Absolutely. He told the fed to keep devaluing the dollar. It's simple math. We have a record 16,000 of something that's worth less than it used to be worth.

It's a simple redistribution of wealth from people who have savings or cash to people who have stock. I'm surprised anyone who isn't heavily invested in the market is cheering about this.

Both sides of this debate genuinely think the other side is sanctimonious and partisan.

I do think, as someone who wouldn't belong to either party, that the extreme views on the right are more hidden here. I'm sure there are places where those views are common.

I think it'd also be hilarious to tally up the posts of people who rail against partisanship and see how often they criticize each party.

I actually find (and this was my point) that most of the so-called non partisan people are more sanctimonious than either side. And I've never claimed that I wasn't partisan.

We don't have threads about issues that favor the extreme right.

I don't consider belonging to the Republican party in part because of their views on gay rights and abortion rights. If we had an item here about either topic, it would be a very homogenous item. Rather boring.

Break down this math for me. Because as it stands the dollar is pretty strong and inflation is incredibly low (October was the lowest rate in years).

I know you are. I actually find the opposite is true. I suspect the real truth is somewhere in the middle. We see sanctimony in what we disagree with.

But, when you look at how partisanship is harming the country, you have to start with the 538 people - most of whom have chosen extreme positions - who can't seem to legislate.

But if that were true, then I'd find the right more sanctimonious than the "non-partisans".

You and I very rarely encounter the right, right? There's only a handful of people here who truly support those positions - and polls indicate that's more than a third of the country. I think they've been largely driven out of this kind of public discourse. The opposite seems true for your side.

I'm curious what your standard of right and left is, and even more curious about your standard for extreme left and extreme right. But there are several right wing people who still post here and I do not find them as sanctimonious as the so-called non-partisans.

"Non-partisan" isn't a political stance. You can have strong liberal or conservative policy views and dislike things about the congress and the parties.

Edit: There's lots I hate about the Republican party, including how they handled the debt limit stuff, and have actually sworn off voting for them in national elections, but there is only like 2 actual Republicans here, so it really doesn't come up. Being a young male who's lived in large cities, and who posts at message boards like this one, most of my friends and peers are liberal, and Democrats, so I find myself jostling with them over this stuff much more often. I wouldn't bother trying to have political discussion with my conservative relatives, it's just easier to let that go even though I disagree with them on almost everything, because I'm just not in that group. But my peers, who sometimes think less of me because of either my political opinions, or because of my religious/spiritual beliefs (or maybe that's what I perceive, based on their expressed disdain for those who have those opinions and beliefs I might share), that's much more likely to get me into this kind of debate.

socialism - fundamentalism.

So who here do you think is socialist?

Easy and dirt cheap money available thanks to fed policies, less stocks available to investors (less than half of publicly traded companies today compared to 15 years), the automation of jobs and increasing productivity, and the ever-evolving shift to sell to emerging and booming markets like Asia (led by China and India), Latin America (Brazil), Middle East, and Africa.

The focus of a head of a department like that is going to be one of organization, operations, and policy. Positions like a CIO, CTO, CDO are going to take care of technology.

Hopkins is doing pretty well in the medical field, and seems to be making assloads of money (enough to seemingly be buying up half of Baltimore, at least). Do these guys look like they are tech experts?

Well I'm not even just talking about policy positions. I'm talking about criticizing the nature of how parties act. Even on that level, it is incredibly one sided from this group.

But yes, I think it would also be interesting to track the posts of people who claim to be independent/moderate/third party. I think that would be incredibly one-sided as well.

Like the President has anything to do with the stock market. Except which high level corporate guy he appoints. The government is run by corporations. We are a society of the rich. No matter what we think, no matter what we say, no matter who we back, its all the same. Either party, it doesnt matter. Until we open our process to multiple parties, we are pawns. Corporations run this country.

And the Rs would use the nuclear option and have even more seats to stack. Duh. Or let me ask the question a different way...the old rule effectively allowed just ONE senator to demand that 60 votes are necessary to pass any appointee. Does that seem right?


Yes, but that doesn't mean that we were thinking that one party was "angelic". We were pointing out that one thing is factually not like the other. It's your hyperbole that ruins your points which is one of the general problems in politics today. That's right, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM! People clearly have said one thing and you try to blow it far out of proportion. We're taking an inch and you make it sound like we're traveling miles. There's no reasonable or rational discourse when you do stupid shit like that and you've done it repeatedly. This isn't a misunderstanding, this is you being irrational and trying to purposely misrepresent statements. Stop.

FYI, they have had reduction talks and has left in place a number of the programs impacted by the shutdown. Those are cuts. In addition, just because those talks aren't taking place in front of a camera doesn't mean they're not taking place. However, since the Republicans starting position is "scrap Obamacare", those talks aren't very fruitful. Also, since Congress are the ones who control the budget, trying to lay that at Obama's feet is misguided. Separation of powers and all that jazz.

It's fun that now I work with government contractors day in and day out in Washington DC...I get to hear all kinds of this scuttlebutt on a daily basis. :cool:

This. Although I'd say it's not about opening it necessarily, it's about getting the influence of money out of politics.

But how does that happen? I sure cant run for President. I dont have multiple millions of dollars or corporate backing. We need grass roots politics. Someone who starts at the bottom. Who earns the peoples money, not the corporations money.

So where would you put the monarchists? :D

public financing/guaranteed equal time

it's not rocket science. the big money is just so dug-in against it to protect their own interests

How would you get around freedom of speech issues on things such as Super PACs?

I'm sure a way could be found to do legal hair-splitting to make it happen, but in essence, I wouldn't shed a tear if freedom-of-speech with regards to elections was construed to mean "the only permissible advertising for elections is guaranteed publicly financed/equal time."

You only allow freedom of speech for those you agree with and then use the courts to shut down those you don't agree with. Right DT? :)

Nope

Thats how corporations run. Ask Oprah. They may not win, but they will scare the crap out of you.

That's because the left has been in power. In order for the fringe to gain power, the main party needs to lose. If republicans start winning back seats and even the white house, you will suddenly see more fringe left groups gaining power and funding because the main party isn't "fighting the right way" or "focusing on the wrong issues" or the same logic the Tea Party crew used after Obama won and the republicans lost all their seats.

The left and the right are the same in this regard - and neither side has earned any leeway when it comes to handling losses well and controlling the fringe in the aftermath.

Bull.

Where were all these "super extreme socialists" during the 90's and during Bush I & Bush II?

Moveon.org had its moments early on. Running ads comparing Bush to Hitler:

http://archive.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/4435_52.htm

The whole General "Betray us" article:

GOP calls on top Senate Dem to condemn anti-Petraeus ad - CNN.com

In 2007, it got to the point where "Many Democrats blamed the group for giving moderate Republicans a ready excuse for staying with Bush and for giving Bush and his supporters a way to divert attention away from the war."
MoveOn Unmoved By Furor Over Ad Targeting Petraeus

Seems a lot like the Tea Party now-days. I'd have a hard time telling the difference between the tactics of the moveon.org ads against Bush/the war and the Tea Party to Obama/ACA.

You get a set of republican wins over the next few election cycles and you will see even more venom from the left fringe - just like you see from the right now. Politics is a team sport nowadays and thinking one side will have "better tactics" when cornered is just silly. Both sides want to win at all cost because they've convinced themselves of the Armageddon that will occur if they lose.

The only rebulican v. democrat is whose pockets they are in.
We are all idiots. Really? Democrats v. Republicans? Liberals V. Conservatives? Nope. What bill will profit the corporation. Thats what it is about. There is nothing else.
You guys can argue you all you want about Obamacare. Who does it benefit though? The insurance companies.
Please. You guys are a binch of intelligent guys. Realize who controls what happens in the USA.

Well for one, there was never any successful extreme left movement to coincide with the Tea Party, as others have noted. Nor will there ever be one, IMO. The egalitarian nature of the left spectrum as a whole doesn't lend itself to strong leadership on the fringes, which is one of the reasons why Occupy Wall Street failed to be the left's answer to the Tea Party.

The hierarchical nature and narrow-minded focus of conservative groups means that they're going to be much better organized and efficient at what they do, which is one of the reasons why the Tea Party proved so successful (and I think Obama's race really helped fuel the Tea Party - if he was white, it may have still had an impact on the Republicans, but not nearly so widespread or lasting IMO).

While the corporatocracy is true to a large extent, to say it controls *everything* and there's little to choose from between Democrats and Republicans is both grossly oversimplifying things and acquiring the tinge of conspiracy theory.

Moveon.org was extremely well organized and funded. Much better than the Tea Party and it had (and has) a much bigger impact. The Tea Party has no real agenda whereas moveon was initially solely focused against the war. The Tea Party is about taxation in some areas, social issues in others and some groups are solely focused on gun issues. It's a buzz word - but a movement that lacks a clear message or even clear leadership. They were somewhat organized back in 2009 with some protests, but they haven't really done anything since 2010.

I'm actually kind of shocked people look at them as a relevant political entity right now. They had little to no impact on the 2012 elections and didn't have the media presence in ads like moveon.org did when Bush ran. I feel like they are a bit of a media creation at this point to put a face on what the left-leaning media groups would like to think republicans are. I'm not sure where all these myths come from about how well-organized and well-funded they are. A lot of people on the right like the theory of what they are founded on (advocating a reduction in the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit by reducing U.S. government spending and taxes), but few actually consider themselves part of the movement.

There are currently 48 members of the Tea Party Caucus in the U.S. House and 5 members in the Senate.

There are currently 0 members of the Move On Caucus in the House and 0 members in the Senate.

The difference is power. At this moment in history the far right has far more power than the far left.

That's because MoveOn.Org already got what they wanted. President Obama and a Democratic Senate.

It's the same things that the Tea Party is ultimately fighting for. President and the Senate. So, sure at this moment in time, the right-wing should be more mobilized, just as the same was true for the left-wing under Bush. There really isn't much need to fight for the power when you already have the power.

Your theory has a flaw. There definitely is a need to fight to keep the power once you have the power. Otherwise, what was the point? Are you saying that if the Tea Party captures the Senate and Presidency, they are going to just fade to black?

Moveon.org was more of an advertising pack than a "caucus". It helped fund a ton of people in congress during the Bush years. The Tea Party label is one that helps some very conservative district congressmen but it doesn't really amount to much. It's like a liberal congressman who says he's "going green" - it's a buzz word to help with the base but not really a tangible position/strategy.

The tea party has very little power right now. A negligible fraction in the house and a small number of senators even say they are. Even lower actually participate in Tea Party activities. It doesn't fund many (if any) campaigns and doesn't even have a real platform right now.

When moveon.org was in full force during Bush's second term, they were funding a ton of candidates and running multiple national ads during election season. Did the Tea Party even run one ad in 2012? I don't remember it.

I'm with you except for the bolded part. How does opening things up to multiple parties do anything except spread the corporate money out a bit wider?


And this I do believe, to a point, as well. There are some differences from one party to the other and while I may line up with one party on 4 of 10 things and another on 2 of 10, neither is a great rate but agreeing at double the rate is still better than not.

Also, I think the "whole system stinks, burn it down" folks are a bit disingenuous, as well. Even if you don't like either choices, your inaction is a actually choice if the message of one of the parties is "the system stinks" and I'm sure in the back of your mind, you have to acknowledge that.

SI

Yes, and the process has already begun. Going into the 2010 elections, there were over 1,000 chapters and a full caucus in the house (composed of 60 members by 2012). Right now, there are about 600 active chapters (almost cut in half) and the Tea Party Caucus is now defunct (in part because 10 of the 60 lost in 2012):

The Congressional Tea Party Caucus Is Dead

If republicans do what democrats did in 2008-10 in 2014-16, the tea party will fade into the oblivion like other "point-in-time" political movements. I just don't understand why people (mostly the media) still point to this group as having any kind of power. Almost half the chapters have folded, the membership in congress has all but died out, the caucus in the house is dead, and the "leaders" like Bachmann don't even stump on it anymore. Plus, it never really provided much funding to candidates (way most groups wield their power).

At this point, the "Tea Party" is as legit a fear to opposing politicians as "the boogeyman" is to sleeping children.

I think that's a bit disingenuous, considering there are still a lot of them in Congress. I think Boehner was more than willing to cut a deal but kept getting pressure from within his own party. In fact, I think that can easily be seen in the fact that the budget bills passed with mostly Democratic support.

SI

Did you miss all of the quotes from the Republican congressmen back during the shutdown that were worried about being primaried by the Tea Party? Ted Cruz, one of the leading drivers of the shutdown, openly identifies himself with the Tea Party.

They will probably do the same as MoveOn.Org...which is the comparison here so far. :)

I'm not sure how much I do it here, mainly because it would just be me doing things like +1 on some of the major issues the Republican party is criticized for. Then again, you won't find any of "the democrats suck and are trying to take our way of life away from us" either.

I've hammered Republicans for:

Gay Marriage
Death Penalty
Gun Show Loopholes and the fight to keep them
Acting like jack asses and not negotiating in good faith (numerous times)
Talking about cutting spending while spending like a drunken sailor (pretty much the entire Bush presidency)
Talking about smaller government while expanding it (pretty much the entire Bush presidency)
Sound bite politics (pretty much politics since Clinton)
Marijuana legalization
Demonizing the other side (God, I have some people close to me who believe the democrats were ok with the Newtown shooting because they felt it would give them more power to take away all of our guns)
Wanting to wipe out all entitlement programs (OK, some people abuse them, but some people have needed them. They are not all bad. Stop demonizing the people who really need them)

Democrats????::::

Wanting the best of all worlds without understanding it has to be paid for sometime. Lets raise taxes, raise spending, raise entitlement programs, force down a massive health care bill. . . and hope somehow this can get paid for by a magical fairy Godmother. (umm, taxes are not going to pay for all of this, sorry, but they aren't)
Demonizing the other side (I also have democrat friends and some of them are beyond the pale. All republicans are not racist, redneck, gun owning, church going, judgmental douche bags)
political correctness (barf)


I truly can't stand either side right now. And if I did find a side I liked, I would damned well criticize them. I get laughed at for my take on refs in professional sports, yet you don't see me say "it's ok my team got that call because they missed that other one" I post about the missed calls equally.

One last thing:

I keep seeing this "Republicans are blocking this, democrats had no other choice but to use the nuclear option and the Republicans would have done it too)

OK,

1) Republicans did threaten the option, but they never used it. They negotiated a settlement. To complete this story, you would have to make a guess as to how each party would react if the roles were reversed in 2013, not 2005. People here keep stating the democrats had a right to do what they did, but don't bother stating why they ended up in that position. They DID NOT negotiate. They demanded they got what they wanted without cutting any deals. The republicans therefore did the only thing they could do to try to force it. In fact, that's been the last 4 years. Everytime the republicans demand to negotiate something, the democrats slam it through without negotiating.

If the roles were reversed would the same thing have happened? Yeah, on both sides. BOTH sides would have acted like scum bags. BOTH sides would have put us in this mess. Because each side demonizes the other and doesn't believe in deal making. Well, instead of holding "your" side accountable, it's blame the other side.

Sorry, it's BS, and you can keep selling, but I will not buy.

That's not even close to accurate. The Dems have negotiated multiple deals on nominees and each time the GOP has broken the deal. The current impasse came when the GOP made it clear they would accept no nominees to the DC Appeals Court. The first attempted nominee was an assistant to the solicitor general for Bush and they still filibustered.

This is absolutely 100% false. Thank you for playing, please try again.

I'd be curious what your tally looks like for this because I'm sure the perspectives and items on the list are what are different.

EDIT: Below is my list of "Major Legislative Topics" of the last 6 years. There are some items like gays in the military (my scorecard: good!) and domestic spying (bad!) that have been addressed by Executive Order or behind closed doors. But we're talking about legislative actions, correct?

Here's my scorecard:
* Health care - GOP plan from 1993 and had to negotiate in GOP items (no public option) just to get cloture and no GOP votes. There are obviously a wide variance of opinions on this
* Environmental regulation - no cap and trade and only minimal nagging regulations at EPA for carbon; no new energy regulations even after BP disaster in the gulf, increased water pollution due to an exponential growth in unregulated fracking, and the Keystone XL pipeline will eventually go through, hopefully just around some of the more sensitive areas that were targeted before
* Economic regulation - Despite coming from a major economic crisis, Dodd-Frank is a joke, written by a pair of Democrats in the pocket of the banking industry, chipped away by lobbyists, and dead on arrival. How do I judge the last one? While every company was doing SOX compliance in the early 2000s, you don't hear a lot of gearing up to implement Dodd-Frank.
* Gun control - total failure as restrictions have gotten looser even with increased mass shootings
* Taxes - Bush tax cuts expire but not before making permanent those for anyone under $400K, and that was a bill passed using "reconciliation", another one of those "shady parliamentary tricks" because consensus could not be reached in 2001 or 2003
* "Discretionary Spending" - We're below the Paul Ryan proposed budget on Discretionary Spending due to the sequester and there are no signs it will be restored.
* "Entitlement Spending" - Already publicly on the table (for instance: chained CPI, cuts to Medicare that keep getting restored because both parties admit it would be political suicide) but hasn't been touched yet because no one has been able to crack the last two.

SI

Hopefully we'll see the details now.

EU spokesman: Iran nuclear deal reached - CNN.com

And now there will be peace in our time.

A nice summary.

I'm not an expert but if inspectors will truly have unlimited (?) access, why not.

20 questions about the Iran nuclear deal - CNN.com

Pardons by President Obama:

Drug Offenders: 11

Thanksgiving Turkeys: 10

What about thanksgiving turkeys that deal drugs?

Counted on both lists, naturally

SI

I'm not really sure what the solution for this is outside of higher fines. The entire theory of this new system is based upon premiums from younger, healthier people helping to offset the cost of pre-existing condition/higher risk groups.

For the life of me, I can't understand why these fines weren't set higher from the start. I'm guessing the idea was that lower fines might cause companies to kick people to exchanges and benefit the system long term (of course, hurting people short term). At this rate, though, there might not be a "long term" with this system to worry about.

Young invincibles spurn O-Care | TheHill

I'd have thought that a fair proportion of those wouldn't be actually paying for their own care as they're still be under their parents policies?

(my daughter is covered under mine despite being 19)

I think up to age 26 can be covered as long as they don't have access to employer coverage. If they have a fulltime job, my impression is that they can't be covered by their parents. Maybe someone else has more info.

I think it's common for kids still in college, but I'm not sure how many working 22-26 year olds are still covered by their parents. Still, the point is that many of the 22-29 year old people were expected to be "free money" in the Obamacare plan and it just doesn't seem like those people are signing up in the numbers expected. Perhaps the fault lies in the projections run by the Obamacare camp at the start when planning on the total cost. Either way, the system needs these people paying premiums to remain solvent long term.

The question really is, how many of these 18-29 year olds fall outside of coverage, since they can stay on parents until 26, or have coverage if employed. Perhaps the issue is they mis-judged the number that would need to buy coverage now, or is there some sudden rate increase hidden in kids being covered by their parents until age 26?

Yeah that was my thought - that and whether the lower age range of that scale was used to heighten the level of percentage who aren't signing up .... as all they're implying is that there is a low take up from that age, not whether the kids have cover (it could be that take up is reasonable for those who don't have cover - its not at all clear and most statistics I've seen reported on such things seem to have a clear agenda, hence my cynicism).

I think any long-term change like this has to be judged several years after its inception - the micro analysis of things at present isn't helping anyone at all and instead just feeding hysteria (which I'm sure is half of the intended cause of such things).

I seriously hope I can continue on my wife's insurance (one of the scant few awesome benefits to her being a teacher). There's already been noises about them dropping spouses from coverage.

My company's rates will increase $100 / month for 2014, with a "few benefit changes" coming, to be discussed next week. Awesome.

To amend. Interestingly, the (already expensive here) rates are the same for employee only. If you want your spouse or kids, you're getting raped.

Wow, the House actually stopped slap-fighting long enough to pass a bipartisan piece of legislation. The "Innovation Act" (HR 3309), keeps patent holders (or trolls) from suing end users of an alleged infringing product, not allow a maze of shell companies to bring suits, and forces the the patent holder to pay the legal costs of the defense if the patent holder loses.

The Senate has signaled that it should face no opposition, and Obama said he will sign it. Here is a link to the text of the bill:

Innovation Act (H.R. 3309) - GovTrack.us

Or you know offer something people actually want rather than what you think they should have.

The problem with that is that if you ask people what they want and provide only that then a lot of the time it'd be the wrong decision.

For instance healthcare isn't MEANT to be an investment opportunity etc. - its meant to be a failsafe to help people who need it and you hope like heck you aren't one of them.

Most young people think they're invincible and while at that age most will be lucky and healthy some will need help and at present those (as with all the uninsured) have to be treated somehow ...

Or to look at things another way - I see healthcare the same way I do car insurance, its a requirement in case shit happens.

I've made that parallel myself, though it just occurred to me - driving is an optional activity. ;)

In much of Florida I'd say thats debatable - I didn't drive before I emigrated* and after 3-4 months cycling around I finally gave in and learnt to drive, this region simply has no public transport and cycling outside of 'homestead' areas is downright dodgy because drivers simply don't expect to see people doing it (that and many of the roads are in an atrocious state).

*When I was younger I did the whole motorbike thing, but gave it up when I had kids because I really didn't want them to follow along that route ... I didn't bother learning to drive because public transport was a far better option than driving when I lived in the London area, even in the 'burbs' I commuted in and out of London by train and walked everywhere in my local town - England is just setup to encourage shanks' pony.

The problem with the healthcare vs auto coverage is that healthcare you will need at some point. For auto coverage you have people like me with high useage rates with no claims which helps the lot.

That's not necessarily true, especially with younger healthier people. Knock on wood, I've not had medical expenses outside of check ups and shots for 20 years.

Healthcare - Home

Conservative and Obamacare critic states why the ACA won't be repealed:

I think this is what will really be the best thing to come from the mess -- somebody will have to think of something better and we will get something better.

But someday you WILL need it. It's almost as certain as death and taxes.

Repeal the ACA and open up private health care organizations to participate state to state. How many of those 24 million are worse off?

I had to laugh at this response. It makes far too much sense.

Out of interest - what restrictions are in place to prevent health care organisations participating state to state at present?

(I ask because I work remotely from my employer and they sporadically leap me through different US corporations at their random whim (i.e. which corporation is paying me) ... none of these corporations are based in the same state as me, but each put me under their health coverage and I use the same policies etc. that the main company provide, ie. its not changed because I'm in Florida)

BUT THEY'LL BE CANCELLATION NOTICES!!!

Seriously, the millions kicked off Medicaid will clearly be worse off and those with preexisting conditions and the 22-26 age group on their parent's plans will probably be worse off.

Not to mention everyone who will only be able to afford a "catastrophe plan" that doesn't really provide jack-shit as the rates will rise back up thanks to the fragmentation of the risk pool.

I'll be more worried about this part if they ever head back down first.

Yeah, because deregulation + interstate commerce worked well for banking and credit card companies.

Oh, wait...

Obama shook hands with Raul Castro at Mandela's funeral.

You know who else shook hands?

Hitler.

So I guess then that McCain wouldn't shake anyone's hand that is in government at any level, if the standard is "don't shake hands with somebody who's keeping Americans in prison".

The whole Cuban thing is total BS at this point. The only thing keeping those guys in power is our own policy. Open up travel and relations with that country and that regime will come crumbling down.

To be fair, I doubt McCain is aware of that internet game.

How many Americans are in Cuban prisons right now?

//Honestly curious, I have no idea. I wouldn't expect it to be very many though.

fixed that for you

Eh, his daughter is all over the internet, I think. And McCain was "hip" enough to be on Parks & Rec. And that's not even a CBS show!

Agreed, I didn't know there were any.


touché.

I know - was just joking around.

I'd honestly be curious if there are any.

I see news stories about 1

The only one I can think of was the guy who was arrested a couple of years back as a suspected spy, who made several trips to install computers and internet access on the island.

Here's an interesting visual representation to show how partisan the Senate has become over the past 20 or so years.

Political polarisation: United States of Amoeba | The Economist

I agree. And from a selfish point of view it'll help our businesses in a time when we need it. Silly that we can't ship cars, food, and other American made products to them that they need/want. We trade with far worse regimes.

A) Good to see that there's a bipartisan budget deal from the "Super-Super Committee" and B ) after the beating the R's took after the last shutdown, I'm sure that the R's will whip in favor of this... and by that I mean an actual whip will be involved.

There's a Tom DeLay joke here somewhere

SI

Love that they managed to increase discretionary spending as part of this. The long-term mandatory cuts may be good, but they managed to stick more pork in it anyway...

From The Guardian, but I didn't realize this was the case (emphasis added):


I didn't realize it had been so long since the two parties had actually worked together to pass an actual budget. Unreal.

Once they realized it was just money and our debt is so out of control that nobody gives a shit anymore, it was easy! Everybody likes free money.

No shit. What's another trillion to either party? Bi-partisan support! The system is working again!

It's easier to learn to fiddle than to argue about which brand of fiddle to purchase.

You do realize this deal reduces the deficit, right?

No, it doesn't. Unless you count relatively small cuts in proposed scheduled increases to be a reduction. It's a serious violation of the promises made only recently.

Budget deal a step backward: Opposing view