Obama pleads for civility, cooperation in politics

He was right,"we are all americans". Obama is facing more prejucies than any other president in history. We are not just talking the colour of his skin,but politicians ,the media, people who don't want change.They see him as a brash young man who wants to change the world.They want him to fail.Thats the society we live in today. He inherited a mess,two war fronts,a huge deficit,a reccession.He was elected by the american people who were looking for change.Well he's trying,give him the backing he needs,or don't you have the @#$%s.

No one wants to ask why the Democrats are nervous.

As someone who is actually an American, the one thing I want for the Obama administration, is to see him fail. When you look at his policies, and his politics, there are very few that the majority of Americans agree with. Most of them are simply wrong. Americans didn't elect him to rewrite the constitution. His job was very simple, fix the economy, and stop the wasteful government spending. He is a collasal failure in both areas. Thats why the Dems are looking to get slaughtered come November, and why Obama is already facing a hostile congress as more and more Democrats are concerned with losing their jobs.

minello:

Obama is facing more prejucies than any other president in history.

On the race question, another poster couldn't post any examples of this. Can you? Besides the Berkeley-educated Iranian official. I already know about him.

We are not just talking the colour of his skin,but politicians ,the media, people who don't want change.They see him as a brash young man who wants to change the world.

We see him as a Marxist who surrounds himself with far-left extremists. Always has, and although he and his supports tried to deny it during the campaign, continues to do so as president.

Well he's trying,give him the backing he needs,or don't you have the @#$%s.

Give him the backing to make things worse? No, I don't think so.

Leftists the world over wanted to see Bush fail. Why should non-Leftists be held to a higher standard?

We see him as a Marxist who surrounds himself with far-left extremists. Always has, and although he and his supports tried to deny it during the campaign, continues to do so as president.

As someone who is actually an American, the one thing I want for the Obama administration, is to see him fail. When you look at his policies, and his politics, there are very few that the majority of Americans agree with. Most of them are simply wrong. Americans didn't elect him to rewrite the constitution. His job was very simple, fix the economy, and stop the wasteful government spending. He is a collasal failure in both areas. Thats why the Dems are looking to get slaughtered come November, and why Obama is already facing a hostile congress as more and more Democrats are concerned with losing their jobs.

Wow, those are some pretty bold statements... Been watching a bit of FOX News? I'm not sure what's worse- the fact that people have quite a short memory regarding where this American mess actually came from, or the half-truths that these same individuals throw around so nonchalantly...

And does anyone actually understand the terms they whip out, like 'Marxist' or 'Lefist'? God help us all.

White Hawk, "We" who?

We, as opposed to minello7's "They". We who oppose President Obama's policies and politics.

Never has an American president squandered the kind of political capital Obama entered office with.

Molenir: As someone who is actually an American, the one thing I want for the Obama administration, is to see him fail.

I give you credit for admitting it. Many Democrats would not admit they wanted Bush to fail. However, it does not make the sentiment any more correct. In fact, its unAmerican.

When you look at his policies, and his politics, there are very few that the majority of Americans agree with. Most of them are simply wrong. Americans didn't elect him to rewrite the constitution.

You followed all those bland and general accusations with "didn't elect him to rewrite the constitution"??? I forget what page of the Republican playbook that comes from, but I am sure I have seen that crap before. This sort of crap is really unhelpful and uncalled for. Words like this seem to indicate that you not only want Obama to fail, you are also willing to help him fail even to the extent of poisoning the whole of America. One may accuse Democrats of not doing much, but Republican would tear the country apart to do a crossword puzzle. I will take inaction thanks. I like peace.

Be careful of those offering you change, utopia, if you do as I say. Sure Obama has some light but I do have my concerns. For instance, the lack of respect and half lies about the Supreme Court (one of the last areas we still have respect for as Americans). "Obama Owes the High Court an Apology": http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704878904575031423261840744.html?mod=googlenews_wsj.

Americas debt has now risen to around $50,000 per person.Including children and pensioners. Pursuit of profits for share holders rather than productivity or workers interests now dominates company thinking. Unproductive mergers and acquisitions abound and CEOs salaries are rising rapidly as they are rewarded for bottom line performance which necessitates job cuts. The gap between rich and poor is growing fast. There will come a day before too long that the interest payments on that debt will become impossible to service. America needs to get together and cooperate, find middle ground, instead of bickering and squabbling

****dontknockit

I give you credit for admitting it. Many Democrats would not admit they wanted Bush to fail. However, it does not make the sentiment any more correct. In fact, its unAmerican.

So were the Dems who said that, who openly criticized bush UnAmerican? I can recall Obama doing that same thing. So extending your arguement, you are essentially saying, that the President of the United States, is UnAmerican. With some of his policies, I would have to agree.

I forget what page of the Republican playbook that comes from, but I am sure I have seen that crap before. This sort of crap is really unhelpful and uncalled for. Words like this seem to indicate that you not only want Obama to fail, you are also willing to help him fail even to the extent of poisoning the whole of America.

I didn't know there was a Republican playbook. Please be so kind as to point me to its location, I'd like to use it as a reference in the future.

More seriously now. How hard is it to understand, when someone has serious disagreements with the way the country is being led, speaking out about those disagreements isn't unamerican. If the country is at war, and you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy, then you might be able to make that arguement, but otherwise, its ludicious on its face. Nothing is more American then speaking your mind about the politics that divides us. And refusing to help the President or the Democrats destroy the country is likewise not unamerican. In fact it would be unamerican to go along with them.

Rather then trying to massively expand the federal deficit, via health care, and destroy the US economy via Cap and Tax, what Obama should have been worrying about was reining in the spending, which under Bush exploded. Instead he went the other way spending 3 times more then Bush even thought about. That is unacceptable. Again, not the reason he was elected. He has to change, or the Dems are done for the rest of his term.

We see him as a Marxist who surrounds himself with far-left extremists.

I believe the medical term for that is "hallucination". Not sure how anybody can see this lightweight corporate frontman in that way, but I do admire the mental powers that allows them to, and to share their visions in some kind of Vulcan Mindmeld style. But in the end it doesn't matter, the plantation owners own and train both horses in the race.

As for wanting to see Obama fail, a pretty clueless comment to make. Of course he is going to fail (unfortunately), as will whoever comes after him, Republican or Democrat (unfortunately). You guys really have no idea what has happened, do you. You're like Wile E. Coyote after he has run off the cliff. Keep chasing the Obamarunner guys, but DO NOT look down. In other words, pay no attention to troublemakers like michaelgtodd.

”But in the end it doesn't matter, the plantation owners own and train both horses in the race.”

Oh yes, the planatation owners. And only GJDailleult knows exactly who they are.

But he can't tell you who because, well, they monitor his every post.

Say - - what's the medical term for that?

Could be just me but if he really wasn't failing then the Democrats shouldn't really be "nervous" at all.

The guy who leads the party that called citizens who opposed his failed policies and out-of-control spending as astro-turfers, "tea baggers", Nazis, mobs, etc., now wants a Kum-Bah-Ya moment of “let’s start thinking of each other as Americans first”? Sorry, but that dog don't hunt.

Obama spent most of 2009 (and is still at it) talking when he should have been listening.

Obama says he wants to end political division then calls the republicans "the party of No", and tells the SCOTUS they're stupid.

Odd way to bring us all together.

"Not sure how anybody can see this lightweight corporate frontman that way"

Obama's a lightweight all right.

Odogma at 1:41 PM - Good one.

Obama has focused his rhetoric lately on making clear he is out fighting for people.

If this statemement were really true, Obama would know average Americans wants the federal government to get out of the way and let them work and prosper on their own. Obama and the dems plan is to reward laziness and punish hard work and prosperity.

America's "failure" began with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. No country can conduct two wars simultaneously without a tax increase and military conscription. Usama bin Laden and a few of his turbaned colleagues actually came up with a strategy to cause the giant to expire through financial exsanguination brought on by his own blindness, political ignorance and stupidity. All those high-tech weapons at America's disposal have been brought to a dead halt by improvised explosive devices and jihadists who seem to be able to intimidate the entire US population by poking their heads out of caves and shouting "Boo!" It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

unfortunately i don't think he'll get it...the republicans love their game of bullying bombastic bullshit, while the dems are generally too wimpy to fight back

"Let’s start thinking of each other as Americans first.”

I don't think conservatives will ever understand that.

GJDailleult at - "the plantation owners own and train both horses in the race."

How racist is that??

It's not unlike RomeoRamen's continued use of 'his [Obama's] handlers," and "above his [Obama's] pay grade."

Moderator: Back on topic please.

Sarge at 03:08

You're wrong.

Beel: "Usama bin Laden and a few of his turbaned colleagues actually came up with a strategy to cause the giant to expire"

Heh, even after a year of Obama we haven't expired yet. Heck, we'll probably be able to take another 3 years of it.

Sushi at 4:36 PM - You're wrong.

the republicans have only one interest and that is themselves and bugger everyone else...they would rather see the country go up in flames than compromise or cooperate (of course, if the country does goes up in flames, they can ask their good friends at Blackwater to employ their world famous people skills to bring sanity back into the situation - for a suitable fee naturally)

What Obama is trying to say is that the republicans should just agree with him and the democrats...It's all our way or it's not civil...He just keeps digging his hole deeper and deeper...

"It's all our way or it's not civil"

Or, it's all our way or it's not bi-partisan.

Bah, Obama has managed to radicalize more people than W Bush. Truly amazing. At least 3 more years of foaming at the mouth to follow.

molenir,

At least you're honest enough to say your desire is for Obama to fail. I'm not sure it's the most patriotic sentiment, but it's honest.

“Let’s start thinking of each other as Americans first.”

Coming from a guy who spent twenty years listening to his mentor preach, "It's not God Bless America, it's Goddamn America". Obama's the last person to be lecturing others about being American.

"molenir, At least you're honest enough to say your desire is for Obama to fail. I'm not sure it's the most patriotic sentiment..."

It is. Now, if only Obama was honest enough to say what he really wants is to take America down a few pegs.

Obama failing means America fails. But thank-you too, sarge, for being honest.

Methinks Obama will not be getting much civility on Japan Today anytime soon.

"Obama failing means America fails"

Au contraire! Obama failing means America is saved!

I think radicals are the most un-patriotic people around.

MADVERTS

Obama failing means America fails.

And THAT my friends, is all you need to know. Liberals belive Obama is bigger than America. Republicans KNOW that he is not.

He is not the savior. He is not the messiah. He is not the answer.

He is the PROBLEM.

Amazing how so many (especially here) still see it as US americans vs. them. What's happening in this world is way too connected for anyone with the slightest empathy to talk about country first. Not to mention how the U.S. was founded on exploitation. Wake up Sarge and crew and realize you don't deserve the peg you're standing on.

please don't plead - LEAD

I'm not confident that Obama has the brass to lead.

Bipartisan negotiations might get some decent bills through congress but Pelosi and Reid are hell bent on a left wing agenda. Obama is more like their lap dog than leader. So I expect nothing will be accomplished.

Loki,

Heh, hoping your own designated leader is going to fail is just idiocy.

He's arrived in a presidency that's in a chatastrophy that isn't of his own making.

Yu radicals need to open your eyes a tad. Were it McCain in office, he'd be getting the same amount of slating. Some Americans are simply venting their frustration at Obama becuase life is currently hard. SomeAmericans however are partisn freaks that don't need a reason to shriek.

michaelqtodd

Americas debt has now risen to around $50,000 per person.

More like $100,000 per person and it was mostly created by the republicans. $5Trillion in just the last administration.

Republicans are real good with the marxist, communist and socialist name calling. (must be big Micheal Savage and Sean Hannity listeners) WOW, he didn't lie to the people anything like george bush did. Every time bush opened his mouth he was lieing again. < :-)

"it ( America's debt ) was mostly created by the republicans"

It was not. Though some Republicans who aren't conservatives had a hand in it.

It was not. Though some Republicans who aren't conservatives had a hand in it.

One of the problems that put strains on civility and cooperation is the telling of untruths, and unwillingness to accept facts based on verifiable data. First of all, it was the primary strategy of the neo-conservatives starting with Reagan, to increase debt. They knew that they couldn't kill New Deal programs like Social Security through policy; the way to do it was to drive government into deeper and deeper debt through increased spending combined with less revenue (via tax cuts).

The following site shows the level of government debt on a year-by-year basis: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

In late 1980, the national debt stood at approx. 950 billiions. By the end of Reagan's second term, it was nearly 2.7 trillions (nearly tripled in 8 years). By the end of Bush's single term, it had grown to 4.2 trillion, not quite doubling but totalling a four-fold increase and a rapid rate of growth of the debt unmatched by anything that occurred when the Democrats controlled the White House.

If anyone is tempted to say that it was the Democrats in Congress that was behind the increase, the facts are that it is the White House that creates the budget and sends it to the Congress. The thing about Reagan's budgets is that for nearly every one of his eight years, Reagan's budgets called for more spending than what Congress ultimately approved.

Clinton's 8 years saw the rate of increase of the national debt lowered, from the rate of the previous 12 years, eventually tapering off to near zero percent and the prospect of decreasing via projected surpluses. Bush and the Republican Congress killed that prospect. Observe the increase in debt at the link for the years 2001 to 2009 -- it has better than doubled again!

Incorrect. The President makes budgetary recommendations and Congress makes the actual budget. The President can sign or veto Congress's budget, but it is Congress that controls the purse strings.

BTW, according the President's own proposed budget, the total federal debt to be incurred during his first term (2009 - 2013), assuming Congress's actual budgets do not exceed expectations, will be $6.58 trillion. However, the programs that his administration are pushing would increase the debt far beyond that measurement.

Correction Federal debt accrued from (estimated 2009 - 2012): $6.58 trillion Total Federal Debt (estimated EOY 2009): $12.87 trillion Total Federal Debt (estimated EOY 2012): $16.57 trillion

Incorrect. The President makes budgetary recommendations and Congress makes the actual budget.

The OMB prepares and submits something called a "budget" to Congress each year. They've been doing it since the 1930s.

Calling it "budgetary recommendations" is inaccurate, and prone to playing a game of semantics. Yes, budgetary items are written into law, because appropriation laws are required, and it is Congress that does that. It still does not detract from the fact that most of the budgets that Reagan submitted to Congress contained more spending than what Congress eventually appropriated.

It's not semantics. It's a budget recommendation / proposal since Congress can, if it so chooses, completely ignore the President's proposed budget and often makes very significant changes to the proposed budget. It is Congress that controls the purse strings, period.

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

BTW, I do not exonerate Presidents from their role in the Federal debt as they could veto Congress's budget. Yes, it's likely that Congress would simply overrule it, but it remains that signing the budget means that President endorses it, be it halfheartedly or wholeheartedly.

It's not semantics. It's a budget recommendation / proposal since Congress can, if it so chooses, completely ignore the President's proposed budget...

The section of the constitution you posted does not contain the "B-word."

Congress can ignore it, but since the 1930s when the responsibility for forming the budget passed from Congress to the executive branch, they never have. You appear to be arguing from the theoritical perspective of the consititution, which makes no specific mention of responsibility for it. I am arguing from nearly 3/4 century of actual practice.

That much precedence trumps theory, period.

, it's likely that Congress would simply overrule it, but it remains that signing the budget means that President endorses it, be it halfheartedly or wholeheartedly.

Nothing you have said removes anything from the main point: That since 1980, when our national debt stood at less than a trillion dollars, it has been under Republican administrations that FAR more deficit spending was proposed and signed into law.

My hope is that that fact would humble the Republicans into a bit more civility and cooperation. They should stop pretending that where we are today has primarily been the fault of the other party when the clear facts show that so much of the responsibility is on them.

In Obama's own words-

"All of us should be rooting for each other.”

Which is why he keeps blaming the previous administration for everything under the sun ? Try to practice what you preach a little first before criticizing others.

Which is why he keeps blaming the previous administration for everything under the sun ?

What has happened to the U.S. federal budget since the surpluses of 2000 is something the American people should not forget.

Besides, Mr. Obama on several occasions has admitted to his mistakes, which also distinguishes him from his detractors.

Yabits: First of all, it was the primary strategy of the neo-conservatives starting with Reagan, to increase debt. They knew that they couldn't kill New Deal programs like Social Security through policy; the way to do it was to drive government into deeper and deeper debt through increased spending combined with less revenue (via tax cuts).

So they intentionally increased debt to eliminate programs like social security?

The Hate club is out in full force i see

Obama says he wants to end political division. Heh, didn't he make the same type of claim for two years as a candidate and then again at his innauguration?

So after a year, what exactly has Obama and the party he "leads" actually done to end the political division?

Obama seeks to end the division by having all Americans in general and the republicans specifically do as he wishes; not by him moving away from the far left.

Obama thinks everyone can change .... with the exception of himself, of course.

The thing about Reagan's budgets is that for nearly every one of his eight years, Reagan's budgets called for more spending than what Congress ultimately approved.

Wheres the link on this please. From what I remember all of his budget proposals called for significantly less spending then what was approved. The main difference was in military spending which his requests ramped up. So I would very much like to see a link proving what you said.

So I would very much like to see a link proving what you said.

I am ready and willing to provide you with a link. Many people forget that Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981 to 1987. Nevertheless, had Congress passed Reagan's budgets exactly as proposed, the national debt would have been $29.4 billion worse.

Provided with the link, would you be willing to acknowledge the Republicans as primarily responsible for the tripling of the national debt during the decade of the 1980s? (Either way you answer, I will still provide the link.)

Provided with the link, would you be willing to acknowledge the Republicans as primarily responsible for the tripling of the national debt during the decade of the 1980s? (Either way you answer, I will still provide the link.)

No, I don't think I would say that Republicans are primarily responsible for spending in the 80s. Spending begins and ends in the House. Its always been that way. I would give Republicans primary credit for the blowup in spending over most of the last decade. Though Dems took control of the House in 06, so from then on its been the Pelosi show.

The link is as follows:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/5Debt.htm

I could never bring myself to believe that a president as persuasive as the Great Communicator, together with a senate controlled by his party, could not -- if they truly wanted to -- get a handle on their deficit spending. You make it sound as though they had no control or influence whatsoever. Since the national debt tripled under Reagan, he must not have been a very good leader to have allowed that to happen.

(Again, the link will show that Reagan proposed greater spending than what the Congress eventually approved. I owe Michael Kinsley who wrote the TRB column for The New Republic during the 1980s for first pointing out his surprising fact.)

The Republicans' spending in the past decade mirrors their behavior that last time one of their party controlled the White House.

yabits,

The section of the constitution you posted does not contain the "B-word."

In your mind, having "Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States", to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", as well as the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", does not constitute all aspects of controlling the purse strings?

Congress can ignore it, but since the 1930s when the responsibility for forming the budget passed from Congress to the executive branch, they never have. You appear to be arguing from the theoritical perspective of the consititution, which makes no specific mention of responsibility for it. I am arguing from nearly 3/4 century of actual practice.

That much precedence trumps theory, period.

From the 1921 Budget and Accounting Act to modern times, the President's budget is still a proposed budget and is named as such by Congress and the White House (including in budget documents themselves). The President still requests a budget and Congress decides what the budget will be, period. The President will typically request what he thinks the Congress will allocate (or can be persuaded to allocate). It doesn't work the other way around.

It's interesting to note that from 1982-1989, the percent of GDP that the Federal Deficit consisted of averaged 4.3%. The current proposed budgets for 2010-2014 average a Federal Deficit of 4.7% of GDP (assuming everything goes well). The year-end Federal Debt from 1981-1988, grew an average of $211.5 billion. The year-end Federal Debt from 2009-2012, is projected to grow an average of $1.2 trillion / $1,191.9 billion (assuming that everything goes well).

Someone asking for civility and cooperation should be civil and cooperative. Civility and cooperation is a two-way street.

"....does not constitute all aspects of controlling the purse strings?"

If you are referring to forming a budget, the answer is no.

The President still requests a budget and Congress decides what the budget will be, period.

The President submits the federal budget to Congress. Congress ultimately approves what will be allocated. Period.

It's interesting to note that from 1982-1989, the percent of GDP that the Federal Deficit consisted of averaged 4.3%. The current proposed budgets for 2010-2014 average a Federal Deficit of 4.7% of GDP (assuming everything goes well).

It can be disingenuous and misleading to present a deficit as a percentage of GDP for future projections. Some people know what "assume" really means.

The point still stands that the national debt has increased at a greater pace under Republican administration-submitted budgets than it has under the Democrats. By FAR.

"Obama pleads for civility, cooperation in politics"

I honestly believe the American people elected a pathological liar with serious psychological disorders.

The recent SOTU speech was the sort of spectacle you would expect to see in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela or a banana republic:

"In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court by name, and egged on the Congress to jeer a Supreme Court decision, while the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds Congressmen? To call upon the Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, indeed a decision applying the First Amendment? What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion being attacked."

Randy Barnett, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center

The SCOTUS ruling was a travesty and clearly shows the justices who dumped law to allow bush to become president still are subverting the country.

If you ditto heads want to call out a liar look to the former president. He lied about everything. Obama is a man of character which should shame republicans for allowing empty headed corrupt losers to run their failure party.

Last, bush made the rich so much richer in the last 8 years the USA is becoming a banana republic where the top 1% own nearly everything. The saps that are having their pockets emptied to give more to the rich include 99% of the republicans.

"Obama pleads for civility, cooperation in politics," and zurcronium answers the call:

If you ditto heads want to call out a liar look to the former president. He lied about everything. Obama is a man of character which should shame republicans for allowing empty headed corrupt losers to run their failure party.

Last, bush made the rich so much richer in the last 8 years the USA is becoming a banana republic where the top 1% own nearly everything. The saps that are having their pockets emptied to give more to the rich include 99% of the republicans.

yabits,

It is improper to merely compare on the basis of % change in debt as going from $10 to $100 is a tenfold increase, as a $90 change in debt to someone earning $1000 a year does not have the same consequences to someone earning $2000 a year. That is why I also included debt as a percentage of GDP, the economic measurement of production.

Yes, it would probably be nice if there was some semblance of civility between the two parties, but most folks on the right aren't even remotely interested in such notion, nor would they know about how to go about participating in bi-partisan anything anyway. In fact, their "cultural leaders"(Rush, Malkin, Hannity, and all the other droolers)do just about everything possible to discourage such relations. But this is actually one of their strengths. The left, or what is left of the left, are too soft and trying to use rationality and intelligence to deal with the morons. Doesn't really work very well. If there is going to be some sort of bipartisan anything it's necessary for BOTH sides to be rational. The right are not for the most part. It's like a scientist trying to debate "creationism" with a glazy-eyed born again Christian, or perhaps trying to have a rational conversation with an indoctrinated Scientologist. Virtually impossible. And while it's admirable that the left seeks to take the higher road, it simply doesn't work most of the time, and, in fact, helps to defeat their own agenda. They need to quit being so nice and start kicking some butt in good old fashion labor strike days i.e., when the left had balls. The movement to the irrational right has gone on too long, and as could EASILY be seen in recent history i.e., with the tragedy of the Bush years, this sort of irrationality is NOT wanted, nor appreciated, much anywhere in the entire world outside a few criminal-minded social Darwinists whom feel they can make buck off it somehow. The left needs to start kicking arse. There lack of doing so is the problem. We need another 60's type movement, though MUCH stronger. Of course we'll have to peel the young droolers away from American Idol long enough to read Chomsky, Zinn, and other moral and rational folks.

Friday 29th January, 11:55 AM JST

Obama pleads for civility, cooperation in politics

I honestly believe the American people elected a pathological liar with serious psychological disorders.

Well, I don't have any problem with people who criticize Obama and the Democrats for the excessive spending and health care reform. But those people should be able to have the better ways to express their opinions/thoughts-- unlike the sentence above. The headline explains a lot. No wonder America is now facing a serious crisis in civility.

""I honestly believe the American people elected a pathological liar with serious psychological disorders"

NO ( ) person could possibly have supported Bush, and in turn make such a statement against, well, Obama or anyone else for that matter. If you're referring to Obama when making such a ( ) statement, all I'd have to say is that you should change what you "honestly believe". Some naive children also "honestly believe" in Santa as well, but he doesn't exist. Your statement demonstrates exactly what Obama recognizes needs to be repaired. Due to your ( ) to right wing idiot-idealogues like Rush, Hannity, and the other Santa-seeing flat earthers, it has left you in a ( ) state where your perception is ( ), in a similar was as a Scientologist cult follower manages to warp their own perceptions in order to fall for such fairy tale. Perhaps you should break ranks with the average person on the right a learn to ( )."

“doesn’t care about sick people or is some socialist/communist who’s trying to take over the health care system,”

New requirements for the president of the US. The individual must have the intelligence of a boiled potato.

I mean who cares about health care when you have all these economic issues?

Get your priorities right at least. You are not still in fight with Clinton over who promisses better health care to the mass.