News or propaganda

If you want your taxes to increase vote Democrat.

Q.E.D.

News....

This is the problem....you folks never put context into your statements. Nobody ever wants their taxes to go up....however, if you ask most people if they'd be willing to kick in a little more in taxes to assure our Veterans who return home from war are cared for...my guess is you'd have the majority say, "yes" to higher taxes. Many times it is just a matter of where the tax dollars are spent.

Look who has fought for middle/lower income people over the years......if you are going to put it into simple terms as only Democrat/Republican, Democrats are the ones who have fought to keep middle class taxes low. Republicans only care about the high end taxes with this ridiculous notion that it is going to trickle down to the rest of us......we're still waiting for the trickle from the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2002.

Sorry News.....your overly simplistic approach just ain't working anymore.

News or propaganda

If you want more debt, vote republican. Spend spend spend with NO TAXES

News or propaganda

ItsAboutTime its is obvious that you do read the real news or understanding who is doing the spending.

Well, appropriations bills start in the House. who controls the House? Sorry, I don't know, because I don't read the real news.

News, I have never seen the Republicans balance nothing, all they do is rob Peter to pay Paul to make things look balanced. Reagan was pushed, poked, and shoved into the Trickle Down Economy and he has said publicly that he knew it wouldn't work. I deem that Reagan had goodness in his Heart but was over his head as President and was playing a political game that he couldn't win.

The problem with the GOP trying to reform their image is, they are refusing to reform their ideas. They are trying to do what Palin said they shouldn't - slap another coat of paint on a structurally decrepit house.

News, the problem with that is those people who are working and can NOT afford to give even 5% of their income to the government. They struggle and hope every day that they don't get sick because if they DO get sick it means medications that they can't afford - even over the counter ones. I doubt that you have ever had to make a decision between getting medications or eating, I have. I doubt that you have been sent HOME from a job because you're too sick to work - because you can't afford to take a day off since you have no "sick days" due to be an hourly employee, I have. I doubt that you've ever told the ER doctor that you simply can't afford the x-ray to confirm your pneumonia, I have. I very much doubt that you've ever walked out of a hospital ER against medical advice (who wanted to admit you for said pneumonia) because you can't afford the time off from work or the bill for a hospital stay, I have. It has been a while since I was in that position, but I still remember asking my parents to come down to where I was living and BUY ME FOOD since I couldn't afford to get food that month and I made just enough to not qualify for food stamps. At the time, I was SINGLE and didn't have a child.

See, there are people out there who are working who are not even really "getting by". In these tough economic times, people are taking a job - ANY job - to try to pay their bills. That means that we have a lot of people who are "underemployed". They have done what most Republicans tell them they should do - take ANY job they can to get off unemployment, especially if they have a family. But then they're told they should be paying TAXES on the pittance that they make; they're told that they shouldn't be working that minimum wage or slightly above if they have a family or they're told that they shouldn't have HAD a family if they are now working a minimum wage or slightly above job. This IGNORES the fact they they had a better paying job before the economic downturn and they were "let go" so that their corporate employers could retain RECORD PROFITS during the downturn. They are "being responsible" by taking whatever job they can find in order to try to make some money and WORK instead of being told they're lazy and leaches; but they're dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. And YOU want them to pay taxes that they literally can't afford?

News or propaganda

Zen the Government has been operating on Continuing Resolutions that last several years because the Senate has not passed a budget. The House has done the budget process every year.

I'm sure I've been reading the wrong news - so you're saying that Congress has not passed a budget in several years. I see.

I had to reread your comment - yes, you did say that. Well, since you read real news, that must be true.

News or propaganda

6dog And the Democrats have balanced the budget when in the last 40 years?

1998-2000. Remember Clinton and Gore on the White house lawn with the forklift full of paper?

Not only balanced, but $225 billion/year surplus to pay off the dent. That ended with bush's first budget, which was something like $1.7 trillion - a one year budget greater than the national debt at that time.

If you want your taxes to increase, your benefits to decrease and you want unbridled spending, vote Republican. They'll tell you they are conservative until they get in office. Then you really find out they're just dictatorial.

The majority of the electorate will continue to be smart enough to brand the GOP as a party of mean-spirited idealologues who help their rich friends at the expense of the national interest and do just about anything to get a Republican into the White House. Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower, and perhaps even Roanld Regan, are turning over in their graves in response to what the current bunch of dimbulbs is doing to their party.

Potholes? Replace that with "sinkholes"

The problem is that the Republican party has ceased to exist, to give way to a radical, extremist party called "Tea Party" They need to disassociate themselves from it. I just can't understand why they have to stick with a group of radical, ignorant bible thumpers that just LOOK IGNORANT AND STUPID every time that tey open their mouths.

News or propaganda

ItsAboutTime its is obvious that you do read the real news or understanding who is doing the spending.

Bush 11 trillion in debt. Republicans voted over 19 times to raise the debt ceiling during his reign of terror. Republicans give 54 BILLION in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, while they are making record profits. Bush started two foreign wars we couldn't pay for, and then to top it off, the republican jobs security program is to give tax cuts to corporations that move jobs to other countries.

I don't THINK YOU pay any attention to the republican party of no fiscal responsibility.

Don't tell me that Bush isn't President. I am well aware of that and the MESS HE and the republicans left for us to CLEAN UP.

P.S. I know Dems spend, and that spending needs to be reduced, but the republicans are the SPEND SPEND SPEND Party with NO taxes/revenue. OH, and CLINTON did balance the budget and produced a surplus. The same surplus that both Santorum and Gingrich took CREDIT FOR.

Google "Clinton"

News or propaganda

Zen - the Clinton balanced budget borrowed money from SS trust fund and Republicans were in control of Congress.

LOL umm no.... Try again. Remember Santorum and Gingrich BOTH TOOK CREDIT for a 'balanced' budget :)

Truman still has the BEST QUOTE on republicans.

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."

News or propaganda

My facts are together. If they aren't, please provide sources to prove them wrong. I may not know everything in the world, but I do know a lot about the part of the world I know.

P.S. Tell the republicans to fix these potholes too in their party: Don't tell me who I can marry, don't tell me what my religion should be, don't tell me what my family values should be, and don't tell me LEGITIMATE RAPE is okay, god said so.

If you want more debt, vote republican. Spend spend spend with NO TAXES

You know what? This is a large part of the problem - Republican hypocrisy.

No matter what they say now, Republicans have to contend with history. The last Republican administration was a disaster. It took 200 years to build up a national debt of $5.7T. It only took 8 years with Republicans at the helm to double that. This fact gets lost all the time.

What also gets lost is the fact that those crying the loudest about government debt and spending were the same ones who, under the Bush administration, voted every time for expanded budgets and expanded debt ceilings.

If they really want to reinvent themselves, start here! How in the hell are we supposed to believe that Republicans today would act any different than they did the last time?

News or propaganda

Zen - the Clinton balanced budget borrowed money from SS trust fund and Republicans were in control of Congress.

I see. So, when the budget is balanced under a Democratic President with a Republic House, then the President isn't responsible for the budget, the Republican House is.

If this is so, then why would you say that the Democratic President now is responsible for the unbalanced budget, but the Republican House is not?

Also, who would be responsible for the massive budget deficits after 2000, when there was a Republican President and a Republican House?

I see a problem of logic here. Shocking.

EEngineer. Dont forget that when Bush was in office, his Vice President stated that deficits dont matter and ALL of the Republicans clapped and agreed with him. Chaney and Bush go out of office, and Obama comes in and has to clean up the mess that the Republicans left. You cannot trust a Republican with one nickle, they get a nickle they spend thirty cents and turn around and say that it does not matter. When a Democrat goes into office, all of a sudden Deficits matter. Republicans are Hypocrits and a lot worse.

Well since we have a NANNY state now, all because of Obama and the Democrats, I see no way for the Reps. to gain much or any ground with the potholes stated!! When people know that there is and will be entitlements, NOT SS or Medicare, handed out, how in the world can the potholes be repaired? To succeed as in life, sports and school you to have to work hard as an individual or team to reach your target or dream. Where are the incentives to succeed? With handouts there are NONE!!!

Itsabouttime -- you are definitely a mouth piece of the Democrat party because you do not even know the facts. Obama has a higher deficit in 4 years than Bush had in 8 years.

News, please see 4.10. Thank you. Your argument has been voided by FACTS (imagine that).

Oh, and I notice that you have completely ignored my earlier posting on this thread as well since you can't argue against it. Facts are facts. They don't have a liberal or conservative lean.

As long as the Republicans keep to their motto "All for me and FU", they will continue their decline.

Rove/Norquist/Koch bros....call the shots in the republicon party. There will be no change in the party.

Romney tried making verbal changes during the debates....when push came to shove....he was caught just word smithing......same values, same greedy rich welfare and to hell with middleclass and poor Americans.

When does the greed from the republicon party rich end?

The GOP doesn't need to reinvent themselves. It's a party of old white men in serious need of an enema. Their thinking and policies have been constipated for the last fifty years. Unfortunately, they've been spreading their pain to the rest of us for the last twenty.

News:

Do you think it is right for Boehner, Canton, Ryan and McConnell and the rest to call people moochers when Ryan and Canton gets 174,000 in base pay and Boehner and McConnell gets 244,000 in base pay, FROM TAXPAYERS? Do you think it is right for them to get between 5 and 10 grand in a monthly expense account on the Taxpayer dime? Do you think it is right for them to get the best health care our taxpayer money can buy for them?

Now I know I will hear a groan about this. I am on disability. I participated in the Social Security PASS program to be retrained to go back to work. My PASS cadre who has been one for almost 20 years has told not only me, but others, that she has NEVER seen anyone bust their butts so hard to get off of disability. I am regarded as an outstanding nature and wildlife photographer. I have had my work displayed in five different gallery shows. I was part of the Northern Lights: A Variation on a Theme show where 21 outstanding artists, photographers and craftspeople of the North Country of NH did two gallery shows, one at AVA Gallery and one at Fiddleheads Gallery. I submitted my photography to be judged by National Geographic and was given a spot on their Artist Gallery.

Here is the rub. If I could EVER get a bank to supply me with a business loan of $54,000 I could open a gallery/studio and be self sufficient within 6 months and hire two people to boot.

Funny though that we bailed out the banks, the very people who helped create this mess with their greed and lies, with taxpayer money, on the promise from them that they would help small businesses and start ups with bank loans because small businesses are the backbone of the economy. Instead they told us all to go screw ourselves, tightened credit even more and then to kick us all in the teeth even more, gave multi million dollar bonuses to the very ones who helped burn down the house. Oh and they have been posting record profits and still will not loosen credit to help small businesses. Instead they just keep giving each other more millions in bonuses.

I challenged Ryan, McConnell, Boehner and Canton to this:

You get to live off of my disability and food stamps ONLY for one year while I get your pay for one year. I would take $54,000 of it and open my gallery and studio.

I told them do you honestly believe I love living off of what I do? I am NOT looking for a hand out, I am looking for a hand up. I do NOT want to live on disability, I do not want to live on food stamps, if you call what I do as living. I want to work otherwise I would NOT have busted my butt so hard like I have to get off of disability.

But again, according to them, who have not said one peep about my challenge, I am one of the moochers while they are just hard working people looking to save america right?

Yuppers makes a whole lot of sense to me.

News or Prop...

Democrats are willing to cut. From the beginning of all this they've agreed to more cuts than raise revenue. That is, $1.50 or $2.50 spending cut for every $1.00 raised in revenue. I really wish people will stop with the lie that the Dems refuse to cut.

Up thru the 2012 election, the Reps have insisted on cuts only, no raises in revenue. Tax loopholes were offered at times, but never agreed to. It wasn't until the lost election and the Jan 1 fiscal cliff that Reps agreed to raise revenue.

And who gets the credit/blame for the economy when the Pres and House/Senate are different parties? Every combination of Dem/Rep Pres with Rep/Dem Congress has been tried and there's no correlation: The economy has waxed and waned with all of them. That's because the economy is cyclical and will always fluctuate. Policy can affect the severity and duration of the ups and downs, but you'll never get rid of them.

The best you can do is try to create an environment where the economy is stable and growing steadily.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has announced that he would like to BORROW $1BILLION and add 700 state jobs and give a tax CUT. I guess the tax cut still make him a Republican.

(Fellow Wisconsinite)

It would help if they'd can Karl Rove, right along with his move to dirty political tricks. Like the one where he started a secret whisper campaign about McCain's supposed "illegitimate black child" during the 2000 primaries, when the kid was actually a child McCain and his wife ADOPTED from India, who needed medical care which could be provided here in the states, but not where she was living. Course the latter part about who the child really was, came out after the election. Or the same Karl Rove who reported a bug in his office, during a Texas state election, and left people with the impression it was like Watergate all over again. But after the votes were tallied, the FBI's own investigation revealed that the bug had a very short battery life, was very short range, and it was the FBI's own conclusion that someone inside Rove's own campaign office must have planted the bug themselves. Naturally the story died in the media on the findings of the FBI about who really was likely to have done it. This man's just toxic, and produces more of his kind.

Whoever thought it was a bright idea to not invite Gov Chris Christie to CPAC this year, because he should have asked for huricane relief (something other states have received, and something the tri-state area has GIVEN far more often then they ever received) aught to also get a serious looking at. Because Christie is someone who really would be electable. And on fiscal matters, how many conservatives wouldn't be happy with some of what Christie has maneaged to do with NJ's budget, following the years that MF Financial's own Corzine had been govenor prior?

But the current Democrats just want to raise taxes and increase spending.

That is such BS! Take a look at the graph here. You'll see spending is increasing one helluva lot less than it was under Bush et al. And Obama has been dealing with what has appropriately been called the "Bush Recession. One has to wonder what Republicans could have done any different without totally tanking the economy.

One as to wonder since Republicans have not offered anything except more tax cuts (even less revenue leads to more deficits) and increased Defense spending (again, more deficits!). Give us a plan, Stan! Not more voodoo economics!

Funny that all it took was a twice elected, black President to bring the republican house down. Poor republicans - sitting around the table with long faces - thinking - Americans must really hate us if they elected a black man twice. You tried to demonize and discredit Mr. Obama and his accomplishments to somehow get your brain around it. You just don't get it, do you.

It's not just you that we dislike... it's everything you do, as well.

Your morally elitist, hypocritical, faith based legislation; your isolationist, over zealous patriotism; your short sighted, sophomoric, constitutional comprehension and your generally condescending attitude toward everyone who thinks other than you.

BTW, if you have left the republican party for the tea nuts, you're suspect.

Here's how to reinvent the Republican Party:

1. Read the Constitution and the bill of rights and understand what the limits of government are supposed to be.

2. Understand that the GOP doesn't mean Good 'ol Partisans, Geriatric Only Politicians, or Generally Old Patrons. Meaning- John McCain may have been with the party a hundred years and have had an interesting life, but that didn't make him the best Presidential candidate.

3. Understand your consituency. Meaning- MOST of us don't have financial security and don't appreciate federal level politicians telling us how much of our income we are "allowed" to keep, that you know how to spend our money better then we do, and that whom ever you put in front of us we should just jump on board for.

4. Don't canibalize young republicans and conservatives. Meaning- Don't put a new face up for Presidency if they won't hold up to the massive liberal media scrutiney (IE- Palin was only in her first term as governor- should have let her stay there for atleast 2 terms and build her record). Develop leaders, don't misuse the younger ones to promote your "chosen" older ones.

5. Realize that us conservative voters no longer wish to be affiliated with a party, we'd rather vote for the best candidate that believes in our core beliefs.

6. Lastly, KNOW your core beliefs. We don't want to hear about another policitican telling us they believe in the Constitution then once in office maligning the Constitution with legislation, jumping ship anytime it would look convenient for their re-election campaigns, etc. Grow a pair and a strong spine- LEAD.

Let's try to get back on topic shall we? Click 'ignore' on the troll posts and let discuss the actual topic of this article.

The Republican Party used to be the 'Party of Parsimonious Party-poopers". They were the Dad who said you had to be home by 11 on a Saturday night or the Mom who insisted you eat your vegetables. They were a dead weight sometimes, but a good counter-balance to the Democrats.

In the last 30 years the GOP has become something very different. There is a reason the term "Right wing nut job" came into vogue. They have moved radically to the right and what used to be the flea at the end of the dogs tail (the Lunatic fringe) , has now BECOME the tail and is wagging the dog.

When people like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman are the darling daughters of your party, you have real problems amigo. Both of those people are bat-sh*t crazy and the thought of them having any more influence and power than they already, unfortunately, have scares the k-rap out of me.

National polls are starting to show a paradigm shift in America. We are becoming more liberal, or if you prefer more 'progressive'. The vast majority of young people coming of age today in American don't care about issues like Gay Marriage or Illegal Immigrants or any of the wedge issues the new GOP has found so effective in the past.

They want jobs. They want a stable economy. They want a house in the suburbs and a cool car. They don't want to hear forecasts of doom and gloom or that the country is going broke and they seriously do not want to hear reports about Washington gridlock. They want their government to run smoothly. They want their elected officials to do their jobs and cut the self-serving rhetoric.

Until the GOP realize all of the above and does something about it they will be more and more marginalized.

Sadly, just like the last election, the GOP can't see the forest for the trees. They don't see, like or embrace the changing demographic that is the modern American melting pot.

Ok guys and gals. You want to re-brand yourselves? Here are some helpful hints:

1. Wake up, it's the 21st Century, it's not 1950 anymore and it never will be again.

2. Knock off the cheap, divisive 'wedge issue' strategy. We're tired of it.

3. Stop being partisan roadblocks to EVERYTHING and embrace the word 'compromise'.

4. And this is most important and probably should be number one with a exclamation mark. FIRE the goofy people you have in office right now like Michelle Bachman and Rand Paul and Coburn and Inhofe and all the rest and get some decent, intelligent, hard-working folk in there who can get things done. And for God's sake stop listening to the likes of Sarah Palin.

5. Go back to the Lincolns, Roosevelts and Eisenhowers of your party and emulate their actions and positions.

6. Tell Rush Limbaugh to shut up and tell Fox News to clean up their act.

7. Get RELIGION out of your politics!

When you do those seven simple things you will become a political powerhouse in the 21st Century. you could turn your party around in less than a decade.

If you don't, you're going to be reduced to the status of 'lunatic fringe' and the liberals are going to have their way with you like a plastic love doll.

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE, IT'S NOT 1950 ANYMORE and it never will be again.

Just wait till obamacare is fully in service, 2014 will be a bad year for democrats that voted for it.

/yawn

people said that in 2012 and look what happened.

look who controlled the senate in 2004 to 2008

Um, the REPUBLICANS! Republicans controlled the Senate from 1995-2009 basically (there were two instances of ties, but Cheney as Vice President was the tiebreaker).

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

doctors will be in short demand, and that death panel that liberals said were not real, guess what it is.

bwhahaha. Ok, you can be rightfully ignored.

Frank - Congress is over paid and should obey the same laws as the rest of us. Congress should not have a retirement system, it encourages them to stay in Congress.

also look who controlled the house in those same years

the house was Republican controlled from 1995 to 2007

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

my god, you do know that you're posting on the INTERNET, and you can simply google this stuff to learn the real facts, right?

@grover, exactly. Republicans took a must win stance last November because they know that once Obamacare is in full effect Americans will love it and they will never be able to repeal it then. If it's as bad as Mr. Clarkson says it will be, then even Democrats will want to get rid of it. Won't happen.

Fish - Where are the cuts in the Senate budget? The Senate budget increases spending by 5% per year, that is not a cut. Increases in spending should be limited to increases in taxes. How many people want their taxes to increase?

By the way, I am for getting rid of 99% of the tax loop holes on personal income and corporate income.

By the way, I am for getting rid of 99% of the tax loop holes on personal income and corporate income.

yeah, that's smart. Let's sink every middle class home owner by getting rid of the the mortgage interest deduction, child credits, and tuition credits.

Middle class folks don't need homes or college educated children.

sheesh...

Bumpy?? It will be almost impossible to fill the pothole created by Sarah Palin.

Where do the Democrats stand? Democrats don't want to reduce American's dependence on the federal government. Democrats are against reduced spending. Democrats are against a balanced budget.

Whoa, whoa. We're painting with pretty broad strokes here. You make it sound like Democrats are irresponsible, money-burning fools. If that were truly the case then I doubt they would get so many votes. That's a big part of the problem for guys like you (and a reason why people like you are part of America's problems overall). You are so worried about blame you don't stop and think about the actual people involved. You make it sound like some of us what taxes because we enjoy paying them. What sense does that really make? Has any Democrat actually told you that they enjoy paying high taxes as a hobby or get giddy at the idea of an budget deficit? That makes no sense.

At least left leaning individuals seem willing to look at both sides of an issue at least some of the time. I know this for a fact because I myself used to be a "middle of the road" type of guy. The GOP has driven me away most likely for ever due to their increasingly radical actions starting with President Reagan. As you might have noticed I'm not the only one...

News or propaganda

6dog And the Democrats have balanced the budget when in the last 40 years?

Neither have the republicans either...Clinton raided ssn, believe a couple of other presidents did the same thing (but at least he did have a surplus)...Ike was the last president who had a surplus, and probably most of the far right/tea party would not consider him a true conservative...I grew up in the 50's..and would take Ike for president anyday

Robert D Clarkson

Yeah, well, the Democrats didn't control the Senate from 2004-2008.

So, if your proposition that liberals are responsible for the spending of the Bush administration and the administrations two wars based on the premise that the democrats controlled the Senate from 2004-2008, then the argument is not sound because the premise is false. Also, the House was controlled by the GOP until 2007.

But, hey, way to take responsibility for yourself there, pal. Accountability, personal responsibility, and being an honest, stand-up guy is what conservatism is all about - so keep up the good work there, pardner!

Mr. 29

Hey dems...do you want respect?

Nah, not from you, just go ahead and keep it.

Well, Bill Clinton balanced the budget TWICE when he was in office, and he left "W" Bozo Bush with a $695 Billion dollar cash SURPLUS...........

I wish there were still Eisenhower 's out there. He may have been conservative but the man had sense and he was able to see both sides of an issue. He wouldn't make it today because his views on military action would be too sensible for today's war-mongering Republicans who are oh so willing to send thousands to their deaths (and reap huge profits for military contractors and other bloodsuckers of their ilk). Ike warned of what's going on now. Not enough people listened apparently.

Todays GOP is like a hydra, or one of those deformed births involving a body with two heads, two different sets of political beliefs, one moderate, the other radical-crazy like Palin,Rand Paul, Kantor and Ryan....it's like a big city high school, where the guidance counsellor lumped together all the dysfunctional loser kids who were not following the educational program, in one dysfunctional classroom.

Well, Bill Clinton balanced the budget TWICE when he was in office, and he left "W" Bozo Bush with a $695 Billion dollar cash SURPLUS...........

Just for the record, and because I like to deal in facts even if they hurt my part (Democratic), this is not true. It's actually not true at all that Clinton ever ran a surplus.

The national debt increased EVERY YEAR during Clinton's tenure, he never once ran a "surplus." That being said, he had us on a PATH to a surplus and was running miniscule deficits by the time he left office (check it out: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway).

Had Bush come into office and done NOTHING, he would have been paying DOWN the debt within a year or two and would have shrunk the national debt considerably by the time he left office. Instead, he bankrupted us with shortsighted policies and set us on the path to financial ruin. Obama then got stuck holding the bag, and here we are...

{For the record, the Debt was $4.4T when Clinton came into office, and $5.8T when he left. Bush left office with a debt of $11.9T.}

It's actually kinda sad that people are upvoting Mr. 29's post (#1.47) cause it's complete and utter rubbish. It shows the mindset of some less-than-intelligent folks out there.

@Jeffor, many of then in D.C. are just that.

they get the votes by catering to the inner cities, which are rife with corruption, hacks, hack handouts and general welfare abuse.

free money is hard for them to pass up...thats how they get the votes.

well lying through their teeth and depending on an electorate with the attention span of a squirrel.

that being said there are plenty of GOP idiots, but the numbers reported are far outweighed by the under reported number of dumb things democrats do or say.

Mr 29. Congratulations, that is the most racist, ignorant, uneducated post I've seen in a very long time.

This article is hilarious -- but I would expect nothing less from Leftists like NBC News.

It's the DEMOCRAT party that will hit a lot more potholes in the next 4 years...

* In the 2014 Senate: Pryor, Begich, Hagan, Merkley, Udall, Franken and Landrieu all face TOUGH races. Rockefeller, Lautenberg, Levin and Harkin are retiring in what were automatic wins; at least two of those seats are likely "R". Menendez is embattled because of soliciting underage prostitutes and conspiracy to commit Medicare fraud.

* The Democrats have lost the House in two consecutive election cycles and will likely make it three.

* Republicans have 31/50 Governors and the majority of State legislatures. That won't change in 2014.

* For the 2016 Presidency, there is: an Ex-First Lady, Cuomo and Joe "They Gon Put Y'all Back in Chains" Biden. Meanwhile, the GOP bench is strong: Christie, Thune, Rubio, Paul, Huntsman, Daniels, Jindall, J. Bush, et. al.

Well since we have a NANNY state now, all because of Obama and the Democrats,

/reading

The Republicans should just stick to two simple messages and keep repeating them;

1 - The skyrocketing Debt will be devastating to the future of our children.

2 - The massive increases in the money supply to fund the Deficits will result in massive Inflation, high Interest Rates, and more Unemployment.

These are simple messages that even the 'low information voters' will understand, and there is no doubt that we will have to deal with these problems in the near future. They need to make sure that Obama is held responsible for the economic consequences of his policies.

Obama's own 2013 Budget projections show that the National Debt will increase from $9.986 Trillion at the end of fiscal 2008 to $20.392 Trillion at the end of 2016 (Obama's last year) - but President's budget projections are notoriously 'optimistic' (Bush projected a SURPLUS for 2012, but Obama's DEFICIT for 2012 was $1.1 Trillion) - it will likely be closer to $25 Trillion in 2016. The Interest cost alone will be devastating.

The Chinese are no longer buying our Debt - in fact, they have quietly 'cashed in' about $200 Billion of their loans to us over the last year (they know inflation is coming), and the Federal Reserve has had to replace that money by effectively 'printing new money' - along with about $1 Trillion in new money to finance the Deficit. The money supply (M1) has increased from about $1.4 Trillion in 2009 to about $2.5 Trillion now. Every responsible economist will tell you that this is highly "INFLATIONARY" - ala the 14% Inflation and 18% Interest Rates under Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Even the far-left Liberal outlet The Huffington Post recognized this;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-filger/federal-reserve-begins-ma_b_677483.html

By "potholes" they mean Tea Partiers.

Speaking as a former Republican, now independent...

If the Republican's were serious about winning voters back, they need to get back to one simple concept: Free market capitalism begins with Demand; NOT Supply.

If you're REALLY interested in shrinking the debt, do so by getting people back to work. We want people contributing to our national wealth, not drawing on it. The only real and sustainable way to get people back to work is for the demand of goods and services to necessitate hiring. Who has the largest impact on demand? The Middle Class. Which segment of our population is disappearing? The Middle Class.

To be relevant again, they need to bring back the Eisenhower Republicans and finally trash can Reaganomics. It doesn't work. Coming out of WWII, Eisenhower had a higher Debt to GDP ratio than we have today, yet he was able to significantly reduce the debt by making sure we had a strong middle class.

Excellent posts Robert! Now just post those non-partisan links where you've gathered your information and your posts won't keep the majority of intelligent people on the floor laughing. You'll sure show them once you've posted those links. I'm sure the information to back up your "facts" is out there. I can't seem to find a one to back them up but I'm sure you will. We'll wait.

News or propaganda "If you want your taxes to increase vote Democrat."

Amen to that.

Look, this is really simple.

If we want to have all of these 'free' services and 'entitlements' from the government, then PAY FOR IT.

We are currently spending about $3.8 Trillion per year, and we are taking in about $2.7 Trillion per year, which leaves a Deficit of about $1.1 Trillion per year. If we want to keep spending at that level - THEN PAY FOR IT, and then the real cost of government will not be hidden with borrowed money - sending the bill to our children and grandchildren. It's GROSSLY UNFAIR to hide the real cost of current spending with 'Borrowed Money'. It doesn't work with our personal finances, and it doesn't work with the government (just ask Greece).

It will cost the average family of 4 about $14,000 per year in new taxes ($1,165 per month) to finance the current extra deficit spending of $1.1 Trillion, but hey - if that's what you want, THEN PAY FOR IT.

So the GOP has decided it has to 'LOOK' different? You can paint a Zebra white, but it's still a Zebra.

Reaganomics created 25 million jobs in eight years.

Obamanomics has created 800,000 in five.

By "potholes" they mean Tea Partiers

Sarah, you would think that to be the case. But the party of no common sense lives in denial. So these potholes will never be filled.

* The Democrats have lost the House in two consecutive election cycles and will likely make it three.

thanks to gerrymandering of course. The D's won the House popular vote (gaining 1 million more votes than the R's). But the R's retained seats because of the way they redrew congressional districts after the 2010 census....

* For the 2016 Presidency, there is: an Ex-First Lady, Cuomo and Joe "They Gon Put Y'all Back in Chains" Biden. Meanwhile, the GOP bench is strong: Christie, Thune, Rubio, Paul, Huntsman, Daniels, Jindall, J. Bush, et. al.

Rubio, Paul, Jindal, and Jeb Bush are all no go's for the Presidency. They have what amounts to a ZERO percent chance of winning against almost any Democratic candidate.

Christie and Huntsman would be formidable opponents, but they won't pass Republican primary muster because they are not radical enough for the Tea Party base.

As it stands currently, it will be a tough road for ANY Republican to win the Presidency in 2016 (as almost all polling shows), but it IS far away and circumstances can certainly change before then (Jeb Bush will never win though, that's a guarantee, his brother soiled the name and party too much for the public to ever fall for that crap again).

@arthur,

Meanwhile, the GOP bench is strong: Christie, Thune, Rubio, Paul, Huntsman, Daniels, Jindall, J. Bush, et. al.

Those guys were all around in 2012. What happened? Christie - not ready, Thune - who?, Rubio - plastic, Paul - fringe, Huntsman - he ran, didn't he?, Daniels - who?, Jindall - gaff, Bush - negative name association.

No, I think you have a good candidate in Christie if Americans can see past his fatness and he can tame his in-your-face-ness a little. Most westerners don't like that east coast "I'm gonna break your legs" kinda atty-tude. Regardless, I don't think any of them can beat Clinton. She's as solid as Obama, maybe more so. But lets watch what Nate Silver comes up with, he's been spot on.

Mr29 - We ALREADY have respect - have you seen the latest polls? It's the Republicans who don;t have respect, which is why they are trying to reinvent themselves. Most of what you wrote is urban legend among right-wingers, not fact. And lots of boo-hooing - "the world doesn't treat our guys fairly" etc. We're too intelligent to be fooled by these smoke and mirror tactics tried over and over again.

It should be interesting to see what the effect of Obamacare will be on the cost of health care for Americans. We do know that costs are skyrocketing because of the new 'mandates' by the government, but what might results is that employers will choose to pay the far less expensive 'penalty' and then suggest that employees purchase their required health insurance from 'government exchanges' - with 'after-tax' dollars instead of the current pre-tax' dollars - increasing the cost to employees a further 20%.

Somehow, when the employees find out how expensive Obamacare is, and the Republicans hammer the Democrats for forcing this expensive boondoggle on the people, thanks to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, their chance of voting Nancy Pelosi back in as Speaker of the House will be somewhere between slim and none.

Doctor Logic, it is funny that you bring up raising taxes to pay for the medical assistance of our men coming home from the war. What is funny is that there is a article out today that the veterans are not receiving their benefits and they want to know why.

@roy, Single payer.

Reaganomics created 25 million jobs in eight years.

Exactly my point, jobs were created because demand necessitated hiring.

But what you're missing is that Reaganomics was the start of increased personal debt. At that point, people were generally encouraged to buy on the credit card. (Remember Yuppies, Remember DINK's - Go ahead and buy that BMW, you'll be able to make the payments because you are Dual Income No Kids) Fast forward 40 years and the Credit Cards are maxed out and there is no room for more personal spending.

So how do we generate demand without relying on increased personal/family debt? Eisenhower figured it out.

90% of the liberals posting on this site pay no income tax yet are the ones screaming for more taxes, go figure.

I'd be willing to be that my wife and I (both liberals) pay more in taxes than you do considering we're in the 97th percentile of household income in this country.

I could be wrong, perhaps you're in the 1%, but I like my odds...

Ah the liberal press - their conjecture = news?

Its called deflection politics. Here we have a President running away from the budget issue by all of a sudden flying to the middle east and creating contiversy their to hide his total lack of leadership on debt reduct (oh yeah "America doesn't have a debt problem" - this from a guy who said the sky was falling over <3% cut on the INCREASE in spending year on year)...

Gotta love the liberal press...

Hey listenToMe, you are absolutely correct. Supply side economics is a huge fallacy that that plagues the Republican party. Stagnation of salaries has killed demand for goods and services that people would otherwise buy if their wages kept up with the cost of living. Giving taxbreaks to the super rich and corporations does nothing to fix the demand problem. What's good for the "job creators" may be good for the job creators, but doesn't necessarily create jobs. The astronomical wage disparity at the low end (minimum wage) means that any demand is there iserviced by the Walmarts, and the likes of Walmart creates zero wealth except at the very top. Say goodbye to local family businesses. And once people realize that they don't need a new smart phone every 3 months (or at all and can't afford it anyway) that market will dry up as well. The good news is that the stock market is doing well, but a lot of that can be attributed to low employment which translates to increased productivity which Wall Street loves.

Does anyone have a solution to make the GOP more for the people, rather than for big business ???

Get Real...

Ah the liberal press - their conjecture = news?

Its called deflection politics. Here we have a President running away from the budget issue by all of a sudden flying to the middle east and creating contiversy their to hide his total lack of leadership on debt reduct (oh yeah "America doesn't have a debt problem" - this from a guy who said the sky was falling over <3% cut on the INCREASE in spending year on year)...

Gotta love the liberal press.

So before it was "Obama isn't an ally of Israel, he hasn't even been!" and now that he's gone he is trying to "hide is lack of leadership on the debt reduc(tion)"?

No winning here at all, is there?

not my fault re #1.37, If you think it's bad in Wisconsin don't come to Illinois. If Gov. Walker wanted to borrow a Billion Dollars to put 700 people to work what's the problem? When you borrow money it's a loan and a loan is repaid. Illinois' Gov. Quinn's 1st act as Governor was to put on 1,970 patronage hires! With no way other than the burden to the taxpayers of paying them! We have a huge finance crunch here, under funded pensions, a tax rate for small business that is totally hostile, which kills jobs. Sales and State tax have increased,a lot of funding for senior centers, State Parks were cut. Today Chicago just announced the closing of 54 public schools at the end of the school year. Oh and it is 100% run by Democrats. Quinn won election in a close race, within 60K votes, I hear Scott Walker was elected twice! Maybe you would be happier if we switched Quinn for Walker? I would do that deal in a heart beat!

@stopthefreeloaders

What an ignorant and false statement to make. You, sir or madam, are an idiot. You probably hang on Sarah Palin's every word and think Michelle Bachman and Jim Inhofe are freakin' geniuses.

I happen to know quite a few of the so-called "liberals" posting on this vine and each and every one of them work 40 hours a week, pay their taxes and are NOT freeloaders.

You have succumbed to the 47% myth promulgated by your failed Presidential candidate, probably because you listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch FOX news. You live in an echo chamber where you hear the same false, rhetoric bouncing off the walls around you 24/7 and you actually BELIEVE all that propaganda is fact.

Around here we have a saying, "The guilty dog always barks first." I'm betting YOU are on Social Security and are relying on Medicare for your health. I'm betting YOU'RE the biggest freeloader posting on this thread.

Pull you head out, watch something other than FOX News and get your facts straight before you post anymore of your foolish drivel.

Arthur66 "Reaganomics created 25 million jobs in eight years.Obamanomics has created 800,000 in five."

Actually, these are the real figures from the official government Bureau of Labor Statistics;

Average number of jobs in 1980 (before Reagan) = 90,528,000.

Average number of jobs in 1988 (Reagan's last year) = 105,345,000, for a gain of 14,817,000.

Number of jobs in December 2008 (before Obama) = 134,425,000.

Number of jobs in December 2012 (Obama's 4th year) = 134,668,000, for a gain of only 243,000 jobs.

If we compared the AVERAGE number of jobs in 2008 vs 2012, it would show a LOSS of over 3.4 million jobs for Obama.

Here's the official BLS.gov link to verify;

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.compaes.txt

The so called conservative republicans have been putting this country in debt for fifty plus years, and always have to rely on the Democrats coming into office and cleaning up the GOP mess...

And as usual the right wing are unable to talk civil to the other side, so they have to insult the other side rather than trying to work things out...

President Obama has shown much more honest leadership as the nations president than his predecessor or for that matter any republican since Reagan... He has also prove to be more intelligent... That includes Reagan

Very good Terry, I second that, how first they forget !!!

"We need to continue to, every few weeks, have a bill on the floor to repeal pieces of Obamacare as well as votes to repeal the whole law. President Obama will not sign a bill, but that’s the point.”"

Not too smart. Republicans are wasting time and energy on writing bills they KNOW will never pass, and as the article points out, even if it did pass, President Obama would veto it.

Why don't Republicans do some work on creating all those jobs jobs jobs they lied about just to get in office.

...and the horse you rode in on. "@roy, Single payer."

If you mean 'Universal Heath Care", I agree. There is no reason why other developed countries can have universal care at a cost that is about 40% lower (per person) than in the USA, while providing superior results.

Our current health care system is an abomination of greed and mismanagement.

We need universal heath care, with a combination of payroll taxes (employers and employees) and a small National Sales Tax, excluding food and medicine (I estimate 3% would cover the remaining cost). That way, everybody gets covered and everybody shares the cost.

TO: seaskip who wrote:

"Does anyone have a solution to make the GOP more for the people, rather than for big business ???"

It'll never happen Skipper.

The Republican Party takes money from both sides, we the people pay their salaries, and big business puts Republicans' kids through college.

American Girl-724855 "Why don't Republicans do some work on creating all those jobs jobs jobs they lied about just to get in office."

Actually, in the last 2 years since the Republicans took over control of the House of Representatives in January 2011, we have had 3,675,000 net new jobs created through the end of 2012.

Conversely, in the previous 2 years under a Congress completely controlled by Democrats and Obama, we had a net LOSS of 4,030,000 jobs. That's a positive swing for the Republicans of over 7.7 million jobs.

What more do you want?

Here's the official government Bureau of Labor Statistics site to verify;

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.compaes.txt

@ Roy Wilson

...and the horse you rode in on. "@roy, Single payer."

If you mean 'Universal Heath Care", I agree. There is no reason why other developed countries can have universal care at a cost that is about 40% lower (per person) than in the USA, while providing superior results.

Our current health care system is an abomination of greed and mismanagement.

We need universal heath care, with a combination of payroll taxes (employers and employees) and a small National Sales Tax, excluding food and medicine (I estimate 3% would cover the remaining cost). That way, everybody gets covered and everybody shares the cost.

Hell must have frozen over, as I actually support this post 100%. I gave you an upvote for it, as I will happily recommend any post regardless of the poster if the material is good.

DrowningGrover "@ Roy Wilson Hell must have frozen over, as I actually support this post 100%. I gave you an upvote for it, as I will happily recommend any post regardless of the poster if the material is good."

Oh, oh - I may have to rethink my position - LOL

Actually, I have always favored Universal Health Care - it just makes too much sense. Here's an old comment;

Here is my proposal for resolving the health care crisis in America.

A number of years ago Taiwan decided they needed to provide universal health care for their people, so they selected a committee of health care experts who investigated the most successful universal health care systems in the World, and then they took the best features of each and designed their own plan which provided first class services to everyone. Then they held a national referendum vote, which passed with wide support. The health care standards are set by the government and the plans are administered by private insurance companies that compete for customers.

The result has been an excellent universal health care plan that covers everybody with virtually no wait times for treatment at a fraction of the cost that Americans pay (per capita). Cost increases are also much lower than in America. It is paid for with a combination of employer/employee taxes and a national sales tax.

If we did the same thing, we would have good health care for everyone, costs would be cut dramatically, and we could move on to more important issues. There was a video produced by NPR on youtube, but it doesn't seem to be available now. The old link was;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPalGlL2gGQ

TO: Mr. 29 who wrote:

"... A president would have a surplus if he gave the U.S. the highest tax increase in history 3 months after his election....90%. He kept his surplus by ignoring more than 10 attacks on this country killing many americans. What a guy. Now, besides the usual name calling by libs...anyone want to argue against my facts?"

There's already enough kooks and idiots around calling fallacy "facts" including your last Republican White House dweller, George "Curveball" Bush.

In the last election, we saw that the low information crowd is going to fall for the bulls**t shoveled by the state-controlled media and vote for an inept individual who promises them the world, but does nothing to improve their lot,. Instead of spending a lot of effort trying to win over these clueless lemmings, the GOP needs to concentrate on building a clear platform and selecting a strong candidate who will sell the advantages of the GOP policies to their base, instead of getting into a silly, useless pissing contest with the trash talking Dems. Romney only lost by 2%, and it was because a lot of conservatives couldn't stomach voting for his weak, wishy-washy policies and simply stayed home on election day.

Roy, I rarely (perhaps never before) agree with you, but your post at 1.93 is SPOT ON!

EMDF9A "Roy, I rarely (perhaps never before) agree with you, but your post at 1.93 is SPOT ON!"

Uh, oh - I may have just gotten kicked out of the Tea Party (even though I was never IN it), but that's OK because I never agreed with many of their positions anyway.

TO: spider-737231 who wrote:

"... the GOP needs to concentrate on building a clear platform and selecting a strong candidate who will sell the advantages of the GOP policies to their base..."

If the GOP can't even sell its pile of crap to its base, then it's probably because all the GOP has is pile of crap.

There are no "advantages" in GOP policies, which is the whole point of GOP policies is to not spend money on anything other than national defense. Anything other than national defense is not part of GOP policies.

Republicans are again clean air and clean water, in favor making the rich richer.

Republicans refuse to acknowledge Global Warming, in favor of making the rich richer.

Paul Ryan wrote up a "budget" that would starve our elderly and our poor, in favor of making the rich richer.

And Republicans have the gall to wonder why they're so unpopular.

TO: spider-737231 who wrote:

"... the GOP needs to concentrate on building a clear platform and selecting a strong candidate who will sell the advantages of the GOP policies to their base..."

If the GOP can't even sell its pile of crap to its base, then it's probably because all the GOP has is pile of crap.

There are no "advantages" in GOP policies, which is the whole point of GOP policies is to not spend money on anything other than national defense. Anything other than national defense is not part of GOP policies.

Republicans are against clean air and clean water, in favor making the rich richer.

Republicans refuse to acknowledge Global Warming, in favor of making the rich richer.

Paul Ryan wrote up a "budget" that would starve our elderly and our poor, in favor of making the rich richer.

And Republicans have the gall to wonder why they're so unpopular.

TO: News or propaganda who wrote:

"6dog And the Democrats have balanced the budget when in the last 40 years?"

Democrat President Bill Clinton is the ONLY President that did balance the budget in the last 40 years.

Republicans have never, to my knowledge, balanced the budget and you know that yourself because they didn't include all expenses such as the War in Afghanistan and that Lie Called the War in Iraq were NOT on the books and everyone in the world knows it.

You know, the thing I don't get is that as we are all so different in so many different ways, we are supposed to be filed into one of two groups: Ds or Rs. Imagine if I told a man/woman they could only marry the choice of two of the opposite sex and was forced to ignore all the other potential partners.

I just don't see how it's possible or practical to continue with this system.

Can't people take each issue and make up their own minds based on the issue and not based on whether they will be re-elected?

This whole 2-party system has everything so F'ed up and it has pitted good people against good people so much so that governing is nearly impossible.

Is there anyone out there that thinks this is no longer working and should be changed?

ROY

Gee, who was it that pushed for a universal, single payer healthcare system? I can't seem to remember.

But the heritage foundation did not like that... so they created RomneyCare, later called ObamaCare. Now which party does the HERITAGE FOUNDATION belong to again? My memory must be slipping.

Although I will tell you that most liberals will support a universal, single payer healthcare system. Why health care is a for-profit industry, where people make money when you are sick... I will never understand. But REPUBLICANS do NOT want a single payer system.

listentome

You hit the nail on the head.

I also left the Republican party because they are the party of supply-side economics. Currently, businesses are sitting on record profits and piles of cash. They HAVE the supply of money to create jobs, but we need DEMAND to justify those jobs... and THAT is what is lacking.

We have to create demand to justify the creation of jobs. It is as simple as that.

In a perfect situation you need both, demand for jobs and a supply of money to create that job. In a recession, the government steps in to make up for whatever side slipped. We tried the supply-side theory. Businesses have more profits now than ever before, they are sitting on piles of cash. They have the supply, but there is no demand to create jobs. So now we need to shift to a demand model. Get money into the hands of lower and middle class people so that they will SPEND it. Is this "redistribution"? Yes, but all that "redistributed" money goes right back to the rich when it is spent in their business... and it creates demand in the process. The demand creates jobs, brings the model back into balance, and less redistribution happens because people now have jobs instead.

This is basic economics that Republicans seem to FAIL at. They want to keep pumping more into supply, when there is no demand for any of it. The stimulus failed, from BOTH parties, because there was no demand component. So the Democrats have not done much better. But at least SOME Democrats realize the need for demand, whereas ALL Republicans only focus on supply.

Itsabouttime -- you are definitely a mouth piece of the Democrat party because you do not even know the facts. Obama has a higher deficit in 4 years than Bush had in 8 years

Not true. Bush started with a 5.7 trillion debt and ended with a 12.1 trillion debt. The 10.9 the right uses is wrong. The 2009 budget with a 1.2 trillion deficit was passed by Bush in October 2008, before Obama was elected. Bush added 6.4 trillion in eight years but started with a 450 billion surplus, 4.2% unemployment and healthy economy. Bush left Obama a train wreck. Banks near collapse, 700,000 a month losing jobs, millions in foreclosure and a 7900 dow.

The CBO in the summer of 2008 projected the deficit would hit 1.2 trillion in 2009 whoever won the election and remain above 1 trillion at least through 2011 caused mostly by lost revenue from the tax cuts, continuing war costs, debt servicing, millions more on welfare, unemployment, food stamps and Medicaid roles and 500 billion lower revenue due to the economic meltdown. All factors in place before Obama was elected. All happened under Bush's watch.

http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit

TO: News or propaganda who wrote:

"Zen the Government has been operating on Continuing Resolutions that last several years because the Senate has not passed a budget. The House has done the budget process every year."

The only "budgets" Republicans did while George "Curveball" Bush was in office were fake ones because none of those "budgets" ever included the War in Afghanistan or that Lie Called the War in Iraq.

Saying that the GOP put forth "budgets" since President Obama has been in office is like someone asking for a bucket of paint but gets a completely useless bucket of mud instead, saying, "Well, at least you got a bucket".

TO: ROY WILSON-336103 who wrote:

[American Girl-724855 "Why don't Republicans do some work on creating all those jobs jobs jobs they lied about just to get in office."]

Actually, in the last 2 years since the Republicans took over control of the House of Representatives in January 2011, we have had 3,675,000 net new jobs created through the end of 2012.

Conversely, in the previous 2 years under a Congress completely controlled by Democrats and Obama, we had a net LOSS of 4,030,000 jobs. That's a positive swing for the Republicans of over 7.7 million jobs..."

I know you're not trying to give credit to Republicans who haven't done a darn thing in 5 years except hope for government failure and promise to force failure on the President of the United States, are you?

And you wouldn't dare be so bold as to try to deny that our Economy Collapsed under Bush, which is what helped President Obama get elected in the first place, would you?

Everyone in the world knows that Republicans installed the Teabaggers in the House of Representatives to created gridlock, and to make sure that nothing could get done, now you want to give the do-nothings "credit" for the President's work that he was able to accomplish WITHOUT the help of Republicans.

You'd have be either be nuts, or a bold faced liar to come up with something like that.

Bush projected a SURPLUS for 2012, but Obama's DEFICIT for 2012 was $1.1 Trillion

Washington Post, Feb 5, 2007:

The budget that President Bush will submit to Congress today shows the federal deficit falling in each of the next four years and would produce a $61 billion surplus in 2012, administration officials said. But to get there, Bush is counting on strong economic growth, diminishing costs in the Iraq war and tight domestic spending to offset the cost of his tax cuts.

Democrats yesterday criticized the five-year budget plan as overly optimistic, and predicted that extending the tax cuts past their 2010 expiration date would dig the nation deeper into debt rather than produce a budget surplus. Republicans countered that the tax cuts are critical to maintaining a healthy economy and that a balanced budget is not possible without them.

"Raising taxes . . . won't help balance the budget -- it will slow the economic growth that is creating the new jobs of tomorrow and increasing revenue to the federal government," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) wrote in an essay distributed yesterday by his office. "Keeping our economy strong and promoting fiscal responsibility will get the job done. Raising taxes won't."

Yep, it all happened just like Republicans said, didn't it? That's why we are in such a hurry to believe them now!

Trickle down was the way to wealth. The trick worked, the down never started.

News or propaganda

If you want your taxes to increase vote Democrat.

Really? That's your comment?

TO: News or propaganda who wrote:

"... the Clinton balanced budget borrowed money from SS trust fund..."

Democrat President Bill Clinton replenished Social Security and at the time Bill Clinton left office there was a $40 billion dollar surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund.

1 - The skyrocketing Debt will be devastating to the future of our children.

If you are that concerned about the skyrocketing debt, why do you keep insisting on doing things that will increase the debt even further?

Austerity doesn't work. Cutting spending now means tomorrow, people will be unemployed. They will not pay taxes, and so the deficit will get even worse. If you really care about the debt that much, support Obama in his attempt to create jobs that will expand the economy and make our infrastructure more efficient.

One can't really just take the job numbers at particular points and use them to assign blame or credit for them because there are too many mitigating factors. For example, one could look at the job growth in the first 2 years of the Obama presidency and claim they're low, but you have to take into account the fact that we were losing jobs before that point and trying to come out of a recession. Those number would be low regardless of which party controlled the White House and/or Congress. Similarly, trying to assign credit now when we're creating more jobs isn't as simple as "Republicans took the house so it's now better" because economic policies put into place often take a fairly long time to see any results. One could also assign the credit to the president for his policies during the first two years in office. Or, one could assign the credit to the natural fluctuation for recessions.

Trying to claim one of these and simply state "It's due to <insert your party taking control of congress/presidency here>" is rather stupid and shows your lack of knowledge in the field.

If we compared the AVERAGE number of jobs in 2008 vs 2012, it would show a LOSS of over 3.4 million jobs for Obama.

Could you tell us how many of these are baby boomers who have now retired?

American Girl...you must be a girl...and an ignorant one at that to call my facts about the Clinton administration a fallacy. Everything I said was true.....look it up if you know how. And....true to form, you couldnt back up your statement with the truth so you blamed Bush for our troubles...a move Obama has perfected. tell me...without name calling or mentioning republicans, name 3 reasons you support the democratic party. Could they be high taxes?? More spending?? No balanced budget?? A 17 trillion dollar debt?? Blaming Bush?? Bengazi killings? Class warfare??

Sarah #1.66,

By "potholes" they mean Tea Partiers.

Even you don't believe that Tea Partiers smoke pot.

Byron,#1.17,

Retirees are not listed on the jobs lost stats.

You have to apply for unemployment to be counted as unemployed.

Could you tell us how many of these are baby boomers who have now retired?

Answer to your question: NONE

TO: Robert D Clarkson who wrote:

Just wait till obamacare is fully in service, 2014 will be a bad year for democrats that voted for it. and dont worry, the GOP will be around to fix things again, look at all the worst ran states, there democrat ran, look at the succesful states and there ran by the GOP, hmmmm lets think about it. Liberal use emotions and only emotions for there decisions, Conservatives use facts and figures and there brains to decide decisions, but hey if you want to be poor all your life be a liberal. also i hope you dont get sick after obamacare kicks in, doctors will be in short demand, and that death panel that liberals said were not real, guess what it is.

And to all you GOP haters, Liberals want to raise taxes, LOOK IT UP, and Democrats got us in the mess in the first place, look who controlled the senate in 2004 to 2008, also look who controlled the house in those same years. STOP BLAMING THE GOP, start pointing the finger at the party of SPEND SPEND SPEND. also they are the ones that OKAY'd the war in iraq. and skip Nicholson, Oklahoma City, you really need a better idea of whats really going on in this country, i suggest you stop watching MSNBC, 80% of what they say is a Lie or there beliefs and are not even based on facts, oh and that actually is a fact.

What are you saying, that Republicans want everybody to start lying?

Republicans want a 3rd Great Depression, because that's how the GOP "fixes things".

Stuck on stupid.

TO: Mr. 29 who wrote:

"American Girl... name 3 reasons you support the democratic party..."

1. Clean air;

2. Clean water;

3. Safe Food.

Republicans, on the other hand, remove "regulations" that protect our clean air, water and food in favor of making the rich even richer.

Republicans seem to think that clean air, water, and safe food tends to impair their ability to earn a living.

So - I've been reading through the comments. And the comments from the conservative folk, have for the most part, not been in regard to the new story, but rather restatements of conservative political rhetoric. Essentially, it's just all the same stuff they say in the comments of every news story - political rhetoric propagated through conservative media, stuff that gets counter-demonstrated on a daily basis, and in many cases, stuff that was counter-demonstrated years ago.

So, we have this news story and in it, a quote from the Republican National Committee regarding the problems of the party, and in it, the Committee concludes this:

This week’s Republican National Committee report recommending ways to strengthen the party came out and said it bluntly: “Groupthink is an issue.”

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

My original comment regarding this story was that "groupthink is an issue" for conservatives wasn't news to non-conservatives, and that there probably wasn't a solution to this problem as the social psychology of a conservative is one which seeks groupthink as an assumed natural feature of an organization or group, and that conservatives will not be able to understand or recognize groupthink in order to address it in the first place. There's no way that they could ever "solve" groupthink as it's the default group paradigm for that social psychology - to them, it's absolute, universal, and timeless. They won't be able to recognize or understand a concept like groupthink because they can't think in any other way.

The reaction of conservatives to the issue of groupthink will be willful ignorance - they'll just ignore it - and denial.

So, you see in the comments a collection of artifacts of groupthink in direct response to a news story in which the leadership of their party is saying that the party is failing because of groupthink. I didn't expect anything else. They'll parrot their programming until they die. You could have the leaders and the guys that actually created the rhetoric go on Fox and say point blank, "Yeah, none of it's true, it's was invented as organizational and political rhetoric to get you to vote a certain way. Sorry, about that." and it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever.

They created this monster. They fully supported the propaganda that created this mass delusion, but now that it's detrimental to their electoral success, they're going to find that they can't stop it. There's an irony to this, too - that if the GOP leadership attempts to address groupthink through communication, then they're going to find out what it's like to be a non-conservative that has to deal with these insane zombies. In any event, groupthink is a natural feature of that social psychology, you can't end it - it's not temporary.

I always thought it was irresponsible to intentionally organize authoritarian personalities into a group and program them. The 20th century European history demonstrates that this is playing with fire, and I think we dodged a bullet there in the early-mid 2000s.

TO: Mr. 29 who wrote:

"American Girl... you couldnt back up your statement with the truth so you blamed Bush for our troubles...No balanced budget?..."

The only reason why we "blame Bush" is because Republicans are completely unable to take personal responsibility for themselves, otherwise Republicans would admit to their f-ups.

Republicans have to live in some kind of parallel universe where they imagine themselves as being "perfect" because they never seem to find anything wrong that they've done, including Republicans collapsing the entire United States Economy and creating the 2nd Great Depresson.

The last President to "balance the budget" was Democrat President Bill Clinton, and Clinton ran surpluses in Social Security and the Treasury.

The only budgets Bush ever presented were fraudulent because he never accounted for either the War in Afghanistan or that Lie Called the War in Iraq.

American Girl-724855 "I know you're not trying to give credit to Republicans"

YOU were the one that asked "Why don't Republicans do some work on creating all those jobs jobs jobs they lied about just to get in office."]

All I did was show that the net new jobs in the first 2 years under Republican House control was a gain of 3,675,000 jobs, while the previous 2 years under total Democratic control of the Congress AND the Presidency showed a net LOSS of 4,030,000 jobs.

That 'swing' of over 7.7 million jobs seems to have answered your question, but I'm sure that different people will disagree on who/what gets the credit - for example, when the Republicans were able to block new job-killing regulations and mandates against businesses, perhaps it encouraged businesses to hire more workers.

Perhaps you should be careful about the questions you ask - especially when the official results don't agree with your 'pre-conceived notions'.

American Girl-724855 "name 3 reasons you support the democratic party..."1. Clean air; 2. Clean water; 3. Safe Food."

I don't recall a major crisis in people dying from those things before Obama was elected, but I DO have to wonder about the consequences of the $7 Trillion that has been added to the National Debt since the end of fiscal 2008.

Roy, I don't believe that your so-called "official results" "don't agree with me", but I do believe we have differing opinions of what those "official results" mean.

Republicans would rather blame anybody else than to take personal responsibility for their mistakes.

I know for fact that Republicans are stuck in their "lie and deny" mode because Republicans had a bunch of thugs in the White House for 8 years and Republicans would rather "roll over" than to learn from their mistakes, and that's exactly what Republicans are doing, "lying and denying" which makes it an absolute certainty that Republicans are doomed to repeat those mistakes.

TO: ROY WILSON-336103 who wrote:

[American Girl-724855 "name 3 reasons you support the democratic party..."1. Clean air; 2. Clean water; 3. Safe Food."]

"I don't recall a major crisis in people dying from those things before Obama was elected..."

How could you recall?

American Girl-724855 "The only budgets Bush ever presented were fraudulent because he never accounted for either the War in Afghanistan or that Lie Called the War in Iraq."

Your ignorance is showing - again.

ALL of the spending for the wars under Bush WAS included in his Deficits, as they are under Obama. The misconception about 'on/off the books' was about the BUDGET for each year, where war costs were approved as needed to fund the wars under Bush with 'Additional Appropriations Requests' (effectively Budget revisions). Actual spending NEVER agrees exactly with the Budget for each year. The actual spending (and Deficits) for each year under both Bush and Obama includes EVERYTHING - including the war costs.

PS - Obama handles extra war costs in EXACTLY the same way as Bush did - with an 'Additional Appropriations Request' - for proof, consider the following request by Obama for an additional $76 Billion for 2009 war costs - requested 2 months AFTER Obama signed the 2009 Budget in March 2009;

http://vcnv.org/president-obamas-war-budget-analyzing-the-numbers

American Girl-724855 "Republicans would rather blame anybody else than to take personal responsibility for their mistakes."

Obama has spent the last 4+ years blaming 'anybody else' rather than taking personal responsibility for his mistakes, but I guess you 'don't recall' any of his rhetoric, do you?

Perhaps if Obama would cancel just one of his golf outings, he could afford to reopen the White House tours for those American kids that were looking forward to that historic event.

"stop giving free phones to blacks and increasing welfare and food stamps.

Republicans such as Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Glen Beck, and Sean Hannity tell us the 51% of the people who voted for President Obama did so because they got “free stuff.” They also tell us that people who voted for President Obama don’t pay taxes. Since I voted for President Obama, I decided it was time to get some of my “free stuff.” I tried to get food stamps but I found out I didn’t qualify. I said I voted for Obama and Rush told me that people who voted for him get “free stuff” such as food stamps. They said it didn’t work that way.

I then decided to get one of those free Obama-Phones. I went to the AT&T store and they said they didn’t know what I was talking about. I told them that Bill O’Reilly said people who voted for President Obama got free Obama- Phones and I wanted mine. They told me I was crazy. I then went to the Horizon store, asked for my free Obama-Phone and they threw me out.

I bought a new car. The salesman was explaining the paper work and we came to the sales tax. The sales tax was almost $2,200.00. I told the guy that Sean Hannity said people who voted for President Obama don’t pay taxes and since I voted for him, I was exempt for the sales tax. He said I still have to pay the sales tax.

I got my property tax bill form the county recorder the other day. I called him and informed him that Glen Beck said people who voted for President Obama didn’t pay taxes and that since I voted for Obama; I shouldn’t have to pay property taxes. He said either pay the tax or they would put a lien on my house.

I called my accountant. I told him that a bunch of people on Fox News reported that people who voted for President Obama don’t pay any taxes. I assured him I did vote for President Obama and then asked him to handle all the paper work to arrange for a complete refund of all the federal and state taxes withheld form my paychecks since President Obama took office in 2009. He asked me what I was smoking!!

So – can anyone out there tell me where I get all this “free stuff” and how do I not pay any taxes.

"Obama has spent the last 4+ years blaming 'anybody else' rather than taking personal responsibility for his mistakes,"

Whenever I hear that “stop blaming Bush” line, I chuckle at the very short memory you Republicans have. From 1976 to 1992 you whined and cried, moan and groaned and complained and complained more and bitched, carried on and on and blamed President Carter of everything wrong in the entire universe. Some of you even blamed him for the housing crash in 2007 even though he left office more than a quarter of a century earlier. Then from 1992 to 2008 you whined and cried, moan and groaned and complained and complained more and bitched, carried on and on and blamed President Clinton for everything that was wrong in the entire universe. You blamed Clinton for 9/11, for the housing crisis, even for the massive deficits of the Bush administration. So – using the standard you set – the left has another 29 years to blame Bush for everything just to pull even with you.

GOP path to reinvention riddled with potholes

From Romney to Ryan, McCain to McConnell, I'd say the GOP's problem is a different kind of hole.

Think "proctologist."

the reason republicans and tea-baggers don't win elections is because they SUCK....their policies SUCK, their ideas SUCK, their campaigns SUCK, their candidates SUCK, their followers SUCK, the results of their principles and ideas SUCK, they just SUCK and they can't help it because no one is listening to republican CRAP anymore....anything they touch turns to CRAP and SUCKS....if it walks, talks, looks, and acts like a republican or tea-bagger it probably SUCKS....F'N KOOKS!!

@ Roy Wison -

Your positions here are an extension of political rhetoric and charges against Obama that began before he was elected. but more importantly, I think that you have a basic misunderstanding of the budget, and why it runs deficits now, as well as the relationships among the terms budget, debt, deficit, and appropriations.

Obama is being blamed for running a budget deficit that he does not want.

The GOP, which controls the House and can filibuster the Senate, insists on budgets in which about 80% of the budget goes to defense. Now, I know you've probably seen this pie chart in which this pie piece for defense is much smaller, and that pie chart includes social security and medicare. This pie chart doesn't represent the appropriations for the annual federal budget, it represents total federal expenditures. Social security and medicare are not funded through annual federal budget appropriations, they are funded through their independent trusts.

Here is a pie chart for total annual expenditures:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png

I distinctly remember the first use of annual federal expenditures replacing the chart for the annual federal budget pie chart after the first Bush budget. It was a bit of a scandal, as it was clearly intended to downplay the massive spending increases to defense. In any event, social Security and Medicare are not part of the annual appropriations budgets - they are independently funded through trusts.

Part of our debt is from deficit spending in the annual budget, part of the debt is from the sale of bonds. The costs of the wars are funded through the sale of t-bills and bonds, and this adds to the annual federal budget in the form of interest on the notes. In the case of t-bills, in which maturity is short, the principal must be paid on demand, and this is reflected in appropriations as debt repayment.

So, this interest and shirt-term repayment are defense related expenditures but are not reflected as defense spending, their reflected as interest and debt payment.

So, in short, the Bush administration bloated the budget through massively increased defense spending through long-term, no-bid contracts that are locked-in. At the time, the GOP controlled the executive as well as both Houses of Congress.

The GOP is not willing to cut this spending, which is 80% of the annual federal budget, and that doesn't include the interest and debt repayment on notes used to fund the wars. So, 80% of the budget is going to defense, which includes inflated no-bid contracts, widespread graft, the ubiquitous $400 hammers and $800 toilet seats.

I am not proposing that all military spending is graft or unnecessary, but that there certainly exists widespread graft and waste in the mechanics of the Pentagon's system of appropriations. In my opinion, much of military spending is simply raiding the treasury.

So, to look at budget in which 80% of all annual appropriations go to defense, and again, that does not include interest and debt repayment for the notes sold to fund the wars - a aspect of the budget which the GOP will not compromise whatsoever, a budgetary issue that is solely the responsibility of the GOP, and then say that Obama is responsible for the deficit or that the budget bloat and deficit is from added entitlement programs , etc, is not just false, but at this point it is an outright lie.

Again, sir, you are propagating political rhetoric and charges that started before the man was even elected. your comments regarding to this budget and deficit situation are not factual and the argument is not sound, as your not only the argumentative structures, but the premises themselves are false.

Now, again, please try to understand the conclusion of the RNC and it's statement "Groupthink is an issue.".

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

I'm just going go ahead and predict that you won't do that, and instead you'll likely just blather on with parroting old talking points regarding issues for which you have no real understanding or context. "It's Obama's fault. All of it, and he needs to take responsibility for our policies ... I mean HIS...his policies."

American Girl....if those 3 arguements you listed were the first 3 that you thought to list to support the dems....boy do you have your priorities wrong. With all of our countries problems, you want to talk about air and water? I guess the dems don't really have much to support or crow about ...do they? All they do is bitch about the reps. btw....not sure of the following, but I read where Obama sent one of their kids and 10 to 12 friends of hers on a plane to Mexico or someplace for her bday....secret service and all. The expense would have been staggering. If this is true....care to comment on our fearless leader's use of our tax dollars?

p.s. Great post Kevin....just a typical lib comment from a young know-it-all. Post again when you have something pertinent to relate.

Zen609 "@ Roy Wison - I think that you have a basic misunderstanding of the budget, and why it runs deficits now"

Actually, the Budget is quite simple - It's a detailed estimate of spending that is passed by the Congress and signed by the President (if the Congress gets around to actually passing a Budget, which the Democrats have not done for the last 4 years).

The Debt is the amount that the government has borrowed - really quite simple.

The Deficit is actually quite simple as well - It's the difference between Spending and Revenues for each year (although the government treats 'borrowings' from the Social Security and Medicare 'Trust Funds' as Revenues instead of more Debt, which makes no sense at all - for example, if the government borrows from the Chinese, it's an increase in the Debt, but if they borrow from Social Security Trust Funds, it's called Revenues - but it also increases the Debt).

Appropriations are the Budgeted amounts allocated for each item in the Budget. If additional funds are required during the fiscal year, then an 'Additional Appropriations Request' is passed and signed by the President, which both Bush and Obama used to fund extra costs of the wars.

Trying to 'blame the Republicans' is silly, because a Budget also requires that the Democratic Senate and Obama sign off for there to be an actual Budget, so the responsibility has to be shared.

Obama's proposed 2013 Budget calls for Defense spending of $525.4 Billion, which is only 13.8% of his $3,803 Billion proposed Budget. Here's a link;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/defense.pdf

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf

Perhaps it's YOU that doesn't understand the budgetary process.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush at the CPAC, had this to say:

"We're associated with being anti-everything. Way too many people believe that Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-gay, anti-worker. Many voters are simply unwilling to choose our candidates because those voters feel unloved, unwanted, and unwelcome in our party."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-15/ryan-questions-economic-recovery-warns-of-growing-debt

Trying to 'blame the Republicans' is silly, because a Budget also requires that the Democratic Senate and Obama sign off for there to be an actual Budget, so the responsibility has to be shared.

But blaming Obama isn't? Because that was the proposition and the arguments that you've been putting forth.

Obama's proposed 2013 Budget calls for Defense spending of $525.4 Billion, which is only 13.8% of his $3,803 Billion proposed Budget.

The total figure of $3.8 trillion is total annual federal expenditures. It includes social security and medicare, which are not funded through congressional appropriations, but through their own trusts. The total amount appropriated by congress to meet the annual federal budget does not include these programs.

In other words, the congressional appropriations bills do not fund these programs, as a percentage of spending through congressional appropriations, the defense is a rather large percent, not 13.8% or 19% as in 2011 of annual federal appropriations. Again, social security and medicare are not paid for through congressional appropriations. To look at the total annual federal expenditure, and then say that defense is is 13.8% of annual congressional appropriations is false, it's been about 80%.

Trying to 'blame the Republicans' is silly, because a Budget also requires that the Democratic Senate and Obama sign off for there to be an actual Budget, so the responsibility has to be shared.

1) that's not what you said - you blamed Obama.

2) Regarding blame:

The GOP famously refuses to compromise with the dems regarding spending cuts. The House budget proposals have cut domestic programs while maintaining or increasing defense spending. When the Dem House sent it's budgets to the senate the previous 2 years, the Dems had neither the votes to pass the budget, nor the votes to prevent the GOP filibuster. The budget since 2001 has been maintained through continuing resolutions to fund the government - that funding continues without cuts. Additional appropriations, are approved by Congress, but no cuts are being made.

So, the real issue with the budget is political. It is an argument over what to cut. And the GOP won't budge on any cuts to defense, which is 80% of congressional appropriations, and there's clearly plenty to cut there.

Now, you could make an argument against spending cuts to defense, and that's the legitimate argument to make regarding the budget and deficit issues. But propagating this non-sense that the budget is bloated from Obama taking white conservatives' money and giving it to poor black people through a bunch of new entitlement programs or whatever, or saying that the bloat isn't specifically from increased defense spending is false. It's political rhetoric to smear a political opponent, but there's no truth to it whatsoever.

If you doubt the bloat of contemporary budgets, look at defense spending annually. We went from a "Peace Dividend", to massive defense spending in Bush's early budget, when the GOP controlled both houses of congress, and since then has fought tooth and nail against cutting what they created. It's about 80% of annual budget appropriations, Dems want to cut it, the GOP won't allow it.

So, make the argument defending not cutting defense, if you want. But it's 80% of the appropriations budget, so if there is to be any blame regarding deficits, 80% should go the GOP. And that we can't make ANY cuts at all is because the parties can't agree on the cuts. It's not because the dems want to tax instead of cut. In fact, in terms of cuts, the opposite is true - the GOP won't agree to ANY defense cuts.

But the issue here in these comments, isn't cutting or not cutting defense spending, it's that you're propagating this political rhetoric that Obama is responsible for this. He's not getting his budgets with either, and any additional appropriations on top of the continued resolutions, which lock-in defense spending, is only with House approval. It's a political smear, it's false., and it's not the situation with the budget/deficit issue.

This other crap about Democratic spendiing, bla bla bla - that's not reality. The budget fights are just that, and the GOP is fighting tooth and nail to prevent any cuts to defense, which is 80% of appropriations, and full of waste and graft. The GOP is solely responsible for that bloat from defense. It's their baby. And you know, the GOP has even refused to compromise deals in which the dems offered to trade cuts from domestic discretionary spending in exchange for cuts in defense. "Nope - won't do it."

So, you've got this huge bloated budget, and 80% of the appropriations go to defense, the GOP won't cut ANY of it, and they'll screw the budget to fall back on continuing resolutions instead of compromising on spending cuts because that prevents any cuts at all. And Obama is the spender? The Democrats are the spenders?

In any event, all this crap about Obama and the budgets, the deficit, and spending, etc is just a bunch of political rhetoric, a political smear. If you really believe that, then you don't understand the real issue, and you're just parroting talking points. If you know what the real issue is, but you propagate this smear anyway, then you're a liar.

This Rep/T.P. is dieing slowly,but it is determined to take us down first. It is so angry at the coming demise that it doesn't seem to care that ,as well as destroying the U.S.A. that it is part of it,even if only reluctantly. It will be remembered with hatred,more than scorn. In its death throes it is ignorant of the price not that we will experience,it cares not for our country,but in its own death. The Republican Party has had a good past,but the latter actions of it will be remembered with disgust and scorn.

As an addendum:

What you've been saying is related to this news article in a very specific way.

You have this issue of the budget and deficits. No one likes it and we want to cut it. But we can't because the GOP won't budge on cuts to defense. The GOP is obstructing the budgetary process by refusing ANY compromise at all, and federal funding falls back on continuing resolution, which is fine \with the GOP because it means that NO cuts can be made to the budget and defense can't be touched.

Now, no one wants to pay more taxes, but while we have this huge, bloated, defense heavy budget, we're racking up enormous debt. Everyone wants to cut spending NOW, but the GOP won't allow any cuts at all if there are any cuts to defense spending.

So, in lieu of an argument or public debate about not cutting defense spending, the GOP has utilized it's media machine to propagate the message that Obama has bloated the budget and that's why we continue to incur debt. This reframes the issue for the conservative faithful and they buy it hook, line , and sinker. "It's not that the GOP is obstructing the budgetary process in order to NOT cut spending that's created the deficit which is piling up - it's Obama and his spending!"

OK, so conservatives that are plugged into the conservative media are all about this, and the GOP leaders have stuck to the script. But their the only people that believe it anymore.

This is part of what the RNC meant when is said that "Groupthink is an issue". It's not just about people being disgusted by the social conservatives and their backwardness. It's also about the American public in general growing impatient with the GOP's obstructionism.

There is poll after poll in which a majority, a goodly majority, blame the budgetary and deficit issues on GOP obstructionism. But instead of addressing the real issue, which is supporting arguing against defense cuts, they create this ridiculous narrative that no one believes except conservatives that live inside the cocoon of conservative media.

This is what the RNC means when it says Groupthink. Conservatives don't recognize reality. they're in their own world, and people are very frustrated with this. Instead of real arguments for why they won't cut defense, instead of reasonable compromise, they double-down and propagate some ridiculous fairy tale about Obama creating more and more welfare programs that take good white Christian peoples money to give it to poor black people.

The only people who believe this crap are people who are insulated from reality and nestled in the world of conservative media. conservatives like to frame American politics as Conservative vs Liberals. It's not conservatives vs Everyone else. And it's gotten to the point where even the people who aren't politically aware and don't care about political arguments are fed up with trying to have a sane conversation with conservatives, but the response is always just a parroting of some ridiculous talking point from conservative media that's completely out of line with reality.

It's incredibly frustrating when the rest of us are trying to solve the problem of the budget, deficit, and debt, and the only thing that conservatives can say is "Obama!" How in the fook can we solve anything when we can't communicate even the first bit of reality with the GOP.

What you've been spouting, and not just you, in these comments is the reason that the GOP is failing. Groupthink. You actually believe your own political propaganda is reality, and it's not. It's organizational rhetoric.

The only people that think this crap is real are the people who watch Fox, listen to conservative radio, read conservative news sites, etc. Everyone else, not only doesn't believe any of this stuff, but are frustrated with the insanity. how can we solve this issue if we can't even talk to the GOP rationally.

We can't say, OK, so why don't you want to cut defense at all, because in the conservative narrative, the problem isn't that the GOP is holding up the process because they don't want to cut defense, it's because Obama is taxing and spending, and all these welfare programs he's created bla bla bla.

So, you can never approach this issue in any real way. And that's fine with the GOP, because they're happy with the continuing resolutions, they don't care how they accomplish not cutting spending, as long as the money keeps flowing. Geez, do conservatives really not know why they won't cut any defense spending or why they were passing put no-bid defense contracts when they had power? It's because they're raiding the treasury.

We're trying to solve real problems here, and we are prevented from doing that by a minority of nutjobs who have lost touch with all reality. that's what this article is touching on, and that's why the RNC mentioned that "Groupthink is an issue."

And why you blame Obama or liberals, everyone else is blaming you. you just don't realize that because you're reality is a political narrative in which you are the patriotic American hero, saving America from the socialists, the communists, the terrorists - it's a tough job, but you're intellectually, psychologically, physically, and morally superior to these weak , cowardly whiners.

Zen609

Now you're just being silly. I said that Defense was 13.8% of Obama's total proposed Budget of $3,803 Billion, which is correct.

Since the Budget is passed by the House, Senate and signed by the President, it is indeed a 'shared responsibility. It's YOU that attempts to blame the Republicans. Show me where the Democrats have actually proposed spending cuts that have been rejected by the House - all of the Democratic proposals are for spending INCREASES over the next few years, not cuts. Any proposed 'cuts' after 2016 (when Obama leaves office) are totally meaningless, since neither Obama nor the current Congress can obligate any future President or Congress to any spending limit - each new President and Congress gets to decide for themselves how much to spend.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) currently estimates that the total cost of Obamacare (Obama's new 'entitlement' program) will cost more than $2 Trillion over the next 10 years, and it's not the Republicans that had anything to do with passing it. It's strictly a Democratic program.

Defense cuts are also opposed by Obama, not just the Republicans, but I have no problem with the 'sequester cuts' that fall heavily on Defense, if that's the only way that ANY spending cuts can be made.

By the way - In Washington, a 'spending cut' is not really a cut in spending from the previous year - it's actually a spending INCREASE - they call it a 'cut' because it's a smaller increase than they WANT to spend.

It's beddy bye time, so have a nice night - Bye :)

Now you're just being silly. I said that Defense was 13.8% of Obama's total proposed Budget of $3,803 Billion, which is correct.

And you double-down. You've intentionally misrepresented total annual federal expenditures is "appropriations". and "spending". total annual federal expenditure is commonly misused this way to make this point by conservative media.

Social Security and medicare aren't funded by congressional appropriations bills They are not part of any spending bills because they are not funded through congressional appropriations.

It's an intentional misuse of a large number to make a "spending" claim, it's also an intentional misuse to claim that 13.8% is an appropriations number for defense.

You're intentionally making a false argument to support a political narrative. The argument is false.

The real issue of the budget and deficit is that the GOP have held up a new budget, preventing any cuts, and have specifically and very plainly stated that they will not compromise on defense cuts. And they don't have to, because they can block any budget that includes defense cuts, and spending remains the same through continuing resolutions.

That's the issue, and people don't like it. the issue for conservatives is framed as something completely different. So, you guys are sitting on the sidelines of your accord, blissfully unaware, with your simple and convenient explanations provided for specifically for your comfort and enjoyment.

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

From MSNBC Corrections Department - the head line to this story should have been:

GOP Path to reinvention riddled with sinkholes.

@Roy -

Now, again, please try to understand the conclusion of the RNC and it's statement "Groupthink is an issue.".

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

I'm just going go ahead and predict that you won't do that, and instead you'll likely just blather on with parroting old talking points regarding issues for which you have no real understanding or context. "It's Obama's fault. All of it, and he needs to take responsibility for our policies ... I mean HIS...his policies."

Can I call em or what?

Zen good posts, but your mistake was in using logic to prove a valid point.

You might as well be talking to a brick wall.

He's not a brickwall, he understands, he just isn't interested in anything other than groupthink.

Here's what he did: I told him that these weren''t Obama's budgets, etc, and explained to him that the budgets that have been passed since 2001, with the exception of 2012, were passed through continuing resolutions - that they were continuations of the old Bush budget. And that this was fine with the GOP because they're interest is in preserving the defense budget that they created.

So, with continuing resolutions every year, it's just a repeat of THEIR budget from when they held the presidency and both houses. So, all they had to do to get the budget that they wanted was to obstruct any new budget, and the budget that they made just continued.

So, earlier today he went into the news story about the new Senate budget and made a comment that the Democrats are obstructing a new budget so that they can fall back on continuing resolutions to avoid cuts.

He seriously did that.

Holy projection - "I know you are, but what am I?" - but that's a very common mechanic for them.

It's not about fact, or logic, or reason, or truth, or the general welfare, or the best solutions, - it's about The Group.

Groupthink.

They're insane, brainwashed nutjobs.

Wow, skip Nicholson, Oklahoma City, so well said. I used to vote Rep many years ago. After Bush, Sr, I realized pretty much everything you listed, but you've put it so clearly.

News or propaganda...
There is no budget; one hasn't been passed yet. I'm talking about the fiscal cliff negotiation. Dems offered a $2.50-to-$1.00 cut-to-revenue that Boehner and McConnell walked away from last year.

Yes, the politics behind not having a budget is disgusting (lay the blame at Harry's feet, I can't argue much). But ANY negotiations prior to 2013 have had two things in common:

1. Dems offered between $1.50 and $2.50 in cut-to-revenue ratio
2. Reps insisted on all cuts, no revenue, no compromise.

Clinton is who sent your jobs overseas NAFTA signed in 1993 with Republican help.

affiliates of American companies added 2.9 million workers to their payrolls overseas, but at the same time those companies added 5.5 million US employees to their payrolls.

Clinton did sign NAFTA. And the Republicans certainly helped. But, the "North American" part of that agreement means it is not overseas. How many jobs did NAFTA send to China, and other Asian countries? None. Not a one. That's where most of our jobs went. No one seems to complain much about jobs going to Canada (why is that, anyway?), and it seems to me that any true-blue conservative would think pushing jobs to Mexico was great: Force American laborers to compete on wages with Mexican laborers who stay in Mexico.

Clinton is much more responsible for getting Dems to go along with majority of Republicans on NAFTA than anything else. The signing was ceremonial. This stuff was a done deal under Bush Sr. as he was carrying out a Reagan idea.

Mark....an excellent point. Unfortunately, some of these yahoos making these statements probably couldn't find Asia on a map if it was laying in front of them. Sorry, kind of a cheap shot....but I wonder once in a while.

It was bi-partisan. It was George H.W. Bush's project with Mulroney and Salinas. Bush tried to fast-track it because he wasn't certain how the 1992 election would effect the composition of Congress, and feared that he wouldn't have enough votes.

The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it.

"The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats."

NAFTA hasn't shipped any American jobs overseas, nor has it bought any jobs from overseas. NAFTA is an agreement with Mexico and Canada only.

DrMan

My god you sanctimonious libs are moronic. It was your buddy Bill "I'll fornicate with anything that moves in the White House" Clinton that pushed NAFTA through. At least attempt to come across as something other than brain dead when you spew your liberal vomit.

Hi Dummy

Before you you lay down ironic insults about liberals - maybe you should look to your own parties indiscretions. Senators banging male pages, foot tapping in stalls for a glory hole quicky and totally ditching your family to go bang some Argentina woman in a cave somewhere - yes you are truly on morally superior ground.

And if it isnt clear from the above posts that show you truly have no idea what you are talking about - NAFTA was Bush Sr;s baby. Period.

You are clueless.

If Clinton did not want NAFTA, he didn't have to sign it into law.

News....

Mark made a very good point up in #2.4.......response?

NAFTA opened the door to loss of manufacturing jobs, first to Mexico then to China.

News, NAFTA is a good thing between Canada, Mexico, and the USA. The US benifits more than the outher two partners and gains over $800 billion a year in trade. I suggest you look it up yourself. Than you can eat your Crow in peace.

6dogs You missed the point, way over your head. Loss of manufacturing jobs has lead to trade deficits with China.

News, in case you missed the point, NAFTA is a deal with Canada and Mexico ONLY. It did not ship jobs to India or China and it did not lead directly to those jobs going there. If you want to blame something, try picking something that actually WAS a cause of jobs going overseas - like maybe tax breaks for those companies that shipped the jobs overseas instead of keeping them here? Or how about the increasing disparity in income that is causing even middle class families to NEED items that are made in China because they can't AFFORD the "made in America" items. Wal-Mart used to be a business that ONLY bought American - it was part of Sam Walton's business philosophy. Now they carry very little that is made in America and people are increasingly purchasing there because it's ALL they can afford.

NOP, where in NAFTA does it mention China. I keep looking and I can't find it. Could you help us out?

News or propaganda

6dogs You missed the point, way over your head. Loss of manufacturing jobs has lead to trade deficits with China.

The trade deficit with China is a result of a continuing massively unbalanced trade agreement with China that originated during the Nixon administration. It was a quid pro quo to keep China out of Viet Nam.

Detente wasn't about ping-pong.

Zen go back and look at the facts, when did the trade deficits with China start?

Zen 6dog Doc

EPI -- "Since China’s entry into the WTO in 2001 and through 2011, the increase in U.S.-China trade deficits eliminated or displaced 2,742,200 U.S. jobs"

News,

So then, you are FOR Obama's plan to give tax breaks to companies that keep jobs in the states and take them away from those that ship jobs overseas......right?

Plus, I gotta mention this......one post you ask when did "trade deficits with China start?".....then your very next statement starts with the year 2001 (when Georgey Bush was President with a GOP led House and Senate).

You're making a better argument for Obama and the Democrats than I can!

News or propaganda

News or propaganda

Zen go back and look at the facts, when did the trade deficits with China start?

Zen 6dog Doc

EPI -- "Since China’s entry into the WTO in 2001 and through 2011, the increase in U.S.-China trade deficits eliminated or displaced 2,742,200 U.S. jobs"

The trade deficit with china started long before 2001.

In fact, the quote you just used even says "increase in US-China trade deficits"

Did Obama say he would do something about China's currency manipulation?

" Obama administration asked China nicely to allow its currency value to float up naturally on international markets. On June 19, China said it would.

And then it didn’t. "

Zen Doc you need to keep up I started with manufacturing job loses, then added China trade deficits and moved on to China's currency manipulation.

And you were wrong about everything, your points were counter-demonstrated by various people, so just you keep shifting to some new, irrelevant crap to distract from your embarrassment.

Just stop commenting. I'm reading your comments all over the board and they're just delusional crap and being counter-demonstrated by everyone in North America with a broadband connection.

And that's because all of these positions are the same old conservative sh1t that's been flying around for years that's been counter-demonstrated long ago.

Essentially, you're just spamming old talking points that were only ever political rhetoric anyway.

At this point, your comments amount to a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Zen - Ever notice that Democrats hate it when people respond with facts.

Would love to see ONE fact from NOP

What facts? You don't know what you're talking about.

News or propaganda

Clinton is who sent your jobs overseas NAFTA signed in 1993 with Republican help.

It wasn't Clinton's project.

NAFTA didn't send any jobs overseas.

So, then you were like,

"Er, ah, well, um ... NAFTA opened the door to loss of manufacturing jobs, first to Mexico then to China."

And then other people responded that NAFTA was a treaty that didn't include China.

So, then you had to say,

"6dogs You missed the point, way over your head. Loss of manufacturing jobs has lead to trade deficits with China."

And other people said, " No, the trade deficit with China originated decades ago, long before NAFTA"

And then you had,

"Well, um ... "Since China’s entry into the WTO in 2001 and through 2011, the increase in U.S.-China trade deficits eliminated or displaced 2,742,200 U.S. jobs"

And that on it's face is saying exactly the opposite of the point that you were trying to make with it.
You want to say that the loss of manufacturing jobs caused the trade deficit, and so you posted this, which says the trade deficit cost some manufacturing jobs. And the quote has nothing to do with Clinton or NAFTA or Canada or Mexico or losing jobs TO China.

It's just all very, very stupid. You said something that and didn't know what you were talking about, so in order to BS you're way out of the embarrassment, you posted an entire series of comments that grew increasingly stupid and irrelevant - all so you could project an image that you weren't worng about the original comment.

And in the end, the only thing you have to say for yourself after being busted out for being ridiculously uninformed and in denial about it is:

News or propaganda

Zen - Ever notice that Democrats hate it when people respond with facts.

Zen

Clinton signed the Treaty he owns even more than Bush.

My god you sanctimonious libs are moronic. It was your buddy Bill "I'll fornicate with anything that moves in the White House" Clinton that pushed NAFTA through.

not entirely true. Clinton SIGNED Nafta, but it was negotiated and agreed to by George H.W. Bush.

See below (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement):

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The signed agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

I would never dream of absolving Clinton of SOME blame for NAFTA, he certainly deserves it, but NAFTA was for the most part a bipartisan effort (look at the vote totals in the Senate and House) and had been basically designed and negotiated by Bush I.

Clinton could have and should have vetoed it however, so he DOES deserve some blame (but that's a far cry from saying he "pushed it through" as you stated).

News or propaganda

Zen

Clinton signed the Treaty he owns even more than Bush.

Yeah, except that Bush negotiated it, authored it, and gathered the Congressional votes for it.

But regardless of whether NAFTA was bi-partisan or the insidious plan and sole responsibility of Clinton and his evil Democratic minions, it did not send any jobs overseas.

So, this -

News or propaganda

Clinton is who sent your jobs overseas NAFTA signed in 1993 with Republican help.

- is false.

But, I'll be honest - I've really always liked that old conservative chestnut of blaming failed GOP policies on the other party for failing to stop the GOP.

For example - here we have a treaty, conceived, authored, and negotiated by a Republican president, with the majority of congressional support from the GOP, but it's Clinton's responsibility because he could have vetoed it but didn't.

But it doesn't matter - your proposition was that Clinton sent 'your' job overseas - and that's false, regardless of blame for NAFTA, because NAFTA didn't send any jobs overseas.

And that's that.

But, I'll be honest - I've really always liked that old conservative chestnut of hanging responsibility for failed Republican policies on the other party for not stopping the GOP from doing what they did.

It's like when they blame Clinton for repealing Glass-Steagal, nevermind that the bill that did so was called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (named after THREE Republicans) and was heavily pushed by the GOP.

They try this trick with the Iraq War too. "But the D's voted for it, they could/should have stopped Bush," while completely ignoring the fact that the D's were fed falsified and cherry-picked intelligence reports and lambasted nonstop in the media as "terrorist sympathizers" if they questioned whether or not we should go to war.

They also blame the D's for TARP and the bailouts, which of course were passed under President Bush. The offshoring of blame never stops with the GOP...

Our Country really got screwed over by the the GOP and their TeaCrazies !!!

It's all GWB Fault !!!

F-the GOP !!!

Clinton did have a hand in NAFTA, thank god, or it would have been more GOP environment and middle class killing legislation:

Prior to sending it to the United States Senate, Clinton introduced clauses to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members. It also required US partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own.

Apocalypse is coming to the GOP- " T " Crazies !!!

Some people would say that News or Propoganda is a smart and articulate poster, I would remind those people that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. News or Propoganda also seems to suffer from severe Apophenia.

DrowningGrover

But, I'll be honest - I've really always liked that old conservative chestnut of hanging responsibility for failed Republican policies on the other party for not stopping the GOP from doing what they did.

It's like when they blame Clinton for repealing Glass-Steagal, nevermind that the bill that did so was called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (named after THREE Republicans) and was heavily pushed by the GOP.

They try this trick with the Iraq War too. "But the D's voted for it, they could/should have stopped Bush," while completely ignoring the fact that the D's were fed falsified and cherry-picked intelligence reports and lambasted nonstop in the media as "terrorist sympathizers" if they questioned whether or not we should go to war.

They also blame the D's for TARP and the bailouts, which of course were passed under President Bush. The offshoring of blame never stops with the GOP...

You could go on and on with this stuff.

This bit of political rhetoric might work to soothe some of the cognitive dissonance of it's knuckle-dragging base, but in the end, it just makes them look like what they really are to the politically apathetic center and to the new class of voters that turn 18 every year.

So, they can this go ahead with this stuff all day, every day, it just converts the uninitiated center to the dem side and motivates the left - and that's part of what this news article is addressing, although not in such specific terms. The GOP's problem isn't just the batsh1t crazies, it's the entire organization and it's propaganda machine. Their communications network is great to organize and inform their base, but to any outsider, it makes them look insane or intellectually incompetent.

And as I said in my first comment, the real problem for the GOP is that they will never be able to fix this. They are who they are. And I highly suspect that the recommendations of the RNC committee will fall on deaf ears. I think that too many key leaders will deny that most of these issues are really issues at all. And I think this because of the social psychology involved. Their instinct is to rationalize or employ some other psychological mechanic to avoid cognitive dissonance. It's a vicious circle that I don't think they can escape.

makeklepew - so what your saying is that NAFT had nothing to do with the decline in manufacturing jobs

" U.S. has experienced steadily growing global trade deficits for nearly three decades, and these deficits have accelerated rapidly since NAFTA took effect on January 1, 1994"

It seems that you have a severe case of cacophrenic.

News or propaganda

makeklepew - so what your saying is that NAFT had nothing to do with the decline in manufacturing jobs

No, what he said is exactly this:

marklepew

Some people would say that News or Propoganda is a smart and articulate poster, I would remind those people that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. News or Propoganda also seems to suffer from severe Apophenia.

Oh, wait! i think I've solved this !

There's an ignore author command !

Aaaaaaand - you no longer exist in my universe, you yippy, nippy, needy little ankle-biter.

Surprisingly enough, no one is mentioning the 800lb. gorilla in the room. When was China allowed into the WTO? Were American even watching? More jobs were lost, because of that single move, than NAFTA and all other free trade agreements, COMBINED. We had never even considered letting China have free reign in trade, because of their human rights abuses and currency manipulation. To say nothing of China's control of labor and capital!

TO: News or propaganda who wrote:

"...Ever notice that Democrats hate it when people respond with facts."

It's probably because Republicans don't know what a "fact" is.

Republicans just make up lies, right out of thin air, and expect people to believe their crap.

If a president signs it or initiates it then it belongs to him. Obama owns Obamacare. Bush his tax cuts and his wars. Clinton Nafta. Trying to blame congress because some from the other party votes for it is nonsense. A president owns his initiatives.

TO: News or propaganda who wrote:

"Clinton is who sent your jobs overseas NAFTA signed in 1993 with Republican help."

NAFTA was an agreement with border countries Mexico and Canada.

Is that "overseas"? I don't think so.

"The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is an agreement signed by Canada, Mexico, and the United States, creating a trilateral trade bloc in North America. The agreement came into force on January 1, 1994. It superseded the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Canada." Google.

TO: Really?-2872425 who wrote:

"Clinton is much more responsible for getting Dems to go along with majority of Republicans on NAFTA than anything else. The signing was ceremonial. This stuff was a done deal under Bush Sr. as he was carrying out a Reagan idea."

Oh that's funny!

The only "deals" George H.W. Bush made were with China and Saudi Arabia.

There was a "deal" in progress when Clinton won the White House but it couldn't pass. Clinton fixed it, and it passed, and yes Democrat President Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law, which ONLY includes Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

No "overseas" country was included in NAFTA.

Well, my friend that's majoring in Law in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, shared with me these tongue-in-cheek observations, by email:

"Oliver, they've already reinvented themselves ...as secessionist, anarchy-loving, misogynist, fear-mongering racists that flunked high school science, that believe that putting an end to revenues will magically grow an economy, claiming to know Jesus and the Bible better than anyone else, and, they're very aware of only three Amendments in the U.S. Constitution, while obsessing a great deal on one of them, with the intent to impose it upon everyone else that doesn't want it."

That is what I find so silly. They get stomped in the house, senate and presidential elections - lost seats in both houses of congress- and what their response? Buckle down on the fringe even further?!?! Idiots. In 3-5 years the GOP will be gone. They'll lose the 2016 election and fade off into obscurity. Not saying another party or 2 wont be around but the GOP establishment is circling the drain.

shhhhh. Don't give the party of stupid a clue.

IMHO...they wouldn't know what to do with a clue if they had one. I think we're safe. Unless the clue reads, "Blacks bad, whites good, poor bad, rich good, education bad, Jesus good"...then the clue is nothing more than a liberal conspiracy.

The Repub "far rights" eat their young. ... "Amash has exhibited a repeated willingness to ruffle fellow Republicans’ feathers, so much that he ended up being one of the four House Republicans stripped of their committee assignments by the GOP leadership this year. He told National Review in December that House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, would not be welcome in his district."...
Anyone who shows Bonehead the door can't be all bad. But getting stripped of committee assignments, they think him a very bad boy.

If America wants better candidates then stop the Rep and Dem primaries and have open elections.

News or propaganda

If America wants better candidates then stop the Rep and Dem primaries and have open elections.

Awww - you've just discovered that your party is a sinking ship and has thrown you overboard to rid itself of deadweight.

Sounds like you want to call it a draw when reality says that you lost.

Sorry, buddy. But, don't be bitter - enjoy your exile back to the fringe. Send us a post card once in a while. Ciao.

Zen - if you think that TRILLION dollar deficits are sustainable, then you deserve to vote Democrat and have your taxes increased.

News....

What planet have you been living on?

All we have to do is go back to 2001 - 2003......GWBush (a Republican....also passed through a Republican led House and Republican led Senate) sent us to TWO wars (one by complete choice) -and- cut taxes....TWICE! And the Democrats are the ones that are repsonsible for deficits and debt?!

Give me a break.

Doc look up the deficits of the Bush years and compare to the deficits of the Obama years. Obama has bigger deficits in 4 years than Bush had in 8 years.

troll...

Obama cost American people 1.4 billion a year for his family trips and here we are kids can't go visit the WH but Odummer goes overseas and gives millions to them

Yes, right, the taxpayer paid $1.4 billion for Obama's vacations......dude, why even bother.

The GOP is working hard to get the budget straight

What is a "straight" budget by the way? I don't know....I was evidently tasting wine?!

Wow, even sarcastically typing that out seems stupid as ****.

News,

Doc look up the deficits of the Bush years and compare to the deficits of the Obama years. Obama has bigger deficits in 4 years than Bush had in 8 years.

What was the financial situation when Bush entered office.....oh yeah, declining debt and a $300 billion SURPLUS.

What was the financial situation when Obama entered office.....a $1.2 trillion deficit, liquidating financial sector, and losing nearly 1 million jobs a month.

YEP, totally the same thing! I'd laugh if I thought you were joking, but, I know you're serious....that is so sad.

"News or Propoganda" was born yesterday. Doesn't seem to remember the last 20 years of republican sabotage of the American dream.

News:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Who knew?

Forbes is not exactly a liberal magazine. Neither is the WALL STREET JOURNAL:

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.

@Doc

Yes 1.4 Billion a year look it up. You talk a lot but you do no research at all. No I did not get it from the news it is on WH web site go look...

I will not give you links because you need to learn how to do it I can't hold your hand all the time..

And the budget plains are there as well and you will see GOP budget was turned down because the Dems did not want to lose the fun things they have.

How about the Private jets the Dems have most GOP have given that up but Dems not a chance.

Heck Rick Scott of Florida uses his own jet and money for his travels now I don't like the guy but I will give him kudos for this.

Obama's golf trip with Tiger cost 1.3 million alone and did not include the wife's Aspen trip. And if you can't see that is all he has done you really are truly blind..

Go to the WH web site to get your information it is right there in front of your face. But you will not to afraid of the truth.

@ Cat

That is a total lie.

For one Obama's Feds have put 3 trillion dollars in the stock market starting back in Jan 2011 and still put in 84 billion a month. And I just don't see that in your link..

So sorry that is a lie..

laser, it is NOT a lie. They are actual facts. Even the Wall Street Journal (owned by Rupert Murdock who owns Fox "News") agrees. Facts do not have a bias, they just are FACTS. Just because they do not conform to the echo chamber's lies and distortions does not make them lies. I deliberately use UNBIASED sources when I look for facts - not blogs that are very biased, not a network pretending to be News when they have asked Congress if they can LIE because they are an entertainment channel and not a NEWS channel, not Rachel Maddow ... I use unbiased sources because that is what I look for in order to make an INFORMED opinion.

@ Cat

Yep whatever try going to the WH and looking at that. Even the Feds came out the other week and said they will be putting 84 billion in the stocks till 2015.

So sorry but your link does not reflect that.

So yes you posted lies...

And if Odummer is doing such a good job then why is he and the feds pushing the market up and not the people like always?

Doc comment "What was the financial situation when Bush entered office.....oh yeah, declining debt and a $300 billion SURPLUS"

Doc I guess that you forgot about 911, Bush choose to respond to terrorism in a different way then Clinton. Problem is that Bush wasted American time and resources on Iraq instead of concentrating on Afghanistan, Taliban and Al Qaida.

Cat - Rick Ungar is a political hack that give the blame of the 2009 budget to Bush even though it was signed by Obama (17% increase in spending under Obama that year)

Not a worthy source.

laser, honey, my links were from last year. But you go ahead and tell yourself whatever you need to in order to justify a warped view of our politics and economy. You then insult OUR President by altering his name to imply he's stupid. The man was the HEAD of the Harvard Law Review (which is an ELECTED position so his colleagues thought he was pretty smart), he TAUGHT Constitutional Law classes (so he certainly is well-versed in the Constitution and how it informs our laws) .. but you go ahead and tell yourself that he's stupid. After all, the refuge for people who are not well-informed is insults.

News ... the 2009 budget WAS signed by Bush. In OCTOBER of 2008. That's how budgets WORK in the Federal Government. You get a budget BEFORE January 1. The first 8 months of 2009 were on a budget that was signed BEFORE THE ELECTION. So Obama was still a CANDIDATE when it was signed. Do you NOT understand how that makes it IMPOSSIBLE for Obama to have signed that budget? He was still running against McCain in October of 2008 when the budget was signed BY BUSH. Please step away from the ignorant blogs and "News" sources that admit they are really entertainment and join the REAL WORLD. These are FACTS, honey ... Facts are NOT BIASED.

Cat you outa to do some Google research - H.R.1105 : Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 was signed by Obama in 2009.

These are the real facts.

@ Cat

I am sorry to tell you this but most people I have met that came from a collage are the dumbest people I have ever met.

So yes your love of Odummer is strong maybe you and him can share a cigar with Bill.

But you have your dreams time will tell and I will be ready and you will be trying to figure out what happen.

My warped views LOL no I have my eyes open and can see what is going on.

Insult the President no I insulted a dictator and feel good doing it..

A president leads your Odummer is nothing but a puppet the DEMs picked because he was black and knew that would be the only way to win because they knew 75% of blacks don't vote because they don't vote for white men. And you can see that with all the issues there was. Than you have all this voting fraud come up. Dems by vote not earn them..

I can't remember the source it came from don't really feel like looking it up but they have proved that your Odummer's media is not telling you the truth..

Cat have a nice dream soon it will be a nightmare....

Cat-1200657 quoted an Forbes opinion commentary that said

In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

No argument with the data on federal spending, only the attempt to blame it on President Bush. If you check when the Fiscal Year 2009 appropriation bills were passed by Congress and who signed them. Democrats controlled both the House and Senate and refused to pass anything except a continuing resolution until after President Obama was in office. Then they passed the appropriations bills that they wanted and did not need to worry about a President Bush veto. All of the appropriation bills for FY 2009 were signed by President Obama.

lasertroll, The problem we're discussing here is "GOP path to re-invention riddled with potholes". Think you might be one?

Cat - From the Library of Congress

H.R.1105
Latest Title: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
Sponsor: Rep Obey, David R. [WI-7] (introduced 2/23/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.RES.184
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 111-8 [GPO: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ8/html/PLAW-111publ8.htm">Text, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ8/pdf/PLAW-111publ8.pdf">PDF]
Note: An explanatory statement was submitted by Mr. Obey, Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations "as if it were a joint explanatory statement of a committee of conference." It appears in two 2/23/2009 Congressional Record documents on pages: H1653-H2088 and H2089-H2599. See also the House Appropriations committee print.

MAJOR ACTIONS:

2/23/2009
Introduced in House

2/25/2009
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 245 - 178 (Roll no. 86).

3/10/2009
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.

3/10/2009
Cleared for White House.

3/11/2009
Presented to President.

3/11/2009
Signed by President.

3/11/2009
Became Public Law No: 111-008 [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ008.111">Text, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ008.111.pdf">PDF]

So the bill is introduced by a Democrat, passed by Democrats in the House and Democrats in the Senate and signed by a Democratic President Obama. Exactly how does that make it Presdident Bush's budget?

lasertroll

Your name is appropriate, at least the troll part. Oh, yes, I went to college and learned to spell it correctly so I'm not quite as dumb as you are. I don't need to use a man's skin tone to make a point or justify a senseless attack so I'm a little ahead of you there as well. Finally, no one, and I mean NO ONE, has found any significant voter fraud in the last election. Please wake up from your race-baiting fever dream and look around at the real world.

I was going to mention our favorite Troll's inability to even spell "college"; however Dean nailed it and very well. Lasertroll is just another insignificant example of what's wrong with the GOP and it's supporters. They seem to attract ignorant, low info voters who get all their "facts" from Fox News for dumb fux, along with Lush Rimballs, Glenn's Beckon and such. No hope for them... all you can do is put them on ignore and let them sail into oblivion.

lasertroll, it seems you have a lot in common with your "collage" (sp) friends. Pot ... kettle .... just sayin'.

Peace,

Myst

interesting that there has been no response from 'Cat' about the unbiased facts that prove 'cat' is not.

specifically h.r. 1105

Bill. excellent post, easy to follow. Gold star.

What have Dems done that is so "disgusting"?

they BOTH need to be ousted from their positions.

Well, the subtext of this news story is that YOU are being ousted from your position.

They're 'throwing you under the bus', as it were.

what? is an American president who gives a speech under a KNOWN TERROIST'S picture NOT disgusting enough for you?

Roger....

THAT is the best you have?!?! Good Lord, you have less in your intellectual arsenal than I even thought. You have some dopey picture while I have an entire party trying to pass legislation to throw 30 million plus off of health care. Gee, that's close.

I have tons to talk about if you would only listen instead of bashing everyone constantly.

So anyway, ARE YOU OK with our president giving his speech under a known terrorists picture yet covered a cross in America when he gave a speech?

you are ok with that?

WOW you people and I mean liberals, need to buy a clue.

.

Roger-521043

what? is an American president who gives a speech under a KNOWN TERROIST'S picture NOT disgusting enough for you?

ahahahahaaha

The news article is essentially about your party wanting to get rid of you. And your reaction is just lashing out in all directions. You've come unhinged, man.

I am an Independent voter I could care less about the GOP or Dems

So, I guess that means that you vote for independents, eh?

Roger-521043

I am an Independent voter I could care less about the GOP or Dems

Funny, I'm amazed at the increase in "Independents" lately. Let's be clear...they are just conservatives who don't want to be coupled with a congressional political party with a 15% approval rating.

Yes I do, when a good candidate is running, but I have voted Rep and Dem in the past. I am not a sheep that follows the herd, I am more like a salmon swimming against the current.

I have been an Independent voter my entire 50 years of voting.

and I have seen the dems destroy our great nation and I have seen Reps cater to the wealthy.

if you don't think we need a NEW 3rd political party, then you are just a sheep.

Doc check your facts Gallup poll

"Republicans, independents, and Democrats have converged at nearly equal ratings of Congress, with approval ratings of 15%, 11%, and 13%, respectively"

if you don't think we need a NEW 3rd political party,

I'm all for it.

The Tea Party needs to declare their independence from the Republican Party.

More disgusting than Obama giving a speech under a portrait....

GEORGE W BUSH giving a speech, declaring the Iraq War over, May 1, 2003 under a banner reading

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Disgusting is giving over $300 Million to other countries that don't even like us and borrowing to do so!

Hey Roger, you got the Tea party.. How's that workin' out for ya? wink

SayWhat...is it more disgusting than Bush kissing the leader of the country that housed 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists? I don't recall their outrage then? In fact, I don't remember any outrage when a republican does something, I don't know, like maybe spending twice as much time on vacation as Obama or perhaps giving phone service or cell phone service to the poor. You know what I do like, though...when they blame Obama for doing things that are nowhere near as egregious as what their own people did. Of course, they don't like to hear facts since facts are part of a liberal agenda and should not be trusted. Only people who tell them what they want to hear are correct...not people who know facts and have fancy learnins.

http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline

http://politic365.com/2012/05/08/obamas-vacations-of-any-president-bush-racked-up-the-most/

it looks like our government is out for that free ride not just the lazy people.

or are they one in the same?

Roger....

I know! Like those "free riders" over in Afghanistan.......we give them a free ride over there, free guns, free tents, water and food once in a while.....what a bunch of lazy freeloaders!

You folks are pathetic.

you folks??????

is that a prejudice statement Drillog I c al?

you folks??????

is that a prejudice statement Drillog I c al?

Problem is you folks that make the comments you do are all cut from the same cloth. Folks like you (and yes, I can make that assessment based on the drivel you've written) make statements and never formulate arguments. It's pathetic to watch you regurgitate the talking points of the day and never even attempt to back it up with facts or evidence. It is like talking to a 10 year old (I apologize to all 10 year olds).

So yes, YOU folks are indeed pathetic.

why argue?

that is what the politicians want us to do, they ALL work together and pit us all against each other, this is why our government still has the upper hand.

Mindless can't think for yourself jackasses

Bill-3405139

Enough Americans do not believe in working hard or personal accountability/responsibility. So, the message/platform that is the basis of the Republican party will never ever appeal to them.

You do realize the majority of welfare states that receive more fed money than they pay out are red right? LOL News flash - you have more slack asses in your party than the dems do.

Im a dem / John Locke liberal and Ive been working since I was 12 years old - paid my way through college and never accepted a cent of public assistance. Ten bucks says you cant make those same claims slack ass.

why argue?

that is what the politicians want us to do, they ALL work together and pit us all against each other, this is why our government still has the upper hand.

Mindless can't think for yourself jackasses

HA! My God.....first off, 'argument' is what democracy is all about. You have an opinion.....I have an opinion and we're supposed to be able to have rational debate about the merits of our opinion to develop a consensus.

You begin by saying that we shouldn't argue with each other....but then call us mindless jack***es?!?!

You DO realize that government is a representation of us all, correct? We elect representatives every couple years....and what "upper hand" does the government have?

the government keeps the majority of people in fear so they are easily controlled, my GOD your dense.

BOTH political parties use the same tactics, when will the American people realize that it is them against us, not them for us.

Where have you been hiding?

Roger Dodger...

my GOD your dense.

It is always my favorite when someone calls my intelligence into question but doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're". A big deal...no...but if you're (see, that's the correct usage) going to call someone else's intelligence into question...don't write like a middle school kid.

BOTH political parties use the same tactics, when will the American people realize that it is them against us, not them for us.

Then vote! That is what our democracy is all about. I have to tell you, you better start tightening that message up if you think anyone is going to buy the horse**** that has been falling out of your mouth (or fingers, as it were).

Roger, you are a glutten for punishment because you keep voting in the same people that do nothing but fight the system.

what can I say I got my edjumakation in a liberal public school sistum......

I understand you drlogic, you are a talking head with no brains....

Roger...

Just try for one time.....just once....to have a real life adult conversation. You'll be surprised what you can learn.

RWNJs seem to be trying to sell the same old tired and corrupt message and then they whine about losing.

Hey! That's a good thing!

@doc

Facts I have not seen but one post that you had a link to prove your side. But you tell all the people here they don't have proof.

Proof is all over the place but you fail to see it.

Are you looking to date Odummer you sure have a love for him.

Roger-521043

Reinventing the GOP, what the heck, why do the 2 major political parties feel the need to cater to minority groups and ILLEGALS? I thought the majority ruled in the USA?

you folks??????

is that a prejudice statement Drillog I c al?

Bigoted much?

The MAJORITY does rule, and we are not represented by the GOP.

Roger...are you talking about the liberal school system, No Child Left Behind? Or are you talking about the school system that taught creationism before "creationism" was a word? Regardless, it was the liberal education system that failed you, right? Not that you slept during rudimentary English and Consumer Math, right?

lasertroll/ I have formed my oppinion of you by the spelling of your P.O.T.U.S. Do I need to write anything else?

"Enlightened"....

Isn't it the GOP who came out with this assessment of the 2012 elections? Taking information from the Republican produced document is somehow a "liberal" issue? Give me a break.

The good ole' standby....when all else fails, blame the "liberal media".

Enlitend, same old tired stuff. Try some new material for a change.

GOP, Get Out of Politics.

Why don't you enlighten us then......aside from just chastising we "junkies"...make an argument for your case. You have a public forum right here.......

Nice try at deflection, but it is the Get Out of Politics party (GOP) that needs to dismantle.

Their last dying breath is "It's both parties!"

@ Doc

All I see you doing if bad mouthing anyone that post something that you don't agree on but you fail to prove them wrong. And even if we did give you links you would say it is made up.

1st there are 47 million on food stamps it is all over the news even the Obama paid media says that..

Can I ask you a question, are you gay?

Cheap shot. Yes, a lot of people are on food stamps, with Texas being the number 1 recipients. And seeing that Walmart helps their employees file for food stamps because they "cannot afford" to pay them a living wage, this is likely to continue. But then, the Republicans are against raising minimum wage - right? So whose problem is it?

you talk about Bachmann yet love Pelosi...I don't get it.

Roger....

Aside from both being female, they have slightly different accomplishments and viewpoints. Now do you get it?!

Believe it or not, not all 'dem ladies think alike'.

Pelosi is the poster child for prescription drugs, can't you tell?

Roger-521043

you talk about Bachmann yet love Pelosi...I don't get it.

Didnt see Pelosi mentioned one time in their post?

Roger...

I get it...now you've resorted to childish insults. Great way to make your point...(sigh)

The more people like you try to "argue"....the better for our side. So PLEASE, keep talking.

oh so it's not ok for someone else to spin the conversation like the liberals always seem to do... I get it!

Roger...

How is a shot at Nancy Pelosi and prescription drugs considered "spin"?

Another shot at deflection Roger? The Get Out of Politics party can only defend itself by shouting "Hey Look!" and pointing elsewhere. Not even a good try, Roger. Get something new and true to tell us and then come back and post. Otherwise get ready for school. How you doing in the 3rd grade anyway?

Roger is the guy who farts out loud...then points to his dog.

You are so right on that one.....and that is something I didn't think I'd ever say!

shhhhh. Don't educate the party of stupid. ROFLMAO@GOP.

Roger, you appearently didn't see the News about the Insurance companies having to give back all the millions of dollars of overcharge that they were wanting to keep? That was Obama Care (HCR) in action.yes it saved me a bundle already and I have lower rates. And I am still stuck with stinking Rick Perry as a Governor.

and what do you think Obamacare is going to do besides make the rich people wealthier.....

I guess there is that 35,000,000 more Americans with health care thing......oh yeah, pre-existing conditions are now a thing of the past.....oh yeah, HI Companies can only make 15% in profit or rebate their customers.....oh yeah, kids can stay on parents' HI until 27.....and on and on and on.

Due to Obamacare, customers already received over $1 billion in rebates......

http://healthcareforamericanow.org/2012/06/21/1-1-billion-mlr-rebates-to-consumers/

At least Obamacare is better than GOPdontcare.

LOL odummercare will cost you so much you are so blind to it..

Even Dems are coming out saying they made a mistake but yet you are in this post defending it LOL.

Give you a hint you are wrong Odummercare has hurt a lot of paople I know.

Siemens has taking all insurance pension plans they had and canceled them my friend now has to pay for his medical 100% were he was paying only 25%.

You all really don't have a clue..

Don't bother posting FACTS, Tom...Facts are part of a liberal agenda!

Ok, don't miss the bus. By the way your 1st grade teacher says you're not doing to well in language arts.

Deflection, deflection, deflection. It's the teabaggers and the establishments financial suppor of the teabaggers that have gotten the rotten old party in trouble. Way to go rich white men.

Valid points, Tom.

unsam: Party of the rich? Puleese. Obama and his wife spend more time with the rich and famous than any other president since Kennedy. Kerry is such a poor man and Pelosi's jets must be pre-owned. This classless warfare garbage is talkin' trash. Dems create poverty whilst padding their pockets and pointing fingers.

Val......Bush jr set a vacation record number of times AWOL while being president that will NEVER be beaten by any present or future president.

Yes Democrats CAN be rich......nothing wrong with being rich.......they look out for all of America...

Republicons only look out for themselves. The Greedy rich 1% are busy duping the low intelligence voters to think that they have the same self interests as the greedy 1%, causing the low intelligence voters to vote against their own self interests.

See the difference NOW?........We do!