I mean, take one economic near-collapse for which none of those responsible have been called to account, use the fear that resulted from massive layoffs and long-term unemployment, and make those hanging by their fingernails on the edge of the abyss feel small and selfish for not being willing to "sacrifice."  

Sorry, Kev, but you're not going to lay this at the feet of liberals, but do feel free to use the "I" word if you think you didn't do a good enough job.  Maybe, if you and your ilk hadn't been spending so much time explaining and excusing the actions and policies of this administration, you might have been able to make a difference, but you chose not to.  Or you bought what they were selling.  And your readers bought what you were selling.  That's on you, Kevin, not collectively on "liberals."  

Perhaps you meant that "progressives" didn't try hard enough - but that doesn't fly, either, because it is largely progressives who have been enabling and excusing and assuring us that there was some kind of grand plan which we were just not smart enough to see or figure out.

And now we weren't demanding enough?

Last time I checked, there were still plenty of mortgages out there, not to mention outstanding credit card bills, student loans, etc., etc.  Is it that somehow only certain kinds of debt count for families, but every penny against the federal government is recorded as an imbalance?

The first group pressed for large stimulus spending, even if it meant hiring a group of people to dig holes, and another group to fill them back up. The point was to get money into circulation immediately.

The second group, Geithner, (& The Banks, led by Hank (Goldman Sachs) Paulsen, wanted to empty the Treasury and give it all to the perpetrators of the debacle.

Geithner won, and that's why the President is fighting for his political life today.

A marionette being made to dance. He has no original thoughts. No original solutions. That's why it takes a month to six weeks following a crisis for him to take decisive action.

He likes campaigning, and cheering crowds.

George Wallace was the same for most of his career here. His last terms, though he did things, such as apologize, empower predominantly AA counties, and more.

Obama only gets 2 tries. Wallace had many, he would have to sit out a term after 2 before running again. Once he ran his wife, she won, but died of cancer.

I'm sorry for you Mr. President. you are the most transformative president since, oh, Millard Fillmore. But you've got the authoritarianism of Lincoln, Adams, and Wilson.

I'd rather you had the spine of TR and FDR.

From David Dayen:

The most dangerous plans I've seen coming out of the debt limit talks are chained CPI and the Medicaid blended rate. I've written extensively about chained CPI, which would cause a Social Security benefit cut of hundreds of dollars a year for the average beneficiary. The way that can be most easily combated is by calling it what it is - a tax increase. Only $100 billion of the $300 billion projected savings in chained CPI comes from Social Security; the other $200 billion comes from the effect of slowing the cost of living adjustment in other programs, including... tax brackets. In other words, where as a tax bracket stops now at $50,000 and may go up to $51,000 next year, under chained CPI it would only go up to $50,500. Therefore people making $50,750 get thrown into a higher tax bracket than they otherwise would. As soon as Republicans figure out that messing with the COLA equals a tax increase, including on the top tax bracket, they'll veto that without delay.

So the real issue is in Medicaid. And the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has the best explanation of what the Medicaid blended rate would do. Essentially, if you strip away the jargon, this would reduce the federal share of Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), forcing the states to reduce provider payments or reduce coverage in their programs.

[snip]

Combined with this is a proposal to limit or bar states from raising taxes on medical providers to make up the costs. Forty-six states currently use provider taxes, and would see a key source of revenue for Medicaid and CHIP lost. These combined limits - restricting federal dollars for Medicaid through a different rate of payment, and banning provider taxes - have the effect of forcing states, which have less money to sustain their programs, and no way to raise that money outside of stressed general revenue pots, to cut back their Medicaid and CHIP programs. This lowers federal costs even more. The total target for the reductions is $100 billion.

What does this mean in the real world? It means that poor people and children will either have less generous health care services through Medicaid and CHIP, or that providers will see their payments cut again, which could lead to a lack of access to those services. Medicaid reimbursement rates are already as low as you can get. So cutting them even more could represent a tipping point, where providers simply refuse to accept Medicaid patients.

Oh, and by the way - we don't call this a "cut in benefits," but a "shift in costs;" the feds leave it up to the states, so the blame for reduced benefits, or reduced access, is on them.  No take-backs!

what could be a more affective case than people keeping their jobs!!!

This is from Pew Research in April 2010:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans do not believe the $787 billion stimulus package the president passed last year has helped create jobs, according to a new Pew Research Center poll.

A marionette being made to dance. He has no original thoughts. No original solutions. That's why it takes a month to six weeks following a crisis for him to take decisive action.

He likes campaigning, and cheering crowds.

George Wallace was the same for most of his career here. His last terms, though he did things, such as apologize, empower predominantly AA counties, and more.

Obama only gets 2 tries. Wallace had many, he would have to sit out a term after 2 before running again. Once he ran his wife, she won, but died of cancer.

I'm sorry for you Mr. President. you are the most transformative president since, oh, Millard Fillmore. But you've got the authoritarianism of Lincoln, Adams, and Wilson.

I'd rather you had the spine of TR and FDR.