There are numerous flags waving there, BP being one. :)

And Americans will continue to suffer until they no longer fly.

Old Glory should be hung upside down these days.

The problem Fugudaddy is that you don't hear about anything positive that the Republicans do or propose because you and most people in these blogs have their heads in the MSNBC sand where nothing positive for Republicans ever get mentioned. The Congress has proposed hundreds of bills to help our country but our President knocks everyone of them down because they don't meet his far left agenda. Both the President and Congress are to blame for the mess we are in right now. The shame of this situation is that instead of leading our great nation he plays the blame game for everything that does not go his way like a child. To top all of this off is that unfortunately Americans on the left and the right keep voting these career politicians back into office every term and we never get new fresh thinking individuals that are not controlled by special interests.

What's this Connie? Shooter did you change your name, again?

3.1 Where is the Republican plan to change the sequester?

Excuse me--the President knocks those ideas down? No. That would be a veto, and President Obama has not vetoed "hundreds of bills." The number is two. You are off by a couple orders of magnitude.

It is the other side of the bicameral legislature that does not take up and pass the bills that the Republican-led House of Representatives puts forward. The other side, the one whose members are elected in state-wide elections, not from gerrymandered safe districts. The ones who represent the will of the people.

'US Constitution' needs to take a civics class.

OK, we realize that the president cannot tell congress what to do.

But....maybe he could...suggest....that Boehner use a circular firing squad?

Hey Connie: "Please remove head from ass before commenting." Thank you.

Yeah, I'm sure the hundreds of anti-abortion bills proposed in the past four years would have saved the economy if that big bad President hadn't shot them down. Oh...wait, most of those died on their own either in the House or the Senate, without the president even having to lift a finger.

Do you ever actually contribute...or just enjoy hanging out and babbling occasionally?

Projecting again scotty, really before pointing fingers at others you really should look at the psycho babble you have posted non stop since the day you started posting. Really scotty if we wanted your opinion we would be at Fox blogs.

Just like scottie does

Apparently the only Bills or ideas fo Bills that count are ones that pass and become laws. At least according to Repubs this week.

By this standard, nobody has proposed a Bill that counts in about 1.5 years.

To me that is a pretty silly accusation, i.e. "The Dems (or President) haven't/hasn't proposed anything that we will vote for.", when you haven't proposed anything that even 3 Democratic Sen. would vote for either.

And, Repubs changed the original sequester idea to change new taxes/revenues into the Def. cuts. The final draft was their idea, that makes it "their idea".

If the jackboot fits...

It's sorta cute, in a pathetically out of touch kind of way, how the baggers think that accusing someone of 'playing the race card' will ever dissuade anyone, anywhere, anytime from noting their unabashed bigotry.

Please proceed, baggers. Please proceed.

Ron Fournier is a certified otherwise-unemployable moron.

It's sorta cute...how the baggers think that accusing someone of 'playing the race card' will ever dissuade anyone

All of their arguments are pretty much explode-on-the-launchpad failures. I suppose they must assume that since this or that 'zinger' sounds good to them, it will sound good to everyone.

Ya. They work so well in their head and all the other baggers laugh and laugh and laugh so they are just completely flummoxed when their zingers do explode on the launch pad when trotted out in front of non bagger audiences.

They just don't understand why they aren't getting more traction. Hence all the talk about 'gubmint schools" "brainwashing" and "indoctrinating" the American people, who just need to be (re)"educated" about the brilliance and utopian perfection of bagger ideology.

If only they could break through the media and public education filter that keep the sheeple on the DemonRat Plantation, then everyone would recognize the obvious superiority of bagger beliefs. If only. If only...

@ 4.6

Now that you bring it up--

I'm pretty sure that TCinLA would agree with me that a bunch of "re-education" after the Civil War would have made our lives a LOT easier.

BTW-- I realy mean that the people who think they were right in the war need to be told over and over why they were wrong, not right. This applied to the South and to a much lesser amount to the Nazis.

Might as well give them the best treatment possible: Put them in the VA system.

Just how many jars of wrinkle cream do you go through, Maggie?

Maggiebelle , I am so sorry to have to inform y'all that the North has won the war and the Democrats the election!

Ah do declare! They say smelling salts works for the "vapors".

Even funnier is these red staters would scream bloody murder if they got the cuts they demand after all every red state depends on government handouts just to stay afloat.

Talk about damning with praise, Maggie!

Skippy, the problem is none of the things you mentioned. The problem is that apparently the Republicans in the House have forgotten they don't control the Senate and Presidency and that to get anything done requires compromise (you may need to look that word up).

There have been countless opportunities (you look 'em up, I've got a life) for compromise and the House Republicans have refused to do so. Nor have they offered any plan to avert the sequester. Democrats in the House have. Democrats in the Senate have. The Democrat in the White house...

Oh wait, now I understand...

Skip,

You do understand that, while it is 2% of the total budget, we are not cutting from the total budget. Large parts are off limits. And for good reason. Mostly, because that's what was agreed to.

No, Skippy does not understand. That is part of being right wing. As Molly once said, "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand for you."

Doug,

You don't get my point. Any compromise is a joke. Obviously they are trying to get a compromise to avoid the cuts (sequester). Most likely any compromise means tax increases and some token cuts...and it will result in smaller savings most likely. The sequester may or may not go through. Even if it does they will eventually come to some type of compromise down the road. And all that means is a watered down version of cuts and tax increases. AND the deficits will continue (OK may three quarters of a TRILLION vs 1 TRILLION..whoopee).

I just do not get how anyone does not see that avoiding the sequester means basically that they will do something on a smaller scale and basically kick the can down the road a little bit more. Minor, minor cuts/savings/reductions...whaterver, but minor.

Also, compromise is a two sided street. The way I see it simply is the Repulicans want no tax increases and the Democrats want no cuts. And don't bring up the savings already achieved - look up the Chicago Tribune's Sunday edition to get a recap on those. There really is not much compromising on either side.

@Skip

As was pointed out, your 2.5% figure is not accurate, because the bipartisan law that created the sequester ropes off big chunks of the budget. Secondly, that's 2.5% per year, every year for 9 years. A 2.5% cut to your family budget might not be much for one year, but over 9 years?

Secondly, I can appreciate your "a pox on everyone" attitude, but it's lazy. If you think there is waste, do the research, make your suggestions for the 1.2 trillion in cuts and try to get others on board with your approach.

Skip, that is false. The Dems and I have made suggestions on cutting here and there, but that is translated by the pundits as no spending cuts. But most people say the economy, higher wages and more jobs would fix it without raising taxes too high. Close loopholes, remember? Which ones.

Tired of people saying the Dems say no spending cuts. It's a matter of which cuts and which loopholes, but there's a stubborn majority that is happy to damage economy and deal with defense spending the same way Bush did. There are Dems trying to protect cuts such as Medicare, etc.

The economy is too fragile to slash spending this way (sequester).

June,

I still beg to differ. Either side's "cuts" are not as advertised. First, most are just a reduction in future spending and/or progams. And Second, as my first post illustrated via the Chicago Tribune, a lot of the savings are just phantom money that really wasn't there in the first place or was set to expire/end anyway without the help of the sequester or any compromise. You can lament about the Republicans going out to hurt people (seriously do you honestly think that is in their platform?) or champion causes for "judicious" cuts, but in reality the cuts - from either side - are only a fraction of what is advertised. And the sad part is, we fall for this crap every time. I would love to be the vendor that sells the U.S. Government all the smoke and mirrors they use. :)

Skip, my view is that the points you raise are a distraction from the facts on the ground. Those being that the rate of spending under the Obama Administration is already the lowest it's been in decades and that deficit-reduction under this President is also proceeding at a fast clip. So, one can giggle over this line item or that line item, but the fact is that spending has been significantly reduced and the deficit has been significantly reduced under this president -with no help from the GOP --and in spite of Republicans' best efforts to continuously stall economic recovery. There is a way to cut spending (which Dems champion) that doesn't throw a prospective million people out of work, threaten our national security and torpedo the recovery. That's the real distinction between the Democratic approach and the GOP's approach - not surprisingly.

"Those being that the rate of spending under the Obama Administration is already the lowest it's been in decades and that deficit-reduction under this President is also proceeding at a fast clip."

Yet, at the same time when President Obama came into office the national Debt was at 10.7 TRILLION and today it is quickly approaching 17 TRILLION?????

Talk about an OXY MORON!!!

Ok June, point taken... to an extent. For the past 8 years or more, the deficits have been close to...and past $ 1 Trillion each and every year...every year. So I'm sorry if I do not do cartwheels over the fact that instead of have a $1.2 Trillion dollar deficit - like the past few (or more) years - we only have three quarters of a Trillion. Whether you give credit to the President or the Democrats or even the Republicans, to me we are talking about Band-Aids on a wound that requires many stitches. Yes any cuts will hurt, but to me we have been living beyound our means for too long now and we cannot just fix this with relatively tiny adjustments. And they will be tiny.

Fair enough, Skip - I take your point, too. :)

If memory serves President Obama inherited a deficit of $1.3T and this years is projected at $0.73T. That's a reduction of 43%. The last Republican president to reduce a deficit was Eisenhower. The last president to balance a budget was Clinton.

If you're truly concerned about deficits vote Democratic.

Well said, @Greenbertarian. (Love the username, too).

The gop think all their spending from 2000 to 08 just magically stops once obama took office , and that is pure deflection , as was pointed out , obama is responsible for his spending , not the GOP budget with the bottom blown out

to think you can pay for all that gop debt acquired over 8 years , without ever raising taxes, makes as much sense as all the gop economic plans that create zero jobs for the american people , and only more wealth for romney's cayman accounts

I'll say it again--

To a Repub (read Skip, Shooter, Really, Const, et all) the ONLY spending cut that counts is one to SSI or Medicare.

By spending cuts they mean entitlement cuts.

After all somewhere down the road there will/may be a problem affording them as they are now, so old people (takers) need to suffer now to avoid their imaginary problem later. And remember the old people pre-paid for their SSI and Medicare, you know like insurance.

Yes this is hilarious. $1.2 Trillion over 10 years....or $120 Billion a year. And again most of these "cuts" are not really cuts...just reduction in the increase of future spending. This is all a joke...a big joke. Well actually not that big. We are talking about trying to save a couple of bucks out of a few hundred dollars (releatively speaking)...and we're freaking out about it.

11. Do you have link to this press conference? I'd like to see it.

.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2013/February/Finger-Pointing-Heats-Up-as-Sequester-Deadline-Nears/

I believe the press conference referred to was immediately after the debt ceiling hostage crisis in 2011.

How many hostage crises have there been since? 'Course, threatening people is all the Republican/Teabaggers have left. They haven't had an original thought since TR's days.

I'm glad that nolaughingmatter, Blanks (see below), and Skippy have finally realized that we just might as well eliminate the sequester. They assure us that it is just penny ante stuff and not worth getting excited about, so why not just forget about it? Good on you, guys. This is what happens when you hang around with people who know what they're talking about. The woman at Westboro Church changed and you guys have, too. Education isn't wasted.

That's funny dkm. I assume as you post that you are for cuts in defense. Me too. Big time. But other cuts too. Not sure where you stand on that. You seem fixed on defense. Most likely you want to tax the rich (good..will bring in some money - maybe another $60 Billion a year), but what else. The "mess" (cuts or compromise..whatever)we are talking about is not much and will be swallowed up with one good natural disaster or other emergency. It IS penny ante stuff or do you think it is big and meaningful? I mean you do know what you are talking about. :)

@nolaughingmatter

Your negative attitude towards helping regions or the country that have experienced natural disasters shows you to be a true patriot. Congratulations!

Bring our troops home and go back to the Clinton era tax rates. That should just about fix it.

once again melopsittacus

You got it wrong again

The amount of money that was allocated to Sandy is close to the amount of the sequester

Is it we couldn't afford it then or is it we can't afford the sequester now???

Actually, melopsittacus was on point with his comment to you and about you.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

@nolaugh

Um, one involves borrowing to help our fellow countrymen and women in a time of need with our country's current and future economic activity as collateral.

That has zero bearing on the 2011 Budget Control Act.

They sure do! Those who voted for tea bagging GOP candidates in the 2010 elections have the blame as well as those who didn't get out to vote in 2010.

Many of those people who did not vote saw the mess created and voted in the 2012 elections.

And my bet is those people will vote in the 2014 elections to send those crazy teabaggers home.

I agree, the voters fell for the b.s. and are easily distracted by shiny objects.

The analogy of the person pretending to throw the ball for the dog, or Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown.

You know, we just have to get serious at some point and say the GOP can't do anything. Until they prove they can, I say vote for Dems or Independents. These TPers are killing us.

We have to be vigilant and vote like our lives depend on it and the House and Senate needs to be put in more competent hands that will actually do the balanced deal without killing the economy and creating another manufactured crisis.

Look, the R T Pubs have the majority. They keep planting bombs for us to diffuse at the last minute "or else". They own it, they brought us here and they keep blaming Obama for their crap. How many votes on the R side were for dangerously slashing spending and how many D votes were for taking the gun from the hand?

That's all they do, plant bombs, set the timer, They say well, Obama has to tell us what to cut, so we can pin the blame on him.

Sick to death of crisis after crisis because the Congress will not do anything but play politics at all times.

Stop voting for these maniacs. But don't not vote because the perfect person for you is not running.

That would be Michigan, I believe, and possibly Wisconsin. And PA is rapidly gaining on them.

The part about cutting the defense budget is right on target. If we cut it in half, we would still be spending more than all our adversaries put together, unless, of course, you consider the whole rest of the world to be our adversaries. Maybe that's the right wing strategy, make us hated by everyone.

Perhaps, but I'd prefer targeted cuts rather than the blanket cuts that the law specifies. Also, if you are "for" the sequester (i.e., cuts only), then you are for stalled or higher unemployment. Dean seems pretty callous on that front. Finally, we really do need to have some pressure on Congress in order to get tax loopholes filled in. They're just too tempting for Congress to implement which is why every few years (e.g., see Reagan) the tax code needs to be cleaned up. But it only happens with pressure. Just my opinion.

Hey...Hussein is even now devising a tax that would create the ability for Parents to forgo the responsibility of their children for a "Pre K" childcare program. THAT has to REALLY reduce the deficit.....I mean hey..this failure is working hard at deficit reduction. (lol)

Do you ever actually contribute...or just enjoy hanging out and babbling occasionally?

Oh look someone forgot to tell scotty Saddam is dead and he doesn't live in Iraq. Poor scotty proves yet again he only speaks psycho babble then whines when he doesn't get attention he believes he is entitled to.

Wow....just wow.

Mitt what's-his-name would have been much better.

/sarcasm off/

Yes I have and I find it disrespectful

You both have short memories. It's normal and proper to refer to and address the POTUS as Mr. So-and-so in certain circumstances. It's even etiquette.