JohnSmith2007

This country has no hope. There are no adults in Washington. What we need is a two term limit on any office in washington with a lifetime limit of 20 years in elected office. Just flush the toilet on the whole DC cesspool.

No, I wouldn't because that's a nonsense approach. There are budget line items that you can probably get rid of altogether - I'm thinking subsidies, corporate welfare, useless wars and such - while others may actually need a boost - I'm thinking infrastructure and human resource investments. And then there's a bunch of stuff where you can probably accomplish the same result with less funding. Whether the fluff in these budgets is 10% or 50%, I don't care. Axe it. It's simply not smart policy to take an across-the-board approach. That looks nice on a bumper sticker or the tea party protest sign but it just doesn't replace the hard work that is required to balance the budget while maintaining a strong economy and investing in tomorrow. Across the board cuts is really a lazy man's approach and it could - and almost certainly would - end up hurting more and likely make defcits worse by triggering adverse effects on the economy and unemployment rates. Look at Ireland - that draconian austerity shite didn't work out very well for them. Not only did they not close their budget gaps, they're now looking to the rest of the EU to get carried along. Look at the UK, similar story unfolding there. Austerity they said as the be-all, end-all and now their economy contracted while most of the EU nations continue to see fairly robust growth resulting in higher receipts and less unemployment.

That all sound really great, and I would support that. Until of course, it runs head long into reality. What you are suggesting is really the adult way of doing things. Unfortunatly we don't have adults running things in Washington. The minute we got into every single prodject with an eye to streamline and economize politics would kick in. Everyone would have a pet project that he would want to preserve or would try to make an argument that it needs more funding. With our system of government there would just be no way to do what you are suggesting regardles of how sound of an idea it is. What I have wanted all along is even more radical but equaly not going to happen. We have a lot of duplication and wasted effort in our laws, regulations and budgets. I have always thought it would be a good idea to start over from scratch on everything. Repeal every law and regulation. Shut down every agency and program. Then start over with the goal of doing everything once. I know it will never happen but it seems to me it would be the best way to cut out all the fat and favortism in the government.

However, knowing that it would never happen I would still like to see an across the board decrease in every budget. It would probibly be the only thing reality would allow.

True. Besides, the CBO estimate actually says that the Ryan proposal actually increases the debt over current policy by 2022. So, not only does it not curb the defict and debt over the next 10 years, it makes it slightly worse. Long term? Well, anyone that believes that shifting an ever increasing burden of medical care to the ever increasing number of seniors - yes, that block of voters that will be ever more important to politicians as it makes up an ever larger part of the electorate - will actually stand, I've got a bridge to sell.

It sounds like you are in favor of an even more drastic budget. Ok, I am for that. I would even give up the Bush/Obama tax cuts for everyone if we could get an across the board budget reduction of 20%. Not just a few things cut but every single budget line cut 20%. Would you support that?

Also known as the Nutty Ninth. Many of their decisions have been overturned. Not that SB1070 won't eventually be struck down, but I'd feel a lot better about it if it wasn't by the Nutty Ninth. I hope it winds up in the Supreme Court for better or worse.

I always heard it called the Ninth Circus Clowns. You are right though, a lot of their decisions are overturned by the SC. They will have the final say.

Actually I'm surprised that he didn't say that because of the previous administrations failed leadership 3 years ago he is forced to support raising the debt ceiling.

Hard to say that when the debt has gone up so much more over his administration. The "blame Bush" mantra is wearing thin.

Are we going to get into this again? Jeez. No, I am not Gary.

Gary, clearly you don't get his point as you keep doubling down on the same flawed response. He is saying, and I shall repeat it for the umpteenth time, is that it is NO different, no marginal degree better or worse.

I GET HIS POINT!!!!! I don't agree with it. It is not lipstick on a pig. It will result in lower spending, just not very fast. There is a difference IMO. Jeez, how many times does it take? BTW, my name isn't Gary.

No you still don't get his point. He is saying Ryan's "budget" is more of the same. Not an improvement over anything.

Lipstick on a pig, to use a phrase you are perhaps more familiar with.

No, I do get his point. I don't agree with him. While it isn't everything I want I think it is better than anything thing else we can get right now.

Gary, if you read mawilson's post (the post you responded to) carefully, you will say he is saying that Ryan's "budget" () is more of the same.

I know what he said. Lacking any other alternative it is still much improved over what we now have.

i i i i i i

still no answer, just dodging duncaning ©.

fixxored

No, it is the famous Fishdude fishdance!!!

Ryan's budget sucks. Sure, no-one has come up with anything better, but his budget doesn't cut jack until 2022 and doesn't balance the books until 2040. It's yet another feel-good Republican-Democrat regimer accounting gimmick.

It may not be everything but it is better than anything we have had for decades. I would take that over just more of the same.

Anger begins to infect Europe’s prosperous core

By Peter Spiegel in Brussels

Published: April 11 2011 19:16 | Last updated: April 11 2011 19:16

No sooner had Portugal succumbed to a bail-out than European Union officials were gearing up for “The Battle for Spain” – ensuring the eurozone’s fourth-largest economy is not consumed by the contagion that last week claimed its neighbour.

But those concerned about the EU’s ability to fight that battle should turn to the other end of the continent, where Finland could this weekend elect the eurozone’s first truly Eurosceptic prime minister.

The collapse of Portugal’s government and the success of a hitherto unknown populist in Sunday’s Finnish elections may seem unrelated. But Timo Soini, head of the anti-EU True Finns party, was quick to the make the connection in an interview with the Financial Times earlier this year.

“If the Portuguese thing comes before the Finnish elections, that will mean quite a fierce discussion and protest,” said Mr Soini. True Finns were last week only narrowly behind the centre-right National Coalition party, according to most polls, and that was before Lisbon appealed for a rescue. “People just don’t get it, don’t want it.”

It is a sentiment that appears to be spreading. Popular anger at bail-outs, austerity and general economic uncertainty has already toppled leaders on the eurozone’s periphery: first in Ireland, then Portugal and arguably Spain, where José Luis Zapatero has said he will not seek a third term as prime minister.

Now, anger is beginning to infect Europe’s prosperous core, where mainstream parties are losing ground to populist outsiders playing on resentment and frustration triggered by austerity and falling living standards.

In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy’s centre-right UMP party took a drubbing in regional elections last month amid a strong showing by the far-right National Front. In Belgium, Flemish nationalists have prevented the formation of a government for a year and, observers say, are likely to emerge even stronger if forced into another election. The minority Dutch government has relied on the anti-EU party of nationalist Geert Wilders to keep it in power for six months.

Even in Germany – where the idea of a right-wing populist party feeding on economic discontent is the subject of whispered concerns – anger over mainstream handling of the economy led the traditional parties to lose ground in the state of Baden-Württemberg last month. Resentment, fuelled by the tabloid press, grew so intense that one mainstream party, the liberal Free Democrats, appeared to toy with an openly anti-EU platform ahead of the vote.

Chroniclers of Europe’s populist fringe have long focused on the anti-immigration rhetoric of many of these parties, particularly the National Front in France and Mr Wilders’ Dutch Freedom party. But many, such as Mr Soini in Finland or Flemish nationalist Bart De Wever, have either shunned or played down their anti-foreigner roots and re-branded themselves for the economically angry mainstream. Softening her party’s hard-edge approach to race and immigration helped Marine Le Pen, the sunnier face of her father’s angry French nationalism, woo white working-class voters disillusioned with Mr Sarkozy’s economic policies.

We are witnessing Europe’s own Tea Party moment. Like Barack Obama, US president, leaders of European nations with the might to rescue a continent from crisis are hamstrung by voters who have had enough bailing out others.

Much like Mr Obama, these leaders are having a hard time figuring out how to win voters back. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has shown just enough solidarity to help the eurozone but her begrudging approach has only heightened popular resentment at profligate southerners.

Jan Kees de Jager, Dutch finance minister, is one of the few to be candid, backing tough bail-out terms but telling voters that rescuing Portugal, Ireland and Greece is in their own best interest, since Dutch banks, pension funds, and trade-oriented businesses would suffer from the collapse of Europe’s periphery.

But nearly all tread lightly when confronting their populist opponents. Jyrki Katainen, Finland’s finance minister and the centre-right candidate for prime minister, says: “I don’t want to threaten anybody by saying if you vote for True Finns it will lead us to catastrophe.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c9ec3d9e-6463-11e0-a69a-00144feab49a.html#axzz1JFvVYjsp

A balanced budget amendment?

That would be great, to bad Obama can't give that one himself. How about agreeing to Ryan's budget for next year?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIZwZZveeU0

Well he can suck a big one because the Tea Partiers in the House will not vote for it.

Not without Obama giving up some serious concessions they won't.

Obama regrets vote against raising debt limit

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Erica Werner, Associated Press – 3 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The White House said Monday that President Barack Obama regrets his vote as a senator in 2006 against raising the debt limit — the same kind of increase he's now pressuring Congress to approve.

Obama "thinks it was a mistake," presidential spokesman Jay Carney told reporters. "He realizes now that raising the debt ceiling is so important to the health of this economy and the global economy that it is not a vote that, even when you are protesting an administration's policies, you can play around with."

The country will reach its debt limit of $14.3 trillion by May 16. If Congress doesn't raise it by then or shortly thereafter, the government would not be able to make debt payments, leading to an unprecedented default of the national debt and driving up borrowing costs for the government, U.S. companies and consumers, the Treasury Department warns.

Republicans who control the House are threatening to withhold their votes to increase the debt ceiling unless Obama agrees to major spending cuts. The White House is insistent that the debt ceiling be extended without any attempts to cut spending attached to it.

That means Washington is right back where it started before the budget fight that nearly resulted in a government shutdown last week. Both sides show no give even though they'll have to compromise in order to avoid an outcome everyone says they want to avoid.

With the stakes higher this time, the clash over the debt limit that looks likely to consume Washington in coming weeks could far overshadow the budget showdown that ended in a last-minute deal Friday night.

The White House's explanation Monday of Obama's changed position on the debt limit was an attempt to prepare for the fight by inoculating the president against charges of flip-flopping already being leveled by Republicans.

Congress is forced to increase the debt limit every several years and it often turns political with members of the minority party withholding their votes to extract concessions or direct criticism at the party that controls the White House.

That was the case in 2006 when Republican George W. Bush was president and Obama, a freshman senator from Illinois, declared on the Senate floor: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. ... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem."

Today similar arguments are heard from Republicans.

"The president has asked us to increase the debt limit, in other words to increase the limit on the credit card, without doing anything about the source of the problem. And we've got to deal with the source of the problem," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Monday on Fox News Channel.

"My members won't vote to increase the debt limit unless we're taking serious steps in the right direction," Boehner said.

Carney didn't disavow Obama's comments from 2006. But he said the president understands now that "when you're in the legislature, when you're in the Senate, you want to make clear your position if you don't agree with the policies of the administration."

"But there are many other ways to do it," he said. "We do not need to play chicken with our economy by linking the raising of the debt ceiling to anything."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110411/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_debt_limit

Hey either way i am just glad the embassy will be open for my fiancee interview on the 14 th all i care about

Yeah, unless someone renigs you should be fine.

No, CNN says that they reached a long term deal and the one week CR is so they can put it all in writing. Anderson Cooper says they "shook hands" on a long term deal to fund the government through the fiscal year. It looks like everyone can stop having a hissy fit now.

I heard that all applications that were up for interviews will be discarded if the government shuts down. Gotta start over. Sorry.

You are mean. I heard they will just burn the petitions to heat the buildings.

Dozens of Protesters Killed by Security Forces in Syria

At least 27 people are dead after Syrian security forces opened fire on tens of thousands of protesters across several cities Friday, according to Al-Jazeera.

Hundreds of others were wounded and residents were forced to turn mosques into makeshift hospitals, witnesses and a human rights group said.

Ammar Qurabi, who heads Syria's National Organization for Human Rights, said most of the deaths happened in Daraa, a restive southern city that has become a flashpoint for anti-government protests. Sixteen people were killed in Daraa, three in the Damascus suburb of Harasta, and one in the central city of Homs, he said.

The government acknowledged violence in Daraa, but said only two people died and blamed armed thugs.

Syria's state-run television claims that 19 police officers were killed in the violence in Daraa.

Security forces fired tear gas and live ammunition Friday as thousands of protesters gathered in Daraa. The city has become the epicenter of the country's protest movement.

"I saw pools of blood and three bodies in the street being picked up by relatives in the Mahatta area," a witness told Reuters.

Security forces attacked Sunni Muslim protesters with batons after they left a Damascus mosque, Reuters reports.

Syrian authorities also broke up a protest of nearly 2,000 people in the Sunni city of Hama, the site of the 1982 massacre, according to Reuters.

Like most activists and witnesses who spoke to The Associated Press, he requested anonymity for fear of reprisals.

Another activist in touch with protesters in the northeastern town of Amouda said a demonstration was starting there.

The reports could not be independently confirmed because Syria has restricted media access since the protests began three weeks ago. Human rights groups have said at least 100 people have been killed in the security crackdown.

Protest organizers have called on Syrians to take to the streets every Friday for the past three weeks, demanding reform in one of the most authoritarian nations in the Middle East. The protests have rattled the regime of President Bashar Assad, whose family has ruled Syria for nearly 40 years.

Witnesses in several other cities across Syria also reported protests Friday. An eyewitness in the coastal city of Latakia said hundreds of people took part in a largely peaceful protest Friday calling for political freedoms.

"Peaceful, peaceful!" they shouted, marching past soldiers who were deployed in force in and around the religiously mixed city where clashes two weeks ago killed 12 people. He spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

Activists said protests also erupted in the central cities of Homs and Hama, the coastal city of Banyas, the northern city of Aleppo and outside the capital, Damascus.

A video posted by activists on Facebook showed a crowd of people in the Damascus suburb of Harasta shouting "We want Freedom!" and "The Syrian people will not be humiliated." The footage could not be independently confirmed.

The Interior Ministry called on residents of Daraa not to provide shelter for the armed groups that opened fire on civilians and police and to provide authorities with any information they have about them.

Syria had appeared immune to the unrest sweeping the Arab world until three weeks ago, when security forces arrested a group of high school students who scrawled anti-government graffiti on a wall.

Protests then exploded in cities across the country.

Daraa is parched and impoverished, suffering sustained economic problems from a yearslong drought.

Assad has made a series of concessions to quell the violence, including sacking his Cabinet and firing two governors.

On Thursday, he granted citizenship to thousands of Kurds, fulfilling a decades-old demand of the country's long-ostracized minority. But the protest Friday in Amouda -- a Kurdish city -- suggested the population still was not satisfied.

An activist in Douma, a Damascus suburb where at least eight people were killed during protests last Friday, said he was expecting a large turnout Friday. Hundreds of activists and residents have met this week to prepare for the demonstration.

But telephone lines to Douma appeared to be cut Friday. Activists in Damascus, quoting people who came from Douma, said thousands of people were demonstrating outside the suburb's Grand Mosque.

Despite the regime's gestures, many Syrian activists remain skeptical about the regime's concessions and have called for much more concrete reforms, such as lifting the state of emergency, which has been in place since 1963 and gives the regime a free hand to arrest people without charge.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/08/syrian-security-forces-kill-protests/?test=latestnews

Would you not agree that the GOP was very effective in defeating a meaningful healthcare reform despite lacking votes in Congress to stop it? They did that with pure opposition and no constructive input. They could have done the latter but chose to simply do the former. They had a stage and didn't use it. Why? Well, because they had no ideas beyond denying Obama and the Democrats any victory on the issue. To sit there and say that they couldn't propose policy is dishonest and you know it.

The GOP had zero power to change a thing on Obamacare. Any input would have been ignored. The only thing they could do was stand together so they could say "I told you so" when it all went to hell. I only wish they could have stopped Obamacare. The only thing worse than nothing at all was what we got. I hope it dies a quick death. This was a 100% dem clusterfukc. They own it. They are welcome to it.

Pelosi and Reid control the media? They can prevent the GOP from putting forward and in front of the people their policy proposals? Really? I did not realize that the media in this country is controlled by the Speaker and the Majority Leader. If so, the current Speaker is doing a pizz poor job of taking advantage of that control that comes with his office. I see Congressional Democrats putting forth their ideas each and every freaking day. You better tell Boehner to to put a stop to that.

No, but they did control what bills get voted on. Get with the program dude.

Not really. The Dems have moved towards the middle in the negotiations reaching an agreement that exceeds Boehner's 32bn spending cut goal. The GOP hasn't moved an inch towards the middle but moved further right once they had the fiscal savings achieved. That dog don't hunt.

Really? 2010? You mean to tell me that you actually voted for the Dems in 2010 in the hopes of getting Single Payer? Were you asleep in 2009 and early 2010? You ought catch up on the news a bit faster, buddy.

Yeah, I screwed up again. 2008. I have an excuse though. I have pneumonia right now and the meds are wicked. Catch me when my head is clearer.

As for this so called movement that the dems are claiming. Do you realize how small 32 billion is compaired to the deficit? It is arguing over pennies. We should be cutting many hundreds of billions.

Man, I missed the 2009 election entirely. Damn!

I am tired. You know I meant 2010.

More: