KevinG

So this thread took an odd turn over the last three days. I don't want to get in the middle of anything here so I just thought I would share an op-ed from the NYT by Paul Krugman. Which says that deficit spending is not a bad thing. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/opinion/krugman-dwindling-deficit-disorder.html?ref=paulkrugman&_r=1& What seems odd here, again and I have mentioned it before, is that all of a sudden that the GOP now see running up a big debt as a problem. But they were sure happy to run up the debt under Regan and GWB, with no intention of ever paying it back.

There is plenty of news and economists that say contrary. It is all where you get your news. I can only assume that your common sense will lead to your nomination to the next Fed Chair. Slow Clap: I guess congratulations are in order for being so smart with your money and foreseeing trends before they happen. Listen I am being generally dickish here, and I admit that. But the US economy is extremely complex, more so then guns and other stuff we have talked about. But people tend to talk with so much authority on the subject, and frankly all of the news articles cannot match t

I love all of this arm chair quarterbacking we all do around here. As far as I know no one here is economist, let alone educated to the degree that Ben Bernanke and the other members of the Fed are. So either y'all think the Fed is either stupid or purposely hurting economy of the US. And at least to me there is no one here who can honestly say they understand the complexity that is the US and Global economic system.

Who knows, the stock market is no better then your average casino, IMHO. But believe if the stock market was doing miserably he would get the blame. But this is my point, I think it is funny that the Right Wing is constantly decrying PBO as a socialist and will distribute wealth or whatever. Right now we are at the exact opposite of that, we have corporations and the wealthy doing very well and an extremely high unemployment and numbers of people who are poor. So if he is indeed this socialist the right wing says he his, then he is doing a really shitty job.

All I am saying Obama is the worst socialist I have ever seen. http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/05/investing/stocks-markets/

So I am not sure what you are saying here. Obama should have pulled all troops when he got in office? The wars where unfunded by congress PBO inherited this problem. If we were not in the war in the first place we would not have incurred this cost. There is no way that just straight spending cuts will solve the country's debt problem. To solve the debt issue it will take a mix of spending cuts and tax raises. So you are willing to cause pain to the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and children, but are opposed to cause pain to the wealthy with marginal tax increases? As a

it has seemed curious that today's "deficit hawks" were ok for voting for the Bush tax cuts and two wars without paying for them, and now, deficit spending is a problem. If you want to get our debt under control two things need to happen, cut spending and raise taxes. The Dems have cut spending to an extent, but the GOP is refusing to budge on taxes. To me the GOP is not serious about the debt, if they were they would purpose to raise taxes. They have not done so. Louie, I agree with you on most things, but you are wrong. Are you going to be furloughed? Is you take home pay

welcome to the sequester day one!

My bad it was madison. Both did have communication with the constitutional convention, and their influence can be seen. Regardless of founders views. Tell me how if term limits were imposed this this current dysfunction would stop.

Technical not a creation of the GOP, but a result of the GOP holding America's Full Faith in Credit hostage with the debt ceiling.

But Jefferson did write the Bill of Rights, partly because he was not at the Constitutional Convention. If term limits were so important to him I think he would have gotten it in. And to suggest that Jefferson and Adams had no influence on the Convention is ridiculous. But yes I concur with you Jefferson suggested term limits when talking about the Virginia State Constitution: But he also had faith in the electorate to put things right if an elected official was not doing his duty: The only reason that term limits are ever brought up is because of the dysfunction of con

Term limits were so important to them that they decided not to mention them in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Also term limits are the very definition of undemocratic. You are taking the choice from the electorate to who they want to represent them, because of a mandated limit. You are essentially saying the choice they want is invalid, for no other reason then they served x number of terms. Term limits are a solution to a problem of our governmental leaders not beholden to the people that elected them. The problem is not because our representatives are in there too long it is

Completely agree, but with the caveat as stated before the election funding laws and process needs to change. The best and the brightest should be representing us in the Congress not the richest.

This may be slightly contrary to what I stated before, but I am not a fan of term limits. This is why, term limits take the power of choice from the electorate. If a state/district has a representative that they really like and is doing good things by those people, why should that person be forced out when the people still want them there? With that being said, the current state of our election laws it is extremely difficult to unseat an incumbent politician (more so a politician that has been there for several terms). And often times a politician is continually re-elected through the m

The only thing we can do as Citizens at this point is vote the bastards out of office in 2014. And I by bastards I mean all 435 members of the House and the 36 senators that are up for re-election. We need to replace them with common sense leaders, not these partisan hacks. Of course with our current election laws that will never happen. So the cycle of toxicity will continue.

I am sure those people who will be furloughed and lose take home pay don't share the same thoughts as you.

Here is what effect the sequester will have on your state (scroll down to the links for each state). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/24/sequester-states_n_2755181.html

I am not sure if you are honestly asking or being a smart ass and doing what Boehner and countless members of the Right Wing Media are doing and saying this is Obama's sequester. But that is disingenuous and wrong. Obama did propose it, that is true. He proposed it because he couldn't get the GOP to agree on a deal on the debt ceiling. Which was used as a bargaining chip (IMHO was a horrible thing to do). So he indeed used it to kick the can down the road, and in hopes to make the budget cuts so egregious that a deal had to be made. Also if you know anything about how a bill becomes a la

These things will happen, this is not what might happen (or what I think might happen) this will happen: The US meat plants will shut down, leading to higher meat prices http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=3fae916f-0293-4836-ab43-92541a83ad38 Long lines at airports http://www.hstoday.us/focused-topics/customs-immigration/single-article-page/former-faa-chief-fears-impact-of-sequester-on-air-travel-tsa-security/2556c05b6d8d49da692fc2df24d6b098.html (note article is from Nov 2012 and talks about sequester of Jan 1, 2013, but since all congress did was kick the can down the road it is apt.

So Boehner after trying to lay all of the blame on this sequester at the feet of the President won't call the house back in session to deal with it, or try to comprise. http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2013/02/20/democrats-to-boehner-call-house-back-avoid-sequester/ This is the most dysfunctional group of lawmakers I have ever witnessed. And I know no one here cares about this, but I do, it is important.

I really wish there was some way for the media to stop doing stories on these guys. They are just looking for reactions, I think it the WBC believes lends legitimacy to their cause.

Super glad that we are more concerned about finger pointing then actually trying to solve this mess: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323495104578314240032274944.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Well since it ain't gonna happen, yes. And you seem so concerned over something that may or may not happen in 10-80 years, it seems a bit ridiculous. While in 10 days we will have some drastic cuts because two sides can't work out a deal. Talk about damage to military readiness, it ain't coming because of Hagel, it is coming because of sequestration and on March 1st.

I welcome that day. It probably won't matter anyway since come March 1st were are in for a shit storm of cuts across the board if congress and the White House doesn't get its act together. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/obama-sequester-speech_n_2716921.html

Back to my original point, if I may, on Hagel and his confirmation. Everything Hixler brought up was really why he does like or agree with Hagel, not why he isn't qualified for the post. Here is the thing, like it or not, in November of 2012 Barack Obama was re-elected to the presidency. He has the choice to put whomever he wants in his cabinet (as well as judgeships and other high level positions). These people have to be confirmed by the senate. The senate needs to judge if these people are qualified for the position. However the senate is playing games with their constitutional author