Skip to main content

President Barack Obama meets with bipartisan House and Senate Leadership in the Cabinet Room of the White House to discuss his upcoming fiscal policy speech, April 13, 2011. Seated with the President from left are: Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Sen. Mitch McC
With meat inspections and air traffic control saved from the sequester, the big flashpoints for the public with budget cuts have been largely avoided. In the meantime, there's a slow, cruel shrinking of budgets that, as usual, are hitting the vulnerable first and worst. Word is from Washington, get used to it, because this is just the beginning.
There are nine more years of budget austerity to go and that means the federal government must dig in much tougher places to find savings — like forcing early retirements for workers and winding down grants that fund scientific research and allow states to keep infrastructure up to par.

“It’s a diet that gets worse every year,” said Barry Anderson, a former senior White House Office of Management and Budget official who made the previous sequestration cuts in 1991. [...]

“As far as I can tell, we’re going to be operating under the sequester for the foreseeable future,” said Jim Manley, a former aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “At some point, it’s going to start hurting. And if you look at local newspapers throughout the country, there are a lot of good programs being cut. But it’s all too local right now and hasn’t reached a critical mass in the national debate.”

Making matters worse: Washington’s attention has shifted away from the fiscal fight and the fallout that comes with $1.2 trillion slashed from the Pentagon and most domestic agencies. The budget debate will inevitably return when the fiscal year ends Sept. 30 and a House-Senate-White House deal is required to avert a government shutdown. House Republicans are also still demanding concessions from President Barack Obama before they approve an extension to the country’s debt limit. [...]

Asked when he thought Congress might start moving spending bills again through regular order, Manley replied, “Tell me when the tea party is going to start losing its hold over the House Republican caucus and I’ll give you that answer. But until that happens, a once-proud tradition is gone by the wayside.”

In the meantime, it just gets slowly worse and worse with government being able to do less and less as employees hours—and paychecks—are cut. Even if President Obama were to recognize that deficit reduction has been achieved and further slashing will grind to a halt or even reverse the slow economic improvements we've seen and stops with the grand bargaining and calls for cuts, it wouldn't be enough. There's still the tea party that's taken the government hostage.

However, if the White House and congressional Democrats started making a real case with the public that these mindless cuts are hurting real people, are holding the economy down, they'd have a better chance of breaking the tea party's hold. The majority of public opinion is and always has been behind creating job growth and is behind increasing taxes on the wealthy and is behind programs that help the needy. Standing with the people on this wouldn't be a dangerous thing for Democrats to do at all, unless they think the real danger for them is in pissing off The Village.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 11:03 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (33+ / 0-)

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

    by Joan McCarter on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 11:03:59 AM PDT

  •  But!! The Demographics!! (3+ / 0-)

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 11:06:54 AM PDT

  •  people are going to be so pissed by the (0+ / 0-)

    Affordable Care Ax, that the next President could be Jeb. you read it here first.

    •  I thought they were going to be so pissed by it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Friend of the court

      that Mitt Romney would win in a landslide.

      Make up your mind.

      •  i never thought Romney would win. (0+ / 0-)

        would have been cool if he did some time behind the tax dance.                                                                                          the insurance legislation was written by the insurance companies.  what could possibly go wrong?  i got an information packet from my employee's association, on Friday. i have been fortunate to have coverage at work. the changes that were not coming, are coming.  

        •  The ACA written by insurance companies and yet (0+ / 0-)

          these insurance companies restricted themselves to spend at least 80 percent of their premiums on medical costs. I didn't know insurance companies were so altruistic.

          •  This "Written by insurance company" nonsense is so (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bush Bites

            played out as an argument against the ACA that even Republicans like Joe Scarborough are using it to criticize the President. When Republicans are co-opting the argument of the extreme left, a marriage can't be far behind. At least they are united in there anti-Obama rhetoric.

            •  A bit of history (4+ / 0-)

              1. baucus writing of the bill

              A "framework plan" released today by the so-called "Group of Six" Senators negotiating a health reform bill headed by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) would open the door to gutting state laws. The plan would result in a "race to the bottom" in health care regulation by allowing insurance companies that participate in "health care compacts" to choose the weakest state law to govern all their policies, regardless of which state the policies are sold in. Currently, insurance companies must abide by the state laws of any state where they sell insurance. The Baucus plan resembles an industry proposal carried by Mike Enzi (R-WY) in 2006 discussed below [...]
              http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/...

              2. Reality Check.

              Back when Ezra Klein wasn't writing for WaPo (before we knew Obama was even running for President much less had an opinion about him) one of the regular conversations was about the insurance industry reaction to universal health care. Every poll had super majorities,including part of the GOP base, wanting universal health care. I can't find it anymore - but there was a site called from the person who wrote Emerging Democratic Majority- he had extensive polling. It also showed a strong desire in the public over a decade of polling for universal health care.

              The issue for the insurance companies was a debate about how to use that because (1) their revenues were decreasing naturally and (2) they didn't think they could frighten people as they did in the 90s when they torpedoed clinton's plan.

              The debate was never over health care reform or no health care reforn. it was over what it wo uld look like.

              They realized the goal should be to control the definition of "universal health care" I wish I could dredge of those Klien pieces. But like many things, its harder to find and it allows debates to go down the memory hole and for people to pretend its a conspiracy simple because the public doesn't remember anything beyond the latest public scandal.

              The thing that they didn' want at all cost was something like  Single payer (which was nucler for them) and were adamantly against the public option ideas being floated (i think around 2005).

              I wrote all of this to say when I see comments like yours I am going to assume you don't undersetand the world doesn't begin or end with President Obama, and that actually there was a debate that occured before he even arrived on the scene in DC that he was plugged into for forwarding what the insurance companies saw as inevitable.

              There were tweaks and changes, but many of them were to the right, and never changed the underlying goal of the insurance companies: to have a customer base that had not choice but to buy the insurance company product because that's how they redefined universal health care when Klien talked about it.

              It was interesting to me to read his columns later as he became a President Obama supporter versus the more open columns he wrote in 2005 and 2006 about the subject and the expected fight.

            •  I may be getting the dates wrong (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Friend of the court

              a littel because I dont'r emember when Klein went to WaPo

              I just remember his tone and eventually argumetns changing to be more serving of DC interest rather than open inquiry.

              •  Yes, there were varied interests at the table and (0+ / 0-)

                it is reflected in your comment, the hospital lobby was also represented at the table. But is your comment anywhere close to saying that the insurance industry wrote the healthcare law? Maybe I missed something.  That is the issue here. The over the top rhetoric of those determined to minimize the importance of the ACA.

                And I'll say it again, if the insurance industry was the author of the ACA they would not allow for a provision which dictated that they spend at least 80 % of their premium on health cost. Heck, they also wouldn't be for allowing people with pre-existing conditions health coverage.

                We can't have it both ways. People count the insurance industry as one of the most ruthless industries there is, and I happen to agree, but then turn around and claim that this same industry, while authoring the Affordable Care Act, would be for allowing individuals with pre-existing condition to receive healthcare? They “authored” the legislation, remember?

                Does this make any sense?

                •  That provision is not enough to say (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  chuckvw, Friend of the court

                  they didn't get what they wanted , which was guaranteed revenue

                  Its like saying a utility company isn't a monopoly because its regulated

                  Its not a very good argument from an economic standpoint because it depends  on the financial analysis

                  if you do the math to find you make more money with guarnateed customers even at 80 percent then you will choose that over lost revenue

                  You also miss otehr elements. they assumed that through regulatory capture as well as court challenges as well as questionable enforcement that they may be able to manipulate it

                  We shall see

                  I think you are thinking linearly

                  X = bad for insurance companies so they wouldn't structure a deal like this

                  it depends on what they had to gain

                •  by the way I mention two already (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  chuckvw, Friend of the court, DaddyO

                  1 elimination of competition that might actually force cost down

                  2. a captured customer

                  3. If you know you are going to have to take your medicine, you do it in a way that advantages you

                  I am not sure your examples are really all that big a deal in their economic big picture and plans for the survival of their industry

                  •  I think we're discussing a matter of degrees. You (0+ / 0-)

                    raise great points, and it should be made clear that the insurance companies were represented fully at the table. That has never been a question for me, and the President has never hidden that fact.

                    But here I think is where you and I differ, in terms of my objection to the suggestion that the insurance industry authored the bill.

                    Its like saying a utility company isn't a monopoly because its regulated

                    Its not a very good argument from an economic standpoint because it depends on the financial analysis

                    Very true, but, I might add, if they are subjected to regulation, it means they do not have full control either.

                    The profit that would be made from acquiring more customers had its own sway in the negotiations and the insurance companies also did not want to lose that. So they had to play nice too, which goes against the impression many have here that they just barreled their way into the negotiations and dictated to all concern.... This did not happen. They got more customers and we got concessions....

                    What did we get? Here are just a few:

                    The ACA eliminated pre-existing condition exclusions for all health insurance policies (a very big deal)

                    Also banned lifetime and annual benefit caps (another big deal)

                    The ACA requires private insurance companies to cover a wide range of preventive services, including well-woman visits (Pap tests, cancer screenings, etc), diabetes screening, and prenatal care without co-pays. (another big deal)

                    Requires health insurance companies to spend at least 80-85 cents of every premium dollar on medical costs as opposed to profits, marketing and overhead, as mentioned before (Yup, nice)

                    Requiring an insurance company to justify a rate increase before it shows up on your bill (Yup, I like this)

                    And established major new provisions to combat health care fraud and abuse in Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance (lovely)

                    Again, the insurance companies would not have independently offered these provisions…they did not author this bill…. They got customers, we got concessions.

                    And in case anyone might consider these concessions to be small, the issue of pre-existing conditions alone is HUGE:

                    According to a new analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services, 50 to 129 million (19 to 50 percent of) non-elderly Americans have some type of pre-existing health condition.  Up to one in five non-elderly Americans with a pre-existing condition — 25 million individuals — is uninsured.  Under the Affordable Care Act, starting in 2014, these Americans cannot be denied coverage, be charged significantly higher premiums, be subjected to an extended waiting period, or have their benefits curtailed by insurance companies.
                    http://aspe.hhs.gov/...

                    And think of individuals who had to go bankrupt because their insurance companies decided that they would no longer cover their worsening health struggle....

                    This is a 2009 note on the issue:

                    This year, an estimated 1.5 million Americans will declare bankruptcy. Many people may chalk up that misfortune to overspending or a lavish lifestyle, but a new study suggests that more than 60 percent of people who go bankrupt are actually capsized by medical bills.
                    http://www.cnn.com/...

                    The healthcare law isn't perfect, but it is a start in the right direction. Like Social Security, we will make it stronger as the years go by.

                    •  saying the health insurance industry didn't write (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Friend of the court

                      the bill because changes were made to it and they didn't get everything they wanted (and got some things they didn't) is like saying Stephen King did not write his last book because the editors made changes to it and he didn't get everything he wanted (and got some things he didn't want).

                      It's silly.

                      What the insurance industry got in the final version of the bill they wrote more than outweighs what they had to give up in order to get it.  Just ask them.

                      •  No, your Stephen King analogy is silly. And they (0+ / 0-)

                        "wrote more"? What does that mean? I thought the discussion was about the insurance companies authoring the healthcare bill.... Did they author the bill or "wrote more"? I have no idea what "wrote more" means.

                        See, here is your quandry.... You would love to say they authored the bill, but you've seen that they have given up major concessions, so it goes against the logic that if they gave up such concession they authored the bill....

                        I don't have to list them again. See the list above.

                        By the way, the hospital lobby was also at the table. Did the hospital lobby roll over and played dead while the insurance industry authored the bill? And if so, wouldn't the hospital lobby be complaining that they had no input in the issue.

                        Well, hospitals all over the nation were cheering the Supreme Court ruling for saving the ACA. Here is an example from the Federation of American Hospitals:

                        “Today's decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the Affordable Care Act will enable millions of Americans to soon obtain health insurance coverage,” FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn said in a prepared statement.

                        http://www.modernhealthcare.com/...

                        By the way, I thought Congress had a major say in how the law was constructed. Well let me see, Bernie Sanders voted for the bill, Sherod Brown, Ron Widen, Sheldon Whitehouse. Teddy Kennedy was for the bill, his wife praised it after it was passed.

                        Oh, they all did this after knowing the insurance industry authored the bill....

                        Oh, according to you now.... "They wrote more".... I wish at least one day, you folk could present evidence of some of the things you say as gospel.

                        •  reading is not your strong suit, is it. (sigh) / (0+ / 0-)
                        •  I think you are focused on the trees (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          DaddyO

                          rather than the forest

                          This is always a mistake in negotiation to do what you are doing

                          If someone set p the parameters of the negotation (the forrest) they can afford to let you come in to cut down a few of their trees because they control the whole thing

                          You are telling me about various changes made. Those are just tree level elements.

                          I am explaining to you that its not useful analysis to point out you got concessions unless you figure out whether they were concessions that were significant from a systemic, rather than small victory perspective

                          if your goal was to go into change the way we do health care in the US, you haven't done with this bill. You pretty much guaranteed it would continue which was the goal of insurance industry since they feared universal health care as the rest of the world defines it rather than believing they could truly block all reform

                          The question was never could we get reform. i twaqs what kind

                          This has been one  of the bigger blunders as far as people who say they are progressive understanding of the dynamics that gave rise to Obamacare

                          From a negotiation stand point, most acted on the idea that we were acting from a position of weakness rather than strength . The strength was that we controlled the forrest, not the insurance companies, and yet we gave them control of the forrest

                          •  Obama caved (0+ / 0-)

                            He did it for four years straight. It amazes me that some Dems and progressives make arguments exactly like Republicans when defending Obama from his own Party's critics.

                            Amazing, nauseating, take your pick. Obama is a FAILURE. The best thing he's done is appoint two halfway decent SCOTUS justices, except for their penchant for giving corporations and business interests the benefit of the doubt more often than I would.

                            Otherwise...Obama has, briefly, spent his entire first term hiding from Bill O'Reilly...

                            "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

                            by DaddyO on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 02:31:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  We can't have it both ways (0+ / 0-)

                  The perfect argument for an Obama supporter.

                  Obama knows how to WIN ELECTIONS, but as for GOVERNING...he gets a C- from me. And I'm being generous.

                  "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

                  by DaddyO on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 02:28:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  You sound just like a George W. Bush man (0+ / 0-)

              No one loves to revise their history quite like those guys.

              We were ALL THERE, dude. Obama dumped on us all. His first fucking year in office.

              He should have forgotten about fucking up the health care system--and he DID that--and concentrated on the ECONOMY, STUPID.

              But he didn't. So if he had...I'm sure you'd be giving him compliments. Compliments he would have DESERVED.

              Authoritarianism: It's not just for Republicans any more!

              "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

              by DaddyO on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 02:26:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I don't really give a fuck WHO wrote it (0+ / 0-)

            My medical expenses have QUADRUPLED. I cannot afford certain CRITICAL EXPENSES on drugs any more. My medical situation is a disaster area--personally--and I need to move to a country with REAL HEALTH CARE, not Health Care for Corporations.

            You can indignantly defend Obama and this atrocity all you like, but all it did was continue the gravy train for insurance companies and Big Pharma. THEY have no problem with it, so why should I? Who should I believe--you, or my lying bank statement?

            The ACA was sold to fools like you as a first step...but do you see the SECOND STEP anywhere on the fucking horizon? Especially after being kept waiting for the precious, lifesaving ACA to kick in for the last four years?

            I don't often blast 'liberals' or Obamabots, but when I do, it's almost always over this obscene issue. Obama fucked it up from the start. The ACA's only real advantage over the last health care 'system' was getting rid of pre-conditions, only to allow them to force me to PAY THROUGH THE NOSE for that privilege. It is a failure--and not just for me personally. If it's a failure for me, then it's a failure for millions of others JUST LIKE ME.

            And, yes, in case you were wondering, I voted for Obama--TWICE.

            "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

            by DaddyO on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 02:23:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Frankly, as one who (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      livosh1, Friend of the court

      has been uninsured since 2001, I'm looking forward to the ACA.  Not sure if your comment is snark -- perhaps it is from someone who has health insurance and no pre-existing conditions like being a female.

      " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:56:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i am a 63 year old female who has a son who (0+ / 0-)

        manages a sports bar and grill.  the owners have decided to cut everyone to part time hours, to avoid buying insurance or paying the penalty. so, no insurance and less pay to buy your own $2,000 out of pocket deductible junk coverage.

  •  Democrats share the blame (7+ / 0-)

    They passed the bill.  I'm fed up with the lot of them.  They have plenty of money to read our mail or listen to our phones and pour money down the drain over Syria and everywhere else.  

    And I don't give a $#@#$ about "immigration reform" or whatever other kind of "reform" they're lying about this week.  

    Vote the bums out.  Repeat as needed.

  •  It's almost as if.... (6+ / 0-)

    Both parties want this?

    There have been many good diaries pointing to the differences between the party, attempts to refute the claim they're identical.

    I don't think they're the same but stories like this show the differences are not as broad as we think. We need "better" democrats...

    •  I read this article, posted today at the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      unfangus, niemann

      Huffington Post:

      DAKAR, June 28 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama, wrapping up the first leg of an African tour, said on Friday Washington had a "moral imperative" to help the world's poorest continent feed itself and he then left for South Africa hoping to see ailing Nelson Mandela.
      I have no problem with helping to feed starving people in Africa, but the president needs to step up to the plate and start feeding the millions of hungry Americans who have sunk into poverty during his term in office.

      I stopped at a red light today in Long Beach and saw a woman sitting in the sun on the side of the road. She was emaciated, and it was easy to see that she was in distress. My heart bleeds each time I see a fragile person suffering like that. It is obscene that the criminals on Wall Street are rewarded for their crimes, while the victims go hungry.

      •  More evidence of pretty-sounding words ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... and monumental hypocrisy.  

        I have reached a state with this President that I thought I never would:  As with George Bush, I can't stand to watch him speaking on TV.  It turns my stomach.

        On a different subject, when I recently saw him sternly and gravely and in his best "tough" manner refer to Edward Snowden as a "29 year old hacker, " I could only think:

        Um ...  He wasn't a "hacker," Mr. President.

        He was hired and was working for ... well, basically, if you want to pass the buck along to its end ... for YOU, Mr. President.  

        He was given access to all that super-sensitive information by the companies working for YOU, Mr. President.  If there was a danger in his getting that super-sensitive information ... if it endangers American lives, as you claim ... then ultimately it is because of YOUR incompetence.

        If Snowedn is a "spy" who can be charged under the Espionage Act ... then why was a spy so easily granted access to that super-sensitive information by one of YOUR contractors, Mr. President?

    •  Good Cop, Bad Cop (0+ / 0-)

      Guess which Party is which?

      One smacks you around while the other one stops them, and promises to get you a 7up if you cooperate.

      But both Parties see US citizens as SUSPECTS.

      "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

      by DaddyO on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 02:34:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sequester = stealth austerity. (3+ / 0-)

    Everybody wins, but us.

  •  Easier to support the sequester (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dclawyer06, DSPS owl

    when you're not affected by it.

    If they were, it would end tomorrow.

    "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

    by sceptical observer on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 11:30:39 AM PDT

  •  Does anyone have a comprehensive list... (4+ / 0-)

    sequester "patches?"

    Air traffic controllers, meat inspections, security for White House tours, Easter Egg hunts... is that it?

    Was the President lying when he said this:

    But it’s not balance on the backs of, you know, the poor, the elderly, students who need student loans, families who’ve got disabled kids.  That’s not the right way to balance”
    I don't want to demand purity, at least he's fighting to protect our Constitutional rights, our privacy, our Social Security and fighting for unions and....

    Oh wait....

  •  While both the Dems and the GOP say the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    valion

    opposite in public, privately I think the Dems have accepted that these are the largest Defense cuts they are going to see as well as all the revenue increases that will pass the 113th Congress. The GOP has accepted the tax increases on the 1% and know there will be no additional cuts in social programs beyond what is being done through the sequester. We have a stalemate and there will be no legislative action on the sequester through 2014.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 12:01:54 PM PDT

    •  exactly. both sides got things they could not get (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, rhonan

      any other way.

      Neither side has any interest at all in repealing it.

      •  Some are calling it the "Little Bargain" (0+ / 0-)

        and think its enough for now. With better tax revenues than expected, the higher rates on the 1% and the spending cuts, there will be a very significant reduction in deficit spending for F2013 & 2014, which calms down the GOP.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 01:28:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yer kidding, right? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TacoPie

          This must be snark....

          ...there will be a very significant reduction in deficit spending for F2013 & 2014, which calms down the GOP.
          When the deficit spending is reduced in FY2014 RWNJ TeaBagMorons will be blabbering about "out of control spending" and "our children can't afford this President's extravagance and Socialism!"

          "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

          by leftykook on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 08:59:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Too late to rec but you're right. n/t (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenearth, PatriciaVa, VClib

      You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

      by Rich in PA on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:14:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  are we going to be cutting the NSA's budget (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenearth, Ramoth, DaddyO

      given that their multi-billion-dollar surveillance net failed to catch one unstable young man even after Russia explicitly warned us about him?

      No? Oh, well.

      But the post office and Medicare, now they have problems.

      Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:16:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I do not approve of such extremist 'solutions' (0+ / 0-)

      Cut social safety net programs to justify cutting bloated military budgets that even the Pentagon doesn't want...

      It's not a government, it's a con job.

      Time to move to Europe, throw myself on the mercy of the immigration courts, beg for asylum in a MORE sane society...this one's done.

      "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

      by DaddyO on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 02:39:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  kabuki (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snacksandpop, greengemini

    Both sides wanted the sequester because both sides got things in it they could get no other way.  Neither party has the slightest interest in undoing the sequester. And so it stands.

    •  would rec (0+ / 0-)

      but the button is missing.

      I wondered if the Dems should have got something in exchange for the sequester flights issue

      Servalan in Seek-Locate-Destroy: Responsibility is something I have never evaded, Secretary

      by GideonAB on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 06:10:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's Congress' fault (3+ / 0-)

    Remember, the GOP are the ones who got the U.S. into the debt mess in the first place so they're trying to have it both ways at this point.

    This is another reason why need to defeat as many Republicans in 2014 as humanly possible.  We CANNOT wait until 2016.

    •  okay but (0+ / 0-)

      who is saying that we should wait until 2016?

      I am pretty sure that kos would want to take out as many Repubs as he can in 2014

      Servalan in Seek-Locate-Destroy: Responsibility is something I have never evaded, Secretary

      by GideonAB on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 06:19:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We need to face facts. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, greenearth, Dancing Frog

    The Republican Party has stopped being the loyal opposition, and have become a criminal conspiracy to destroy the Republic. At the same time, we have to look at our Democratic Leadership. They need to grow some spine, and actually fight for the American worker!

    Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your shackles. It is by the picket line and direct action that true freedom will be won, not by electing people who promise to screw us less than the other guy.

    by rhonan on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 06:50:23 PM PDT

    •  Neither party is for the American worker (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenearth, mike101, rhonan, unfangus

      Wait until the top secret provisions of the TPP leak out... The mere fact that the details of a "free trade" agreement have been classified should tell you something.

      Most truths are so naked that people feel sorry for them and cover them up, at least a little bit. --Edward R. Murrow

      by chuckvw on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:13:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not completely. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chuckvw, unfangus

        The Democrats do remember to include a bone for the workers when they give Wall Street a steak dinner. Women, in particular, do far slightly better with Democrats in office that Republican. This is why we need to focus on helping progressives, not just anyone with a (D) by their name.

        Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your shackles. It is by the picket line and direct action that true freedom will be won, not by electing people who promise to screw us less than the other guy.

        by rhonan on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:21:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Some individuals who run as Democrats (0+ / 0-)

          are for us. The party establishment, including the White House, not so much.

          Women have indeed made some gains toward equity, but it is equity with real wages that have been in steady decline for decades due to economic policies of both parties, so it's questionable that gains in real dollars have been made. Sadly.

          Most truths are so naked that people feel sorry for them and cover them up, at least a little bit. --Edward R. Murrow

          by chuckvw on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 10:32:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I think I've had enough (0+ / 0-)

      ...waiting for ponies and pie. It's not coming. We paid for the ponies and the pie...but someone else is doing all the riding and chewing. Bye-bye, milkshake...

      "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

      by DaddyO on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 02:41:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not asking for ponies and pie. (0+ / 0-)

        I just want a government that works for the people. I want a government that gives me hope that my young nephews might have a chance at a decent life. Hell, I'd just love to be free of the fear that an illness will leave me bankrupt and homeless. When I really dream, I wish I could once experiance the world my father knew, were people with a brain and a willingness to work could always find a good job you could raise a family on.

        If you call that waiting for ponies and pie, FUCK YOU! You are part of the problem, not the solution, and need to get the fuck out of the way, or be ground under our heals if you try to obstruct progress.

        Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your shackles. It is by the picket line and direct action that true freedom will be won, not by electing people who promise to screw us less than the other guy.

        by rhonan on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 10:04:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Grand Bargain by the back door (3+ / 0-)

    And, of course, this will be the basis on which further "negotiations" proceed. The new normal brought to you by both parties and the president...

    Most truths are so naked that people feel sorry for them and cover them up, at least a little bit. --Edward R. Murrow

    by chuckvw on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:11:29 PM PDT

    •  except that Social Security cuts are not (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenearth, chuckvw

      part of it.

      Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:17:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We have the sequester because... (0+ / 0-)

        Jack Lew invented it, and the President demanded it, to get those Social Security cuts.

        So you can't call 'eleventy-dimensional chess! no Social Security cuts happened!' and blame the sequester on the goopers...as I see so many Obama fans try doing.
        ~

        •  Obama fan? (0+ / 0-)

          wow, you haven't looked at my comment history, have you?

          Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 07:27:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Y'know, it's hard to blame Obama supporters (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SouthernLiberalinMD

            I can understand it. They don't want to give up. They love him, for good reasons--he's lovable! They want to see his every failure as at least better than President McCain or President Romney, and for that, I agree; it's impossible not to agree with that, to say Obama is better than they would have been, and so deserved my vote.

            But Obama is a failure. He ain't the guy I thought I was voting for. He has not delivered for me or those like me. He has done worse than not deliver, he has capitulated time and again. He has not led. He has followed. And the basic driving principle of his entire administration, as best as I can encapsulate it, is to make sure Obama does nothing that Bill O'Reilly could criticize him for.

            Obama is a coward, but not everyone sees him that way. They can't. I voted for him twice, and probably would do the same...but Obama is not helping us, not helping our country, not really doing much but waiting and hoping.

            "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

            by DaddyO on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 02:46:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  The sequester is better than a real compromise... (5+ / 0-)

    ...with the current state of play.  The cuts are smaller than what the House would insist on and the White House would eventually agree to (because that's how they roll), and as a bonus we get real cuts in Defense.  So I'm happy to say that it sucks, but I still support it as the best deal (sic) available. If you don't like the sequester, get a different House (and to some extent Senate) in 2014.  There's no other solution so why talk as if there were?

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:13:29 PM PDT

  •  maybe they are afraid, not of the Village (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cactusgal, greenearth, Matt Z

    but of the rich.

    Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:13:56 PM PDT

  •  They are successfully shrinking government to (5+ / 0-)

    the size they can drown it in the bath tub.   No commons, no government, no privacy, no jobs, no unions, no public education, and no income equality.   Guess the corporations won.

    What we need is a Democrat in the White House. Elizabeth Warren 2016

    by dkmich on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:19:04 PM PDT

  •  The problem is Obama is truly ignorant (6+ / 0-)

    when it comes to economics, and bought into the deficit cutting fetish lock, stock and barrel.  His desire for a grand bargain to cut the deficit has gotten in the way of the fiscal stimulus so sorely needed.

    •  What more can President Obama do? (0+ / 0-)

      A lot of Obama's agenda is being blocked by the GOP in the House of Representatives.  From 2009-2011, the Democratic Party was on a roll and we accomplished more not only in getting the economy moving again but also more accomplishments in general in more than 30 years.  Had the GOP not taken over the House in November 2010, Obama could have done a hell of a lot more.

      •  Plenty (1+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        CarolinNJ
        Hidden by:
        leftykook

        We've been over it dozens of times. He's not that bright and the nation's economic problems are in his rearview mirror.

        "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

        by Betty Pinson on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:46:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not convinced (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dancing Frog

          How exactly is President Obama supposed to be able to do more economic initiatives?  Most of what a President can do is usually dictated by Congress.  It's possible there can be more creative ways Obama can be able to take a stand and help the economy but I haven't seen any real possible options at this point.

          People on Kos have continued to criticize Obama from 2011 and on over not doing much yet during 2009-2010 more accomplishments were made and it was a lot easier to get economic initiatives done.  In fact, most of the debt resolutions and talk were done after John Boner became House Speaker.

          On the contrary, I think President Obama is very bright but just facing a lot of problems right now.  It's so easy to criticize his character when you aren't even the President yourself and dealing with problems on a day to day basis on the inside.  My problem with him is that he's trying too hard to compromise and forgetting that:

          1)  No one wants Chained CPI
          2)  There needs to be more transparency on NSA
          3)  You cannot compromise with today's GOP

          •  Taking Chained CPI off the table (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chuckvw

            would be an excellent start.

            There's also the use of Executive Orders to promote hiring of US workers and purchase of US made supplies and services by government contractors.

            Then, they could start, like, having meetings every week talking about strategies to end unemployment.

            Taking a harder line with the GOP would also help - getting on tv every day, calling them out for obstructing attempts to fix the economy, create jobs, raise the minimum wage.

            Things to NOT do:

            Secret trade agreements that ship US jobs overseas

            Signing bills that gut Dodd Frank, putting the economy at risk again.

            Just a few. It's Saturday night and I don't feel like rehashing all of it.

            "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

            by Betty Pinson on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 06:56:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  He's taking a hard line on climate change now (0+ / 0-)

              So we'll see what happens.  I believe Obama has been sincere from the get-go and really has tried like hell but he's still cleaning up President Bush's mess.

              •  No, he's in campaign mode (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DaddyO

                He's giving speeches saying things people want to hear while raising money. Same thing he does every campaign. He doesn't want to remind voters how bad the economy is because he doesn't want to fix it.

                "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

                by Betty Pinson on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 10:44:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's a bit far fetched (0+ / 0-)

                  Sure, he is raising money but he'a also working his network to try to hold representatives in Congress's feet to the fire so they can act.  At this point, there's only so much he can do with being President with a gridlocked Congress.

                  •  I've worked on scores of Dem political campaigns (0+ / 0-)

                    from local council races to Congressional and Presidential campaigns.  Spend enough time behind the scenes and you'll recognize "campaign mode".

                    I get the impression that too many folks here have only worked on two political campaigns - both for the same candidate in 2008 and 2012.  

                    No offense, but its not enough experience to recognize when someone is campaigning and when they're governing.

                    "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

                    by Betty Pinson on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 09:03:35 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Right but again, we're with a gridlocked Congress (0+ / 0-)

                      This kind of "campaigning" as you refer to it as was done by President Obama from 2009-2011 when he and the Democratic Party were already accomplishing a great deal with regards to the economy.  I don't recall folks on Kos criticizing Obama for not taking action or by saying his campaigning then was a waste of time.

                      By nature, even if President Obama were to take action on his own terms by the economy, yes, that would be grateful but the suggestions you provided raise a bit of uncertainty as to what the end course of action will be.

                      1)  President Obama can direct the U.S. Labor Department to be more proactive on addressing unemployment issues and work on finding solutions but exactly how can this be accomplished aside from information gathering?  It's one thing to address the unemployment situation but it's another thing to take action to reduce it.  What would be the way to reduce unemployment?  More stimulus?  More incentives for businesses to hire unemployed?  Could this be accomplished inside Congress or within the directives of the Oval Office?  As far as I know, if stimulus or business incentives were to come into the picture, then I wouldn't see this being done without Congressional oversight.

                      2)  Can there be significant action taken on reducing unemployment situation without increasing the debt?  Personally, I'm more concerned on the unemployment situation than the debt but how could say the unemployment levels be substantially reduced without increasing the debt?  Debt levels affect flexibility with government actions so even if there are already budgets set in place for operations, initiatives, etc., would action be taken on reducing unemployment be done within the U.S. Labor Department or U.S. Commerce Department but require such action be done over budget or within budget?  If over budget, that requires Congressional oversight.  If within budget, then it can be argued that the U.S. Labor or Commerce Departments shift their priorities to being more proactive on this front re: unemployment.  However, what more could be done with this that already hasn't been done?

                      3)  Why can't Congress hold hearings on unemployment?  Have Elizabeth Warren and others not held hearings on this?

                      •  All very good questions (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        unfangus, bryduck

                        No, we don't need to be in the situation we're in.  

                        Yes, the problems with the economy and unemployment, among other things could have and should have been fixed years ago.  

                        Yes, we could have accomplished these by challenging GOP intransigence in Congress and working around it.

                        The fact that almost NO ONE on Capitol Hill is pursuing these kinds of remedies speaks volumes.

                        Yes, our Dem leaders in DC seem to have abandoned governing in favor of fundraising and campaigning this time around.  They appear to have decided they can still win in spite of the bad economy, in spite of Obama's calls to cut SS and Medicare.

                        They're getting really bad political advice somewhere.  

                        "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

                        by Betty Pinson on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 10:00:40 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  First off, Obama's calls? (0+ / 0-)

                          I've only heard him talk about chained CPI.  I haven't heard him talk about cutting Medicare.,

                          At this point, the best thing I can say is still pressure President Obama and others but make sure the Democratic Party wins back the House and keeps the Senate in 2014.  It's vital for our national security that this happens.

                  •  It's not far-fetched at all (0+ / 0-)

                    When you look at the RESULTS. It's almost the only way to look at it we are left with...

                    But by all means--continue to defend him. Why stop now? It's been going on for years. And it will continue, because that's the way we see his job performance.

                    Maybe this is the time to bring that up? That his job performance is starting to look like Bush's, at the same time in both their terms? That most Americans can see through his bullshit, unlike you?

                    Maybe?

                    Dude, you're a fine person for liking Obama, but it's not about liking him. It really is about what he can do for ME. And the more people you help, the better your Presidency.

                    Helping the most people. Smells like socialism to me. No wonder Obama isn't interested.

                    "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

                    by DaddyO on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 03:11:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Leave the "he's not that bright" to Thug assholes (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z

          ...on FoxNoise!
          ...not only that, if it's not racist bullshit, it's damned close.
          Why don't you just call him "lazy" while you're at it?

          "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

          by leftykook on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:06:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't hiderate that comment but I'm glad (0+ / 0-)

            someone else did. That was a new low, even for Betty Pinson.

            Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

            by Matt Z on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 06:51:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, for crissakes (0+ / 0-)

              Somebody call the Secret Service...no INSULTING of Presidents is allowed any more.

              As far as I'm concerned, Obama is TOO bright. But his talents and brains have only helped in one way: Getting him elected. Governing is definitely his weak spot, and that's not a good thing for legacies, making real change or job approval.

              Seen Obama's job approval lately? It's about where George W. Bush's was in 2005...high forties, and going down. Must be because all those progressives are insulting him in comments threads. Reminds me of the crap I took from John Cole for daring to REPEAT Kos's and Atrios's criticisms of Obama, breathlessly cursing me for helping keep him from re-election. Guess I didn't criticize him enough?  

              Stupid is as stupid does--for Teabaggers AND progressives.

              "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

              by DaddyO on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 03:16:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Did I say anywhere you couldn't insult Obama? (0+ / 0-)

                Plenty of people do it on this site all day long and I don't say a thing. But to say the guy "isn't very bright" is something the idiots on RedState would come up with. It's assinine and has nothing to do with reality.

                Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

                by Matt Z on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 04:24:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  What can he do? Oh, what can he do? (0+ / 0-)

        I don't know what he can do, but I know what YOU can do: Defend him for NOT PERFORMING. Defend him for FAILING. Defend him for capitulating time and again.

        In politics, only one thing counts: Performance. When you fail, you fail. Obama has NOT SUCCEEDED. He has been most excellent at one thing, though: Waiting and hoping it will get better.

        Whether it gets better or not, or it gets better at a glacial pace.

        In 2009, Obama should have corralled the Democrats and threatened the Blue Dogs and actually vetoed legislation instead of attempting to water down the most draconian of the GOP poison pill bills he's VOLUNTARILY, eagerly signed.

        Obama should have concentrated on jobs in 2009 instead of the massive monetary gift that the ACA is to insurance and drug companies. He should have made sure we could all afford the Affordable Care Act before he made us all pay for it. My med costs have QUADRUPLED in the last four years, and if it happened to me, then it happened to millions of other middle class members, too.

        Obama has failed, but fortunately for Obama (and any future Democratic President just as conservative as Obama), the GOP will never win another Presidency--for all the obvious reasons. So Obama has NOT failed, by default. Nice defense, baby, and more important--it's WORKING. And...funny how that all worked. Funny. Obama had a mandate to make a sharp, hard turn to the left...and skews the steering wheel.

        And makes his supporters like it anyway.

        Funny how he pulled that off.

        "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

        by DaddyO on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 03:05:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  True nt (0+ / 0-)

      "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

      by Betty Pinson on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:47:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm sure they started with congressional salaries? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth

    right?

    Or White House salaries and benefits? Or Senate salaries and benefits?

    These are "tough times" after all, right?

  •  still reaping the failure of the 2010 election /nt (6+ / 0-)

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:25:02 PM PDT

  •  Pissing off the people who write the big checks. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth

    And make post-office mega-millionaires.

    “The road to success is always under construction” --Lily Tomlin

    by CarolinNJ on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:28:06 PM PDT

  •  Let it linger (0+ / 0-)

    I haven't seen anything that convinces me it is bad in the aggregate.  These days the less Congress does, the better.

  •  Would Probably Have A Robust Recovery (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth, chuckvw, unfangus

    without the sequester. Much talk about how the unemployment would be lower without it. Combine it with all the other government cutbacks on every level and it is the cause of the weak recovery. So do Democrats they can target there voters on immigration, gun control, reproductive rights and win with an economy still struggling in 2014? Hoping to brag about the lowered deficit. A growing economy helped by government spending would help the deficit as well. It is always the economy stupid. Somehow Democratic leaders don't see it that way.

    •  That seems to be the plan (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Leo Flinnwood, chuckvw

      And they're insane for thinking its right. They only seem to work on BS wedge issues and fundraising.

      "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

      by Betty Pinson on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:42:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If their thumbs were in the screws, it would be (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Leo Flinnwood

        different.  They take care of themselves, there is no public service.  They go into politics the way anyone goes into any other business.

        “The road to success is always under construction” --Lily Tomlin

        by CarolinNJ on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 05:00:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Was Encouraged By Obama Post-Denver (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kmoore61, chuckvw

        during the campaign and how he put the GOP on the ropes with the fiscal cliff. I thought we going to see a dynamic through 2013 just like we saw when Clinton bested Gingrich during the Government shutdown in 1995. Democrats have let up the pressure on the issue even though pressing it would make the case clearly that government action helps provide a vibrant economy. Could be a turning point to how swing voters look at Democratic policies. Very frustrating to watch the inaction and lack of framing on the issue as the talk was that no one would want to see the sequester happen because of the damage.   One of the most depressing things I have seen following politics over the past 35 years and there has been much competition.

        •  I wasn't fooled (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Leo Flinnwood

          His campaign persona has never been very convincing, and I can always tell when he turns it on.

          "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

          by Betty Pinson on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 05:18:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's been an education (0+ / 0-)

            Watching millions of supposedly normal intelligent Americans actually listen to George W. Bush talk, and then VOTE for him...

            Seeing through Obama has been much more difficult, but ever since the health care capitulation, I can't bring myself to listen to ANY of his speeches. Once you get fucked over, it's hard to re-establish trust, and Obama has not even bothered to try.

            He's got it made. Defenders by the score, plenty of Democrats to make up and believe excuses for him, the comfort of a second term, and the GOP Boogie Man to point to every time someone says he's not doing enough.

            I'd like to be Barack Obama. You betcha.

            "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

            by DaddyO on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 03:23:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Nine more years? No I don't think so (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuckvw

    Both sides had better get busy or we'll find replacements.

    There's no need for austerity and no excuse for not moving forward with a plan for economic recovery.

    "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

    by Betty Pinson on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:40:19 PM PDT

    •  It's very simple (0+ / 0-)

      It's time to tax the rich at a rate at which they should be taxed. They've had it their way for decades now, and that old pendulum ain't swingin' anywhere near far to the LEFT as it has to the RIGHT...

      Very, very simple, but thanks to Frank Luntz and FOX News, it's very, very complicated, and so TOO difficult, and, ultimately, impossible to tax the rich at a rate at which they should be taxed.

      So sorry. Try again in three and a half years. Have a nice day!

      "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

      by DaddyO on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 03:26:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And that party needs to have a Progressive (0+ / 0-)

      faction or bloc big enough to warrant said changes.

      Otherwise, that one party will be filled with enough oligarchs to not matter.

      We saw this in the health care debate.  The GOP said "no" and as a party opposed the ACA, and we found out that most Democrats are coin operated Democrats, not Progressive Democrats.

      So we need our party majority, but we need to clean up our party too.

      ***Be Excellent To One Another***
      IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

      by potatohead on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 11:24:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't we kinda already have that? n/t (0+ / 0-)

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 08:58:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That is why the deal was so atrocious (0+ / 0-)

    You don't give all the money to your opponent and then trust him to be good.  But that is what Obama did when he negotiated this thing. Any lawyer who ever negotiated a parking-lot fender bender could have done better.

    •  Depends on who the parking-lot fender bender (0+ / 0-)

      lawyer is negotiating for.  (Or for whom, if you insist.)  I've seen lawyers work both sides of the table.

      “The road to success is always under construction” --Lily Tomlin

      by CarolinNJ on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 05:08:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  so limbaugh was right (0+ / 0-)

    limbaugh (and probably most of the rest of the radio gods) spent weeks before the debt ceiling deadline assuring the teabaggers default couldn't happen. then as it got closer he told them IF we defaulted not only would it be no big deal, it would actually force obama to make cuts they wanted. (diary on it -  http://www.dailykos.com/...  )

    the tea party is the talk radio base- the teabaggers listened to him and sequestration was the compromise- about the only thing limbaugh was wrong on was across the board cuts.

    and this was another great eg of RW radio success.  another result of the left ignoring talk radio while it continues to dominate media and politics with its alternate reality, force compromise, hamstring another dem president, and short circuit democracy.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 05:15:50 PM PDT

  •  My parents just got letters telling them (0+ / 0-)

    that their Social Security checks, which they used to get on the 4th Wednesday of each month, would now go out on the 3rd day of each month, with the first one on July 3rd, representing June's payment. Thing is, they each just got their checks this past Wednesday, so I'm wondering if they won't actually get their next check till August 3rd, meaning that Social Security just bought itself a week or so extra float, and if so if this is due to the sequester.

    Has Social Security been affected by the sequester in any way?

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 08:04:42 PM PDT

  •  Let me get this straight.... (0+ / 0-)

    There are people who BELIEVE Obama and the Cons DIDN'T WANT the sequester cuts to go into effect and "linger"?

    BWAAAAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-!!!!!

    The modern Democrat is one who promotes old GOP ideas and calls them progressive in comparison to new GOP ideas.

    by masswaster on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 10:52:04 PM PDT

  •  Where, may I ask, are the (0+ / 0-)

    differences between Dems and GOP in the elite leadership again?

    Remember how Fast the STOCK Act "gutting" passed BOTH HOuses with Full Cooperation?
    Remember when they, at Lightening Speed Passed Refunding Sequester Funbding to the FAA in order to fly their asses home on time? Remewmber when Jan Scvhkowski (I believe it was) that came out an Admitted they Do vote often for their Own Benefit?

    Wake up! Call these fkng Dems Out in the Same way we call out the GOP! Lets for once, "see" and deal with this 800# Gorilla.

    They both want this.  The sequester has within it gifts for Them by denying Us the services our tax dollars are meant to fund.

    They allude that they are powerless to stop the GOP--they are the Victims while holding the Majority in the Senate?

    Failure to Object and voting For it in the House is an Excuse?

    "We had no choice but to hurt you so we could get "it" passed"  to "fix it", is reasoning we accepted?

    As hard as it is to accept-Democrats SUCK and Lie and are Just as Owned by and work For Corporations as the GOP and if the Antics in DC don't convince you? Review voting records with an open mind.
    Granted there are More Dems working For the people than GOP--but they are the minority and are always "out-ranked and out-monied".

  •  Where have we seen this movie before? (0+ / 0-)

    "If only we shit on the Democrats more, things will be better."

    Ah yes, now I remember. . . . the Ralph Nader playbook. And that worked out soooooo well in 2000.

    Grow the f___ up, people.

    We need to take back the House in '14, and abolish the filibuster in July.

    Shitting on the Democrats because of Republican obstructionism accomplishes nothing, and is incredibly stupid.

  •  One of the unintended side effects (0+ / 0-)

    of the sequester is that the cuts piss off the very federal employees that are supposed to investigate corporate abuses by private companies. How would you feel if the fed processing your claim of abuse doesn't have much sympathy for it, even though you have faced years of oppressive tactics, just because the fed investigator has suffered a few months of cutbacks? It's happening, and it ain't pretty. It gives the corporate abusers even more of a green light to clamp the iron boot on the necks of the workers.

  •  I see this differently (0+ / 0-)

    It is austerity spread out over some period of time, and it sucks, and it's wrong, and all the basic things we oppose about it are all true, as are the remedies many of us propose.

    What I see is austerity through inaction.  Obama basically defaulted to an austerity program, "Nobody got fired for buying IBM" style.  Much of the world buys into the false economic ideology that says we must cut to balance the budget and that we need private industry to take up the slack, supply side shit.

    So Obama defaulted to the safe path, and all of the factions arguing for more of it, none of it, less of it, whatever got packaged up into a body that probably could not resolve it differently, but on the off chance they would, Obama entertained it all.

    At the end of the day, putting the nation onto a growth path requires spending.  And we know that spending can happen, and we know it can happen without all the boogy man inflationary effects so often cited as the primary reason life needs to suck hard right now so that we can properly pay for corporate largess.

    This is on us.  When I talk with my peers, NONE of them really understand how the money system really works.  NONE of them understand that the money system is actually fluid and that we never run out of money at all, but instead are valued based on the worth associated with that money and the promise to labor in ways that justify that worth.

    Essentially, we need to labor big to increase our value, fund middle class lives and generate opportunity which private industry can react to, augment and it all pays off many times over and life is good!

    All it will take is the political will to put those people to work, some value vision to justify that work and insure the money reflects real value, not give away kinds of things that are harmful on many levels, and acceptance of our money system, role of business and how that all works to bring us better times, and if we do it right, lead the world.

    Seems fairly simple, but it's not.  It's not because the oligarchs want shitty times so they can own everything to a degree that we are locked in, unable to really compete with the order they will have established, leaving them in control of things, no worries about having to compete or be held accountable by the people they actually serve.

    Remember, all that private business operates under license, and it's a license from US, granting them permission to do business and we grant it because we know that business is to our benefit when it adds value.

    However, business doesn't want to be held to account in that way.  It just wants money, and it serves as a proxy for it's owners to do just about anything they want to do without that accountability, other than their fellow business peers, and government, people, citizens, which they like to call consumers, have nothing at all to say about it because they are the creators, they change the world, and we should lick their boots or grovel in poverty forever.

    Never mind that they would have us grovel in poverty anyway...  Nobody talks about that, because that is what happens when business actually gets governed and forced to serve us and add value instead of rent seek, extort and take value because it can.

    All of the GOP is business friendly.  They accept the authoritarian vision of business as king, government as mere protector and FREEDOM!  Pillage, rape, burn, whatever it takes to make the money, rule the people and build a fiefdom to take one's proper place as lord of whatever niche it is...

    Problem for us is way too many Democrats buy into this, or at the least believe it has to happen, leaving only a Progressive faction and a small Independent faction who know otherwise.

    That's just not enough.  We saw this during the time when Pelosi was the House Speaker.  Good things happened.  The hammer of regression was held back a time or two and we saw the beginning of progress.

    Even that progress favored business, never really challenging the status quo, and that challenge never happened because far too few of us get it, and because we don't get it, Congress doesn't get it either.

    Huge amounts of money are at stake here.  The misinformation broadcast 24/7 is there to keep people unaware of the simple reality:

    We can choose to labor our way to prosperity, and our government can fund that and we can all profit from it without business getting in the way.

    They just want their cut --enough of a cut to prevent us from realizing government can work, and should work.

    So it's on us people!  So long as we pie-fight about it, we remain impotent and the default is austerity, because that is the only thing business can see!

    Government isn't a business.  It can spend without taxing or borrowing, it can fund labor to add value to the nation, it can execute visions, secure rights of way, permits, whatever it needs to do in order to get stuff done and when we the people need big stuff done, it is there to make those things happen.

    Business wants to do this, because it wants to own everything, no public commons, no opportunity to build a life without paying a thick cut to all the owners who treat us like cattle that eat goods and shit cash.

    It is on us.  And my only question is:  "How bad does it have to get before we get our basic priorities in order?"

    Right now, it's not bad enough.  Too many of us are willing to entertain economic fantasy land, buy into the authoritarian view that mandates austerity, because we are BROKE, or TOO MUCH DEBT, whatever the lie is.

    Blame Obama all you want.  It sucks, but it sucks because he had no credible alternative to explore because the political will isn't there and it's not there because the money is winning.  Lies, misinformation, fear, buying votes, you name it, the money is winning.

    The slow ramp of this thing may prove to catalyze people and drive more Progressive elections and if we can get enough mindshare, Progressive legislation.

    But it's on us.  Make no mistake.  We have to decide what is worth what, focus and combat the money with basic labor to get the message out, our own money, and votes.

    No votes = Austerity.

    General "Let's elect Democrats" votes = Tepid austerity.

    Progressive votes = A turn away from austerity.

    ***Be Excellent To One Another***
    IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

    by potatohead on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 11:22:24 AM PDT

  •  Right, because that worked so well ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... the last time:

    However, if the White House and congressional Democrats started making a real case with the public that these mindless cuts are hurting real people
    That is either willful ignorance and just plain dumb.

    Before the sequester officially hit, the WH and Congressional Dems worked together to make a series of public speeches and announcements about the hit to transportation, education, services, etc.

    That is EXACTLY what they did!

    And what was the national media reaction? Editorial pages and the "fact checkers" called them LIARS. The WH & Dems were torn to shreds and said they lacked "credibility".

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site