As far as your point about the Republicans, I am really not in the mood to defend them, especially Speaker Boehner. I think the whole spending question is something neither party is willing to seriously address, at least on the Senate side. With that said, my opinion on President Obama’s commitment to spending cuts hasn’t changed.

Specific examples of Republican spending cuts would be very hard to find since there aren’t any. I guess if you want to use Boehner’s deal he helped broker that cut a whopping $37 million from the budget earlier this year you could. But that’s still not enough to lower overall federal spending, which is really what we mean when we talk about spending cuts.

The Clinton economic strategy is rather bare from any Republican fingerprints too. Clinton’s Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act was passed in 1993 without a single Republican vote. It raised taxes and mandated the federal budget be balanced for 7 years or so. The first thing Republicans did when Bush took over in 2001 was do away with this 1993 act. And ever since then we’ve had nothing but chronic budget deficits (not to mention two endless wars, and a huge government expansion from Bush and the GOP in which they never raised a single to penny to pay for any of it).

Most Americans I think realize what new revenue means. And most Americans would not be affected by the new revenue because it would only target those making over $250,000/year. If we are not going to be fickle we at least have to acknowledge what’s being debated and what’s not.

My point was not that President Obama wouldn’t agree to spending cuts. What I was saying is that the new-found commitment to spending cuts (by both sides, BTW) is an acknowledgement that we can’t spend any more money on all these social programs until we pretend to cut spending enough so the American people accept the tax hikes as a necessary evil. Temporary cuts don’t have any lasting positive impact. I don’t believe that President Obama and Congress are committed to long-term cuts, which is what we need to seriously address our fiscal crisis.

As far as the American people and their opinions – well, you and I both know how fickle they are. Even so, I think that the American people recognize that new revenue is a buzzword for them paying more in taxes. Americans look out for their own self-interest. Last I checked, this hasn’t changed. I don’t know how Congress can prove that they have the right amount of spending cuts to justify tax hikes. Explain that to me and I might just accept your argument.

I don’t think you can find anywhere in the president’s 2.5 years in office where he hasn’t agreed to spending cuts. But there also has to be new revenue cause we can’t possibly cut enough to balance the budget. And every major poll suggests the American people want spending cuts and new revenue to help alleviate the debt. It has to be possible to do both

When are the tea partiers going to be ready to say, OK, cut 50% of the budget, beginning with me and “my” entitlement?

Yeah, I know she said: “…prevention, prevention, prevention…” I’m just interpreting Pelosian into English.

The lunacy of Steele giving Scazzafava $900K is an unforgivable mistake. And you know that I was a big supporter of Steele. The more I see and hear him, I don’t like him.

Good luck getting her to be president.

1. They don’t need to. Only the fringe idiots and losers beat that drum. In fact, Orly Tattertits and her ilk are getting rich off it. Suckers!

2. Having people running around saying stupid shit about you is GOOD for you. Nobody who believes it would vote for you anyway…since they are either too stupid or hate you too much to see reason. The people who do support you will rally even more support for you when your re-election comes up. Look for liberals to keep stirring the birthers pot in the coming years.