An unnamed Republican aide told Roll Call that the sequester will be "more comfortable" for Republicans than for Democrats. Republicans believe the budget cuts will "affect Democratic constituencies more deeply than Republicans". They aren't talking about Democrats in the Senate or Democrats in the House. No, they will continue to receive their paychecks. There is no pay cut planned for Congress. Although Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill has proposed a bill to do just that. Why should Congress be exempt from Federal furloughs?
Members of Congress who said "yes" to the question posed by CNN about whether they would be willing to take a pay cut can do so without any concern about their paychecks actually being reduced. The 27th Amendment prohibits any law increasing or decreasing Congressional pay until after the next election. If the bill proposed by McCaskill passes, it won't even affect this 113th Congress. And yet, some members of Congress are still opposed to the idea. Missouri Republican Billy Long who campaigned on cutting spending in Washington says cutting Congressional pay would be "miniscule."
The sequester will cut Medicare payments made to providers by 2 percent. Another 496,000 jobs in the health care industry will be cut or not filled. Headstart funding is being cut. Seniors won't get meals delivered. True, the wealthy Republican constituency won't be affected one bit by any of these things. And, they don't care one bit about any of the people who are affected. In fact, based on the quote from the unnamed GOP aide, it would appear that House Republicans want you to suffer. They want you to feel the pain to force the legislators who care about the middle class (ie. Democrats) to give in to them. This is your life that Republicans are playing with. You are the bait to get President Obama to do what they want him to do. You should be outraged at Boehner and his cronies.
If there was any doubt about Republicans not caring about the middle class, that doubt can now be erased.
There's not one Republican in Washington that cares about you if you make less than half a million dollars a year.
So, what can you do?
Call them.
Call their offices every day.
Tell them how you feel. It's their job to listen to you.
Threaten them with a recall.
Here's a link to a document with information about how to recall elected officials. No member of Congress has ever been recalled, but, arguably, there's never been such a need for it.
After Boehner's out of a job, he will have more time to work on a different game.
Image Source: Wikimedia Commons
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 299
What part of unsustainable is not understood here?!?!
If the constituency of the Democrat Party has there heads deeper in the federal trough than the constituency of the Republican Party than they will be affected more and sooner. This isn't even news worthy.
To much dependency is always a disaster waiting to happen.
Clinton raised taxes and gave us a surplus. Bush lowered taxes and put us in a hole we're still trying to climb out of. Taxes are lower now than they have been in the past 30+ years. It's time to get back to the proven formula and raise taxes back to the Clinton levels to get us out of this mess. Get it, Renee?
"Rory, Why do you think people should pay more taxes? The federal government was not designed by the founders to be massive. The repeatedly warned against it. Why do you think a bigger federal government is better?"
The thirteen American colonies that broke away from Great Britain through the auspices of the Declaration of Independence and war which led to the establishment of the United States, had a combined population in 1776 of less than 2.5 million people. Today the country has cities with more people in them and 35 of the 50 states have more people in them than the entire nation did at its founding. At that time, almost all Americans lived within 50 miles of the Atlantic Ocean. Now the nation stretches from sea to sea and beyond. A nation more than 100 times larger than it was at its founding will, naturally, require a much larger government to run it.
The founders lived in a much different world. One without instantaneous communications technology, without rapid transit by ground or air, without computer technology, without modern educational requirements, without a space program, without even telephones, radios, railroads, air travel, computers, televisions, etc. Our world would be science fiction to them, something they had not even a concept of at the time.
To imagine that men, no matter how wise or qualified, of that bygone era could conceive of all that would be required for a nation in the modern world is silly.
In our modern world governments everywhere provide services to their citizens that were neither possible nor practical in pre-technological paradigms. But those services have, in very many cases, improved life for people and raised standards of living. This is why every government the world over, without exception, provides modern services to their populations.
Your conviction that tiny government with most services eliminated is preferable, based on the thinking of leaders centuries dead, assumes that there was some idealized past in which life was better and people enjoyed greater liberty and prosperity.
But that past never existed. The modern world is by far a preferable place than any time in the past, when lives were shorter, disease more prevalent, poverty endemic, violence more commonplace and liberties for women, minorities and children were unheard of and one had to own property to be fully extended the rights of citizenship.
Your brand of conservatism yearns for that past. Yearns to impoverish the common man and woman. Yearns to consign minorities to a subservient place in society, similar to the one they used to occupy. Yearns to replace "we're all in this together" with "every man for himself". Yearns to put women in their place, controlling their reproductive organs as the most direct way of controlling them. Yearns to return the world to its former state, in which freedom was for those who could buy it.
It is a repulsive ideology, repugnant to its core, disgusting, primitive, selfish, hateful and ignorant. Defeating it is the most important task of the 21st century.
Great time to lower taxes.
You attribute credit to whoever best serves your cause and I will continue to give credit where it's due.
Six freshmen Republican congressmen refused to sign the budget into law unless it was a balanced budget. That is how we got the Clinton era balanced budget.
That's a lot of wordsmithing, but it's all irrelevant.
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?
BTW: I've told you wingnuts that your imitative attempts at flattery are unwelcome.
Your "history" has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. You created a straw man.
"You'd know that if you were better acquainted with the Truth."
Hmmm, reminds me of something.
Trying to move into arguing about the argument again I see. Like Rory you just love to be wrong.
Yah it is Rory.....In this case...In reference to your post.
False premise on both counts.
In fact, it is basically unknown to them.
It's spot on Tony.
Rory, I believe that America became a superpower for a reason - and the reason was putting the power of the individual first - the nature of man. Nobody ever said it was easy. But freedom is a much better option than tyranny, it does not matter that the founders lived in a different time. The nature of man has not changed; nor has the nature of government.
Consider:
Most bad government has grown out of too much government.
John Sharp Williams, Thomas Jefferson: His Permanent Influence on American Institutions (New York: Columbia University Press, 1913), 49.
It has been said that all Government is an evil. It would be more proper to say that the necessity of any Government is a misfortune. This necessity however exists; and the problem to be solved is, not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect.
James Madison, to an unidentified correspondent, 1833
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.
James Madison, Federalist No. 45, January 26, 1788
"I think we have more machinery of government than is
necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the
industrious." --Thomas Jefferson
Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.
Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. ... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." --James Madison
The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.
James Madison, Federalist No. 45, January 26, 1788
My question to you, Rory, is simple - what do you think it was that made America a super-power?
Abundant resource wealth, to begin with. Immigration of people from all over the world, people who knew hardship and deprivation and were willing to work and sacrifice for better. Democratic principles and freedoms. A government large enough to undertake big projects and aspire to new horizons, such as: military adventurism; the space program; the interstate highway; labour unions that fought to spread some of the natural wealth of the country to working people; Franklin Delano Roosevelt who enacted quasi-socialistic policies and rebuilt the nation through the Great Depression and World War II.
A nation more than 100 times larger than it was at its founding will, naturally, require a much larger government to run it.
True, but the scope in what the federal government has power to do should not change - as Madison said:
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. ... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have receiv'd them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas'd them for us with toil and danger and expence of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. Of the latter we are in most danger at present: Let us therefore be aware of it. Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeath'd to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. — Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that "if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom." It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.
Essay, written under the pseudonym "Candidus," in The Boston Gazette (14 October 1771), later published in The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams (1865) by William Vincent Wells, p. 425
I find it refreshing that some one from New Zealand (or anyone from another country) would embrace our founders and their ideals!
Thank you.
Renee quotes a man who was not a slave owner.
Although many wanted to end the practice immediately, there were some major problems with that strategy - there would be outrage by the Americans who benefited financially from it - and what would become of the slaves themselves? .... As usual with revisionist historians like Rory, they would much prefer to bash and diminish the founders because then they can chip away at the founding documents themselves, which is REALLY the goal. Just consider their words.
Thomas Jefferson said, "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . ." sadly, it was removed from the draft of the declaration. He also stated, "The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other."
Joseph Reed, Revolutionary Officer; Governor of Pennsylvania "Honored will that State be in the annals of history which shall first abolish this violation of the rights of mankind."
Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration, "But to the eye of reason, what can be more clear than that all men have an equal right to happiness? Nature made no other distinction than that of higher or lower degrees of power of mind and body. . . . Were the talents and virtues which Heaven has bestowed on men given merely to make them more obedient drudges? . . . No! In the judgment of heaven there is no other superiority among men than a superiority of wisdom and virtue."
James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution "Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law. . . . The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all."
From Benjamin Franklin, (1773) lamenting that the British government wanted slavery, even as America opposed it...". . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed."
John Quincy Adams, July 4th, 1837 "The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself."
Elias Boudinot, President of the Continental Congress, lamenting Georgia, North and South Carolina's continued support for slavery: "Even the sacred Scriptures had been quoted to justify this iniquitous traffic. It is true that the Egyptians held the Israelites in bondage for four hundred years, . . . but . . . gentlemen cannot forget the consequences that followed: they were delivered by a strong hand and stretched-out arm and it ought to be remembered that the Almighty Power that accomplished their deliverance is the same yesterday, today, and for ever."
Richard Henry Lee, Signer of the Declaration "Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts . . . by agreeing to this duty."
James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution: "Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law"
John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration: "It is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others . . . and take away their liberty by no better means than superior power."
John Adams, US President, Signer of the Bill of Rights, in a letter to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley (1801) "...my opinion against it has always been known, and my practice has been so conformable to my sentiments that I have always employed freemen, both as domestics and laborers, and never in my life did I own a slave. The abolition of slavery must be gradual, and accomplished with much caution and circumspection. Violent means and measures would produce greater violations of justice and humanity than the continuance of the practice."
Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration, Signer of the Constitution (1772) "I am glad to hear that the disposition against keeping negroes grows more general in North America. Several pieces have been lately printed here against the practice, and I hope in time it will be taken into consideration and suppressed by the legislature." and "That mankind are all formed by the same Almighty Being, alike objects of his care, and equally designed for the enjoyment of happiness, the Christian religion teaches us to believe, and the political creed of Americans fully coincides with the position. . . . [We] earnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of slavery – that you will be pleased to countenance the restoration of liberty to those unhappy men who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage and who . . . are groaning in servile subjection."
Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Senator from Maryland, State Senator in Maryland "Why keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil."
John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution; Governor of Pennsylvania, "As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they may build up the system of the government on the broad, strong, and sound principles of freedom. Curse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage."
Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration, "Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men." and "The commerce in African slaves has breathed its last in Pennsylvania. I shall send you a copy of our late law respecting that trade as soon as it is published. I am encouraged by the success that has finally attended the exertions of the friends of universal freedom and justice."
John Jay, President of Continental Congress, "That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent, as well as unjust and perhaps impious, part."
Noah Webster, Responsible for Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution "Justice and humanity require it. Christianity commands it...pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right."
George Washington "that it is my wish to hold the unhappy people who are the subject of this letter, in slavery. I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it -- but there is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, & that is by Legislative authority: and this, as far as my suffrage will go, shall never be wanting."
He'd also know that it was Black Africans who did most of the selling...of their fellow Men.
Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.
From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.
Slavery in Africa has existed throughout the continent for many centuries, and continues in the current day. I saw it first hand.
"The majority of Negro owners of slaves had some personal interest in their property." But, he admits, "There were instances, however, in which free Negroes had a real economic interest in the institution of slavery and held slaves in order to improve their economic status." - Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
Further, most Slaves brought in from Africa WERE SOLD BY BLACKS.
Wake up.
He was Black.
C'mon Lora. That is just silly.
Mark-John - sycophant becomes you
It is quite evident, isn't it !
There is no sugar coating it, Why did Obama and Jack Lew blatantly lie and say the sequester proposal originated in Congress?
If the sequester was such a horrible proposal, why would Obama propose it, sign it into law and worse, threaten to veto any GOP efforts to make it more targeted? Republicans "offered several rounds of offsetting cuts, all of which have been dismissed by Democrats."
President Obama said,
"My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one."
Why would the president and his crew use fear-mongering tactics to get Americans on "his side," instead of proposing something reasonable?
The administration has a "pattern of overstating the potential impact of the sequester," doesn't that concern you?
Jeez, Obama actually said that the sequester could force prosecutors to 'let criminals go'. Irresponsible fear tactics.
The sequester replacement bill, by the way, the one proposed by Senate Democrats, and endorsed by the White House, "would add $7.2 billion to the federal deficit over ten years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO)."
“CBO estimates that S. 388 would increase direct spending by $62.4 billion and revenues by $55.1 billion over the 2013–2023 period. Thus, the cumulative deficit would increase by $7.2 billion from those changes,” CBO wrote in a report.
They do not have to cut one job. Paul D. Shinkman from U.S. News and World Report notes that the military would need to find $46 billion by the end of the year in savings (that amount is inflated, but whatever) "Billions of Defense dollars are being spent on programs and missions with little or nothing to do with national security, many of which are already being performed by other government agencies or are completely unnecessary." There are currently over 1500 jobs in the DOD website - many are low-level, high paying jobs like drivers, telephone answerers, etc.
According to a Wall Street Journal article, aptly titled, "President Armageddon," the author notes that President Obama "just whacked the economy with a roughly $160 billion tax increase in 2013 that he says will do no harm, but he wants us to believe that $85 billion in spending cuts will trigger a recession."
Ah well, instead of trading insults, perhaps we can look at some facts..."
Sure. Got any or are you just going to continue to post discredited talking points, half-truths and fantasies?
Are you disputing that, Rory?
Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf?
Are you disputing that, Tony?
Are you disputing that, Renee?
What makes you think you deserve to have your points acknowledged when you don't acknowledge mine? Makes it hard to have an honest discussion, doesn't it?
What goes around comes around.
Exactly.
"What makes you think you deserve to have your points acknowledged when you don't acknowledge mine? Makes it hard to have an honest discussion, doesn't it?"
If the world is wrong you better right yourself.
"Ad hominem! Drink!"
Which not only showcased your immaturity, but also had nothing to do with the topic. You want to know why people don't take you seriously, this is a perfect example.
Drink!
?
He-he...just couldn't resist..the profile of the Obama athletic supporter.
The debt is just a mask to dismantle the government social network.
I must disagree with part of your assessment as to its premise. Inasmuch, as I sincerely believe that the current size of our national debt is most assuredly a real problem for our country and must be dealt with by Congress. I do not view it as being a mask for some particular reason or political agenda. For me the national debt is a serious issue and must be viewed as such by {all} Americans.
In particular, I do not believe that the vast majority of Republicans are in favor of Sequestration, regardless of what some people are attempting to lead the American public to believe. I say this, since the vast majority of those who consider themselves to be a Republican are politically astute people. People who fully understand that the results of Sequester becoming law will hurt Americans of all political ideologies, not just those of the Democrat Party or those with Liberal views.
Albeit, as you suggest, I do believe that in most instances, the size of the national debt is being used by Libertarian hardliners who ideologically believe in small federal government and states rights to govern themselves. These ideological extremist are intentionally attempting to create discourse among the American people as well as distrust in our government and its ability to rectify the situation. They are being joined by the Teapublicans within the Halls of Congress, once again, because of personal ideology, with neither faction taking into consideration the hardships the underprivilaged within our society will suffer because of Sequestration.
Further, I personally find it preplexing that both the Libertarians and the Teapublicans who hold political ideologies which are against all government assistance programs, are in now favor of Sequestration. Inasmuch, as the Law will assure that more people will end up on the welfare rolls, as well as, adding hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment lines. A scenario which is totally counter to their prescribed to political ideology.
Once again, Libertarians and Teapublicans are confused as to what will be in their best interest and what will hurt them as much as it hurts their political enemies. In their confusion, they are supporting a Law and a scenario which is the opposit of their expressed ideology and political agenda.
Actually CONGRESS is bought and paid for by corporations......And that includes the Dems.
LOL!
From someone who drank the Al Gore FoolAid years ago......Tell me again how implementing a carbon tax that will have no effect is good for you?
You're still drinking the FoolAid.
It seems to get a reaction out of you Fool-Aid drinkers.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_wel_cas_tot_rec-economy-welfare-caseloads-total-recipients
Actually, I believe that both of you are right.
When comparing those on the welfare rolls or living below the established poverty level, Michele is correct since the percentages of the states she refers to are calculated on the number of people on welfare rolls per 1000 citizens.
When comparing the states you have referred to, the results are computed on the total number in those states receiving government assistance. Your number is correct because their are more total people living in those states. Michele's percentage is correct because there are more people on the welfare rools per 1000 residents.
It is my understanding that when establishing poverty levels, Michele's percentage rate is what government normally uses. However, if I were making a list, I would add Arkansas (R), Tennessee (R), Georgia (R) and South Carolina (R)
Lebrea
I, like you, also view New Mexico as being a toss up state when it comes to a particular political party having an advantage.
Progressives are nothing more than sheeple believing anything the progressive professional propagandists tell them.
I always find it interesting when those who proclaim to be tolerant make such blanket (baseless) accusations toward an entire group of people.
But what else can you do without the facts.
Based upon your response we can see that the difference between a Progressive and a Conservative.....Conservatives rely on facts and truth while Progressives believe in postulation and supposition.
What I see is conservatives who are immune to facts and truth. They like truthiness, something that feels like truth to them while being totally fact free. They are on a fact free diet.
It's based upon what you post.
"That's like the pot calling the kettle black"!
Ah but you can't point to any examples, can you, FoMo?
I don't get points and I will take that as a "No, Renee, I can't provide an example of all of these horrible names I call you."
The truth is the truth, no matter how much you admire the president. He lied. I didn't - but the only defense (instead of acknowledging HIS lie) is to turn it around on me and accuse me of "taunting" or being "vindictive". A shame - if the bad behavior was coming from the GOP, I would acknowledge it and denounce it.
They're merely trying to wear you down with B.S. Little they know that they play in the wrong Sandbox. ;]
Not true.
No lie, I am repeatedly accused of being dishonest - I am simply asking you or anyone who makes that claim to back it up. But nobody does."
Not true.
Welcome to the ideal of a Greater Israel.
“Many simultaneous rebellions stirred up in Arab Countries will benefit in the end only the State of Israel with the expansion of its territory
while...
in Europe and in the US, the financial resources "like magic" will disappear through bailouts, tax cuts and elaborated emergency maneuvers which will be ruled only to appear beneficial for those Countries but instead appositely designed for their collapse (except for England that will push Europe over the precipice).
The Deception supported by the media is the Zionist main weapon and there is a risk that people will realize what is happening only when it will be too late and there will be no alternatives.
Thus, one should not listen to the media but observe the events.
TV media and newspapers will never tell you that an Israeli firm had placed the explosives that brought down the 3 buildings in NY on 9/11. ICTS was the only security firm in charge for the twin towers and building 7 (most people still do not know about this building that fell without being hit by any plane or other). ICTS was also the security company in charge for all airports that had allowed the highjack planes on 9/11 to depart. The work force of ICTS was the only people to have access at night inside the 3 buildings and to allow Israeli agents to place those explosives inconspicuously before 9/11. Israeli agents were in fact arrested nearby on 9/11 transporting large amount of explosives in a white van (Chevrolet 2000) but they were later released by the Bush administration. Not as a coincidence, the same day, on 9/11 2001, and at the same time, a CIA operation called Able Danger was reproducing a military exercise that was supposed to mimic an attack by few planes crashing on buildings. But all this was never reported by the media although the future of all people depends on how 9/11 is intended.
First of its kind, this worldwide crisis was provoked through a terror event (9/11) plotted by a US president, George Bush, in cahoots with the Israeli Mossad.
This event was plotted to destabilize the equilibrium of every Country and trigger a chain of events almost unavoidable all of them part of the same Plan.”
There is only one Solution for this planned chain of events.
www.wavevolution.org/en/index.html
Good Lord.
Wow, there is little doubt that you reside in a world of conspiracy theories. However, believing that the State of Israel in conspriacy with President G.W. Bush, were responsible for 9-1-1 maybe going one conspiracy too far.
I disagree!!!
Frightening.
Are you referring to global warming alarmism or the sequester apocalypse?
Ohhh wait....
It is frightening - I believe Michele would have Obama be the new king.
Yawn.
they are actually doing quite well, thank you.
Pot:kettle
There is little doubt that the vast majority of southern states are conservative in ideology (i.e. red states) and are also the states where the vast majority of the citizens are presently on various government assistance programs. However, whether these people actually vote conservative or liberal should have no bearing whatsoever on whether we as fellow citizens care about their fate.
It may well be that the Sequester Bill will hurt one ideological group more than another, but I live in the south and I know how deeply seated poverty is within the southern states. Many people live below the established poverty level and are therefore in need of government assistance. In reality, these people for the most part, don't care about which political party is in control, they only care about being able to support their families. For whatever reason, be it by the fate of lineage or by their own bad choices in life, these people need our help and as moral human beings, we can not turn our backs on them.
Some of those who read this and other related GN articles may decide that the Sequester Bill is a good thing, others may decide that it is a bad thing. But, whichever way you choose to view the issue, please do it of your own volition, not because of some other person's prompting or decision.
This is our county, honest constructive impute from people of other nations should be accepted and appreciated. There are at least six individuals living in other countries who from time to time choose to discuss various issues with us and I for one, find much of what they have to say, to be respectfully objective, thoughtful and constructive.
However, when a person who is a citizen of another country chooses to denigrate our country, it's government and our president, such as Renee Nal does on a daily basis, we should reject and ignore all that person has to say. I personally find Renee to be a very disingenuous immature woman with little ethical values. More importantly, she is a person who has no stake in what happens to our people or our nation. Remember, higher or lower taxation in our country will not effect her in any way whatsoever, so don't let her lead you to believe otherwise.
I see that you have returned to your fun loving avatar, I Love It.
I see that Obama has backed off of his "The world as we know it will come to an end if sequester goes into effect" campaign....saying eh, no big deal now.
As Janet Napoilitano said yesterday that the airports were already feeling the effects of the sequester.......The AP contacted several airports.....Nope! everything is fine!
"White House cancels tours due to sequester"
I'm sure you can show us where the white house tours led by unpaid volunteers are on the sequester list to be cut.
I'm sure you can show us where the white house tours led by unpaid volunteers are on the sequester list to be cut.
You never change. You jump into something without knowing what you are talking about or having any supportive documentation for your POV or counter debate. I would suggest once again, for the 3rd time, that you do a little research before you make a "Fool" of yourself in challenging another members POV.
I don't know why I am even bothering to answer your ridiculous question, but I guess it has something to do with humanity for those of lesser understanding than the average person.
Within the Sequester Bill there are a list of things, items and jobs that must be cut to save money.
One of those job cut savings, was a number of Federal Employees who work for the National Park Service. Tour Guides for the White House and it's grounds are employees of the National Park Service. Therefore, they have been furloughed under and by the mandate of the Sequester Law.
Now for your own self respect, learn how to research a subject before you make another foolish ass of yourself in front of the whole reading public, I dear say, worldwide.
Guides are employees of the National Park Service, whether paid and/or volunteer, they are considered to be employees as a matter of security. Tour Guides must be security cleared employees of the government and tours are controlled by NPS and White House Security Chief, no one roams free through the White House and/or its grounds.
Now that the immature New Zealand school girl has decided to butt into our discussion, even though I have made it quite clear many times that I want nothing to do with her, that will be the end of our ping pong match. Inasmuch, as I refuse to be required to educate you, while having to contend with an adolescent who has her head permanently stuck up their rectum feels that she can follow my comments with her asinine retorts.
It would help if you actually read the article you linked to....
U.S. Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary explained that cancelling the tours will allow for uniformed officers normally assigned to public tours to be reassigned to other security posts at the White House.
"This staffing measure will reduce overtime costs overall and may ultimately reduce the number of potential furloughs necessary by our agency," Leary said.
I mean, did you actually believe that people were allowed to roam the halls of one of the most heavily guarded buildings in America unattended? lol
You as a progressive are susceptible to the spin, but those of us who are still capable of independent thought, we realize that this is all a show.
Has there been a time that the American public has been restricted access the the white house? No I don't think so.
So you and Scott can keep believing the spin and I'll keep looking at the facts.
Well Scotty boy,
Just like there are people in the U.S. who do not understand the principals of freedoms and what gives us our freedoms (that would be you) there are people of other countries who read and understand the ideals of the founders of our country.....That would be Renee.
Now return and embarrass yourself further with more irrelevant nonsense.
The place would look like a Syrian rebel stronghold: shot full of holes and smoking.
Excepting you Tony..... and the rest of your fellow progressive brethren who think like you.
A shame that you are not willing to have an honest discussion. Bashing me does nothing except make you seem "disingenuous" and "immature." (and against the rules, by the way)
Aside from the question which you posed on Tour Guides loosing their jobs, which I answered. My question would be, why all the hype and histeria over White House tour guides being furloughed and replaced with security personnel. You do know that there will be an estimated 3/4 to 1 1/4 million blue collar workers who will eventually be furloughed or loose their jobs because of the enactment of the Sequester Bill. Yet, you chose this particular job furlough upon which to raise a debate. Not that I approve of any employees loosing their jobs due to the obstructionist agenda being utilized by the Teapublicans in Congress, because I certainly do not. I find such obstructionism to be nothing less self centered extremist ideology of the worst kind in politics.
I ask the question because, it just does not make any logical sense for the furloughing of White House tour guides to become a main issue with you to debate, as if it were the end of the world. Especially since the counter debate which you posed actually supported my POV, not yours.
{i.e.} It does not make any sense to aggressively debate the furloughing of 10 employees when there will be 750,000/1,250,000 actual job losses by 2014. It just absolutely makes no logical sense to me whatsoever.
Do you have a logical answer to my question ???
Called it....
"Excepting[?] you Tony..... and the rest of your fellow progressive brethren who think like you."
Obstructionism....you mean like:
The White House entered the sequestration fray Thursday, vowing to veto a GOP bill to give President Barack Obama the ability to pick and choose what gets cut.
or
The $1.2 trillion in cuts that will be triggered are divided equally between social programs and defense spending. Republicans have dubbed the defense cuts “draconian” and, following news of the supercommittee’s failure, said they are now working on a plan to minimize the impact of the sequester on the Department of Defense.
But the president today flatly said he won’t accept any such deal and urged the two sides to continue working on an agreement.
or
House Republicans have passed 40 jobs bills that are currently stuck in the Democrat controlled Senate.
or remember this?
“Mitt Romney’s fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his ‘severely conservative’ agenda is laughable,” Mr. Reid said in a statement on Friday, trying to puncture Mr. Romney’s closing election argument that he’ll be able to deliver on the bipartisanship President Obama promised in 2008 but has struggled to live up to."
"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." --Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson's first inaugural address
And there is the lie inherent in supply-side economics, trickle-down, Reaganomics, call it what you will. It is based on the supposition that the rich don't have enough money and if we just give them more (by cutting their taxes yet again) then they will rush out and create jobs by the buttload.
But the theory doesn't hold water. They already have more than enough money to create all the jobs needed and then some. Nothing is stopping them. The bottom line is they don't want to. And if you eliminated their taxes altogether they likely wouldn't create a single new job because of it.
While corporations and the wealthy do create jobs, their marginal tax rate is not the incentive that drives them to do it. They create jobs if and when they require a service to be performed or see a profit to be made through hiring someone. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Government also creates jobs, as the thousands of American soldiers, thousands of police officers, thousands of teachers, hundreds and hundreds of judges, hundreds and hundreds of prison guards, and many thousands of other community service providers who make decent salaries, pay their taxes, consume goods and services, and provide value to their neighbours can attest.
Economic uncertainty, stifling regulations, ObamaCare concerns....
Where does the government get the money to create jobs, Rory?
"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." --Thomas Jefferson
You are not the arbiter of what the Wealthy do with their Property. It is no business of yours.
This is not surprising, coming from a Canadian Leftist; I've seen enough of that. However, you happen to be talking about America; and it is unAmerican to covet anothers PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Live it, Learn it, Love it.
And just as with everything else, you get what you pay for. But you have to pay for it.
That's why America is circling the drain. You rightwingnutbars decided to let your grandchildren pay for it all.
Wake up.
No one, neither government nor private organizations, can create jobs, but that is a different discussion.
Assuming, as most do, that jobs can be created out of thin air, the BIG difference between government jobs and private jobs is:
1) Private jobs "create" MORE wealth enhancing the life of everyone
2) Government jobs take EXISTING wealth and regurgitate it UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT HAS ALL OF THE WEALTH
Government jobs create NO NEW WEALTH whereas private jobs CREATE ALL NEW WEALTH.
Who said anything remotely relating to Tax evasion?
Nearest I can tell that would be you. I certainly didn't mention tax evasion.
If wealthy folks can use their money to generate profit through industry or business there is no reason why government cannot use money pooled from the general public through taxation to do the very same thing.
It's not rocket science.
It's not that complicated, though I will understand if it is beyond your ability to comprehend.
Everybody knows what's going on, Doll. You just can't seem to figure out who's doing it.
You might do some research.
Your attempts at parry are underwhelming.
The sequester has been brought to us by the Dems.....Obama is still campaigning he wants the sequester to make the republicans look bad.
Now he is going to make the cuts as obvious (releasing illegal alien felons) and as pain full as possible....So that those mean evil and nasty Republicans can't keep the house in 2016.
It's called politics Chicago style.
They believe in a completely fictional past and want to 'return' there.
They are motivated by ideas that are either the opposite of their nominal religion or will have the opposite effect to that which they claim to desire.
They follow a sick ideology expounded on in a couple of trash novels written by a twisted sociopath who admired children-murdering psychopathy as a desirable and advanced trait for human beings.
They are motivated by irrational fears, unthinking hatred and insensate rage.
They look horribly foolish and entirely horrible without any help.
Sequester is now a Legislated "LAW", there is no way for the POTUS nor any other government official or any government agency to make cuts to its contents. All cuts to government programs and government expeditures have been previously established within the law, agreed to by both parties, signed into enactment by the president and will be automatic !!!
Wrong Scott H., the Republican Congress gave us the sequester and they can end it -- if they wanted to.
I'm not exactly sure that we are speaking about the same legislation. If what you are referring to is the Sequester Bill, I must point out, that Bill of Legislation was signed into Law by the President on Mar 1st 2013 and therefore neither the Republicans nor the Democrats can just end it as you suggest.
The Sequester Bill is now law and those cuts as prescribed within the Bill will be required under Constitutional Law to be enacted automatically. The now mandated enactment can not be stopped nor otherwise averted. Those cuts will take place regardless of what either party does or does not do.
If you are referring to some other pending Bill or projected future cuts in Congressional/government spending, you may be right in your assessment. But, as to the now enacted Sequester Law, I would submit that it is you who is wrong, not me.
We'll see.
Obama's approval numbers are dropping like a rock.
Insulting is much easier than disputing with facts. I understand.
Haahahaaha!!!
That's rich...like asking the Hen how the Fox tastes...haahahaa!!
It was a Reuters/Ipsos poll, not a Huffington Post poll.
GOOOH.com
1) When stupid people vote to keep stupid selfish greedmongers in Congress what do you expect.
I would suggest that you are cynically selling the American voters short. Yes, we are fallible and make at times make errors in judgement when voting for particular candidates. But for the most part, the voters usually rectify past bad choices in future elections. As was evident by some 11 Teapublicans who were elected in 2010, loosing their seats in 2012.
2) Most the incumbents stayed in and who's fault is that
Some presently serving encumbants may as you suggest, be greedy individuals and prostitute themselves to the corporate lobbiest. However, they understand how government is suppose to work and have for the most part, been efficient in carryingout their duties of office, that is they were, until the recent influx of Teapublicans took office in 2010.
If you are suggesting that the encumbants in Congress should have been replaced in the 2012 elections by more Teapublican candidates, that is not something which would have eliminated the present problems existing in Congress. In my opinion, it would only have served to exacerbate the already untenable situation.
I say this, inasmuch, as those who were elected to Congress in the Teapublican movement during the 2010 elections, have done nothing but stalemate their own party in legislative negotiations with the Democrats for the past two years. They appear to be totally committed to not allowing any legislation to pass into law nor to agree with the Democrats on any proposed spending cuts nor revenue increases. A position which is an ideological, not political position. All of which has had the negative effect of creating a "Do Nothing Congress." A situation which is detrimental to both the government and the American people.
True enough, Teapublicans have shown no inclination to be financially greedy nor have they prostituted themselves to the corporate Lobbiest. However, they have proven themselves to be a group of people who neither know anything about nor understand how Congress is suppose to legislate law for the good of the country and its people. They are what can only be described as being "non political politicians", a term which is an illogical paradox in and of its self, but nevertheless fits their demeanor.
The Teapublicans now in Congress have a twofold agenda, that being, to cut the size of government to the point where it will be inefficient and unable to operate as it is presently and Constitutionally designed to do. The second part of their agenda is to sufficiently decease the federal government's legislated control over individual states. Their endgame being, the reverting of states rights and self control, back to what it was before the U.S. Civil War.
The current crop of Teapublicans in Congress (70 +/-) have proven themselves to be nothing less than selfish obstructionist, anti government and states rights promoters. All of which in my opinion, deserves the title of Quasi Anarchist. They could care less about the federal government and our country, being solely committed to their individual agenda of severing all state government ties with the federal government. They are so self centered and tunnel visioned in their endeavor, that they have summarialy dismissed the rights of all other citizens.
3) Should not ever even have been a Sequester period we had a congress they should be able to do the job without special sequester on top of that.
I agree with this part of your statement in its basic premise. IMO, Congress should legislate as it is mandated to do by the Constitution and not procrastinate nor refuse to act upon its duties as it has been doing for the past two years.
However, as I pointed out above, it was not the whole of the Republican membership of Congress who stymied the legislative duties of Congress in 2011 when Sequester was proposed as a means by which to force spendings cuts and revenue increase by Feb. 28th 2013. It was the Teapublicans who brought about its proposed legislation and eventual enactment into law on Mar.1st 2013. They did so by putting job retention pressure on their Party leaders in order to force them to bend to their will and disregard their sworn oath of office. Those leaders being, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell.
Scott - you do know that the founders were big promoters of limited government - with most of the power going to the states, right?
You do know that the White house has already acknowledged that the sequester originated with the Obama Administration and Obama himself signed it into law, right?
Well, there really is no other possible outcome, is there?
The only thing that interests our governing politicians is the next election. Of course with Obama, it's how many times he can appear on the View and how many Hollywood buddies he can make.
Lets be frank, the US government has little interest in helping the American people.
History repeating itself again and again.
Now THAT'S just stupid.
Congress as a whole is mostly to blame.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/use-mandated-budget-sequester-limit-congressional-pensions/frZfHdWN
So, this fiasco was engineered by some Republican Conservative sick minds to force Congress to negotiate. It was designed as doomsday, if implemented, and it was so pushed by the Republican Party since passage.
Now that the law goes into effect, the same Republicans who predicted the end of the world, the second time this year, are saying that actually the whole project is not as bad as it sounds, actually it is a good thing because will cut spending.
When the President started to speak about the doomsday effect that were built in the system, the same Republicans who built it with the intent to scare off the American people and to force Congress to negotiate, are saying that he is exaggerating that nothing of the sort would happen.
If this is true and nothing will happen, why did they engineered it, and why did they pass it?
It seems that the Republican Congress is made by illegal aliens who don't have nothing in common with the American people... Or better yet, it is made by bad gamblers, who bluff a lot and when their bluff is called they try to say that the dirt on their face is just caused by the rain outside, while outside is a bad drought...
A blank, stupid stare is not a great poker face.
True and the results are always the same.
Excellent. You might employ it, sometime ;]
I really do enjoy your humour, TP. You'd be a great guy to enjoy a Beer with. Do you Play Golf?
I don't share your proclivities, but I suppose that they do!
And, you can thank the stupidity of the American People for the rest.