You need to do quite a bit of research yourself Curmudgeon. The 5 Billion the Federal Gov. loaned the Postal service is a fraction of what they stole from them. When the Postal Service was running in the black for years the Federal Gov. was taking money off the top by saying that the Postal Service owed the Fed for the years that the tax payers had to subsidize them. Nobody had a problem with that and felt it was justified including me. But how many millions did they get nobody knows. Then the Fed Gov turn around and decided out of the clear blue that they had overpaid into the Postal Employees retirement fund to the tune of 5.5 billion dollars which they promptly removed. I thing they decided there was too much there for the Postal Workers and figured nobody would contest it. But the Postal Workers Union did and proved there was no over payment. This about par for the Fed Gov, if nobody contests it they get away Scott free but if they do maybe well put it back. When asked to return the money they said they didn't have it right now and never paid.Then the Fed Gov Postal Over-site Committee decided the Postal service should pay for the Postal Workers Health Benefit for 75 years in advance to the tune of another 5.5 billion over a five year period. This spreads it out so it keeps the Postal Service looking bad. I could say a lot more but I was just informed I'm over my limit.

When did the Postal Service ever run in the black?

"and the sequestration would never come about no matter how many times the Democrats refused to consider reigning in spending"

This reveals who the real Mike Shortall is. Just another head in the sand right wing douche. Tell when any Republican has ever really cut anything? Other than taxes for those who need tax cuts the least? Bush slashed revenue and ballooned spending, but jerks like you just goosestepped along. Now you are suddenly a three pointed hat wearing patriot? Please, you tea party clowns make me want to puke.

The baloney about the Senate not passing a budget is just that - baloney. While it is true the Senate hasn't "passed" a budget, it wouldn't matter if the Dems in the Senate did so because such a resolution would never take effect. For any budget resolution passed (on a simple majority) to take effect, the Senate must invoke cloture with a vote of at least 60 senators. The other alternative is to have the House pass the identical bill. You can read all about it -http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/02/parliamentary-procedure

Unfortunately I think you are correct Mike. The current Administration has proven time and again what poor leaders they are. BO and his merry band of buffoons are taking this country into the toilet, much the same as democrat mayors have done to cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Oakland and on and on.

Interesting that Wheezer only lists cities with mayors who are persons of color.

Mr. Shortall,
Please take this in the spirit in which it is given.... haven't been here in awhile,the 2012 Election rhetoric here was so nasty it seemed pointless.You were not nasty personally but you were VERY strident and a bit self-righteous in your assertions about the outcome of that election and the GOP's chances in it.
So it's quite funny to see you still using the same partisan rhetoric with absolute certitude that you did before those elections proved you to be so terribly wrong on almost everything we discussed!.How Romney would EASILY win the election, he'd win PA, Ohio, Virginia and Florida?
How the GOP PA voting restriction rules were "in no way part of a Republican effort to win by discriminating minorities but about voter fraud" (which everyone (BUT you probably) has since accepted was just a GOP tactic to skew the electorate and had nothing to do with fraud,).
Remember how poor economic performance of the last 4 years was going to mean Obama and the Democrats would get crushed in the elections and the GOP would take over the Senate and gain seats in the House???
Remember all those "certainties" you claimed then and when I disagreed with you, it was proof I was just a another foolish Liberal Democrat spouting partisan talking points? You couldn't have been more wrong about everything you were so certain about, why would we take you seriously this time? I mean this without disrespect and was just wondering your take on it.No lessons learned I guess, huh?

Mr. Blue: You have me mistaken with someone else. Although I'll gladly plead Guilty to carrying water for the presidential candidate that I still think would have been the best choice, some of the points you attribute to me I never said.

I never claimed that Romney would "easily win the election" or any state for that matter. I was one that never once bought the claims of a Romney landslide. In fact, I thought if Romney did win, it would have been a squeaker.

If you can find those words you claim under my name, I will gladly make a $50 donation to the charity of your choice.

I admit to the something along the lines of that quote on the PA voter ID controversy. I still think we need voter ID. And it I had the time I'd dredge up the video of the woman who admitted to voting SIX times for President Obama all under other people's names.

I also doubt that you'll find anywhere that I called you a "foolish Liberal Democrat spouting partisan talking points". But I wouldn't bet on it because I do not recall all of our conversations or the tone of those discussions. (I do from time-to-time react when provoked.)

Let me know if you find anything under the above monetary offer. I'll be very surprised if you do.

I want us all to applaud Nick for learning a new word in his 6th grade Health class today! Way to go, Nick!

Maybe next time we "discuss" the issues you'll get your way. then you'll feel better about yourself.

Nick, you obviously aren't a very reasonable person, but try this one if you can ... didn't we just go through a short while ago another round of whining by the democrats about how awful it would be if "the Bush Tax Cuts" were not renewed? "Awful for everybody" they said. Are these the same Bush tax cuts that went only to the rich? Oh.

Hey Jack, long time... How did your pre-election claim that Romney would win PA by 4 or 5 points work out?

Employers need employees just as much as employees need employers - we share the economic health of the country; labor is a symbiotic relationship and painting it in partisan terms is needlessly divisive and embarrassingly short-sighted.

Moreover, the conceit that our government only holds power at gunpoint is absurd - an elected government is a tool of a free people and holds power through our collective will. It's not perfect, and it doesn't always agree with or benefit us personally, but the intrinsic validity we grant the government is the manifestation of the power we hold as free people - it is the entire premise of this country's existence. By choosing to benefit from being members of this society, we also choose to collaborate ideologically through representatives and accept the compromises they make, and we choose to follow the laws and policies as created through that compromise. The power of a free people is through its democratically-elected representative government, not in spite of it.

Oh, mark wood, parroting Limbaugh's 'Limited Information Voter' meme is about as limited information as you can get - easy pandering implying you, loyal listener, are not part of 'them' and are therefore, through him, are really getting the true depth of salient political information. Which is, of course, bullshit.

Congrats Jack, you have surpassed your own record for pompous nonsense. Enough with the polititical intellectual stuff already. I, like Abraham, and numerous others clearly recall your zany predictions last November. Find another area of expertise.

Ah, Mr. Curran, always with the big words and well-considered rebuttals. Permit me to dumb it down for you. Government promises to attack high-income earners on TV. Political ads and media nurture class warfare. Romney the evil industrialist gave some guy's wife cancer. Win! Government rejects reason and historical fact, all the while counting on productive men to serve as their prey, knowing they will remain productive despite the attack because some men cannot change their nature to strive and succeed. These productive men respond by cutting labor force, cutting hours, doing more work with less staff and hours, all to maintain their incomes and profitability despite the attack. Government adds 19,000 new pages of business regulations. Few new jobs get created. GDP lowest in 4 years, remaining low. Unemployment (U6) climbs over 15%. More people continuously added to entitlement rolls. Economy stagnates.

And you respond with, "the majority voted for THIS against your predictions so we're right and obviously you're wrong." That is your well-reasoned defense. Brilliant.

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. Right to keep earned property, right to own guns, etc. Govt needs to stay small, out of the way of business. A rising tide lifts all boats. Even your little scow, Mr. Curran. As these job creators strike back (like unions), your scow will further sink.

@jack, before I respond could you explain what the hell you meant in your last sentence? You can dumb it down if you like.

Not true, Morgan.

A creative man will always find ways to achieve, to surround himself with a few hand-picked men of similar minds whose own skills compliment his own - and create wealth. He is more clever, smarter, more driven to succeed than you. He can hire PhD's in India for $25K/year. He can hire medical doctors in Taiwan for $40K/year. What does he need you for?

You are replaceable. You are a dime a dozen. You need that man far more than he needs you. There is no symbiosis, you delude yourself overestimating your own importance. You envy his success and feel entitled to a greater share of it. But as Mark Wood put so simply, he will have no part of your "majority looting." When the minimum wage hike kicks in, Mr. Wood will fire one employee and reduce the hours of others. Multiply his reaction x 1 million (there are more) small-to-mid size businesses across the country.

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). You joined with others to elect a government openly declaring war against individual right to property, to gun ownership; forcing every employed citizen to acquire health insurance coverage. Etc.

As for compromise, sir, there are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

I'm not sure what fictional character you're talking to - I've been running my own businesses and doing exactly what I want to do since my mid-20s. But keep making stuff up if it amuses you? That binary worldview of yours, though, is the heart of the idiot-based leadership your Tea Party has brought to our government. Compromise is evil? What preposterous, literally-self-righteous, fascism.

Obama has no interest in compromise or working with the Republicans. His attitude (and he and his cronies have said it many times) is I won so do it my way. He blames the Republicans for blocking his agenda, and I for one am glad they have. He is taking the country down and anything the Repubs can do to stop it is good for me!!
As far as McConnell,s statement that his #1 priority was to make Obama a one term president, I would have been greatly surprised if he had said hat his priority was to re-elect Obama (Now that would have been deplorable!!!). I'm sure that our Campaigner in Chief's #! priority was defeating Romney, .

I love jacking

OK, I'll admit that's funny.

Democrats have destroyed our big cities. Of course if anyone points that out they're racist,
http://www.scragged.com/articles/democrat-disaster-cities

One question Tim, why would any president want to "destroy the United States Constitution?" I hear that said about President Obama all the time. I still can't figure out why?

ODS- Obama Derangement Syndrome

Often brave implys moral. Both are in short supply inside the beltway. The sequestration is one of the best things "our leaders" have produced in a long time. A pity the cuts will not be expanded and better focused. If its true that both parties hate it, then its also true that it will most likely benefit the average American.