Sky didn't fall

According to President Obama, the sequester would just about end civilization as we know it. We were told the border would not be properly patrolled; hundreds of teachers would lose their jobs; cops and firefighters would be off the job. Real wrath-of-God type stuff! Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!

Well, Obama failed to provoke mass hysteria and now he is walking backwards. Even the usually friendly media is calling him on his crazy-talk. Liberal lions like Bob Woodward are now on Obama's enemies list for telling the truth about what Obama said before he changed his talking points. Obama dislikes people with good memories.

There is one big change. Obama is finally done blaming Bush for all his problems. In the second term, he will blame the sequester.

But let's think about one thing. Perhaps it will be harmful to the economy to take $85 billion out of the economy. Leave aside the fact that the Obama tax increases will drain out $600 billion.

Obama can stimulate the economy w/o adding a dime to the deficit. In fact, he can make money. The Keystone pipeline will add around $101 billion to the U.S. economy, even at the lower end of the estimates. Obama can approve this tomorrow and put all the money back plus some extra.

Posted by Christine & John at March 1, 2013 5:14 PM
Comments
Comment #362174

C/J writes; “There is one big change. Obama is finally done blaming Bush for all his problems. In the second term, he will blame the sequester.”

Good analysis! I had not thought about that as a possible reason for his acting like such a political amateur.

I got up early this morning and sat on my South facing deck with my black coffee and cigar expecting to see airplanes falling from the sky. Nothing happened. Later, at the coffee shop I saw my usual police and fireman pals and they were on duty. Just to be certain that I was awake I drove past a few schools in my area and the parking lots were full of cars.

Hmmm…what the hell is going on when you can’t trust the president’s word?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 1, 2013 6:11 PM
Comment #362176

I don’t get you guys. Reducing spending and the size of government has been the single core principle of conservatism for the past several years. Here, with the sequester, you achieve exactly what you demanded for so long, and your reaction? It’s Obama’s fault! It’s his idea! It’s no big deal! Why won’t he negotiate with us! Obama is a very bad man!

You should be celebrating. You should be high-fiving and chest bumping. Instead, you can’t run fast or far enough from this reduction in spending and reduction in the size of government.

Has it occurred to you that this might actually work out ok?

Posted by: phx8 at March 1, 2013 6:23 PM
Comment #362177

Jeez phx8…can’t you understand our glee? what the hell do we have to say. It’s great! Don’t you get it? The Prez has egg all over his face and three feet in his mouth. I can’t wait for Act 11.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 1, 2013 6:32 PM
Comment #362178

phx8

For days now, I have been writing post saying that President Obama and his folks were just being silly about the cuts. Meanwhile the President and his people went nuts, hysterical.

Now Obama just looks stupid and you guys are trying to pretend that he didn’t say all those stupid things. Sorry, but we have the tapes. We have the tapes of Obama defending the sequester and saying he would veto attempts to get rid of it. We have the tape of him telling us the borders would not be patrolled, teachers would be laid off. We have the tapes of president Obama dodging responsibility to prioritize programs.

I still think Obama wants to cause as much pain in America as he can. He is a poor leader and I am beginning to fear not a good man.

Posted by: C&J at March 1, 2013 6:41 PM
Comment #362179

I’m not saying the sequester cuts will have no repercussions. They will. Cutting government means… well… cutting government. It’s pretty simple. I don’t understand why conservatives would claim they want to cut spending and reduce the size of government, then react so negatively when they successfully cut spending and reduce the size of government. This is EXACTLY what you claimed you wanted for so long, and now that the day is here, just look at yourselves. Instead of celebrating, most of you seem to be primarily concerned with blaming Obama.

I don’t get you guys. Conservatism seems to stand for nothing whatsoever. Really. Nothing. It seems to amount to nothing more than reflexive opposition to Obama, and taking money from rich donors.

Posted by: phx8 at March 1, 2013 6:51 PM
Comment #362180

phx8…you are capable of understanding, you simply choose not to.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 1, 2013 7:10 PM
Comment #362181

Royal Flush,
As a liberal and a Keynsian, I have an opinion of what will eventually result from cutting spending and reducing the size of government. It will take time to develop, and the results will be bad, because people do, in fact, like their government services, and because the sequester could eventually contribute to a mild recession.

And I think that, before anything does develop, the two sides will step out of the spotlight and quietly arrange a compromise.

But look at your own comments. You seem much more concerned with Obama than the success of your own cause. The Obama administration and the Democrats wanted to negotiate revenue increases along with spending cuts, on the theory that this discussion was about the deficit and debt.

But it was never really about that, was it?

This was about cutting spending and limiting the size of government, and that is why revenue increases were off the table.

And so, conservatives refused to negotiate. Your side gave nothing away, nothing, and achieved an elusive goal that has been pursued for a very long time without success. Cutting spending and reducing the size of government hasn’t ever really happened before, and yet, here we are today.

Congratulations. This is what conservatives said they wanted for a very long time, and now they’ve achieved it.

Why on earth wouldn’t you celebrate? Unless denouncing Obama now qualifies as conservative celebration.

Posted by: phx8 at March 1, 2013 7:42 PM
Comment #362182

“The Obama administration and the Democrats wanted to negotiate revenue increases along with spending cuts, on the theory that this discussion was about the deficit and debt.

But it was never really about that, was it?”

Really? Did you miss the revenue increase? I certainly didn’t and neither did other Americans.

Have you read the latest scheme by the IRS to raise billions in revenue off of every single American?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 1, 2013 7:50 PM
Comment #362183

phx8

It was the President and his people who went nuts with hysteria. You are just plain wrong. Read what I wrote days ago. This is what a leading Republican senator said last week:

President Obama is exaggerating the impact of the across-the-board federal spending cuts known as the sequester, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)

“Absolutely,” Coburn responded on “Fox News Sunday,” when asked whether Obama was overstating the impact of the cuts, which are set to begin Friday. The Republican later added: ”There [are] easy ways to cut this money that the American people will never feel.”

We are the moderates here. You guys were hysterics. You can back down now, but you cannot put it on us.

Posted by: C&J at March 1, 2013 8:19 PM
Comment #362184

People on the left weren’t the only ones engaging in hyperbole about the sequester. Ever watch Hannity, or listen to Beck or Limbaugh?

Is it an exaggeration? Are you sure? If the sequester is still in effect in six weeks then we may get the chance to see.

I wouldn’t want to be in your position.

Conservatives have won a great victory. You defeated Obama. You defeated the Democrats. You didn’t negotiate anything away, and now you are going to get what you have been demanding for a long time. You have cut spending and limited government. Shouldn’t you be celebrating?

Royal Flush,
The Fiscal Cliff negotiations resulted in the end of the Payroll Tax Holiday and tax hikes that rolled back only 17% of the Bush tax cuts, among other things. Is that what you are referring to?

Posted by: phx8 at March 1, 2013 10:26 PM
Comment #362185

He only just signed the order executing the law today. If your thinking is, somehow, that the pain will be short and sharp, you’re being far too optimistic.

That seems to be a bad habit among Republicans, when it comes to situations that could make them look bad. There’s no wait and see attitude, you always KNOW how things are going to turn out, even it, as in most cases, it doesn’t turn out like planned.

Remember stay the course? What you were saying before you pushed for the surge instead? Remember letting Lehman Brother’s go bankrupt? Remember saying that the Taliban were all but defeated, and that it was really not that important to get Osama?

When are you going to learn that a bird in hand is worth two in the bush, and a stitch in time saves nine?

Or more importantly, when are you going to learn not to depend so heavily on your expectations?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 1, 2013 11:34 PM
Comment #362187

Stephen

I think that the professionals running government agencies can implement a 5% cut in such a way that it causes very little pain and may even improve operations by forcing them to focus more clearly on their priorities.

I think there will only be significant pain and disruptions if political leadership, i.e. Obama folks, mess up the management or demand it.

The world is complex. Obama’s predictions and your expectations from 2009 are in ruins. I don’t blame you all for not being able to foresee the future, but I do blame you for just trying to shift the blame to others.

“Remember stay the course? What you were saying before you pushed for the surge instead?” -

You understand the world like one of your video games, where you make a move and the outcomes depend only on you. In the real world, of which you know little, there is lots of noise and unexpected feedback.

I have been studying this thing for a long time. We - Americans - made lots of mistakes in Iraq. Some of that had to do with doctrines and expectation by many people.

We were learning and trying to get things right in a changing environment. We finally did an outstanding job in the surge, where we defeated an Islamic terror group on a battlefield of its choosing. This gave us the chance to change the game. W/o the surge, you could not have had the Arab spring. I believe that future historians will fault president Obama for his lack of leadership in helping shape these trends, but it is too soon to tell and I don’t know enough detail.


There are two excellent books you should read. One is “the Generals” by Tom Ricks and the other is “the Insurgents” by Fred Kaplan. There is an older book that gives a flavor of the experience in Iraq called “the Strongest Tribe” by Bing West. After you have read these and have some idea about how the systems work, we can talk. But until you know more, I respectfully ask you to lay off this subject.

I dislike saying this to you, but in your case, as in that of case of some others in other subjects, you really do lack the basic understanding that you would need to be able to talk to me about this.


Phx8
Re exaggeration - “ever watch Limbaugh” - actually I do not. He is a commentator and entertainer who holds no official position in the Republican party. But I saw the President of the United States and leading cabinet officers engaging in crazy talk that often was plain not true and had to be walked back.

Re defeating Obama - Obama defeated himself. This is not a great outcome for conservatives or for America. We should have come to some agreement between congress and president Obama, but both sides were too dug in, so it came to this. It is nobodies favorite outcome, but it is better than simply adding to the deficit, as was the default option otherwise.

Posted by: C&J at March 2, 2013 6:40 AM
Comment #362190

C&J,

“Re exaggeration - “ever watch Limbaugh” - actually I do not. He is a commentator and entertainer who holds no official position in the Republican party.”

Yet he seems to be the de facto head of the party. If he is to be believed, he holds sway over a vast number of dittoheads that hang on his every word, and thus he influences policy like no other in this country.

Re ever watch Limbaugh; I wish I had a nickel for every non sourced quote of Limbaugh’s on these pages. For someone that claims an audience the size he does it, seems nobody is actually listening to him.

Interestingly enough, I was listening to Glen Beck on the radio the other night. He was shilling for subscribers for his web casts because he claims that conservatives have no source for information other than Fox News.

No irony there.

Speaking of irony, it was reported in the LA Times that during the various “gun appreciation day” rallies held in January 5 gun enthusiasts were inadvertently injured when loaded guns went off “accidentally”.

Perhaps the “gun nuts” will just take themselves out of the equation by accident.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 2, 2013 11:13 AM
Comment #362191

Rocky

“Yet he seems to be the de facto head of the party.” - he can say what he wants. It doesn’t make it true. He obviously can make trouble for both parties, but that doesn’t make him a legitimate leader. In fact, he CAN make so much trouble because he is not a leader.

One of the criticism I made of Obama is that he behaves more like Limbaugh than a leader. He criticizes w/o taking responsibility.

In any case, I don’t listen to Limbaugh. I never have. His type of commentary is not interesting to me. Most of my radio is liberal leaning NPR, which I listen to on podcasts and Brazilian live radio.

Re non-sourced comments - ideas are generally spread and it is hard to tell where one comes from. They also change and combine. Beyond that, it is possible and even likely that two people looking at the same thing may describe it in similar ways.

Let me state - again - that I have nothing for or against Limbaugh. He is in the same group, IMO, as people like Ed Schultz, Rachael Maddow or Keith Olbermann, who I also don’t listen to except by random chance.


Posted by: C&J at March 2, 2013 11:33 AM
Comment #362193

C&J,

“In any case, I don’t listen to Limbaugh. I never have.”

Whether you personally listen to Limbaugh is immaterial. He does have listeners, and he does influence policy. Much more so than any commentator on the left.

At the moment Obama looks foolish, but no more so than those on the far right that whined about cuts to the Defence Dept. We will see whether or not these issues come to fruition.

BTW, the Defence Dept is already announcing cutbacks.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 2, 2013 11:52 AM
Comment #362194

Could Rocky define a “gun nut” for us? I own a 9mm pistol, a .44 Cal. black powder revolver, a .30-.30 Winchester lever action rifle and a 20 gauge shotgun; does that make me a gun nut? My wife and two boys enjoy going to the American Legion pistol range to fire off a few rounds nearly every month; does that make me a gun nut? I support the Second Amendment; does that make me a gun nut?

Is someone on welfare a “welfare nut”?
Is someone who has had an abortion an “abortion nut”?
Is someone who owns a motor vehicle a “car nut”“

You may call me an American Freedom Loving and Liberty Loving nut all you wish and I will take no offense.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 2, 2013 11:59 AM
Comment #362197

Rocky

Limbaugh has influence like other talk journalists. Influence is not the same as leadership or direction. If you see that Republican leadership is doing something that you believe is Limbaugh inspired, you can criticize what they are doing but the source of their inspiration is beside the point.

Re Obama looking foolish - It goes beyond that. Limbaugh, when he says something stupid, looks foolish. He has influence, but no responsibility. When Obama says stupid things, he is worse since he is talking with the authority and the responsibility of the president of the United States.

Obama’s recent antic were frightening. He said some pretty stupid things. If he did not believe what he said, it is frightening that he would play politics with our nation’s future in such a mendacious way. If he did believe those things he said, it is even worse since it shows monumental ignorance.

Limbaugh and Obama & his folks in recent weeks have said untrue and inflammatory things. Limbaugh has influence. People may listen to him if they want and they may act on what they hear. Obama & folks are in power. Their words carry with them power and meaning. They have no right to speak so loosely.

Posted by: C&J at March 2, 2013 12:21 PM
Comment #362198

Royal,

Owning 4 guns and a fireable collector’s piece sounds reasonable.

Did you rush out, as many did, to buy up as much ammunition as you could because you believed that the first thing Obama would do when he was elected the first time was to take your guns and ammo away?

Funny how that didn’t happen.

I too own a gun, a Marlin lever action 45/70, but I also don’t suffer with the delusion that tomorrow Obama will order somebody in a tank to roll down my street to take it away from me.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 2, 2013 12:31 PM
Comment #362200

Thanks for the response Rocky. You do realize however that what may be “reasonable” to you or me, may not be the same with everyone. It makes no difference if one owns 4 firearms or 400 firearms, as long as they are legal it is reasonable in their minds or they wouldn’t do it. And, they are free to exercise their own desires as it does not infringe on the rights of, or burden, others.

The question of “reasonableness” is a constant source of contention between the left and right. If one has gobs of money some will proclaim that it is unreasonable and some should be taxed away and given to others. Why is that reasonable?

The beauty of our constitution is that we are all free to indulge in whatever we deem to be reasonable as long as we don’t infringe upon the rights of others and whatever we indulge in is legal.

In my youthful and single days I believed it was unreasonable for me to date more than one woman at a time. Many of my friends believed otherwise. Were any of us unreasonable? NO.

Whether an action is reasonable should depend upon the consequences of that action. If I drink too much alcohol and cause damage to my body or harm someone in a drunken state that is unreasonable.

You ask if I bought up ammo for fear that obama would make it hard to get. No, I didn’t and wish I had. I have not been able to purchase shells for my 9mm at Walmart for over two months as they don’t have any. A few days ago I checked Walmart’s ammo shelves and there were only a few boxes of shotgun shells available.

Rocky, can you tell me why ammo is so scarce? I know, do you?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 2, 2013 1:08 PM
Comment #362207

What a lying piece of shit Obama is; after weeks of predicting financial Armageddon and the collapse of the American economy, if the sequester is allowed to take place, he comes out with this statement:

“After weeks of outlining the dire consequences of the looming across-the-board spending cuts, President Obama tonight softened his warnings, saying the sequester is “not a cliff, but it is a tumble downward.”

With a little over 48 hours to avert $85 billion in cuts, the president told business executives “it’s conceivable that in the first week, the first two weeks, the first three weeks, the first month — that unless your business is directly related to the Defense Department, unless you live in a town that is directly impacted by a military installation, unless you’re a family that now is trying to figure out where to keep your kids during the day because you just lost a Head Start slot — a lot of people may not notice the full impact of the sequester.”

But, he made clear “this is going to be a big hit on the economy.”

“It means that you have fewer customers with money in their pockets ready to buy your goods and services,” he told the Business Council in Washington. ”It means that the global economy will be weaker… And the worst part of it is it’s entirely unnecessary.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/obama-backs-off-warnings-about-sequester/

What a liar; the sequester was never about cutting anything, it was about a minute blocking of base line budgeting increases. Why would anyone lose their jobs if nothing was cut???

I get so tired of his liberal/socialist lying BS. On top of that, it was Obama who required the current sequesters to take place. Obama passed the Sequester Bill into law during the 2011 debt ceiling debate.

Posted by: Libertarian at March 2, 2013 4:40 PM
Comment #362208

Libertarian

We should not call our president a lying piece of shit.

I disagree with many of his policies and consider that he is a poor leaders, but he was elected by a majority of the American voters.

Posted by: C&J at March 2, 2013 5:21 PM
Comment #362209

Now that’s funny:

1) Obama warned the sequester would be terrible, then, not so bad.

2) Not only is it not so bad, the sequester actually doesn’t cut anything.

3) It was Obama’s idea!

Awesome post.

C&J,
The political consequences of the sequester debate will fall heavily on the Republican’s heads. That is why they cannot celebrate cutting spending and limiting government. That is why they are desperate to avoid responsibility for cutting spending and limiting government.

They just lost an election to a popular president, including the loss of seats in both the House and the Senate. Since then, according to a Bloomberg poll, Obama’s popularity has increased (55%), while GOP popularity has dropped six points. Dropped. Six. Points. And the Tea Party is even more unpopular than Republicans- which really takes some doing- and their politicians and web sites are on record as supporting and approving of the sequester.

The GOP has been criticized for being obstructionist and unwilling to compromise. This debate re-inforces that perception.

With the sequester, an opposition party that lost an election badly, and has dropped in the polls since then, now imposes legislation without popular support.

Not smart.

Worse, it sets up a terrible dynamic the GOP cannot win. If we see a recession this summer, guess who gets the blame? All those furloughs will have very real consequences, as well as all those cancelled/delayed contracts. The CBO estimates a full year of sequester cuts would result in 750,000 lost jobs. Delayed flight? Blame the GOP. An outbreak of food poisoning due to lack of FDA inspection? Same. The list goes on and on. It’s a bad position to be in, and I suspect the GOP will quietly back down in a few weeks.

Of course, they could go all in, and shut down the government in the budget negotiations. In for a penny, in for a pound.


Posted by: phx8 at March 2, 2013 6:48 PM
Comment #362210

Royal,

“It makes no difference if one owns 4 firearms or 400 firearms, as long as they are legal it is reasonable in their minds or they wouldn’t do it. And, they are free to exercise their own desires as it does not infringe on the rights of, or burden, others.”

At what point does a hobby become an obsession?

Look, I’m a reasonable guy, but owning 400 guns just because you can seems a bit silly. I am not against it, but anyone that wants to waste his money buying up weapons and ammo seems obsessive to me.
I can and do question the sanity of anyone that feels the need to own even 40 guns.

As far as the availibility of ammo, I have read many things but I really don’t know.

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 2, 2013 7:09 PM
Comment #362211

“….it was Obama who required the current sequesters to take place. Obama passed the Sequester Bill into law during the 2011 debt ceiling debate.”

Nonsense. It was Congress that passed the law with full Republican support. Obama did sign it but it was Congress that passed it.

Posted by: Rich at March 2, 2013 7:16 PM
Comment #362212

phx8

Obama proposed sequester. Both parties in congress embraced it. That is the fact and all else lies.

Obama engaged in lots of crazy talk leading up to the sequester in an apparent attempt to scare the American people and stampede Republicans into a hasty deal. When he saw it was not working in the final days, he backpeddled quick as he could. You can see the tapes of Obama a couple weeks ago and a couple days ago. In fact, I am sure there will be lots of comparisons made. This is just the history.

The small cuts in the budget need not cause serious harm and may actually be beneficial if they force managers to focus on priorities. I wrote this when Obama was in full hysteria mode and I didn’t change when he came around more to my point of view. I will continue on this line when he again changes his spots.

Re the bad politics for the GOP - maybe you are right, but the alternative on caving to Obama again would have been worse for them and worse for the country. Obama is not interested in cutting the deficit. He just wants to tax more.

RE Obama being popular - 51% of the American people approve of him. He is as popular was GW Bush was at the same point in his career and less popular than any other president since these poll started to be taken.

RE shutting down government - I expect Republicans will pass a budget. I doubt the Democratic Senate will or that Obama will accept. At that point, it is possible that Obama will order a government shutdown. But the choice will be Obama’s. Maybe it will work for him, maybe not.

Rich

Obama proposed sequester. Both parties in congress embraced it. That is the fact and all else lies. We cannot blame only Obama, but Obama doesn’t get to blame anybody else. Beyond that, Obama is the single person most responsible for the sequester and its consequences.

Posted by: C&J at March 2, 2013 7:40 PM
Comment #362215

A kidnapper takes a hostage. The kidnapper demands a ransom from the hostage’s family. After negotiations, the family offers to wire the ransom money to a Swiss bank account.

Wiring the money may be the family’s idea, but that does not make the family responsible for the kidnapping or ransom demand.

Posted by: phx8 at March 2, 2013 8:20 PM
Comment #362216

phx8

So you think that controlling the budget is tantamount to a kidnapping?

Is there nothing that you attribute to the most powerful man in the world? Evidently you believe that all power resides with speaker of the House.

Beyond that it is Obama’s fault in a very real way beside his proposing sequester. Reid, Pelosi, McConnell & Boehner had a deal. The president himself - Obama rejected the compromise.

Posted by: C&J at March 2, 2013 8:44 PM
Comment #362217

“So you think that controlling the budget is tantamount to a kidnapping?”

Yes, when the threat is to default on the full faith and credit of US debt by refusing to increase the debt ceiling, then yes, absolutely, that is tantamount to kidnapping.

The House can cause great damage to the country. That is true for any branch of the government. The power of the Executive Branch comes from its concentration in one person. The powers of the Judicial and Legislative branches are distributed.

Posted by: phx8 at March 2, 2013 9:56 PM
Comment #362218

phx8

As I have told Stephen many times, I think conservatives should be very proud. We strike such fear into liberals. Even when we control only one part of the government, you all are scared. Even when you all had control of all three branches and a super majority, you still lived in constant fear of conservatives.

It reminds me a little of other irrational fears.

But evidently you think Obama is worthless. He is at the mercy of the great John Boehner.

But there is one problem with your version. As I wrote Republicans in congress agreed with Democrats in congress and it was Obama who rejected what they agreed. SO he is the one who wrecked the compromise and is the hypothetical kidnapper.

BTW - if the debt ceiling is not raised, the U.S. does NOT default. Tax income pays for most of the government’s operations and it can pay ALL the interest and debt service. Obama has borrowed a lot of money, but not 100%.

Posted by: C&J at March 2, 2013 10:23 PM
Comment #362221

If the debt ceiling is not raised, there is a choice: default, or servicing the interest only, while cutting the federal budget by 44%. A cut of that magnitude would instantly contract GDP by 9%, resulting in an economic depression.

Fear? You mean fear of people who advocate default or economic depression, unless their ideological demands are met. Well, fear is one word for it. There are a lot of other words to describe it, too.

To be fair, about a third of the House Republicans have been willing to work with the Democrats through Speaker Boehner. It is the other two thirds of the GOP that have been rigid and unwilling to compromise. Those are the ones who have been waging the War on Women, the sustained legislative assault against women’s issues. Those are the ones whose noxious policies have delivered 71% of the latino vote and 94% of the black vote, along with the votes of the LGBT community, the young, and the old, to the Democrats. That other two thirds is what Gov Jindal was referring to when he told conservatives at the RNC that ‘we have to stop being the stupid party.’ Those are the ones who blocked relief after Hurricane Sandy.

Here is what the most popular Republican governor in the country said about relief for the victims of Hurricane Sandy. Remember, this was the keynote speaker for the 2012 GOP convention:

“Last night, the House majority failed most basic test of leadership and they did so with callous disregard to the people of my state. … It was disappointing and disgusting to watch… There’s only one group to blame … the House majority, and their Speaker, John Boehner…” The bill “just could not overcome the toxic internal politics of the House majority.”

Boehner has lost control of his caucus. He now legislates with only a third of his party behind him, because that third can be counted on to negotiate, compromise, and vote with Democrats. The GOP majority has become so toxic, so ideologically divorced from reality, that they no longer function in a positive manner. They push for things like the sequester.

Posted by: phx8 at March 2, 2013 11:30 PM
Comment #362227

phx8


“You should be celebrating. You should be high-fiving and chest bumping. Instead, you can’t run fast or far enough from this reduction in spending and reduction in the size of government.”


Make no mistake we’re happy even though the cuts are miniscule. Oh and they’re not really cuts per say. They are a small decrease in the annual increase in gov’t spending. What is sad is that Obama is seeking to make these small reductions in growth as painful as possible. A perfect example would be a law enforcement agency needing to trim 2% of its budget increase for the next year, and instead of cutting things like coffee, and doughnuts they decide to grandstand like a the world is coming to an end and tell the public they won’t be able to provide the officers with bullets for the guns.

Posted by: dbs at March 3, 2013 9:26 AM
Comment #362228

It’s a bit premature to say “The sky didn’t fall” on day one of the sequestration. If this lasts we’ll see what short term impact this has on an economy that is once again picking up steam in the Winter only to be threatened by partisan gridlock and uncertainty as Spring and Summer approach.

But by all means let’s hear a chorus of folks saying Obama is a poor leader if he can’t fix this all by himself. He should be able to just come up with a compromise. After all he’s the most powerful man in the solar system. It’s the same folks that call him a dictator every time he issues an executive order.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at March 3, 2013 9:57 AM
Comment #362229

“I disagree with many of his policies and consider that he is a poor leaders, but he was elected by a majority of the American voters.”

Posted by: C&J at March 2, 2013 5:21 PM

Regarding the Obama POS, I call a spade a spade. And, I guess it depends on how many times Obama voters and illegals voted. C&J, the difference between you and me, is that I have no respect for the communist SOB; he has degraded America and the office of the president. He deserves no respect. He and his wife are nothing more than a couple of lazy Chicago blacks who are out for all they can get. When the campaigner and chief opens his mouth, he is lying. He is a joke.

“Royal,
“It makes no difference if one owns 4 firearms or 400 firearms, as long as they are legal it is reasonable in their minds or they wouldn’t do it. And, they are free to exercise their own desires as it does not infringe on the rights of, or burden, others.”
At what point does a hobby become an obsession?
Look, I’m a reasonable guy, but owning 400 guns just because you can seems a bit silly. I am not against it, but anyone that wants to waste his money buying up weapons and ammo seems obsessive to me.
I can and do question the sanity of anyone that feels the need to own even 40 guns.
As far as the availibility of ammo, I have read many things but I really don’t know.
Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 2, 2013 7:09 PM”

Tell us Rocky, do you believe Jay Leno is obsessed with collecting antique cars? Does he have the right to own as many cars as he wants, or should the government be allowed to tell him what to own? Should doll collectors or stamp collectors be told by the government how many they can own? NO, it is none of the governments business.

“Nonsense. It was Congress that passed the law with full Republican support. Obama did sign it but it was Congress that passed it.
Posted by: Rich at March 2, 2013 7:16 PM”

The “buck stops here” Rich; Obama doesn’t have to sign anything he don’t want. It was a democrat controlled congress that pushed the bill that Obama signed.

I notice the scum liberals on this site refused to argue that base line budgeting automatically raises funding each year and that the sequesters have not really cut anything. the sequesters merely cut the automatic increases. Only liberal/socialists can call a lack of automatic increase a cut.

Posted by: Libertarian at March 3, 2013 10:06 AM
Comment #362230

phx8

If you don’t raise the debt ceiling, it doesn’t mean you don’t get to have any debt. It just means that they cannot take out any more. You would not need to cut expenditures by 44%. You would just need to cut the growth of spending.

It would not be a good thing, just as the sequester is not a good thing. But continuing to spend and borrow at the levels we have also is not good.

I do not believe Obama wants to get the deficit in control. On the contrary, I believe his strategy is to overfeed the beast. He wants to make government so big and intrusive that his opponents will be forced to raise taxes to support his much bigger footprint.

Republicans may not have been willing to work with Democrats to make this aspriration a reality, but then Democrats were not willing to work with Republicans to avoid it. BUT MOST Republicans and most Democrats DID INDEED have a deal. Obama rejected the compromise.

You tell me that it is not good politics to oppose the Obama push. I don’t know if that is true but I don’t care. I think it is fiscally and morally unsupportable to continue to grow government at the rate Obama has been doing. I have to oppose that, even if it means defeat at the polls.

I read today in the Economist that the Italians have elected officials that reject reform, as have the Greeks and French. This is the “popular will” but it does not help deal with the reality. If I decide that I “need” to spend $100,000 a year but my income is only $50,000, it really doesn’t matter how much I want that.

Adam

Obama told us that teachers, first responder, border agents et al would be first to go. They don’t need to be. Of course most teachers and first responders are NOT Federal employees at all.

Obama was not telling the truth. He was whipping up hysteria and now he is not telling the truth about what he said before. I fear our president thinks that truth is situational, to be deployed at his discretion.

Libertarian

It doesn’t help to call names like that. In fact, it plays into the hands of Obama supporters. They like it when they can call us extremists or racists.

Posted by: C&J at March 3, 2013 10:36 AM
Comment #362234

phx8 writes; “If the debt ceiling is not raised, there is a choice: default, or servicing the interest only, while cutting the federal budget by 44%.”

WHAT? Help me understand what you wrote. Are you saying we must increase the debt ceiling by 44% of the federal budget?

According to Wikipedia the 2013 US revenue requested is $2.902 trillion and the total requested expenditures are $3.803 trillion which give a $901 billion deficit.

44% of $3.803 trillion is $1.673 trillion. Is this the amount you expect the HOR and Senate to agree upon as the increase in the debt limit?

It is official according to the CBO that so far the obama administration has increased the debt limit by a little over $6 trilion…SO FAR. If we assume an increase of $1.673 trillion per year for the remainder of his term we will see a national debt increase of $6.692 trillion.

Can any rational person really expect the HOR and Senate to agree to another $6+ trillion in debt over the next four years?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 3, 2013 12:03 PM
Comment #362236

Libertarian,
Stay classy.

Royal Flush,
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/analysts-failure-to-raise-debt-ceiling-means-44-spending-cut-10-drop-in-gdp-recession/

Posted by: phx8 at March 3, 2013 12:18 PM
Comment #362237

Many liberals along with obama declare that our nation’s infrastructure is in really sad shape and we must spend untold billions for repairs. President Obama has proposed spending $40 billion on “urgent upgrades” to the nation’s infrastructure, saying that “crumbling” roads, bridges, airports and rail lines are hindering U.S. economic growth.

A study by the Reason Foundation reveals that U.S. roads and bridges have improved significantly over a 20-year period.

“There are still plenty of problems to fix, but our roads and bridges aren’t crumbling,” said David Hartgen, lead author of the report and emeritus professor of transportation at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

“The overall condition of the state-controlled road system is getting better and you can actually make the case that it has never been in better shape. The key going forward is to target spending where it will do the most good.”

The Reason Foundation study measured the condition of U.S. roads and bridges from 1989 to 2008, based on seven criteria; highway fatalities; miles of urban interstate highways in poor condition; miles of rural interstates in poor condition; congestion on urban interstates; deficient bridges; rural primary roads in poor condition; and the number of rural primary roads flagged as too narrow.

Here’s what the researchers found:

Eleven states made progress in all seven categories, and 37 states improved in at least five of the seven. Only one state, California, showed improvement in less than three areas, making progress in just two.

The U.S. fatality rate lessened from 2.16 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles in 1989 to 1.25 fatalities in 2008, a decrease of about 42 percent. The fatality rate improved in all 50 states over that 20-year period.

The percentage of deficient bridges fell from 37.8 percent in 1989 to 23.7 percent in 2008.

The percentage of urban interstates in poor condition decreased from 6.6 percent to 5.4 percent. In Missouri, urban interstate mileage in poor condition plunged from 47 percent to just 1.3 percent over the period studied.

The percentage of rural interstates in poor condition was reduced by two-thirds, from 6.6 percent 1989 to 1.93 percent in 2008.

29 states showed reduced urban congestion between 1989 and 2008, and six states reported improvements of greater than 20 percent.

The nation also saw improvements in the condition of rural primary roads and in the number of primary roads considered too narrow.

“The debate on how to continue the positive trends in the nation’s highway infrastructure is one that needs to occur now, especially given increasingly intense competition for diminishing financial resources,” the report observes.

“It will take resolve, good policy and effective management to continue these trends.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 3, 2013 12:22 PM
Comment #362239

phx8, thanks for the link to the “Outside the Beltway” article. Assuming its calculation are correct, and that my calculations about the increase in debt based upon that story are correct, we will need to increase the debt by $6.692 trillion over the next 4 years.

The U.S. National Debt Clock website has our debt at $16.698 trillion today…March 3rd. Adding another $6.692 trillion means that at the end of obama’s term we will have a debt totaling $23.390 trillion. Of that amount, about $12.6 trillion will have been added in obama’s eight years in office. WOW…what a legacy.

We are united in being upset with the $4.9 trillion in debt added during the eight years of Bush ll. What should our feelings be with obama adding $12.6 trillion?

With a GDP of approximately $16 trillion, we have now equaled that amount in debt…100%

Can anyone justify a debt of nearly 150% of GDP? Can the US survive such massive debt?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 3, 2013 12:49 PM
Comment #362240

Conservative columnist Rich Lowry from the National Review writes a good article that mirrors what I have been saying in this thread from a conservative viewpoint:

“At times, “we have a $16 trillion debt” seems the sum total of the party’s argumentation. When party leaders say that they have to become the party of growth again, the policy they invariably advance to that end … is reducing the $16 trillion debt.

This necessary, but hardly sufficient, message is almost all we hear from Republicans in Congress, where their majority in the House gives them responsibility without decisive influence. The House Republicans mainly have blocking power. Woe to the republic if they didn’t. But if you block things, you’re easily labeled an obstructionist, and wouldn’t you know it, people don’t like obstructionists.”
“GOP Making Its Last Stand on the Deficit”

The other issues used by the GOP in the past, such as tax cuts and national security, have failed to resonate today. Tax cuts never delivered enough promised growth and jobs. National Security as a GOP strength died in Iraq. Symbolic issues such as flag burning seem comical. Society has become dramatically more tolerant of gays in recent years, so bashing homosexuals won’t work anymore. On issue after issue, the Democrats hold the more popular stand. At some point, that popularity translates into political realities. The demographics keep drifting further and further to the GOP’s disadvantage.

The GOP is leaderless and without a guiding issue, other than debt and limiting the size of government. As Lowry correctly notes, it’s not a winning issue. People like it in theory, but not in fact. Limiting government sounds fine until the reality sets in, that cutting government spending means… well… spending cuts that hurt YOU.

Anyway, I’d urge conservatives to read the Lowry article.

Posted by: phx8 at March 3, 2013 1:02 PM
Comment #362244

phx8

We would prefer cuts that made more sense, but the president insisted on scoring points on the campaign trail rather than enter into serious talks.

We also believe in growth. We liked the kind of growth we got after the last big downturn when Ronald Reagan was president. But we do not believe that government can spend its way into prosperity any more than a drunk can drink his way to sobriety. We see significant parallels between excessive government spending and drunks, BTW. In both cases, there is never a good time to cut down, but it needs to be done.

Posted by: C&J at March 3, 2013 1:49 PM
Comment #362245

phx8, the Lowry article is not incorrect when it says that Americans love deficit spending when they believe they are the beneficiary. And, “theory” is not reality or fact.

So, the left has determined to spend whatever is necessary to keep the “stuff” coming to (the one-half plus) of Americans that vote for them and keep them in office.

OK phx8, so far you and I agree. And Lowry is correct…”The demographics keep drifting further and further to the GOP’s disadvantage.”

If the solution to winning elections for Republicans is to become democrats, you may also be correct.

Let us for a moment examine the possible ramifications of both Republicans and Democrats agreement to deficit spend trillions more over the next four years. Let’s assume the spending goes as I outlined above and in four years we have a $23.390 Trillion debt. And let’s assume that the GDP continues to be around $16 Trillion.

phx8, what happens in the next four or eight years with both the Reps and Dems showing no desire to piss off the “stuff” voters by curbing increasing debt?

At what point do liberals believe the debt becomes overwhelming and we crash? Is there a debt amount that is simply unbearable or not? If so, what is that amount.

As a conservative, and one of those who believes in obstructing our government from reaching unsustainable debt, I believe we are very close to the limit of debt we can carry. Tell me where I am wrong please.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 3, 2013 2:09 PM
Comment #362246

C&J,
Obama will not be running for office again, so really, there is no campaign as far as he is concerned. There is, however, a bully pulpit to persuade, and it is a very effective tool. It’s one of the huge advantages (and sometimes, disadvantages) of controlling the Executive Branch. Meanwhile, Obama naturally wants more Democrats elected in 2014 because he wants to advance the Democratic agenda. But in politics, no one gets their way all the time. Compromise is part of the package, and Obama has repeatedly offered compromises. The ideologues of the GOP can refuse to comprimise, but it’s a dangerous way to practice politics.

Royal Flush,
Deficits have been delining every year since Obama has been elected, and they will probably continue to decline. GDP has consistently grown, which means the tax base has grown. Right now, an estimated national debt of $20 trillion seems more likely, and it could become even lower. Also, the national debt will not be taken below $3 trillion, simply because the US and the world needs a functioning bond market.

I’d say the country could absorb an additional $20 or even $40 trillion in debt and still continue to do all right. I’m NOT saying we should. I’m saying we could. Doubling or tripling the debt would increase interest payments as a percentage of the federal budget on $40 trillion to 12%, and for tripling, $18%. That assumes the economy and tax revenues remain constant.

Like I said, I’m not saying we should. But we easily could.

The markets are telling you the same. Interest rates are low. Inflation is low. The yield curve shows an anticipation of ordinary rates of growth over the next 30 years, albeit at low levels of growth. And when flights to safety occur in financial markets, the world continues to turn to US debt instruments.

After going through their own real estate collapse, Japan has a debt that is roughly equivalent to $30 trillion or so of US debt. (208% of GDP). Their economy continues to function, but it’s been tough road for them. The Japanese save more than Americans, and their economy is much more reliant on exports, so any comparison should be made with care.

Both conservatives and liberals agree the debt and deficits should be reduced. The questions is, how should it be done? And when?

The Keynsian answer is that we should grow our way out of debt, even if it means deficit spending. In other words, we can stimulate the economy best by “spending our way to prosperity,” and when prosperity comes, THEN put on th brakes with spending cuts and revenue increases.

The Republican philosophy seems to be that we should cut our way to growth and prosperity.

Posted by: phx8 at March 3, 2013 2:39 PM
Comment #362247

phx8

“Obama will not be running for office again, so really, there is no campaign as far as he is concerned.” - this is the remarkable thing about Obama. He is still campaigning and set up a permanent campaign, where you too can be an Obama adviser if you pay $500,000. No other president has ever done this before. It is indeed scary that Obama has taken this road.


Re Obama compromises - like what? He offered to raise taxes. Sequester did not include any tax increases when Obama proposed it back in 2011. He got $600 billion in new taxes last month. Where did Obama make a serious compromise offer?

When Republicans offered the extraordinary option to let Obama chose where to make cuts, he told them he would not accept responsibility and would veto if given.

Obama is refusing to compromise. This is indeed a dangerous way to do politics. He is behaving in a very odd way.

Posted by: C&J at March 3, 2013 2:56 PM
Comment #362248

Thanks for your high-end estimates of $20 to $40 trillion in debt and your belief that at those levels we would still have a functioning government and economy and a tax system that would still encourage investment and entrepreneurship with all of our present liberty’s and freedom intact.

Such debt levels are incomprehensible to mere mortals. Japan, with a debt level of 208% of GDP (as you wrote) should have by all logic and common sense already experienced the results of your adage ““spending their way to prosperity.” Clearly, that is not the case. I rest my case.

I will end our discussion here as we are diametrically opposed and I see no resolution between us possible. I will continue to advocate my debt obstructionist conservative ways and you will continue to advocate for unlimited debt in pursuit of your Holy Grail.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 3, 2013 3:10 PM
Comment #362250

C&J,
Obama “got $600 billion in new taxes last month.” How so? The Payroll Tax Holiday expired and the extension of the Bush tax cuts expired and were not renewed for the top bracket. Can these be considered “new taxes”?

Royal Flush,
The Japanese “Lost Decade” of asset deflation provided us with the only useful roadmap for dealing with the economic crash of 2007 - 2009. They made a lot of mistakes, and we benefited from their bad experience. They tried to save debt ridden ‘zombie banks,’ but the debt was too much for them, and it made a bad situation worse. We made our moves up front, allowing some, like WAMU, to fail, while rolling failing investment banks into healthy banks, bailing out others like AIG, and having the Federal Reserve inject huge sums of money into the financial sector. It cost a bomb, but more importantly, it worked. TARP and the Stimulus Package stimulated our economy. The Japanese never really did recover from their deflation. Their penchant for savings and their reliance on exports made the asset deflation just that much worse. In some ways, their “Lost Decade” has persisted from 1991 through today.

Posted by: phx8 at March 3, 2013 4:27 PM
Comment #362252

Obama needs money for failing infrastructure; been there/done that. Obama needs infrastructure money to funnel into the failing Democratic run cities, like Detroit and Chicago.

C&J, I cannot use the words I would like to use to explain this stupid SOB we have sitting in the WH. I don’t care what liberals think or say. The problem with the republican politicians is their fear of what the liberals will say. I don’t care. I have no respect for the man and am quite sure he and his gang of thieves are destroying our republic. The sooner the RINO republicans understand this, the better. And that includes all republicans. Name me one thing he has done to unite our nation. He deserves nothing but scorn. He has managed to set the nations race problems back 30 years. And the liberals love him for it.

Posted by: Libertarian at March 3, 2013 4:48 PM
Comment #362255

phx8

Taxes went up. If you worry about taking $85 billion out of the economy in taxes, why not worry about taking $600 billion out in taxes.

Posted by: C&J at March 3, 2013 5:35 PM
Comment #362256

The end of the Payroll Tax Holiday and the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket were one-time, anticipated events on the REVENUE side of the equation.

The $85 billion for the sequester is a recurring event on the SPENDING side of the equation. That $85 billion is pro-rated for 2013, and could add up to $1.2 trillion over a ten-year period. It is an unanticipated increase on top of the previously anticipated revenue increases, but unlike the tax bracket increases, the sequester impacts a wider, broader range of services that may eventually slow the economy.

Personally, I think the sequester may be the only way to significantly cut defense spending, so it’s not all bad. The problem is, cutting government spending hurts because… well… it means cutting government spending. That means furloughs, layoffs, cancelled contracts, and other problems, such as fewer meat inspectors at the FDA, fewer people collecting revenue at the IRS, and so on. Because of these effects- effects not seen with revenue increases- the CBO estimates the sequester will cost 750,000 jobs.

Posted by: phx8 at March 3, 2013 6:12 PM
Comment #362257

Phx8

The taxes will continue year after year. They are recurring. And Obama wants more taxes.

The sequester had two major points. Most people agree that the cuts are not well done. That is why Obama proposed them the way he did. Obama’s original idea was that he and congress would come to a deal to make the cuts better, but there were always supposed to be cuts. This has not worked out as planned, but was not a bad idea.

But are you telling me that you don’t want the cuts at all? Having no cuts at all was never an option envisioned by either Obama or the congress when they made the initial deal.

Posted by: C&J at March 3, 2013 6:55 PM
Comment #362258

The point of the sequester was that it would be a more unpalatable alternative than negotiating a compromise. A compromise might still happen. I’m guessing that’s what the stock markets are telling us. It might be easier now that an arbitrary deadline has passed, and the spotlight is not quite so hot. Personally, I would rather not see a sequester in the first place. It would be much better to slowly phase in brakes on the economy: ending the Payroll Tax Holiday, ending the Bush tax cuts for the highest bracket, then, three months later, cutting defense spending, then three months after that, ending the extension beyond six months of unemployment, and so on.

The economy seems to be be developing enough momentum to withstand some taps on the brakes. Draconian solutions really aren’t necessary.

Posted by: phx8 at March 3, 2013 7:10 PM
Comment #362259

phx8

The Obama doldrums continue. IMO, had Romney been elected we would not have faced sequester, but that is just speculation.

The sequester, however, was/is all about cuts in spending. There was never an agreement NOT to cut nor to raise taxes. Obama has moved the goal posts and changed the terms.

I understand liberals want to cut defense and there are places to cut in defense. But if you believe in Keynesian stimulus, it is not a good idea to cut defense, which tends to have a higher multiplier than things like extending unemployment. I personally am not a Keynesian in any kind of pure form, but you evidently believe in it, so you should stick to those principles.

Posted by: C&J at March 3, 2013 7:23 PM
Comment #362260

Phx8

One other clarification - you call them the “Bush cuts”. You know that Obama and a Democratically controlled congress extended those cuts. At which time Obama and the Democrats shared in them. Why did Obama and the Democrats extend the “Bush cuts” and make them their own? Because they thought they were economically useful.

Posted by: C&J at March 3, 2013 7:26 PM
Comment #362261

Obama asked the GOP leadership what they wanted more than anything else. They named extension of the Bush tax cuts. Obama agree, in return for passing some legislation, including extension of unemployment benefits. Personally, I think it was a brilliant piece of negotiating, because you are right: The extension of the cuts was economically useful at the time.

Re cutting defense. Yes, it does hurt. Abolutely. It impacts the economy. I think the money could be much better spent elsewhere, but that is neither here nor there. Right now the money is going to defense, and cuttting it is never an easy thing to do. That’s the whole problem with promoting a philosophy that features spending cuts as its main tenet. Those cuts hurt. In political terms, it’s hard to make friends and win votes by offering less and then making it hurt.

Posted by: phx8 at March 3, 2013 7:52 PM
Comment #362262

phx8

Democrats at that time controlled both Houses of Congress and the presidency. They evidently wanted the extension.

Re cuts to defense etc - we cannot go on spending as we have in the last few years.

If your argument is that cuts will hurt the economy, cutting defense will hurt more than many other places.

We can maybe get away with cutting defense. It depends on how lucky we feel. We are cutting our capacity to project power. Let’s hope we don’t need to do that.

Obama has already made cuts to defense. He doesn’t think we need to be as strong as we are. Let’s hope he is right. I think that John Kerry will be a good Secretary of Defense and will do a better job than Hilary. To the extent that diplomacy can avoid conflict, we will be better served. However, there are lots of bad guys in places like Iran and N. Korea stirring. And they are supported by others in Russia and China.

We have been the predominate military power for my entire lifetime and we will almost certainly remain dominant. But I worry about future coalitions that could threaten our interests. Our European allies are in decline. The Chinese are rumbling. Russians are nasty. Our outreach to the Arab world didn’t work. The investments we make or DON’T make today will determine the military we have in 2020. We may curse Obama in that year, or maybe not. In any case, he will by then be a subject for historians.

Posted by: C&J at March 3, 2013 8:11 PM
Comment #362263

phx8

” In political terms, it’s hard to make friends and win votes by offering less and then making it hurt.” It has always been a danger in democracies that voters can be bribed. I consider that this is a fault. It seems that you see it as a virtue. There is a good chance your side will win with this, but Americans freedom will lose.

Posted by: C&J at March 3, 2013 8:14 PM
Comment #362264

Libertarian,

“Tell us Rocky, do you believe Jay Leno is obsessed with collecting antique cars? Does he have the right to own as many cars as he wants, or should the government be allowed to tell him what to own? Should doll collectors or stamp collectors be told by the government how many they can own? NO, it is none of the governments business.”

Perhaps I missed the part where I wrote that the government should give a rat’s ass how many guns people own.

Maybe Leno is stockpiling cars and hoarding fuel for the coming apocalypse, but from what I have seen and heard he actually is obsessed with collecting antique cars. He loves them and loves to rebuild them.

I never said that the gun nuts don’t have the right to own guns, I said that beyond a point I believe I have the right to question the sanity of someone that owns a vast number of guns, and goes out of his way to hoard ammunition for those guns.

I did say I own a gun, I didn’t mention that I also owned two boxes of cartridges, 40 rounds.

Am I hoarding?
Am I worried about losing my gun?

I don’t think so.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 3, 2013 9:08 PM
Comment #362266

So you also question the sanity of Leno:

“I can and do question the sanity of anyone that feels the need to own even 40 guns.”

I personally believe you own one gun and 40 rounds too much.

Posted by: Libertarian at March 3, 2013 9:30 PM
Comment #362274

Libertarian,

“I personally believe you own one gun and 40 rounds too much.”

Boy, you really told me.

I am only willing to merely question the sanity of the gun nuts, but from your comment you seem willing to determine who should or shouldn’t actually own a gun.

How Libertarian of you.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 4, 2013 7:33 AM
Comment #362293

Rocky, you do more than question the sanity of “gun nuts”; you also make the declaration that gun owners in general, are “gun nuts”. That’s quite a blanket declaration of all gun owners and you are offended that I would question your sanity to own 1 gun and 40 rounds? Give me a break.

I don’t believe the government has the right to tell any law abiding, legal American how many guns or how many rounds they can own. It’s none of their business.

There are absolutely no liberals who can explain why the murder and gun crime rate is so high in cities like Chicago, Detroit, or DC. These are cities with the most stringent gun laws, making it almost impossible for law abiding citizens to own a gun and protect themselves, and yet these liberals bastions are cesspools of crime and murder. Explain why this is so? Do we need more gun laws in these liberal bastions?

Posted by: Libertarian at March 4, 2013 8:52 PM
Comment #362294

C&J, regarding the “sky falling”: the presidents people are out there doing their best to spread the word that the sky is falling. Big SIS is out the talking about double lines at the airport security, and yet the airline industry is saying, not so. Obama and his people HAVE to make it look like the sky s falling, or they will become idiots. In fact, let’s take a look at the UK Telegraph article, since the US news service won’t touch it:

“Ms Napolitano said today that major airports were seeing lines “150 to 200 per cent as long as we would normally expect” as result of the federal spending cuts that went into force on Friday.

“We’re already seeing the effects at some of the ports of entry, the big airports, for example. Some of them had very long lines this weekend,” she told a breakfast event organised by Politico.

When pressed for specifics she cited Chicago’s O’Hare, Atlanta’s Hartfield-Jackson and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), adding: “I don’t mean to scare, I mean to inform.”

However, when contacted by The Daily Telegraph, spokespeople for both O’Hare and LAX, as well as representatives from the travel industry, denied that airports had been hit by delays.

“We haven’t had any slowdowns at all,” said Marshall Lowe, a spokesman for LAX. Mr Lowe said that he had been on duty over the weekend and received no reports of unusual security delays.

DeAllous Smith, a spokesman for Hartfield-Jackson, said: “There have been no abnormally long lines at the security checkpoint nor unusual aircraft delays at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport as a result of sequestration.”

Their comments were echoed by Karen Pride, the director of media relations at Chicago Department of Aviation, who described operations at O’Hare as “normal” with “no unusual delays or cancellations”.

When asked specifically about the cabinet secretary’s claims, Ms Pride said: “I’m not aware of that. I’ve had no reports of that.”

The Obama administration has been repeatedly accused of exaggerating the impact of the $85 billion in cuts as it seeks to pressure Republicans in Congress into replacing them with a mixture of spending reductions and tax rises.

Arne Duncan, the secretary of education, was widely criticised last month for saying that teachers were already being laid off because of the cuts, a claim without evidence. The Washington Post’s Fact Checker blog awarded the claim four Pinocchios - its highest rating for falsehood.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not immediately return a request for comment on Ms Napolitano’s claim.

Luis Casanova, a regional spokesman for the Transport Security Administration (TSA), said “we’ve been asked not to comment on the subject [of sequestration]” and referred calls to DHS.

A statement released Friday by the TSA said travelers “will likely not see immediate impacts at airport security checkpoints” but that delays would increase over time.

Jean Medina, a spokeswoman for Airlines for America, the airline industry’s trade group, also contradicted Ms Napolitano’s claim. “We’re not seeing any impact at the moment,” Ms Medina said. “Our biggest problem this week is going to be weather rather than the sequester.”

Ms Medina said she would not “speculate” on Ms Napolitano’s remarks but said: “I can only tell you what we’ve heard from our members, which is they have not seen any abnormal delays.”

Dorian Paul of Corniche Travel, a Los Angeles-based travel company, said he had received no reports of security delays at LAX or across the country.

“I haven’t heard of anything like that at all,” Mr Paul said. “We’re on a mailing list for LAX that tells us whether there are any security delays and we have meet-and-greet people at the airport who tell us if there are any delays and at the moment we haven’t heard anything.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9908416/Airports-contradict-Janet-Napolitanos-sequester-claim.html

We are dealing with habitual liars, campaigners, and crisis instigators.

Posted by: Greorge at March 4, 2013 9:04 PM
Comment #362296

Libertarian,

“I don’t believe the government has the right to tell any law abiding, legal American how many guns or how many rounds they can own. It’s none of their business.”

Neither do I, yet you seem to assume or you are just making it up that I wrote that.

Here is one definition of the many I think defines a gun nut.

A guy brings a 12 gauge shotgun to a gun show. In the process of going through security he must take it out of it’s case. While doing so the gun goes off and injures three people.
This actually happened in North Carolina this past January. For the life of me I just can’t figure out why anyone with any brains at all would carry a loaded shotgun in a carrying case.

It begs the question; Do loaded guns injure people, or do stupid people with loaded guns injure people?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 4, 2013 10:19 PM
Comment #362342

Phx8

The Keynsian answer is that we should grow our way out of debt, even if it means deficit spending. In other words, we can stimulate the economy best by “spending our way to prosperity,” and when prosperity comes, THEN put on th brakes with spending cuts and revenue increases.

I’d like you to answer a simple question. This Keynsian answer you espouse as the answer to all the ecomonic woes in the country, exactly when is it going to start working?

Or is it like the brilliant Pelosi says, “we don’t have a spending problem….we have a budget deficit problem” which is almost as funny as her comment that “we have to pass the bill to see what’s in it”.

Just like your Keynsian philosopy, it’s good for comic relief.

Posted by: MAW at March 6, 2013 12:31 AM
Comment #362344

MAW,
In answer to your question, see comment #362336 in the most recent thread “Obama down, Market Up.”

Posted by: phx8 at March 6, 2013 1:41 AM
Comment #363099

Barbour jackets what began in 1894 in South Shields is now a global brand’s British heritage.The Barbour products are sold throughout the world.The Barbour jacket has now gained cult fashion status.For impeccable British heritage and technical excellence the Barbour coat range lead the way.Now,you can get a women barbour jacket or mens barbour from our uk barbour shopwith a big discount and free shipping worldwide.women barbour shop sale barbour at 50% off!We provide barbour wax,quilted barbour and">http://www.barbourjacketwomen.com/barbour-international-c-10.html”> barbour international for women and men.It’s the best time to buy a barbour jacket from our barbour store,if you want one!

Posted by: barbour factory at March 20, 2013 10:32 PM
Post a comment