BS: The Republicans (US)

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 12:15 PM

In a long and intyersting analysis in the Times David Stickman, who headed the OMB for Reagan, identifies two or three major flaws in our national economic thinking leading to the present catastophic scenarion. The first was Milton Friedman persuadig Nixon to float the dollar, breaking away from the Bretton Woods accord. The second was the mindless belief that deficits don't matter, particularly when they come from tax cuts.

"his debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican PartyÕs embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits donÕt matter if they result from tax cuts.

In 1981, traditional Republicans supported tax cuts, matched by spending cuts, to offset the way inflation was pushing many taxpayers into higher brackets and to spur investment. The Reagan administrationÕs hastily prepared fiscal blueprint, however, was no match for the primordial forces Ñ the welfare state and the warfare state Ñ that drive the federal spending machine.

Soon, the neocons were pushing the military budget skyward. And the Republicans on Capitol Hill who were supposed to cut spending exempted from the knife most of the domestic budget Ñ entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects. But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the RepublicansÕ fiscal religion."

"By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters had reduced federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than they had been since the 1940s. Then, after rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures, George W. Bush surrendered on domestic spending cuts, too Ñ signing into law $420 billion in non-defense appropriations, a 65 percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy."

The article is well worth a read by anyone trying to understand how we ended up int he current long-term miasma of overheated deebt, starved revenues, and rotten financial gaming within the economy.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 05:58 PM

"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 06:26 PM

Sawzaw.. what has that 45 year old quote got to do with the current situation? And where did you get YOUR copy? And why no attribution?

It has since been demonstrated that it-does-not-work.... unless the businesses who GET it really DO invest & hire. These days they just sit on it and play financial games and give themselves huge bonuses and watch the middle class struggle. It has become nothing but a Republican slogan/mantra to justify other things.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 07:16 PM

"A tax cut was enacted lowering the top marginal rate by 20%.

Gross National Product rose 10% in the first year of the tax cut.

Disposable personal income rose 15% in one year

Federal revenues increased by 57% in three years"

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 07:54 PM

"the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier"

Show it to me Amos. The numbers you posted yourself showed an increase in the national deficit every year. If it went down there was a surplus. If it went up, there was no surplus.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 08:23 PM

Interesting stat in todays Washngton Post... We keep hearing how the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire that it will be a job killer because small businesses will be hurt... Problem is that this is more Repub mythology in that the owners of small businesses that make in excess of $250,000 a year amount to just *****2%****** of small businesses... Hmmmmmmmm??? Kinda blows that mythology outta the water...

So, I wonder what the Repubs will do now that that BIGASS LIE has been revealed???

Maybe that if we don't extend the tax cuts to the rich that we will all go blind???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 09:30 PM

Well the bottom bracket will go from 10% to 15%.

A 50% increase on the people that can least afford it.

But that's OK with Bobert. He will roll the bottom bracket under the bus iif necessary to put the hurt on those evil rich folks.

It's only collateral damage to him.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 09:45 PM

Hey Bobert:

Is this a BIGASS LIE ??????????

"I Will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors -- saving them an average of $1,400 a year-- and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all."

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 09:55 PM

Hey Bobert:

You tried to cover it up but in that same WAPO article it says:

Myth #4 The Bush tax cuts are the main cause of the budget deficit.

Although the cuts were large and drove revenue down sharply, they are not the main cause of the sizable deficit that exists today. In 2007, well after the tax cuts took effect, the budget deficit stood at 1.2 percent of GDP. By 2009, it had increased to 9.9 percent of the economy. The Bush tax cuts didn't change between 2007 and 2009, so clearly something else is to blame.

The main culprit was the recession -- and the responses it inspired. As the economy shrank, tax revenue plummeted. The cost of the bank bailouts and stimulus packages further added to the deficit. In fact, an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities indicates that the Bush tax cuts account for only about 25 percent of the deficit this year.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 06:46 AM

Taking out the qualifier "only", we have:

"Bush tax cuts account for about 25 percent of the deficit this year"

So tell me again why we should keep them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 08:31 AM

Exactly, TIA...

If the tax cuts aren't helping small businesses, as the Repub claim, and they are contributing to the deficit then, duhhhh...

Plus we now understand the rich are so flush with money that they are just letting it sit??? GNP is dependent on money changing hands and if you take $1.8T and hide it under the matress then it isn't in circulation and therefore the GNP has to suffer... There are one shitlaod of people out there without jobs or grossly underemployed who would certainly allow them bucks to circulate... There are also alot of single women out there living in projects and Section 8 housing trying to take care of kids while working in minumum wage jobs... Heck, the minumum wage doesn't even get a family of four within shotting range of the bottom of the poverty line... Those mothers wold certainly help circulate them bucks... But, no... The $1.8T ain't gonna be used that way 'cause the rich thinks it's better to just let the pile of cash collect dust???

Tell me agin why we need to keep funneling cash to the rich???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 09:28 AM

Tell ya what- lets go back to the tax structure that existed during the Eisenhower(Republican before the loonies took over the party) Administration when the economy was REALLY booming.(DO check the tax rates out- may come as a bit of a surprise to the True Believer Reaganites.)

A tax cut means higher family income...and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues

Only one problem- it hasn't worked! Even George I pronounced it to be Voodoo Economics. Its completebullshit, has been SHOWN to be complete bullshit, and yet prople still cling to the fairy tale.

Oh, ye generation of morons....

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 10:13 AM

I guess the question is: if you knew that perpetuating a myth might make YOU a few extra billion, how many lies would you tell, and would it be worth it to you to buy most of a political party to keep that myth going?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 12:40 PM

Q: Some of these border towns [in Arizona] that were thought to be susceptible to lawbreaking of illegal immigrants. Crime is actually down. Crime in Phoenix for instance is down significantly over the past couple of years.
KYL: Well, that's a gross generalization.
-- Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), 8/01/10


VERSUS

"According to the FBI, the four large U.S. cities (with populations of at least 500,000) with the lowest violent crime rates -- San Diego, Phoenix and the Texas cities of El Paso and Austin -- are all in border states. 'The border is safer now than it's ever been,' [said] U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Lloyd Easterling."
-- Time Magazine, 7/30/10

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 12:49 PM

Here is the BIG QUESTION: How did we get to a point where one party thinks that thety can just LIE its way into power??? The entire Republiocan strategy is based on lies... And smears... And riling up some very stupid people...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 05:48 PM

Here is the BIG QUESTION: How did we get to a point where one party thinks that thety can just LIE its way into power??? The entire Republiocan strategy is based on lies... And smears... And riling up some very stupid people...

Because it works. P.T. Barnum, won't you look down over me....

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 06:13 PM

Itr only works because a significant number of the electorate are effing morons.

Enuf to give Tom Jefferson one of his famous migraines.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 11:32 PM

Itr only works because a significant number of the electorate are effing morons.

Why do you think the Republican party has been slicing school funding since 1980? Why was the chief means of enforcement of "No Child Left Behind" .... slicing funding?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 10:29 AM

New Third Way Economy Poll: Republicans Shedding the Bush Legacy

But Poll Shows Enormous Power of Injecting Bush into the Debate

July 19, 2010 Washington, DC –

Just eighteen months after President Bush left office with the nation's economy in historic freefall, two-thirds of Americans now see congressional Republicans and their economic ideas as new and completely separate from those of the former President, according to a new poll released today by Third Way, a moderate think tank. If in November, voters continue to believe that Republican ideas are new and different from President Bush, the poll shows they could win control of Congress. But the poll also showed a glimmer of light for Democrats, indicating that if they can tie their opponents to Bush's economic ideas, they can win.

According to the survey of 1,100 likely voters (Benenson Strategy Group, June 19-22, 2010), when asked what economic course they thought a Republican Congress would take if they regained the majority, only 25% say "a return to George W. Bush's economic policies." Sixty-five percent say Republicans would promote "a new economic agenda that is different from George W. Bush's policies." Even among Democrats (32%) and self-described liberals (34%), only a minority say Republicans would return to Bushanomics.

Further, the poll finds that the Bush legacy is a difference-maker in this election. When given the choice between a candidate who supports generic conservative economic ideas and one "who will stick with President Obama's economic policies," the conservative candidate wins by 34-points. But in a stunning 49-point swing, the Democrats hold a 15-point advantage when the choice is between a candidate who will stick with Obama and one "who will go back to President Bush's economic policies."

"The November elections could completely turn on whether voters believe that Republican ideas are new or a return to the Bush policies," said Jon Cowan, President of Third Way. "Even in this economic environment, Republicans cannot win if they are associated with the economic policies of the former President."

Indeed, on the question of Bush's economic performance on a variety measures, the former President still receives failing grades. Only 14% approve of his managing the federal budget; the same percentage give him high marks on his handling of Wall Street, and 28% on helping the middle class.

The poll finds mixed views about Democrats. President Obama holds a 53-45% favorable rating, and voters overwhelmingly blame former President Bush for the state of today's economy (53-26%). By a 46-32% margin, voters believe that President Obama's economic ideas for the country are better than former President Bush's (among Independents, the margin is 39-30%).

However, Republicans hold a 3-point edge in the generic congressional ballot. Voters are extremely deficit-sensitive right now, and by a 13-point margin say that Republicans are more serious about fiscal responsibility.

Finally, the poll finds that voters strongly believe that the private sector, not government, will lead the nation toward recovery. They also are skeptical about Democrats and the private sector, fingering them as "anti-business."

"The central challenge for Republicans heading into November is to shed the Bush economic legacy, and so far they are doing that," said Cowan. "Democrats have to show they have a plan for private sector-led economic growth, and they must tie Republicans to Bush. There is still time to make that case, but it is running short."

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 10:34 AM

"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 10:36 AM

...two-thirds of Americans now see congressional Republicans and their economic ideas as new and completely separate from those of the former President...

Thanks, Sawz- I didn't think that a full two-thirds of the American Electorate were fu$king morons inhabiting a delusional and fact-free world, but I now stand corrected.

God help America.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 10:39 AM

"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."

It may be paradoxical, but it sure ain't truth- its complete bullsht & its the fairy-tale that dug the hole the U.S. is in now. That anyone is still pushing it simply shows how deeply divorced from reality they are.

(Or, how craven.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 10:43 AM

Or, possibly, enmeshed in a torrid swamp of destructive impulses and unresolved neuroses.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 10:43 AM

P.S. Despite what TurdWay.org's PR has to say, the Clinton Administration was hardly a "progressive" administration. More like moderate Republican.

Or are they talking about Tony Blair?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 12:16 PM

So far, Amos, Bill D, Bobert and Greg F have broke bad on Democrats.

Methinks Democrats are the Democrats' worst enemy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 12:50 PM

Not at all- I 'broke bad' on stupidity, ignorance, dissociation and brain death, wch the Tea-baggers & what now passes for the Republican Party have in super-abundance.

Dems are hardly exempt, but would have a lot of catching up to do to equal the other two.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 01:19 PM

YEah, what Greg said. Honestly, Sawz, you should spend more time htinking before putting your keyboard in your mouth.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 01:23 AM

I was htinking today about the Republicans attempting to inflame racism with their plan to repeal the 14th ammendment.

This is not a profile of courage but rather a profile of hypocrisy.

Its a child - not a choice!
Send babies dropped in the USA back!
Its a mexican - not a US baby!

The rich just need a lil more of your help - stop taxing the rich!


In the last 10 years with their tax cuts the wealthy US investment entrepaneurs have sent 33% of US jobs to Asia. They put all their money into Wall St. schemes and hedge funds and virtually nothing into the US auto manufacturers.
Who will say they they will behave differently if the middle class bails them out by extending their Bush tax cuts?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:24 AM

In the last 10 years with their tax cuts the wealthy US investment entrepaneurs have sent 33% of US jobs to Asia.

Ah. Our tax breaks trickled down somewhere else. This explains why the gap between our middle-class and our rich grew so much over the last 10 years. Otherwise I'd have to say, based on the growth of that gap, that trickle-down economics is a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 01:52 PM

All depends on what it is that is trickling down.....

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:20 PM

You can squeeze my lemon...

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:36 PM

"So far, Amos, Bill D, Bobert and Greg F have broke bad on Democrats.

Methinks Democrats are the Democrats' worst enemy."

And several left-leaning TV show hosts have questioned the current administration's way of dealing with several problems. One of the more common attitudes OF liberal/Democrats ism as Greg said...searching for the TRUTH and 'best' answers...in marked contrast to the current Republican policy of marching in lockstep and arguing/voting against ANY attempt by the Democrats to solve stuff or pass legislation.

Do you, Sawz, think that politics should be about nothing but winning and getting power, as the Republicans currently seem to believe?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 07:56 PM

Yes, Bill, that is exactly what Sawz thinks... He is, after all, one of Eric Hoffer's "true believers" who will march lockstep with whatever company fight song is called up... No room for anything else...

Too bad... But this is what happens when a nation significantly lowers the IQs of its citizenry... Alot like what the Taliban shoots fir, as well... Lockstep compliance with whatever they want you to comply with... That is one thing that the Repubs and the Taliban have in common... They don't want anyone to think except for the Alphas who will do yer thinkin' fir ya'...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 15 Aug 10 - 06:39 PM

An insightful little essay on the tenor of the Republican voice as regards Hispanics can be found here

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 11:17 PM

Mark Morford, literary box-cutter for SFGate, writes:

"...On it devolves. How low do you want to go? Nazi skinheads? Black Tea Party inverto-racists? The 57 percent of Republicans who think Obama is a Muslim? Feverish Glenn Beck sycophants loading up the pickup truck with shotguns and Coors Light, on their way to take out an abortion clinic or maybe a Gay Pride parade, but who take the wrong exit and/or drive into a wall because they can't read the GPS?

Comedic horrors thrive, moronism seems to inbreed and fester, and most of it manifests under the banner of a mutant Christian God, or extreme conservatism, or some form of fundamentalist moral outrage that can't exactly be explained but which often makes its most devout adherents appear to be nothing more than frenetic fleas sucking blood from the Great Hound of life. The beast merely scratches and sighs, and keeps right on gnawing the bone of eternity.

Perhaps you stop to ponder, as I occasionally do, the curious fact that you never read about, say, a die-hard Richard Dawkins fanatic going off hinge and orchestrating a marvelous "Burn A Bible, Save A Kitten" protest event. Or perhaps a Unitarian Church minister commanding her flock to load up their Priuses with Ecstasy and rum to go spike the punch at the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sing-along. Wouldn't that be fun? Wouldn't that make a powerful counter-statement? Damn right it would.

Where is the liberal outrage? Where are the extreme acts of radical love? Where is the crazed "Daily Show" fan secretly planning to dump 10,000 gallons of Astroglide on Fox News HQ because Jon Stewart appeared in a pot-induced fever dream and ordered them to?

I still await the hippie liberal apocalypse. I still await my fellow progressives gathering at the Lincoln Memorial in calmly organized outrage, armed with Sigg bottles full of Cabernet and copies of the New Yorker, demanding free iPads for the poor and more compound sentences on CNN. Hell, I just came back from that infamous neo-pagan antichrist orgy known as Burning Man, and all I got was this lousy glow stick.

Oh, the hardcore lefty fringe has its violent cretins, to be sure, natty Earth Firsters to slavering PETA blood hurlers, eco-terrorists and freako off-grid cults, but those groups never claim to be a vital part of the Democratic Party. Liberalism does not depend on terrible education rates to survive.

The GOP, on the other hand, sucks hard from the teat of ignorant extremism, splashes gleefully in the shallow mud puddles of Sarah Palin's battered grammar, draws much of its power from the worst the human spectacle has to offer. Simply put, the modern Republican Party would not exist without its army of high school dropouts drunk on Rush Limbaugh and sexual dread. It's not difficult to imagine "Burn a Quran Day" becoming a new Texas state holiday.

What to make of it? After all, the world has always been speckled with rabid clowns, an endless parade of spittle-flecked sociopaths that make us shudder and sigh, many with "Reverend" before their names or "Show" just after it. American culture is rife with worldviews so narrow and poorly educated, you can be quickly convinced we are but an inch from permanent insanity.

Or maybe not. I prefer to think of these fine denizens of dumb as the darker, skankier parts of our individual consciousness, the red flags of the soul. Should we not be grateful they exist? That they are here to remind us to be ever vigilant and wary? Hell yes we should. ..."



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/09/08/notes090810.DTL#ixzz0z5oLReYP

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 12:02 AM

CA files lawsuit against leaders of troubled city AP

LOS ANGELES – The California attorney general's office sued eight current and former officials of the scandal-ridden city of Bell on Wednesday, accusing them of defrauding taxpayers by granting themselves salaries so high they were illegal and a disgrace to public service.

The suit demands the officials, including former City Manager Robert Rizzo, return hundreds of thousands of dollars they were paid to run the small, working-class city where one in six people live in poverty.

It also demands the reduction of bloated pension benefits that were based on the high salaries.

The salary scandal sparked nationwide outrage and calls for cities of all sizes to publicly disclose what employees are paid.

Rizzo's salary was $787,637 a year — nearly double that of President Barack Obama. With benefits, his total annual compensation, according to the Los Angeles Times, came to $1.5 million a year. Bell police Chief Randy Adams, who later resigned, was paid $150,000 more than the chief of the Los Angeles Police Department.

"You can't just take the public's money and give it to yourself or give it to your friendly employees or members of the city council just because you want to," said Attorney General Jerry Brown, a candidate for governor. "There's a standard and that standard is that the pay must be commensurate with the duty and the work."

Brown called the Bell salaries "enormous and obscene" and not anywhere in line with those paid to officials in most cities of comparable size.

Rizzo's attorney James Spertus said his client believes he did nothing wrong. He was arrested in March with a blood-alcohol level of 0.28,

"His contracts were presented by the City Council and countersigned by the city attorney, and he acted openly and transparently when he interacted with the city," Spertus said, adding the council kept raising Rizzo's pay to retain him.

The Bell case prompted Brown to launch a statewide investigation of public employee salaries. On Wednesday, his office issued a subpoena ordering the small, neighboring city of Vernon to produce its employee compensation records.

Those records "may pertain to possible violations of various state laws and the waste and misuse of public funds," the subpoena stated.

The Los Angeles Times has reported that the former administrator in Vernon, an industrial city with only about 90 residents, was paid more than $1 million a year.

Brown's office and the Los Angeles County district attorney opened investigations after learning Bell had some of the highest-paid officials in the nation. The city of 40,000 also faces a federal probe into whether it violated the civil rights of Hispanics by deliberately targeting their cars for towing to raise revenue.

Along with Rizzo and Adams, those named in the lawsuit were former assistant city manager Angela Spaccia; council members Oscar Hernandez, Teresa Jacobo and George Mirabal; and former council members Victor Bello and George Cole.

Phone messages left for the council members were not immediately returned.

Rizzo's salary was raised by the council 16 times since 1993, with an average increase of 14 percent a year, according to Brown. In 2005 alone, the council boosted his salary 47 percent. Upon their resignations, they qualified for lifetime pensions worth, by some estimates, more than $50 million.

Spaccia was paid $376,288 a year, and Adams was making $457,000 a year.

Four of Bell's five City Council members were paid nearly $100,000 a year before they took a recent cut. Cities of similar size pay their council members about $5,000 a year.

Bruce Malkenhorst receives $510,000 a year for his tenure as city administrator of Vernon, California (population, 91). Not including health benefits.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 12:01 AM

Surely someone must be repulsed by this government corruption that is bankrupting our country and is willing to make a comment.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 11:05 AM

"...How did we get to this point? The proximate answer lies in the tactics the Bush administration used to push through tax cuts. The deeper answer lies in the radicalization of the Republican Party, its transformation into a movement willing to put the economy and the nation at risk for the sake of partisan victory.

So, about those tax cuts: back in 2001, the Bush administration bundled huge tax cuts for wealthy Americans with much smaller tax cuts for the middle class, then pretended that it was mainly offering tax breaks to ordinary families. Meanwhile, it circumvented Senate rules intended to prevent irresponsible fiscal actions — rules that would have forced it to find spending cuts to offset its $1.3 trillion tax cut — by putting an expiration date of Dec. 31, 2010, on the whole bill. And the witching hour is now upon us. If Congress doesn't act, the Bush tax cuts will turn into a pumpkin at the end of this year, with tax rates reverting to Clinton-era levels.

In response, President Obama is proposing legislation that would keep tax rates essentially unchanged for 98 percent of Americans but allow rates on the richest 2 percent to rise. But Republicans are threatening to block that legislation, effectively raising taxes on the middle class, unless they get tax breaks for their wealthy friends.

That's an extraordinary step. Almost everyone agrees that raising taxes on the middle class in the middle of an economic slump is a bad idea, unless the effects are offset by other job-creation programs — and Republicans are blocking those, too. So the G.O.P. is, in effect, threatening to plunge the U.S. economy back into recession unless Democrats pay up.

What kind of political party would engage in that kind of brinksmanship? The answer is the same kind of party that shut down the federal government in 1995 in an attempt to force President Bill Clinton to accept steep cuts in Medicare, and is actively discussing doing the same to Mr. Obama. So, as I said, the deeper explanation of the tax-cut fight is that it's ultimately about a radicalized Republican Party, which accepts no limits on partisanship.

So should Democrats give in?

On the economics, the answer is a clear no. Right now, fears about budget deficits are overblown — but that doesn't mean that we should completely ignore deficit concerns. And the G.O.P. plan would add hugely to the deficit — about $700 billion over the next decade — while doing little to help the economy. On any kind of cost-benefit analysis, this is an idea not worth considering.

And, by the way, a compromise solution — temporary tax breaks for the rich — is no better; it would cost less, but it would also do even less for the economy.

On the politics, the answer is also a clear no. Polls show that a majority of Americans are opposed to maintaining tax breaks for the rich. Beyond that, this is no time for Democrats to play it safe: if the midterm election were held today, they would lose badly. They need to highlight their differences with the G.O.P. — and it's hard to think of a better place for them to take a stand than on the issue of big giveaways to Wall Street and corporate C.E.O.'s.

But what's even more important is the principle of the thing. Threats to punish innocent bystanders unless your political rivals give you what you want have no legitimate place in democratic politics. Giving in to such threats would be an economic and political mistake, but more important, it would be morally wrong — and it would encourage more such threats in the future.

It's time for Democrats to take a stand, and say no to G.O.P. blackmail."

Paul Krugman, NYT

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 12:54 PM

"By: Jon Walker Friday September 17, 2010 5:30 am

(A blog post)   

I noticed that earlier this year we were overwhelmed by a wave of anti-deficit grandstanding throughout the Democratic Party while the Catfood Commission was sending up trial balloons about cutting Social Security benefits, raising the retirement age (which is just a sleight-of-hand way of cutting benefits) or cutting the health care benefits for military service personnel.

Interestingly, since we have started the public debate about whether or not to extend Bush's massive, deficit-ballooning tax cuts to millionaires, those same deficit hawks have been very quiet. That, or they have been very noisy about pushing to greatly increase the deficit by demanding Bush's tax cut for millionaires be allowed to continue. Senators such as Ben Nelson (D-NE), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Evan Bayh (D-IN), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and 31 House Democrats have squawked about letting those tax cuts for the rich expire as Bush's law had originally intended. Almost all of those 31 Representatives are self-proclaimed "fiscal conservatives" who pretend to be worried about the deficit even as they fight to greatly increase it.

When it comes to cutting benefits for poor and middle-class seniors, or cutting the pay of our military personnel while forcing our veterans to pay more of their own health care costs — much of which likely resulted from illness due to their service in two long wars — what we hear from Washington elites is the great need for "shared sacrifice" to bring down the deficit. Yet, when debating the idea of allowing taxes on millionaires (and here it might be good to remember that two-thirds of the members of Congress are themselves millionaires) to return to what they were under Bill Clinton, it is all "damn the deficit we can't let the wealthy suffer during this economic downturn!"

It is just a reminder that in Washington talk about "reducing the deficit" is almost always nothing more than code for screwing over regular Americans and almost always completely divorced from any actual concern about the size of the federal debt. It is long past time that the media calls out these "deficit hawks" for the hypocrites they are and explain what their fake deficit grandstanding is really about."

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 12:58 PM

Still nobody cares to comment on the government corruption that is bankrupting the nation.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 01:22 PM

The New York Times

According to a survey published in July by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Americans feel philosophically closer to the Republicans than to the Democrats. Put another way, many moderates see Democrats like Nancy Pelosi as more extreme than Republicans like John Boehner.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 10:22 AM

"Being paid excessive salaries is not a crime"

Los Angeles Times September 22, 2010

Eight current and former Bell city leaders were arrested Tuesday on charges of misappropriating more than $5.5 million from the small, working-class community as prosecutors accused them of treating the city's coffers as their personal piggy bank. The charges follow months of nationwide outrage and renewed debate over public employee compensation since The Times reported in July that the city's leaders were among the nation's highest paid municipal officials.

Among those charged was former City Manager Robert Rizzo, who led the way with an annual salary and benefits package of more than $1.5 million. Prosecutors accused him of illegally writing his own employment contracts and steering nearly $1.9 million in unauthorized city loans to himself and others.He was booked into Los Angeles County jail and was being held on $3.2-million bail.

"This, needless to say, is corruption on steroids," said Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley in announcing the charges. Cooley described Rizzo as the "unelected and unaccountable czar" of Bell, accusing him of going to elaborate lengths to keep his salary secret. Prosecutors alleged that Rizzo gave himself huge pay raises without the City Council's approval.

"This was calculated greed and theft accomplished by deceit and secrecy," Cooley said. Rizzo's attorney, James W. Spertus, said the charges came as no surprise and were politically motivated by Cooley, who is running for California attorney general. "The allegations are mistaken," Spertus said. "They are factually untrue in many readily provable ways." Cooley denied that his campaign played any part in the decision to file charges.

At a news conference, Cooley accused City Council members of failing to oversee Rizzo's actions saying that they instead had collected more than $1.2 million in total pay since 2006 for presiding over city agency meetings that never occurred or lasted just a few minutes. Many city residents greeted news of the charges with joy. "Finally the crooks are going to suffer what the city suffered for many years," said Carmen Bella, a longtime Bell activist.

About two dozen Bell residents gathered outside City Hall to celebrate. One man used a bullhorn to broadcast the Queen rock song, "Another One Bites the Dust," while others laughed, cheered and applauded. But at least one resident wondered what would happen to his embattled city. "Who's going to call the shots?" asked Hassan Mourad, 32. "That's the most important thing right now."

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to urge state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown to ask a judge to hand over day-to-day management of the city to a court-appointed official.

Last week, Brown filed a lawsuit against the city that accused Bell leaders of secretly plotting to enrich themselves and conceal their lucrative compensation. The suit seeks to remove three City Council members from office and force city officials to refund hundreds of thousands of dollars in back salaries.

The only person named in Brown's suit who was not arrested Tuesday was Bell's former police chief, Randy Adams. Asked why Adams' large salary did not lead to his arrest, Cooley said, "Being paid excessive salaries is not a crime, to illegally obtain those salaries is a crime."

Cooley said Tuesday morning's arrests were without incident, except that district attorney's investigators used a battering ram to enter Mayor Oscar Hernandez's home in Bell when he was slow to open the front door. More Here

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:10 AM

Just for the record, the vigilant and obstreperous party of No has again risen to the occasion and blocked the passage of key initiatives :

"the defense authorization bill has about 3,500 other provisions — many of them important changes to the agenda for the Department of Defense.
It's worth reading the full list, but here are a few notable provisions:

Revamping US Military and Foreign Policy

◦No permanent military bases in Afghanistan.
◦Report on long-term costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
◦National Military Strategic Plan to Counter Iran.
Anti-Corruption

◦Standards and certification for private security contractors.
◦Inclusion of bribery in disclosure requirements of the Federal awardee performance and integrity information system.
Environmental Progress

◦Report identifying hybrid or electric propulsion systems and other fuel-saving technologies for incorporation into tactical motor vehicles.

Senators said they will have to eventually pass the bill — it just may be in a lame duck session. The Senate has passed a defense authorization bill for the past 48 years.

"We have to proceed to consider the defense authorization bill, because our military needs it," Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said yesterday. "We need it for authorization of critical military equipment for our troops to fight on our behalf. … We've got to take this bill up, it's our national responsibility"

(Washington Independent)

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:48 AM

Amos,

Perhaps YOU need to mention that Reid brought up the bill with his own added changes, and then WOULD NOT ALLOW debate on them- it was an "all or nothing" vote, with many unrelated points that even the majority of DEMOCRATS did not support.

But telling the WHOLE truth is not somnething you are used to doing, it appears.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 12:03 PM

Well Well Well. What happened to your fair and balanced requirement Amos?

The cloture vote failed, by a count of 56-43. In addition to all 41 Republicans, Sen. Mark Pryor, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, currently trailing by 30 points in her re-election in Arkansas, voted no. Reid also voted no.

It's real easy Amos. Dems are the reason the bill can't get passed.

But rather than use logic and facts, you want to cry and suck snot and blame it on somebody else.

And don't use the Borg bullshit straw man false logic. Would the Dems be a bunch of mindless Borgs if they they all voted the same way on something?

As usual there are things in the bill that the Repubs object to and that is what they are voting against.

If the Dems were not such Borgs and changed the things the Repubs don't like, It would pass.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Songbob
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 03:53 PM

The defense appropriations bills did NOT reach the floor (the filibuster was to prevent that), and the Republicans were thus prevented from putting their 'mom and apple pie' amendments up for a vote -- the amendments not intended to pass, but just to be featured in campaign ads, "Sen. Smithers voted against mom and apple pie" (as a part of a larger, necessary piece of legislation, but we won't tell you that).

Yes, the Democrats were against amending it. That's what the majority party does (see the Bush tax cuts or the Medicare prescription drug provision -- no amendments allowed so that these expensive programs would be paid for). Republicans are the whiniest goddamn bunch of snivelers I've ever seen, especially when what's being done, or proposed, is what they themselves regularly do. So the Party of NO didn't get to say "NO" for fifty time-killing amendments to a bill that the troops need.

Why do the Republicans hate our troops? You know they do -- they just voted against even debating the matter.


Bob

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 05:35 PM

"For the first time since 1952, the Senate failed to bring the defense authorization bill to the floor for consideration. Containing provisions to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), the policy banning gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military, the defense authorization bill would have also given senators the vehicle to consider the DREAM Act, a bill allowing eligible undocumented youth to obtain citizenship if they, either serve in the U.S. armed services or attend an American college. However, Arkansas Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln joined 42 Republicans in "the latest unified Republican effort to block" this year's legislative agenda. Both policies were once backed by strong bipartisan support. Republicans like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) once agreed with an overwhelming number of military officials that DADT should be repealed. The DREAM Act similarly enjoyed Republican backing in previous years from GOP Sens. Orrin Hatch (UT) -- who tried to pass it by inserting it into the 2004 budget authorization for the Justice Department -- Kay Bailey Hutchinson (TX), Richard Lugar (IN), Collins, and McCain. However, in an election year, these Republicans traded their support for blind obstruction of these policies. The GOP's hollow opposition on the grounds that the DADT repeal jumps the gun on the Pentagon review and the DREAM Act is unrelated to national defense fail to hold up under scrutiny. But the Republicans' use of Senate procedure landed them another victory at the expense of civil rights and popular will. Yesterday's vote is the latest display of Republican commitment to place a stranglehold on Senate business and try to obstruct any legislation providing much-needed aid to the American people from ever being considered.

HOLLOW OPPOSITION: Senate Republicans' chief arguments against the inclusion of the DADT repeal and the DREAM Act in this year's defense authorization bill centered on claims the DADT repeal superseded Pentagon review and that the DREAM Act was wholly irrelevant to national defense and the military. While previously supporting the repeal, McCain blasted Democrats for trying to "jam" it through "without even trying to figure out what the impact on battle effectiveness would be." Sens. Scott Brown (R-MA) and George Voinovich (R-OH) concurred, insisting that the repeal was "premature" and should "wait for the Department of Defense to issue its report" in December. However, the DADT compromise agreed to by the Senate Armed Services Committee in May explicitly states that while the repeal would be attached to this year's defense authorization bill, implementation would be delayed until Congress has considered the Pentagon's review, and military officials certify that the repeal is "consistent with the military's standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruitment and retention." If these requirements are not met, the DADT policy "shall remain in effect." The DREAM Act, Republicans charge, is a "cynical and transparently political" ploy that would "jeopardize a defense bill with an amnesty amendment." Pulling a now-characteristic flip-flop on the DREAM Act, McCain said he would block these "onerous provisions" because it was a "pure political act" by the Democrats, echoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) claim that the DREAM Act "has nothing to do with defense" and makes the defense authorization bill "needlessly controversial." But, according to military experts and the Department of Defense's FY2010-12 Strategic Plan, the DREAM Act's service component is a vital objective to help the military "shape and maintain a mission-ready All Volunteer Force." In fact, according University of California, San Diego's Jorge Mariscal, "the Pentagon helped write the DREAM Act."

THE LATEST REASON FOR NO: While their arguments didn't hold water, Republicans' "unified effort" presented a significant obstacle for senators who wanted to consider the bill. The chance to debate the value of a DADT repeal and the DREAM Act ultimately hung on the two key moderate Republicans from Maine, Collins and Sen. Olympia Snowe, who were "thought to be open to repealing the ban." Collins, in fact, was the sole Republican in the Senate Armed Services Committee who voted to include the repeal in the defense authorization bill. But instead of offering a vote of support, Collins joined Snowe in offering a procedural explanation as their reason for voting against debate on the policies. After Reid refused McConnell's request to drop the DREAM Act from consideration, Republicans claimed he was with hijacking the amendment process by limiting debate to three amendments -- DADT, the DREAM Act, and secret holds. Despite Reid's assurances that he would consider Republican amendments after the recess, Collins insisted that Reid's restriction on Republican amendments required her to deny consideration of the defense authorization bill. On the Senate floor yesterday, Collins said that while "its only fair" and "right" to "welcome the service of these individuals who are willing and capable of serving their country," she could not proceed to a bill "under a situation that is going to shut down debate and preclude Republican amendments" because "that too is not fair." Snowe similarly denied consideration on the grounds that "the Senate should have the ability to debate more than three amendments the Majority Leader is allowing."

THE PARTY OF NO: Reid's office noted that yesterday's vote wasn't "about arcane Senate procedures. It's about [the] GOP's pattern of obstructing debate on policies important to the American people." Indeed, while 70 percent of Americans support the DREAM Act and 75 percent of Americans support the DADT repeal, the senators representing only 36 percent of the American people filibustered the bill, allowing a minority in the Senate to rebuke the public will. The Republican mantra of "hell no" has certainly proved to be much more than rhetoric, as their "unprecedented obstructionism" in the use of filibusters, delay tactics, and secret holds has effectively derailed Senate compromises and votes on 372 bills. The Republican use of filibusters alone is record-breaking, forcing Democrats to file cloture over 250 times in the last three years. The Senate averaged one filibuster a year until 1970, and only had 130 cloture motions when Democrats were in the minority from 2003 to 2006. Given the pace with which Republicans turn to or threaten a filibuster, they are on pace to "more than triple the old record." Not only have they led to a "completely unprecedented" obstruction of the President's judicial nominees, these procedural tactics have had dire consequences for the American people. This year, it took the Senate four attempts to defeat Republican filibuster to extend unemployed benefits for the long-term unemployed. Because of this obstruction, 2.5 million Americans went without much-needed benefits. Republicans have repeatedly used the filibuster to register their contempt for the unemployed this year, as exemplified by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), who told lawmakers begging him to end his single-handed obstruction of unemployment and health benefits, "tough s--t." Last month, the Senate also barely overcame the Republican filibuster of a state aid package "to help states ease their severe budget problems and save the jobs of tens of thousands of teachers and other public employees." Even while claiming to be the champions of tax-burdened small businesses, the GOP waged a months-long filibuster against a small-business bill that provided $30 billion in new loans and $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses, which the Senate narrowly defeated earlier this month. The 372 bills awaiting consideration include relief for torture victims, fire sprinklers for college dorms, an investigation into BP's oil spill, and a measure to address catastrophic climate change. But with Republican leaders committed to gridlock and a slate of radical Tea Party candidates potentially joining the Senate, the GOP could maintain a stranglehold on much-needed legislation for the foreseeable future.
"

(The Progressive)

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 10:53 PM

"THE PARTY OF NO: Reid's office noted that yesterday's vote wasn't "about arcane Senate procedures. It's about [the] GOP's pattern of obstructing debate on policies important to the American people."
Just for the record: Reid voted no. Arkansas Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln voted no So itf there is a fillibuster, it is a bipartisan filibuster. Has that sunk in yet or is your brain imperviuos to facts?

"For the first time since 1952, the [Democrat controlled] Senate failed to bring the defense authorization bill to the floor for consideration."

A little history lesson:

One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s occurred when southern Democratic Senators attempted, unsuccessfully, to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours, which included a 14 hour and 13 minute address by Senator Robert Byrd. The filibuster ended when the Senate invoked cloture for only the second time since 1927

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 05:18 PM

T"oday, House Republicans are unveiling the "Pledge to America" -- a pre-election document styled after 1994's Contract with America -- at a hardware store in Sterling, VA. The plan sorts policy items into "five broad categories" -- jobs, government reform, federal spending, national security, and health care -- and is part of "an effort to respond to the allegation that the GOP is the 'party of no.'" "It's important to show what Republicans are for," said one House Republican involved in the drafting. The document only includes two items regarding social issues -- defending "traditional marriage" and preventing taxpayer funding of abortion in line with the current Hyde amendment -- and Republican aides have "cautioned against comparing the new proposal with the party's original Contract With America." In fact, only incumbent lawmakers were involved in its drafting, and they won't even be signing it. "The new agenda is not a political platform, aides said, but rather an outline of the party's targets in the final weeks of the legislative session," the New York Times reported. If that's the case, then, the document makes it abundantly clear that House Republicans are ready to double down on the failed policies of the Bush administration, on everything from taxes and federal spending to national security, and want to undo some of the strong progressive policies enacted by the current Congress.

REVIVING BUSH'S DEFICITS AND TAX CUTS: First and foremost, the Pledge calls for retaining the entirety of the Bush tax cuts -- rejecting President Obama's plan to save $830 billion by letting the tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans expire on schedule -- and cutting overall government spending back to the 2008 level next year, thus literally embracing Bush's tax and spending policies. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has pointed out, cutting the budget back to 2008 levels across-the-board means 21 percent reductions in discretionary programs, including more than $8 billion in cuts to K-12 education. But the cuts don't come close to eliminating the deficit, particularly considering the GOP plans to pass $4 trillion more in tax cuts, plus an additional small business tax cut. Of course, endorsing an across-the-board cut, instead of laying out specific areas of the budget that can be pared back alongside responsible revenue increases, epitomizes the Republican approach to budgeting. In fact, when directly asked, many House Republicans, including House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (VA), can't name a single program they'd like to cut. And already, some Republicans are saying that the Pledge isn't even radical enough when it comes to cutting spending. "It's not taking us where we ultimately have to go as a country, dealing with entitlements and permanent tax changes," said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) who has reportedly "advocated for a plan that dealt specifically with Social Security." Notably, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) -- the Republican budget chief who has released a full plan for privatizing Social Security and Medicare -- was not scheduled to appear at the Pledge unveiling, confirming that many in the Republican leadership are hesitant to publicly tie themselves to his proposals.

REPEALING HEALTH CARE REFORM: The Republican pledge also dedicates an entire section to repealing the Affordable Care Act and replacing it with some of the same solutions that the GOP promoted during the health care reform debate, such as medical malpractice reform (which won't do much to bring down health care costs) and allowing insurance to be sold across state lines (which would lead to a regulatory race to the bottom). However, repealing the ACA will add $143 billion to the deficit over ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, as the cost containment measures and revenue increases in the bill also disappear. Interestingly, the Pledge also says that Republican health care reform will prevent health insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, but without including an individual mandate that everyone purchase health insurance. Of course, as Newsweek's Ben Adler explains, "Such a prohibition is economically infeasible without the individual mandate that health-care reform included," as people wouldn't buy health insurance until after they get sick. Forcing insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions also puts House Republicans at odds with conservatives like former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR), who has likened the prohibition to automobile insurers being forced to insure already wrecked cars.

BRING ON THE SHUTDOWN: One of the most notorious episodes of the Congress that was sworn in after the original Contract with America was the government shutdown of 1995. For three weeks, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) shuttered the government after Congress was unable to approve a budget. And House Republicans are already saying that they're game for a repeat performance. "If government shuts down, we want you with us," said Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA). "It's going to take some pain for us to do the things that we need to do to right the ship." Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has demanded a "blood oath" from House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) to include a repeal of health care reform in every appropriations bill next year, even if a government shutdown results. "We must not blink," he said. "If the House says no, it's no." Boehner, for his part, has disavowed the notion, saying, "Our goal is not to shut down the government." "It's absurd," added Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH). "That's not our goal at all." But Gingrich himself seems to think that another government shutdown would be productive, even though it means, among other things, that Social Security payments and veterans' benefits are not disbursed. "When we win control of the House and Senate this fall, Stage One of the end of Obamaism will be a new Republican Congress in January that simply refuses to fund any of the radical efforts," Gingrich said. Such talk has earned the GOP a scolding from President Clinton. "You see what happened last time: It didn't work out very well for them," Clinton said."

The Progressive

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 07:28 PM

"...southern Democratic Senators attempted, unsuccessfully, to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ..."

Yes, Sawzaw...we are quite aware of the history of the Dixiecrats and those days when prejudice overrode both sense and party loyalty. What possible relevance is it to today's issues?

Those days passed, and most of the Dixiecrats either left or were defeated or, in a couple cases, converted to semi-sanity.

What the Republicans are doing now is beyond even asserting a 'principle'. They are just blocking ANYTHING Democrats propose...even stuff they were formerly in favor of... then condemning the Democrats for not getting much done. This is being done with obfuscation, foot-dragging and bald-face lying in order to scare people. It is, simply, the most UN-principled way of acting I have ever seen in Congress in my 50 years of voting. Individuals have acted this way, but an entire PARTY?

It is shameful....