primarily as opinion so I will let that go.

My apologies for the misconception. It rarely ever works out exactly right when we assume stuff even though by nature we do that a lot. Since the main focus of much of these issues has been on the federal government I just automatically assumed that it was also the main focus there and that was not a good assumption. Beyond that though it would seem that a lot of the issue with government as far as the non federal level goes has less to do with actual opinion and more to do with where we live and how our own state and local governments differ. For example here in VA most ( not all ) fire departments and rescue squads are volunteer and even the paid departments have volunteer staff. Historically the whole nation was this way but many states and cities have moved to the paid model. Now where I live the government buys the equipment but the actual workers are all volunteer.

I'd also say that it's not opinion but simple historical and constitutional fact that state and local governments should be operating mainly independent of the federal government and not reliant on federal money to operate their services. It's only been in the last few decades that it's started becoming common for cities and states to get large amounts of money from the federal government. I don't mean to imply that there hasn't been some good from the way things have changed but rather that the original system was not created to work in it's current manner.

On the tax topic maybe I tried to put too much into that and therefore made it appear the wrong way. I wasn't trying to imply opinion but instead just tried to use generalized examples of how it works. Perhaps the best thing to say would have been this. Specifically targeted temporary tax reductions can create jobs and stimulate the economy. Long term reductions like what we've seen since 2001 have no impact in that respect.

A better example might be this. Manufacturers and other businesses get a depreciation write off on equipment they buy over several years on their taxes. If you wanted to stimulate immediate investment in the economy then you might for one year give them a full one time write off of the equipment price instead of a several year depreciation. For some companies that were planning new purchases anyway this would give them incentive to buy immediately having an immediate affect on economic growth.

On the other hand let's look at the capital gains rate reduction that was part of the 2003 cuts I believe but may have been 2001 ( will admit I'm not taking time to look it up right now ). Cutting the rate to 15% had an immediate impact on small investors and retirees who saw an increase in disposable income and they are most likely to spend that creating growth. Cutting the rate for those earning tens of millions like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett had no impact though because these guys are not likely to spend the new found money from lower taxes but rather to reinvest it into making even more wealth. I don't know where the magic line is but at a certain point of wealth there is no impact on behavior by providing more money to to someone if that makes sense the way I put it.

No need for apologies. I do understand that it is very easy to be misunderstood here. I do it all the time and have had it done to me. I enjoy your comments as they give me reason to think and I like that.
You mentioned this President lack of experience. Well, from what I have seen in those who have been Governors, it really does not do much in how they govern in the White House. If that made a difference, then the person who just left would not had made such a mess and so many really bad decisions. Then again I think I can sum up the irrelevance of being a Governor with one name: Sara Palin. She was a governor proving airheads can be elected too. I have nothing against experience but I think there are some people who have an uniqueness that surpasses experience. I believe that a part of the reason why he appears different is not because of experience but a determination as he promised during the campaign to change things. He is not given credit for it, but I do believe that from the start he tried to do things differently and for some such things as belief that is was inexperience when in my view , it was actually a promise of a new approach was actually what we were seeing. However, that is my opinion only but it is what I believe. It seems that you view the issue with this President with experience and I view it strictly with intentional obstruction. This is based on Republicans in office actual statement that that is their goal and again, the information available supports that the behavior of how this President has been treated is evident. Again this is my opinion but I don't think this President attempted to put up folks of any particular party just as he had Republicans in his administration, I think he is the first President who looks/looked for good people as oppose to political views. To suggest that others have not been partisan is very difficult for me to support as I find it too striking that once in the position, we learn those folks are indeed of the party who voted them into office.

How things were done historically is not as important to me as constitutionally. That said, I will have to reread it to learn what you are referring to because I do not recall this right now.

I think I do understand what you are saying about taxes...I just do not agree. But as it really does not matter that we do, I left that issue alone. I would need a more current example of how taxes at the present levels have produced jobs for me to agree with you. See again, I do not believe this is about creating certainty. I think these businesses and banks do not like that President Obama is making them accountable and so they are lobbying the Right to stop him. I do find it ironic that you chose Gates and Buffet who if I recall correctly have said they support the President raising their taxes! In fact from my understanding the top 1% say they support the President on this issue while the Right pretends not to hear them.

I wasn't meaning to imply that the experience governors gain is always of benefit so much as that the presidents who had been governors start out with a more fundamental advantage in dealing with the day to day jobs of an executive and the way his or her decisions will be received by a legislature. In that respect though the ones who later become president are more likely to do a better initial job at working well with congress if they were strong successful governors. A weak governor will most likely also be a weak president.

I don't discount the obstruction issue. I fully acknowledge that there are some who under no circumstances will cooperate and while all presidents have faced that to varying degrees it seems more prevalent with Obama but I tend to think that's more because the perception has been intentionally made that way in the media. I should expand on that a bit though to say that in using the media I'm referring to all media including many of these commentators on cable and radio who use their shows as a way to discount everything he does. Just last night I heard one commentator on the radio ( don't know who he was it was on a Detroit am radio station ) say that he originally thought that Obama was a liberal socialist but it seems now that he's really more in the center than the right or left want to admit.

But anyway we're actually discussing two things as one in a way. I don't discount the partisanship on most legislation, but on the nominations was separating that to say that he made questionable initial nominations which is why they met such resistance. Almost every president has had that problem and it self corrects when they select nominees who are non controversial. A good example was with Geithner. Not saying he was a bad or good candidate based on qualifications but the fact that a guy who supposedly "forgot" to pay taxes is a questionable man to run the treasury department. That was more what I was getting at in the lack of experience idea in that Obama may have not been looking at the overall background of his nominees carefully before nominating them. I think he's doing much better at that now and it shows in the confirmations lately as they have gone through with little fanfare.

I think I do understand what you are saying about taxes...I just do not agree. But as it really does not matter that we do, I left that issue alone. I would need a more current example of how taxes at the present levels have produced jobs for me to agree with you.

I don't think on that we are actually disagreeing so much as in I'm not getting it right what I'm trying to say. I don't mean to imply that the current tax rates have anything at all to do with economic growth or job creation now. That's where so many people on both sides of the issue have clouded the debate. Tax cuts in some instances can create jobs but that is a temporary effect. The cuts in 2001 and 2003 had their effect in 2001 and 2003, they are irrelevant to today. The argument some are trying to make that keeping these rates will create jobs is false. At best there might be a 5 year benefit from any type of cut in more likely reality though it's 1 to 2 years. Making the 2001 cuts for 10 years was just bad policy in my opinion as the benefit no longer applied beyond the first year.

A more current example would be the 2% cut in Social Security tax that was passed ( which on a personal note I disagree with ). That one year cut as it was passed put extra money each week in peoples paychecks which they spend each week because it's a small amount of extra cash. It was working a bit and things were going ok until gas prices spiked again and the "extra" money started going into peoples gas tanks instead of on consumer goods and services.

The comment you make about Gates and Buffett shows that you saw what I was trying to say. The extremely wealthy are not influenced or affected by tax cuts or tax increases in the same way that the rest of the country is. It won't matter to them if the rate is 10% or 50% they will still make millions every year as at their level of wealth it's almost impossible to not make money.

On the other hand though the well off but not really rich are a major driving force behind discretionary spending and therefore a major part of the economy. Say for example there's a guy who makes $250,000 a year which is well off but hardly rich in comparison to the big players we were just discussing. This guy will be the one who buys many of the higher end "luxury" items that employee lots of people in the making of them but are too expensive for the average person. Things like an Escalade instead of a pick up truck, or a small yacht instead of a bass boat. If you increase his taxes by a significant amount he might not buy the Escalade which affects the thousands who build them. That's where the argument is over what level at which to set a rate increase to avoid losing jobs but it's an incorrect idea to assume that it would create new jobs.

Certainty is a whole different issue but it has also been distorted to a degree in the debates. The way it really applies to businesses in in their budgeting and long term forcasting. A well run business operates on a 5 to 10 year plan where they can reasonably predict future income and future expense. The uncertainty right now is from multiple sources that affect that planning because they don't have solid numbers to work with to project costs. A lot of recent legislation and regulations as well as economic conditions have caused this. Good examples with that are the health care law where large parts of it were dependent on new panels to create specific rules and cost structures that haven't been written yet and the recent EPA decision to regulate CO2 as a pollutant and the as of yet unknown resulting costs to utilities and that effect on electricity and fuel prices.

Contrary to often repeated political rhetoric business owners and mangers have only minimal concerns about tax rates except in industry specific cases of exemptions or credits that apply only to them. I've run businesses in the past and have dealt with the exact issues I bring up so some of this is from personal experience but still has relevance to any business small or large. In doing a 5 year plan you make some assumptions based on historical data and on on current regulations.

So let's use health care costs for an example. If a business is paying $800 a month per employee right now and the cost has been rising by 10% a year then they can fairly safely assume that their cost will continue to rise by 10% a year and budget that. They hit the uncertainty when you have nothing to use to predict future costs as the case is now. In 5 years what will be the penalty if they don't or can't afford to cover their employees? What will the promised tax incentives be that haven't yet been written to offset the costs? How's the insurance exchange that hasn't yet been created going to affect premiums? A few uncertainties can be dealt with by just keeping a good cash reserve but if there's too much doubt then as an owner or manager you set aside larger reserves to cover the unknown. Too big of a reserve means no hiring or new equipment because your in a waiting pattern to see how much you'll need next year.

There is no need to defend or further explain your views on experience. I am not saying there is nothing to experience. I am saying I do not see that as an issue for this President. Instead I see what has been happening as intentional and manufactured.

I understand what you are saying about Geitner and I am not finding excuses for him, but I do think that infraction is so much more minor than say the appointment of Supreme Court Justice Thomas. FYI there are numerous positions still open because the Right tabled them and no they are not allowing his appointments more readily. But for me it is more telling that when asked, they give no answer as to the hold up. The most recent that comes to mind is the rejection of Elizabeth Warren.

I think that you are right about the taxes and how we are viewing them. You seem to be explaining why this will not create jobs, and I am thinking all taxes will go toward our expenditures and every penny we can bring in counts. Whatever way it is used, it is additional money and if it is possible to collect it, I think we should.

I am not going to go through the tax issues again. If that is your view. I am okay with that. I did read the health care law. Twice actually, but I don't remember all the info enough to fairly discuss it now. What I do recall is a woman in California who was losing her insurance because before this law past, her company had increased her co payment to more than her home payment. I also remember that until this law a patient was limited in care and a ceiling on the amount an/or procedures covered by their insurance. As I understand it, that no longer applies. That is good enough for me. All things are not about money for me. If I had ten million dollars and you said I needed to pay it all to save my loved one? I am paying it. People matter more to me than money. That is true for their health and their ability to live by having wages and if for WHATEVER reason that is stagnant, I like the idea of a safety net that will allow some kind of shelter and food to eat. I am a Christian and as I do feel we should mimic the example of Jesus, I think care and share IS the standard and not accumalation so taking the risk is not about markets for me but about sharing and if you claim Christianity as the Right says, then you too would want a country where we do take care of the least of these.

I had to actually look up Elizabeth Warren to learn about her as I hadn't really heard that much about her. I don't know what the reasons may have been for contention over her nomination unless it was because of her involvement with the TARP oversight. It couldn't have been her politics because Cordray is also a democrat and it couldn't have been that they wanted a weak head of the agency because Cordray has a stronger record of actually prosecuting cases against the banks the CFB will be regulating.

I also decided to see what I could find about nominees in general and the confirmation status and actually am not too surprised at some of the unfilled positions. The vast majority of them are either judges, ambassadors, or for positions in new or unheard of departments and agencies. A full list is here. I've never even heard of some of those positions but it's not really a surprise when I read an article on Slate during my searching on nominees that said there are 422 federal positions requiring confirmation and that doesn't include judges or ambassadors. This PDF document of a congressional report on judicial nominees says the average confirmation time under Reagan was 68 days, under Bush Sr. was 104 days, under Clinton was 249 days, and under GWB was 366 days for circuit court judges and 171 days for district court judges. Comparing that historical trend to the current administration there doesn't seem to be much disparity in confirmation times between this administration and the previous one.

On the health care I wasn't trying to disparage the law or it's stated goals just using it as a hypothetical example of how businesses budget. I have no doubt after having been one myself and having talked with thousands of small business owners that the vast majority want to be able to provide health care insurance for their employees but many are unable to afford the premiums just like a lot of individuals are.

I'm not a religious person so I just go by things I hear in regard to religious ideals but I do know that there are numerous Christian charities that do the things you mention. If I might though I'd like to ask your opinion on something I've often heard said. I've often heard talk show hosts make the claim that you can't accomplish the goal of charity by force of government through taxation and I tend to agree with that since my understanding of the Christian way of living was to give freely to the church and the fellow man. I'm just curious what your thoughts might be on that idea.

I do think government has a role to play in creating a social safety net but I'm in the group that feels like this is a state and local issue and doesn't really belong at a federal level in most instances.

Elizabeth Warren from what I read and hear in discussions about her outside of the hearings is a person with an impeccable record and the position was for a job the derived from her work. To give a frame of how much they went after her, during her hearing she said she was promised the hearing would be a certain time and they questioners went rounds on that one issue before calling her a liar about it. This was so outrages that the President pulled her eventually as a nominee and now she is considering running for Senate. I have watched several hearing where the arguments are that petty. So yes, I think it has little to do with qualification and a lot to do with intentional delay. Each time, it has been a Republican carrying out the argument. Each time. I think they are still available on CSPAN if you want to check them out.

As you know I have the "list" which I mentioned I use more so than media for my info. Those positions new or old in my opinion is irrelevant. If they are official and they are, then the concept should be hiring the best person and they are rejecting or tabling the nominess with little to no excuses. NOw this too is an area of opinion so again we will just have to agree to disagree. I will say that my point about delays was not about judicial appointments but all his appointments. I have not separated the judicial appointments to see how long they take with this President.

I am not sure I understood your point about insurance. Cost was going up for everyone as I understand it. So be it business or individuals, cost was going up. AS I understand it a deal was strike with the President and the insurance companies too. All said and done. the private cost was tapered but the increase of those paying in multiplied.

I do apologized about the religious connection. I was not being very clear. My issue was not about separation of church and state via our constitution but the attitude of those who claim the represent the Christian view. The word means Christ likeness. So when people tell me they are Christian and they lie; they encourage guns; they encourage punishment for those who abort babies or kill those who kill others, they simply are not practicing Christ likeness. According to the Holy Bible, God sent His Son, Jesus to earth because we human kept screwing up how he wanted us to live. His Son lived here giving physical examples and words of wisdom for us to follow. No matter the reason, He never harmed anyone, He always shared whatever He had. He NEVER judged others, but encouraged a better way. Those people who claim or support a party based on saying it has anything to do with God are misleading folks like maybe you who see this in politics as to who we are and it is not who we are. I think I just answered your question but I will address it more directly. Christians are always Christians first and all other things afterward but we are told in the word of God to follow the laws of land. So IF we as Christian go into politics, those voting for us should know who we are and how we will govern. If the public vote them in knowing this, then yes, religion should be considered in the decision process regardless of the separation of church and state rule. We the people do and should be allowed to vote in what we want. It is the misuse of Christians by those who are not that makes the difference. SO if a person really is a Christian then charity would be a part of how they decided their votes. In the since of "charity' finding its way into government? It should happen very time a true believer is voted into office. Christians are a part of America too and thus their voice and beliefs should be included if we are in government because the people KNEW who we were when they voted for us.

I just read something that is more in line with what I think is the real problem for the Right with THIS ONE President:

Republican Representative Doug Lamborn of Colorado apologized Monday for saying that being associated with President Barack Obama would be like touching a "tar baby."

This is easy to hide behaind when talking politics, but The Right does show its real thoughts that guide their intentions every now and then.

Please explain. Maybe I'm old and a Tar Baby reference means something different to me.

The Tar-Baby is a doll made of tar and turpentine used to entrap Br'er Rabbit in the second of the Uncle Remus stories. The more that Br'er Rabbit fights the Tar-Baby, the more entangled he becomes. In modern usage, "tar baby" refers to any "sticky situation" that is only aggravated by additional contact.^[1] The tar baby is a trap that should be avoided.

No I am not going to explain this to you. I will encourage you to research history of how it was use when applied to African Americans. And yes, I am aware that our President is half balck, but if you do not know the hisorty of how White America qualified who you were in our history, I suggest you research that too. SCTexan, I do not know if you are playing dumb or really are this clueless but either way, I am not going to play along. This was insulting to a segment of our population and if you do not see that, or care to learn why then that is your right but I do not have to answer for your intentional ignorance. And yes I do believe (if you really are that ignorant all all) that you are proposing this intentional because you chose to provide a children's application of the word to an adult conversation as if you think that was its connection. How insulting to ALL Americans who have tried their best to unify us with minorities we have harmed in the past so very much that this is what you offer as intelligent dialogue on the subject. I find it appalling,

I only initially brought up insurance as a hypothetical example of how the HCR law itself created a problem for businesses in being able to do long term cost projections. The second statement about it was only to clarify that I wasn't stating opposition to it only using it as an example.

I just read something that is more in line with what I think is the real problem for the Right with THIS ONE President:

You've probably already noticed this but I'm not one who's fond of many of the commonly used generalizations about groups in politics. The terms right/left and conservative/liberal have been overused and distorted to point that they really mean little anymore. I don't disagree with you about the motivations of some in their opposition to the president, but I don't put the ones who are very vocal and adamant about that into a larger diverse group as being representative of the whole group. I don't think all republicans are against Obama specifically or that all democrats support him. I do think there are extremists who won't ever cooperate but don't consider the whole republican party to be that way.

Within these giant groups there are many varying extremes that may not be the majority of their party but are still nonetheless part of that group and I try to always keep that in mind. There are conservative democrats and liberal republicans although small in numbers. I think within both these parties though the majority are essentially centrists or moderates just like most Americans. With a small percentage maybe being the exception we all tend to be somewhat conservative or somewhat liberal on various issues but generally pretty well balanced.

I agree we are all individuals and should not be painted with a broad brush. That said, and again the voting patterns bare it out that the Republicans in office have voted in unison since this President has been in office as they have said they would. Earlier, a friend went boating with a Senator and that Senator was said to have used the "N" word. I have read numerous description that are typically used to be derogatory with African Americans and all as in EVERY LAST ONE, has been a Republican. I have seen signs and heard people who consider themselves conservatives do the same. I have no doubt that it is true for some liberals too but I can only speak to what I have heard or seen personally and to date it has ALL, I repeat ALL been from Republican/Conservatives. So I can not change my statement as to who has dominated that nasty attitude because to do so would make me out a liar to what my experiences have been.

In SC the last I heard? They still have application that as are you White or Negro. I have heard folks in the South say things that are appalling. I had a business owner in the South ask if our church allowed them "Blacks" in making a decision to rather he would visit. Things have not changed enough...just pretense in my opinion. It is still alive and well amused.

Hi Amused

I was just turning channels and heard Elizabeth Warren's name on Maddow. According to her the person who the President replaced her nomination with has been denied and as they are all going on recess, they are technically leaving congress open because if it closes, the President could simply appoint whomever he chooses. If I understood her (Maddow) right, they said they do not want that position filled.

They are afraid of this department. As I am a little familiar with Ms. Warren...they should be. She is bipartisan and will nail businesses to the wall for consumers on all fronts. VERY BRIGHT lady!

Obama refuses to use recess appointments for some reason. At this point It's just irresponsible of him to continue to deny his own powers while out economy is crumbling. Obama should use this recess to appoint warren and everyone else he hasn't been able to because of senate "holds". Government can't work when half the offices have no leaders.

At this point I can't only blame GOP for holding up government. Obama is enabling them to continue to do. How by denying The check and balances to such Obstruction that have been created over the years.

You did not read my post. You could not have. He can not use recess appointment because they refused to recess! It is required for them to officially recess in order for him to appoint folks without a vote. They know this and therefore will not recess. It is one of their tricks and they are playing EVERY card against him. I am speaking in the plural when I say, that if you do not read or hear all sides and apply thought to it all, you WILL miss what is going on and that is what seems to be working to the Rights advantage. We allow TV personality to valued FAR MORE as reliable sources than we EVER should. MSNBC's Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell are nortorious for not challenging false statemenets and reporting down the middle even when the evidence proves their middle approach unfair/dishonest. Ali ? (bald headed guy on CNN had an interesteing moment right after the debt ceiling passed and spoke the truth. those around him smiled as he stated how manufactured and irrelvant all this was and America were victimized. it was a real and honest moment. TIme will tell if he keeps his job.

I found it very interesting that the word choice after the President spoke today in the Rose Garden of the W>H> was "Pivot" On MSNBC, CNN and Republican Sen. Kyl ALL used the same word back to back. You think there is no circulating sheet of that would as one to use? You think it was JUST by chance? IT is ALL connected. The word choices are set for the direction they want to take things. The President spoke about jobs and those discussing it thereafter mentioned that with VERY little emphases but continued the "WHO WON" dialogue. Meanwhile a few minutes later the Republicans also mentioned jobs and the same group of reporters mention it far more after they spoke to it. Now you think people will recall that was where the President wanted to go? Maybe, but as the emphasis was only put on it when the Right mentioned it, most will think they initiated that conversation and the media will not ever correct it. It has been this was from the start and to say so means you are biased or think this President can do no wrong. Too many will never pick up on such small nuances and the media knows it. We are being manipulated and too often accept whatever they tell us.

So I can not change my statement as to who has dominated that nasty attitude because to do so would make me out a liar to what my experiences have been.

There's no reason why you should. I wasn't ever disagreeing about who was making the crude comments or actions just stating that I don't believe it's broadly applied to the party or conservatives in general but more to just that extremist segment of the party.

Things have not changed enough...just pretense in my opinion. It is still alive and well amused.

This ones a little bit of a trickery more touchy subject. I don't particularly like SC and can't say too much about it because the only times I'd been there was unimpressed by the state in general. As for the other areas though it's hard to say. There's still a lot of ill will and attitudes but there's a lot more of an air of what I'd call tolerance rather than acceptance between the races and even that widely varies. For example where I live it's very minimal because we have 2 major universities here and a very diverse cultural mix in the population. However 50 miles from here it's a different story in that the areas are not full of hostility as they once were but are still not ready to live in harmony. One thing that sticks in my mind though is what I've seen and heard people say who've travelled from northern states through the south is that in southern states people are more open and honest about their attitudes and prejudices and that in the northern states it's the same general attitudes but more subtle and hidden. I don't really know which is best but I'd say I prefer the openness because it's easy to know who you prefer to avoid.

I was just turning channels and heard Elizabeth Warren's name on Maddow. According to her the person who the President replaced her nomination with has been denied and as they are all going on recess, they are technically leaving congress open because if it closes, the President could simply appoint whomever he chooses. If I understood her (Maddow) right, they said they do not want that position filled.

I looked that up and found this good article from Reuters on the nomination. They are going to avoid taking an actual August recess to avoid allowing the recess appointment, but according to Reuters the argument over Cordray is more over the structure of the CFB than over the nominee himself. Your correct that they don't want the agency to be able to be operated and this is essentially a stalling tactic to prevent it's operation, but it would appear they are trying to just get minor changes through before doing confirmations rather than stop it's actual operation.

On a side note about the CFB though I do tend to agree with some of the opposition to it because the more fiscal conservatives ( like me ) tend to prefer that it be simply incorporated into existing regulatory agencies instead of being a whole separate new agency. The SEC and the FDIC already do much of what CFB will do anyway and they could have taken on the new duties without creating new directors and other really unneeded jobs. Beyond that though I have no problem with what they will be doing except that it's not enough. There was a much stronger regulatory bill than the Frank/Dodd one that passed to create the CFB which was written by Corker/Warner but Harry Reid stopped that one in favor of the one we have now.

Obama refuses to use recess appointments for some reason.

That's incorrect. Obama made several recess appointments early last year and over the Christmas holiday recess last year. In regard to Warren he withdrew her from nomination and instead nominated Richard Cordray from Ohio for that position. As for the recess though that's what the story is really about is that the Senate is not going to recess in order to prevent him from making recess appointments this month.

Government can't work when half the offices have no leaders.

That sounds good but isn't exactly true. Most all agencies simply operate with a deputy director taking over until a new director is confirmed. And the vast majority of nominations that have not been confirmed are judges and ambassadors rather than agency heads. All critical agencies are fully staffed with confirmed leaders.

At this point I can't only blame GOP for holding up government. Obama is enabling them to continue to do. How by denying The check and balances to such Obstruction that have been created over the years.

You can actually thank all the previous congresses for that. In the original design only cabinet level directors and judges were subject to confirmation but over the last 200 years that's expanded from a few agencies to dozens of agencies and now deputy directors and other lower level jobs also requiring confirmation. Today there are over 400 nominated jobs requiring confirmation where at one time there were less than 12.

I don't apply it to the party, but I do apply it to MOST serving in Washington and Sate positions. They are the ones that matter for all Americans and I think they are abusing their authority.

Those experiences in SC was when I was a child. We were military and that was how I encountered those things and I never forgot. I have lived in too many states to count and have ample spent time in all but Alaska. I can agree the location does make a difference but the reality is I have never been to a state where it did not come up at one point or another in a nasty way.

Feel free to view the appointing however you choose, again we will just have to disagree. I do believe it is about not wanting to have someone there who will overhaul a system that woulod expose a lot of dirty dealings. We don't have to agree on that or go rounds about it as it would be pointless.

The rest of your comment I think is directed to someone else? They are not my point of views and I could not find where I wrote them.

The rest of your comment I think is directed to someone else?

Yeah I was responding to 3.48 with the last part there. Again I'd say I don't think we're very far apart on most of these things. We don't even fundamentally disagree a lot on the appointments because I do agree that there is political motivation behind holding up some nominees.

Hey Amused, I have a question that perhaps you can answer? When we had all the 14th Amendment talk and how the President could use it? I looked it up and it says our debt is not to be questioned. So did congress break their constitutional oath by questioning it on any level? Do you know how that works?

I don't think there really is a correct answer for that. It's one of those rare uncharted waters areas that we've never encountered before. Some experts said the president could use that amendment to raise the debt ceiling but the debt ceiling itself really didn't have anything to do with the actual debt owed. Treasury still takes in enough to pay the debt even without borrowing so it became an issue of what is considered debt.

Now if we were in a situation where there was no money at all available and the existing debt payments couldn't be made without raising the limit then the Constitution is pretty clear that the president could in that case ignore the limit and issue new bonds.

As far as Congress is concerned it would be the same type of deal. If there was no cash in treasury at all they would have been holding up payments on already incurred debt and therefore if not directly breaking the oath certainly in a very shady area. But since there was enough money to pay debt service it's a tough call.

Really boils down to what's the interpretation of debt. Some will go by the strictest definition which would be the amounts already owed from borrowing. But others say it's the future spending that was previously authorized for instance something like planes the pentagon has ordered but not yet taken delivery of and paid for. I wish I could offer a better explanation but on this issue even Constitutional law scholars were in disagreement and thankfully we didn't need the courts to decide this time. Unfortunately though I somehow doubt this was the last time we'll see the issue so it will ultimately be in the hands of the Supreme Court at some future date to give us a definitive answer.

Okay. let us leave the President out of this as he has nothing to do with what I am asking. This is strictly about congress. it seems to me that if debt is not to be question then that would cover any and all. So if I am right and the congress dared to question that debt in anyway....You see what Iam trying to ask? I called congress local state and US but could not get through. I really would love better understanding of that one. No one ever talked about congress role in this ...just the President's. I don't care if he could or could not sign it but I do care about who would be responsible for the initiating of it as that seems to be where the oath would had been broken. It seems simple to me that if we can not ever question the debt then any concept of attaching it to anything would be a violation. In other words, it was unconstitutional to so much as suggest it be weighed with anything else no matter the reason. Even in your scenario of interpretation, some parts would still fall under debt already accrued but it would also ALL still be debt! I really do not know the answer but I would love to know who would be considered the initiators and would that initiation be breaking their sworn oath.

Egomaniacs, maybe.

I would call them all worthless

I wouldn't - however I would certainly call the TP freshmen worthless - they are hindering solutions -

so why do we have to call ALL of them worthless? some are actually trying to solve a problem -

Dahlia:

Those who are trying to, in your mind, "solve" this problem are the ones who created it!

Of course they want to "solve" it so they can keep right on spending!

Some solution.

wmolaw
the "problem" I refer to here is the raising of the debt ceiling - what are the problems you are talking about?

Dahlia:

Why is that a problem? Don't raise it, period. We can't afford to spend anymore and the only reason we borrow is because of our out of control spending.

Is the connection between spending and debt not one which you have made?

Why is that a problem? Don't raise it, period.

this comment reveals lack of knowledge on the issue -

Dahlia

I must say when I read those kinds of comments, they still amaze me! I keep thinking surely they know what the debt ceiling is if they are here debating it! But it just never ceases to amaze me that they will argue in opposition while clueless.

Go check out Somalia first, live it for a while and get back to us. Otherwise NO, we don't want to crash the government so the elite can continue to be protected while a large majority of Americans pay the price.

The dems are the party of the big scare, which is why she is trying to paint it the other way.

The Soviets called it the big lie, and Wasserman seems adept at it.

Read the posts above, the GOP have put forward concrete, written plans, the dems and the president have NOT!

So, who is serious and who is not? Get real folks, wake up, don't drink your morning share of the kool aid!

Lib:

IT's not Somalia, you're right, but if it keeps going the way Obama et al wish to go, it will be soon!

And I see you've bought into the culture war also, eh?

Amazing, are the "Elites" the wealthy, like Obama? Or are they something else? Just what is your definition of the "elite?"

We actually have responsible citizens in this country.

lol

Oh, you are serious? You call the minority of teabag congresspeople who are intent on bringing the economy down responsible? I call it extortion and it is irresponsible. And I do NOT accept your vision of no government. Why do you want to diminish the country?

Lib:

Well, they are as responsible as the communists we have in the dem party now! See how easy it is to voice bizarre rhetoric?

Fact is this is a democracy, it is a government that has three parts, it's not extortion just because you don't get exactly what you want!

Get over it!

You don't have to accept anyone's vision of government, and they don't have to accept yours!

Why do you want to diminish the country?

Why do you?

@!$%# those monkeys.

We are all monkeys.

You are right, But we have to remember that those Repub's, are doing what they were elected to do. I here people saying the Pres. is willing to compromise, But that is a lie. he stand hard on what he wants and he wont back down, He has the Senate under his thumb, and they are doing the same. But lets face the facts. We have to stop the spending. Lower the Deficit.There are other ways to fix the Medical problem and its not by creating another mess buy forcing everyone to have insurance. Fix the Greedy SOB's making $10.000 an hr. Or stopping Big Farm. from charging $30.00 for a $1.00 pill. We all have different opinions, and that doesn't make me any more stuppid than anyone else. so get over it and lets fix the situation. I do not see the Repub's as a problem. They won those seats under a promise to do what they are doing. I see the Dem's unwilling to negotiate.

Amused, good post.

But we have to remember that those Repub's, are doing what they were elected to do.

That's an interesting point to bring up that often gets forgotten in these debates. Technically the freshmen are the only ones doing exactly what they campaigned on and were elected to do. Whether you agree with them or not they are representing their districts in the manner which their districts voted for. That's exactly how the House of Representatives is supposed to work.

A large part of our problem today is that for many years now we've been as a nation collectively expecting DC to "fix" all the problems of the world. People are now starting to realize again that Utopia doesn't exist and can't be created by an overbearing central government. Now that's not to say that DC doesn't do a lot of good and it does run programs that can't be run otherwise in a non centralized way such as Social Security. But it does contain massive amounts of redundancies and inefficiencies which drive up costs and in many cases have unintended negative side effects to otherwise well intentioned bills.

I generally don't like linking stuff I've written in others seeds and articles but I recently did this article that is a starter for a series I'm working on about ways to make government moreefficient without eliminating services. in that piece I briefly covered examples with the FDA and Department of Energy in showing how both agencies share duplicate services with other agencies and could be eliminated completely without cutting any of the services they provide. It's things like this that we should be seriously discussing more of on here and pushing our representatives to implement common sense changes to reduce federal spending in a responsible way.

Amused:

It is frightening that the dems and lefties accuse these reps of "treason" and just about every other form of perfidy possible, merely because they are upholding their campaign promises.

Hypocrisy is rampant across the Country. To call someone treasonous merely because they aren't doing what you WANT them to do is stupidity and bias taken to the nth degree!

And that is what we see coming from even "middle of the road" dems. amazing, but there you ahve it.

i'm at 5 republican family and friends and counting that are fed up with the republibagger bull@!$%#. 5 and counting that see that they are the ones that got us in the hole and are just trying to dig the damn thing deeper; 5 that are going to vote Democrat in the next election just to send a message to these yahoos that they are WRONG. Let's hope more thoughtfull conservatives do the same. Vote these republiteabaggers out in 2012 !

Lib is correct, however.

IF it were put to the other side, that is exactly what it would sound like.

That was my point, wmolaw. And like you explained very well in an above post Marine1986, opinions are what they are :) In my opinion when you use over the top terms and partisan muck throwing terms like "dictator, fascist, Taliban, Nazis, tea racists, etc.. " then you are what you are. She stirs it up for partisan purposes; I highly doubt that she actually has the opinion that the right is comparable to a dictatorship; she is using hyperbole on purpose. Shill in my book :)

You mean the Patriot ACt that the dems hated when GW was president and which Obama said he would change/not renew which he didn't change and in fact renewed?

Is that the Patriot Act you mean?

And is that what you want? The president to have his political opponents arrested?

It would be fun for a weekend.

I'd let 'em go...after a while.

Oh and wmolaw,the possibilty of my point was the reason I fear it, but it the irony is so sweet.

Oh, to see all you fvcking bloodthirsty morons hung on yer own petards.

With the dems, it's all about how loud they can scream and lie!

So they put Wasserman and Pelosi out to scream that the dems are trying to save the world! That the republicans (by working in our governmental system) are tyrants, dictators!

It's all about public perception.

No truly socialist/communist country has, to date, survived. Each has turned into a tyranny, or is in the process of turning into a tyranny.

It is an historical fact.

All such desires result in is everyone being equal, equally poor, equally without rights. Excepting, of course, the Obamas and Pelosis of the world.