Discussion and debate over the National or State level political scenes. Please use individual community level forums for Local political discussion.
After listening to Obama(HOPE) , Ryan (FEAR) and Bachmann(STUPIDITY)...Get Real Guys!

Can we get down to Brass Tacks? Do the Republicans have the Intellectual Honesty to tell the public the truth? So far, NO.

But Words, Sentences, Syntax political Rhetoric does have consequences. 18% of the country actuallys believe political nonsense and know the coded language that speaks to the issues that really concern them....like race.

But how many of the Public actually know that the U.S. is NOW in the 1st 4 months of the SECOND OBAMA ADMINISTRATION BUDGET? Maybe some credit for current economic successes must go to TARP the Republican Bugaboo called $800 Billion in Spending when it was considered an OBAMA negative, but when all but 28 Billion is paid back and many jobs saved, it is....trivialized. Is any "Conservative" so unknowledgeable about budgeting not to know that the nation's debt exceeds its Gross National Product and couldn't have been created by OBAMA.

Here's the essence, an article from a few weeks back that has reality all over it.

The Republican Spending Addiction
Even if the GOP believed in its Pledge to America, it wouldn't touch the biggest parts of the federal budget. By James Ledbetter

Can the Pledge to America save any money? In a speech in June, George W. Bush said his biggest disappointment as president was the failure to reform Social Security. This remark puzzled some observers, who plausibly offer the 1,500 people who died during the Katrina aftermath, or wrecking the nation's economy, as competitive alternatives.

But Bush's enduring concern with Social Security speaks to a schism on the right that cannot be plastered over by the homilies of the Pledge to America. And that is: Everyone says that the burning political issue of this past election was government spending. Opposition to spending is the scalding water that fuels the Tea Party, and so the Republicans who controlled Congress for more than half of the last decade now say that the GOP "lost our way" on spending during the Bush presidency.

But what do Republicans plan to do about government spending that they favor, or indeed created? If they once were lost, have they now been found? If you really think that the problem with the economy and/or the federal budget is as simple as too much government spending, then you have to point your finger squarely at the national Republican Party. Of the six recent Congresses essentially controlled by the GOP, from 1995 to 2006, not one ever reduced federal outlays. (The last year in which federal outlays were lower than the year before was 1965, when Democrats ran both the White House and Congress.) As soon as Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House in 2001, spending really took off, with more than $100 billion added to federal outlays every year that Bush sat in the White House (considerably more than either Bill Clinton or Bush 41).
Hence Bush's preoccupation with Social Security, basically the largest government expenditure. (Military spending is larger these days, but it is spread over different budgets.) He knows that's where the real money is spent, and he knows why it won't change. Presumably, Bush's memoir could have offere more details, but in press accounts of his June speech, he said that it was resistance within his own party—not from Democrats—that nixed his plans to privatize Social Security.

The only thing surprising about this is that Bush seems surprised about it. Incumbent Republicans love Social Security for the same reason that all incumbents do: because voters love Social Security. More than three-quarters of all American adults say they want to know that Social Security will be there when they retire, even if they feel they won't need it. That's why Republicans did nothing to stop spending on Social Security, from about $433 billion in 2001 to $586 billion in fiscal year 2007 (the Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress in the 2006 election). If a Republican president working with a Republican-controlled Congress couldn't stop the growth of Social Security spending, there's little reason to think it will happen any other way, Tea Party or no Tea Party. And if today's Republicans have a credible plan for trimming this budget item—or even slowing it down—they're being quiet about it.

The same goes for Medicare. A strong majority of Americans opposes tinkering with Medicare, and among older Americans—who are more likely to vote—opposition is 5-to-1. And so, Republicans did nothing to halt Medicare's explosion from about $217 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $372 billion in fiscal year 2007. No one thinks that, as America's population grows older, there will be any stopping the growth in these programs—and that's half the federal budget right there.

Next up is defense and security, about $1 trillion a year. Maybe, just maybe, we'll get a tiny peace dividend from the end of the military mission in Iraq, but some of that will be eaten up by increased veteran benefits and services, to say nothing of Afghanistan. Both wars were started by a Republican president and supported by Republican members of Congress. Lately, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., has made some very cogent points about wasteful military spending. But they are not much different from what John McCain said through much of the '80s and '90s, and his impact on military spending has been nil. And the fiscal year 2011 budget authority for the Department of Homeland Security—a Republican creation—is a hefty $56 billion. How much of that will Republicans cut? Crickets

ll of the above is spending that Republicans over the last 15 years or so either created, or could have cut or slowed—and never did. The relatively small portions of the federal government that the Pledge to America focuses on are almost all so-called domestic discretionary expenses, and despite Republican complaints that these expenses are ballooning, they actually got smaller, as a portion of overall spending, under Bush. Of course, that's not because they've shrunk—it's because of the huge rise in spending that Republicans approved for the military!

Hence, when you look through the GOP proposals to cut spending, they are uniformly, laughably puny. A typical idea is to permit the government to hire only one new worker for every two who leave. Leaving aside the arbitrariness of the idea, its own proponents claim that it will save a whopping $35 billion—over 10 years. They are whacking weeds at the edge of a large field where they let sacred cows get fatter.

When Republicans denounce "government spending," then, they're talking only about government spending that they don't like: the TARP (a Republican creation), health care reform, stimulus spending, the auto industry bailout. But the plain fiscal fact is that the national Republican Party has been addicted to its own forms of government spending at least since the Nixon administration. The very notion of taking a "pledge" evokes their addiction—This time it's different, we swear!

Sure, the pledge tactic could have considerable short-term political traction, especially as the economy continues its anemic growth. The Republican Party has long shown it can win elections by hollering about taxing and spending. But winning elections won't solve the longer-term problem that the GOP will face from the Tea Party's embrace—which is that, unlike congressional Republicans, these people actually believe the rhetoric.
President Barack Obama tonight spoke to a joint session of Congress and the nation in the annual State of the Union address. George Allen issued the following statement:

“No one disputes that President Obama is a gifted orator, but we need the right actions more than the right words. People want to reverse job-destroying policies and instead unleash America’s businesses and entrepreneurs to create jobs.

“Since Senator Jim Webb went to Washington and embraced the liberal policies of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, we have had rising joblessness and skyrocketing national debt. Talk of simply freezing spending now is much more than a day late and trillions of dollars short.

“I’m one who believes that if government reduces burdensome regulations, keeps taxes low, and unleashes our plentiful energy resources then entrepreneurs in the private sector will innovate and create jobs so more Americans can achieve their dreams.”
Is there anyone who believes that Jim Webb has been instrumental or even contributory to the unemployment in this country?

If there is someone, tell us why that would be the case. Cite some real info to substantiate.

Obama has just completed his second year in office and the 3rd month of his second budget. Has he caused the "14 TRILLIONS" in debt?

The total budget is $3.8 Trillion. Revenues were $2.5 Trillion. The last budget was $1.3 Trillion in the red and the Bush Tax cut removed $6 Trillion in revenues.

WE now have a goverment legislature that has set up rules that give one(1) Senator the right to hold up funding, investigations, appointments, etc. But does any Senator or Congressman have the power to direct actions....administer any function except Congressman Ryan who was given that power over the budget yesterday by the House. In effect his word is the final word...until it gets to the Senate.....if it gets to the Senate. Then the President can veto it. What a botched up mess? That is more power than most dictators have.

Try to explain that, the abrogation of power by the House, in a civics class in relationship to Representative government!
I guess we are misinformed! "American Voters"

Perceptions and Evidence of Misleading and False Information
Among both Republicans and Democrats, 91% of the voters polled said they frequently came across information they thought was misleading or false and more than half of them also felt it happened more frequently that usual. Even with this high level of suspicion, there was significant evidence that voters were still grossly misinformed about many of the major concerns that they claimed where important to them when making their ballot choices. Their concerns included the effects of the stimulus legislation, healthcare reform initiatives, TARP, the economy, global warming, campaign contributions, and even President Obama's birthplace. Furthermore, the electorate had perceptions about the prevailing consensus among economists and scientists that were, in a large number of cases, quite different then what these professionals were actually saying.
Please understand!

The Democrats don't have a franchise on wisdom, information, integrity, willpower or vision.
Any distortions along the way, directly from officials or from the media, destroy the ability of government to more clearly see the correct path ahead.

The Republican party, has been in control of the Executive and Legislative Branches for 28 of the last 42 years, and in charge of the House 34 years in the last 42. A group that contends it is concerned about our national economy and the welfare of their constituents would surely pay attention to major issues of finance, including the second highest and often highest expenditure from the national budget, Social Security, and a significant portion of our Gross National Product.. But that doesn't excuse the Democrats for pushing it away during their control of the government.

The announcement today that our Social Security system is in trouble for the under 55's, is certainly not new. I have been told it repeatly for 60 years and known it since I was a mere lad of 11 years, in 1940. Could I be the only one who remembers the threats that the Social Security will fall on its ears that have persisted for generations.

If true, then do something about it. Don't put it off until it is actually in jeopardy. (Like make Obama do it, he's a problem solver) We all know that 1933 dollars are not the same as 2013 dollars, and that fewer people are in the labor force to support the system of financing, but that the spread of income earned is far greater than ever before. Remember when Joe DiMaggio couldn't earn $100,000 a year (Joe D', whose he?). Now, this past year AGAIN, the top 20 investment bankers all earned more than a billion dollars with one earning $20,000,000,000, all capital gains and paying at a lower rate that your local teacher, bus driver and minister.

If the Tea Party folks were actually sincere in their quest for better, more efficient, more honest government, they would target demands for a better understanding of U.S. history and the elimination of politicans who do what they do in casting votes, purely for re-election purpose. Politicians should know more, know it more accurately and make better decisions than their constituents, even if it means their personal defeat. THat would be true service, worth honor and respect.
After all, they are supposed to be in the service of their country to earn that honor, not for their party or their re-election.
Paesano quotes an article that references a study I posted in another thread. The article and the study contradict the previous post he made about Jim Webb and unemployment. In fact, many of the positions Paesano takes are in the list of misinfomed positions. The study also found that the most misinformed voters were people that had FOX news as a main news source.
Boro Friend,

Then you missed the best part, because it applied to you.

If you enjoyed the recognition that Democrats are not the only ones who can be wise, then you might also like the line that says they also are not infallible.

However, because they are not lock step soldiers to a militaristic political philosophy, they are open to new ideas. They are open to explanations as to why they might be wrong in some areas. That gives their outlook one of the possibility of progress rather than of stagnation.