Count me in the 71%.

I simply don’t understand what the big deal is. The major agreements are already in place to continue under taxing rich people and over funding corporate welfare.

And no one in power seriously advocates major new investments in social insurance or the public commons.

… and a lot of the DoD cuts are coming out of civilian personnel pay …

I figure they’re going to let us starve and then when we’ve had a taste of how bad it is, here will come Obama riding to the rescue with some less draconian cuts that we’ll be happy to swallow…since we’ll be so hungry.
I’ve never seen such a willfully mismanaged presidency.
When Reid threw away his chance to fix the filibuster, I knew they have things EXACTLY the way they want them; going back and forth over the same old ground time after time and doing nothing of substance.

But the bots assure us “it isn’t the Democrats” HAH!

The President has spent the last several weeks trying to explain how devastating the sequester would be

Obama never lets a crisis go to waste, particularly one he creates. If Obama didn’t actually want this crisis to happen, he:
A) Wouldn’t have come up with/signed the sequester into law
B) After signing the sequester into law wouldn’t have lectured Congress saying that he’d veto *ANY* bill that would remove the sequester
Just because there are low-information voters out there, it doesn’t mean that Obama isn’t neck-deep in responsibility for the sequester.

I’m more amazed that only 11% blame both.

The defense establishment in particular is really stepping up the rhetoric against the sequester, with Panetta sounding the alarm (and the new Secretary of State Kerry chiming in with support), tugging on our heartstrings about 800 K workers getting furloughed. Maybe they believe Pew and don’t want the Republicans blamed when the thing happens (if it does).

I agree. The only way he avoids responsibility on this disaster is people don’t know how deep he is into,this. Further, he wants even more cuts.

Ultimately, his legacy will be hurt if we go into another recession. The only way he can escape it is to end the sequester. Making additional cuts to SSMM will only make it worse even if he substitutes them for the sequester. He could be in a bind with no easy way out and the Rs know it.

I’m not. Most citizens still believe in Santa Claus the Tooth Fairy the Easter Bunny Tinkerbell the “two party system,” as in it’s really truly two distinct separate parties.

I know! Amazing, but true fact. They really think there’s a difference. Go figure.

But does he really really care about his “legacy”?? I mean, Bamz is a made man now and never has to worry his pretty little head about anything anymore. He’s gots lotsa money, etc, and all kinds of prestige. Who gives a fuck what history books say? He’ll still be the “first African American POTUS.”

Whatever…

Could well be he doesn’t care what history will think of him or that history will think he was not so great. Bush may also feel that way. That could even be what both of them say. But there is enough hubris to try to avoid that IMO, at least I hope so. But, I certainly don’t know that.

Eh? Bamz’ll be dead when the history books are written – that is, if the planet hasn’t self-destructed anyway (not kidding). So why bother “caring” what history says anyway?? I’m serious. Who gives a shit? Certainly the 1% does not care. It’s all about the money & live for today, my friend.

You are a mite depressing, you know. Here I’m looking for a little daylight and you are shutting it down. /s

“But does he really really care about his “legacy”?? I mean, Bamz is a made man now and never has to worry his pretty little head about anything anymore.”

Actually I think he cares a great deal about it – I’d say with our Presidents they’ve become increasingly vain…I think it’s just the way our system currently works where you’ll have Presidents who will sell out their constituents, just they care a great about not have their constituents actually blame them. Corporatists though they are, I just think it would be hard to find ones who weren’t vain who would also be good candidates.

That being said, I think there will could be a recession, just Obama is hoping it happens after he’s out of office, so the next President gets blamed. This was talked about the firt time he was elected on how he shouldn’t renominate Bernanke as both Bush and Bernanke were blamed the last round, but that chatter disappeared upon Obama renominating him. The music could stop again due to his choices to run the Fed, like with all this QE…when that day of reckoning comes, it’s going to be painful.

If the music stops again when he’s in office along with the Bernanke retread, he’ll whine about how he inherited this, just people won’t buy it…particularly since he re-hired Bernanke on his own. I expect Obama to be extremely vain about any recessions happening on his watch, notwithstanding that he’s a Lame Duck who will make millions upon leaving office.

That’s the little daylight I was hoping for. I also think he does not want a recession on his watch. Then again how hard will he work to avoid it? He’s already bought into the sequester as you previously noted.

The Republicans shouldn’t take the blame for the sequester cuts, they should take the credit.

Good point.

When both parties harp on deficits, and yes, it seems Republicans do in fact do that more, although I’m not sure they outdo POTUS, and the sequester gives them what they claim they’ve been wanting (big cuts to the deficit), then they SHOULD take credit for it.

That they’re not willing to do that shows what a scam their continued calls for cutting the deficit is.

The Republicans (and POTUS) don’t want to cut the deficit so much as they want to cut “entitlements” for regular people. They use the deficit as their excuse.

You’re right alan, if they were really serious about wanting to reduce the deficit, they SHOULD take credit for it.

In liberal-speak, Democrats are never evil (like those nasty, hateful Republicans); they are either weak, stupid, or cowardly. To suggest that Democrats are anything other than blundering, inept, fearful do-gooders is to be pejoratively labeled a dissident ‘cynic’, as if that’s such a bad thing. For the record, I’m a proud cynic and I loathe both Democrats and Republicans equally along with the capitalist organized crime syndicate currently masquerading as the US Government, which they both fervently and faithfully serve.

Of course the cynics are right; they usually are, which makes them unpopular. So what else is new? People have been hiding from the truth and clinging to irrational belief systems since the beginning of time. Besides, it’s always easier to cast aspersions on the cynics (Wikileaks/Julian Assange) rather than confront uncomfortable truths, such as, say, Democrats are evil, vile cretins who will lie, cheat, and steal from the public in service to the ruling class, just like, gulp, Republicans. Of course, collective cognitive dissonance leading to visceral disdain for truth is the goal of all well-run disinformation and propaganda campaigns, and the Democrats continue to reap the benefit of the doubt through this media-generated, cowardly lion-act from their faithful followers despite an historical record of subservience to the capitalist ruling class stretching back over the better part of a century.

To clear up any misconceptions: Democrats are not stupid, they are not weak, and they are not cowardly. If those claiming to be liberals and progressives who insist upon defending the honor of the Democrats would intently focus on what Democrats actually ‘do’, as opposed to what they ‘wish’ they would do (if they weren’t so cowardly and weak), they would understand and see what the Democrats truly ‘are’.

If you allow yourself to look at and understand the relevant evidence, which now stretches back for a hundred years, you’ll see that the Democrats want, indeed they fervently desire, zealously advocate and bring into an increasingly nightmarish reality an aggressively, criminally violent, interventionist foreign policy and a constantly growing authoritarian-surveillance state at home.

Today, and with as much detestable enthusiasm as the Republicans bring to the task, the Democrats seek to enrich and empower the ruling class still more as they simultaneously oppress, brutalize, impoverish and murder those who are not members of the ruling class.

The Democrats will oppress, brutalize, impoverish and murder those who are not the ruling class, BUT — since they are mercifully not crazy, not like those frothing, sputtering, Neanderthal Republicans — the Democrats will know exactly what they’re doing every step of the way. But in their hearts, the Democrats actually know these are horrible things to do, but, well, ya see, they just can’t help it. They’re weak.

Of course the cynics are right; they usually are, which makes them unpopular. So what else is new? People have been hiding from the truth and clinging to irrational belief systems since the beginning of time.

I’d offer a little different take on that. Cynicism and truth aren’t synonyms.

The most important step in problem-solving is identifying the problem (truth, reality, etc.). Then there are two polar opposite possible reactions to that understanding. One reaction is to believe that solutions are possible, and the other reaction is the absence of that belief. It’s the latter group of responses only that constitute cynicism, I’d argue.