Um.. if the GOP opens their mouth to speak, it's bad.

It is obvious that they are not going to meet their deadline. This was predicted the day they pushed it off to this and could not make a decision months ago. What will happen is this: They will slip and the across the board cuts will occur. (we do need cuts that is for sure, but not non selectively and blindly across the board, but since our elected officials cannot do their job this will happen) Then both sides will blame each other for not making progress, and neither the Dems nor the GOP will accept the responsibility...and the painful cuts will just happen as they have to. Problem solved.

Keep protecting those millionaires GOP.....its really working to help the economy....... (sarcasm)

Congress is nothing but a special interest group; Republican latest insanity, due away with tax breaks for middle class America (interest deductions on home, deny deductions for state income, school, property, fire and police taxes paid; but keep in place the write off for multi-national corporations. Last year Exxon made 55 billion dollars, they received a tax rebate from American taxpayers of 1.8 billion dollars, does anyone in Washington no the meaning of insanity !

Yep, I am still waiting for Reagan's "trickle down" economy to trickle down to me.

Too many in congress owing too much to lobbyists, special interest, big business, foreign countries, and whoever else. They have forgotten, who they are in Washington to represent, the American people.

Um.. if the GOP opens their mouth to speak, it's bad.

Thanks for keeping up with the conversation. Your comment ranks right up there with the mental midget the other day who claimed 43%+67%=100%

The fact of the matter is were broke. We spend way more than we make, and we not only need to increase revenue but also decrease spending. If we dont make significant budget cuts, we will only be paying off one credit card with another. I dont mind the Bush/Cheney/Obama tax cuts expiring. I dont mind paying a little more of my paycheck for taxes, but I want to make sure that money is not being pissed away again. If one more of my tax dollars go to fund a tree study in Oregon, or a butterfly preserve in North Dakota I'm gonna flip.

The people on here who can only blame 'the other political party' are a vast part of the problem. Roughly 20% of this country considers themselves as 'Liberal', another 20% or so identifies themselves as 'Conservative'. That leaves the approx 60% of this country left out in the cold. We either have to vote for the Religious Right, or the Extreme Left, and neither of those two extremes give a damn about the middle. Its all about beating the other side.

Raising taxes on EVERYONE will make things worse. yes, wholeheartedly agree. Raising taxes on those making over half a million dollars a year? Nope. Won't make things worse. Increases revenues to the government, helps quite a bit, and the rich folks stay rich despite the few percent more they pay in taxes.

Oh, and before you even start, employers deduct employee wages from the gross, not the net, so they save money by hiring, and only what is left over for their pockets get hit by increased personal taxes. In addition, if the amount is really that much, incorporate and pay corporate taxes on your business!

Hey there mvargus, it would be nice if you had provided the SO CALLED "research in economics" that you threw out in an effort to denigrate someones opinion or the "Were you aware that there is a rather large body of research in economics that suggests that raising taxes during an economic downturn will always make the situation WORSE?" Just because you offer that drivel up as if you are soooo well informed is just crap. Making that info available would give others a chance to debate you and your point. And your guessing that the reader was answering no to your questions, tells me that you think you are all that. I read your post and have to ask you....were you aware that your post is crap? LOL!!

libtards are always so quick to blame and point fingers

Dennis,

Wages aren't part of the gross. The gross profit is simply total revenue minus cost of goods (which includes direct labor used to make the goods). Net profit is gross profit minus all other costs (rent, utilities, labor for overhead employees like accounting, sales, etc.)

No, money is not saved by hiring, it has exactly the opposite effect. If it saved money by hiring, your local dry cleaner would have thousands of employees...

StrongArm

I guess you've never heard of Robert Reich, former Obama advisor and now profesor at UC Berkeley who has as recently as 1 year ago admitted that all his research says that raising taxes during a downturn is bad? How about Greg Mankiw, who not only is a professor, but regularly blogs about economics. He's another who publishes regular articles about the lack of wisdom being shown by those proposing to raise taxes during a downturn.

Or we could go back to 2 ecnoomic heavyweights in F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman. If and economist isn't a disciple of John Maynard Keynes, he probably knows about the volumes of research and writings produced by these 2 nobel prize wnners. These 2 were strongly against the kind of tax and spend systems we have now. In fact Hayek called the type of government pushed by most liberals as "The Road to Serfdom".

That's one thing I always find funny about liberals who try to claim that the GOP wants to make them all slaves. The first person to present that argument strongly was a supply-side economist who was against everything liberals are still pushing for. He feared that giving government that level of power and purse would first make humans wards of the government, and once people were too dependent on government handouts to actually be free they would quickly become almost property of the government.

Funny thing is that if you back away from some of the emotions such an argument brings out, you have to admit. His argument which is now more than 50 years old, has a strong ring of truth to it. There are many people who now can only survive if government permits them to.

But I expect hte liberals here won't want to hear that arguement. They still operate under the delusion that they will be one of the ones in charge. nevermind the history of all socialist/communist revolutions and the massive casualties suffered by their adherents during the initial purges determining who will really be in charge.

I have news for all the intellectuals in the world who think they'll get to rule. Its the thugs and killers who get to run things after a "people's revolution". The intellectuals either shut up and serve their "betters", or they get purged.

Yep, I am still waiting for Reagan's "trickle down" economy to trickle down to me.

Oh, something is trickling down on you, it just isn't prosperity. The "job creators crashers" are pissing on us.

mvargus, if you are listening to economists, you must hear them say cutting government spending during a recession will put us into a depression.

Adam Smith said the wealthy should pay more than their fair share.

Why? Because the wealthy benefit greatly from federal infrastructure.

Why is it "socialism" to propose exactly what Adam Smith said was correct?

You know what? Next time a conservative calls the Democratic Party "socialist", I will report them for trolling. Would a "socialist" party vote to extend Bush Tax Cuts? Would a "socialist" party cut billions of dollars to essential programs such as Medicare?

mvargas:

I don't know how to say this tactfully so I'll just blurt it out: You are a liar.

This is not what Robert Reich said on November 19, 2011. Reich proposes raising taxes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich

It would create fewer than 2 million jobs. We need a big jobs program -- rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure, and including a WPA and Civilian Conservation Corps.

Third: To pay for this, raise taxes on the super-rich. It's only fair. Never before has so much income and wealth been concentrated at the very top, and taxes on the top so low. Go back to the 70 percent marginal tax we had before 1980. And include more tax brackets at the top. It doesn't make sense that any income over $375,000 is taxed at the same 35 percent, even if it's a billion dollars. And tax all sources of income at the same rate, including capital gains.

Fourth: Cut the budget where the real bloat is. Military spending and corporate welfare. End weapons systems that don't work and stop wars we shouldn't be fighting to begin with, and we save over $300 billion a year. Cut corporate welfare -- subsidies and special tax breaks going to big agribusiness, big oil, big pharma, and big insurance -- and we save another $100 billion.

Do you hear me, Washington? Do these four things and restore jobs and prosperity. Fail to do these, and you'll make things much, much worse.

Thanks for playing anyway.

Our elected officials are just extensions of Special Interest. Remove the money from Politics, allow publicly funded elections to even the playing field. I don't want my tax dollars going to elections but it, by far, beats the alternative, which is what we have now. Make elected officials give up all income other then their salary while serving in office, Period. If they don't like it, then get a real job like the rest of us. Problem solved.

Deadlines and Baselines a problem?

I have to meet them everyday.

Make elected officials give up all income other then their salary while serving in office, Period. If they don't like it, then get a real job like the rest of us. Problem solved.

Honestly, I don't understand the logic of this at all. Being President is a demanding job, you can't expect them to get income elsewhere. In any case, Presidential salaries are at an all time low. Compare to early 1900s, when Presidential salaries exceeded $1.5 million in today's terms.

Impasse really?

Did the Democrats really think more talk would change a Republican's mind? Do the Democrats really think voters all of a sudden have changed from 2010 and want to keep Obamacare and want to spend Trillions of borrowed money so that government employees can continue to get $50K a year in benefits plus raises plus salaries already 50% too high, and Fanni and Freddi executives can continue to get Hundreds of Thousands in annual bonuses despite dismal failure? What fools.

Sounds WAY too simple and makes too much sense... that's why it will never happen! Great idea, however.

Sounds good to me.

Sounds good to me also. (yes, it will hurt - but we've got a few decades of excess we need to pay for, and hopefully this will help us learn some lessons so we don't repeat these mistakes for another 80 years)

Some of the bush changes make sense and should stay in place or be modified. Some do not.

Many of the loopholes should be ended as well. The inheritance tax should be adjusted to 3.5M for inflation and not be as high as the GOP wants but not as low as the Dems would like. Yes 15% on dividends is too low.

And people, anyone, anyone who takes out any money MUST PAY AMT which is already in effect today. So raising the taxes is running after an imaginary boggyman.

Warren Buffet only pays less because of a depreciation loophole on assets that he uses under Berkshire Hathaway. His claim he wants to raise taxes is BS because that is not the problem. He should be paying 25%-30% minimum like everyone else, but you do not hear him campaigning to close loopholes he is using, now do you?

In any case spending must be curbed, regardless of what we do with the taxes.

Nick - What a load of bs. 99% pay nothing? Not only is that statement irrational but even an idiot wouldn't make such a claim. So what are you?

Nick is misinformed. It is a status that I truly feel sorry for. The poor chap may never experience the beauty of reason. Alas, countless share his status. It's a really heartrending plight; the harder you try to expose them to reason, the more stubborn they get.

Nick darling, do you really equate money with skin in the game? I do not. You have skin in the game if you have served this country and not just yourself. The rest of that crap is monopoly money and doesn't mean all that much in the grand scheme of things. So unless you have really served then you can just go ahead, get on your knees and suckle at the feet of the people who brought you the freedom to whine and complain about your fellow citizens.

No, it is the lobbiest puppet master's money.

I say off with their heads!! Actually what they all should do is take a decrease in their salaries - shared sacrifice - where is there share sacrificing? The politicians get more time off than anybody else. And I don't believe one word that they are working in their districts - lets check out the golf course first. Oh wait isn't that Boehner!

Mvargas,

It's seems like the answer is pretty simple.

Raise taxes AND cut spending. That's a compromise and, in fact, the solution to most of our problems. The democrats are at least willing to cut entitlement programs and have said so but they won't agree to simply cut programs without increasing revenue also. That seems like a pretty sensible approach considering most economist agree that we can't simply cut our way to prosperity.

So...why aren't the Republicans willing to compromise. You can't say....we must cut and there's no way we will agree to tax increases. That's not compromising your position at all. Thats saying my way or the highway. The Dems don't want to cut entitlements at all but they have offered that up.

The last time we had anything close to a balanced budget was under Clinton. There the Republicans convinced the Dems to go along with entitlement reforms and other spending cuts while Dems convinced Republicans to go along with some tax increases.....guess what....it worked. Thats all we have to do here....but Repulicans won't do what it takes....what they have done in the past...which is doing the right thing.

And by the way....government spending helped save our automobile industry.

VIPP,

You aren't seeing the whole picture and you are way too quick to try to say that its 100% the republicans fault.

First raising taxes in a recession or other economic downturn is not a good plan.

It will result in reduced economic growth. (all economists agree on that)

It may actually result in reduced revenues (Phd and Nobel Prize winning economist Arthur Laffer wrote and continues to write extensively on this, hence the economic term "Laffer Curve" for how tax revenues decline as rates increase above some pivot point.)

It definitely makes any government spending less effective in growing the economy. (I'm of the opinion that John Maynard Keynes is completely wrong and government spending does not have a multiplier effect, but even those that still support his theory note that the whole idea of the multipler was that the spending would be money pushed into the economy that wasn't going to be there otherwise. They also noted that taxes would pull much of that increased spending back before it could actually move in the economy and have an effect. Because of that government spending is far more effective when the tax rate is 10% than if its 50%)

As for why the republicans won't compromise, you are right I can't say. I have paid attention though and one charge I do believe is that the democrats have not offered any kind of good faith reforms of entitlements. We have already seen that Obama declared Social Security off limits to any reforms and even tried to increase the cost of living adjustment formulas. At least one of the members of the Super Committee claimed that any immediate attempt to reform Medicare would kill any spending reductions, so that kind of takes all entitlement reform off the table. It's kind of hard to compromise when the other sides only offer is "We'll talk about it aver you capitulate and give us what we demand." Both sides appear to be using that negotiation mode.

And there were no entitlement reforms during Clinton's time in office. We had budjet surpluses thanks to a massive increase in economic activity as the economy shifted towards a new economic paradigm. For a while in the late 1990s the US was once again the only nation participating in some new fields (biotech, and computer tech). The fact that the US was first meant they could claim massive profits for a while, and the new profits drove tax revenues to record levels. But after 9/11 the growth dropped and then other nations got into the markets and wiped out the massive profits. It's unlikely we'll see that again, so we cannot use that period as an example of how we can "fix" the situation. It's a lot easier to compromise when tax revenues are already at high levels.

As for government spending "saving" the US auto industry. Did it really? GM makes most of its cars in Canada, and Chrysler ended up owned by Fiat. I believe Toyota and Honda now make more cars in the US than GM. Do you not consider a car made in the US as a product of the US auto industry? All the auto bailout did was prevent GM and Chrysler from undergoing the kind of "creative destruction" that all economists believe is necessary in markets to ensure that people truly are receiving the best value for their money. Instead of shrinking to a more managable size and making the reali changes necessary to be competitive in the current world marketplace. GM was able to stiff its creditors and continue operating at a serious economic disadtvantage to its competitors. Most likely the bialout only kept GM alive for another decare or so. They are still losing market share and have not solved the issues that sent them into bankruptcy in teh first place.

Vipp It's seems like the answer is pretty simple. Raise taxes AND cut spending...So...why aren't the Republicans willing to compromise.

Get a clue, the balanced budget amendment (no riders about taxes, rich, poor, healthcare, etc.) was a very simple amendment (don't spend more than we get in taxes), and it just failed in the House. It doesn't dictate any methods to do this (increase taxes AND/OR cut spending). Effectively, a simple vote on getting rid of our deficit.

4 republicans opposed it, 161 democrats opposed it

The headlines make it pretty easy to see who is pointing the finger in the wrong direction when blaming the Republicans for not wanting to reduce the deficit.

It is sad that in the course of the budget debates everyone loses sight of the fact that we had a budget surplus in budget years '99, '00, and '01. Then neoconservatives got the idea that we could cut taxes and fight two wars. That's really the simple but true explanation for why the budget is a mess. Add in a HUGE recession that diminished tax revenues and you have huge deficits. But with increased economic activity, moderate tax increases (or drastic elimination of deductions), winding down the two wars, and a freeze on spending, the budget problems can be solved. Unfortunately, with Europe about to suffer a double dip, Obama can't win for losing. Congress is stymied by a no-compromise mentality and that paralysis only adds to the panic that Greece, Italy, Spain, etc. are causing.

I hate to break it to you, but if you will go back and actually READ the Bush tax legislation, you will find that it lowered taxes for all those who were paying tax. For the "wealthiest" U.S. citizens, certain exemptions were PHASED OUT..... meaning they did NOT get the benefit of those exemptions and had to therefore pay HIGHER TAXES.

By the way, "millionaires" and ""billionaires" refers to accumulated wealth. In the U.S., our tax code is based on INCOME. So you are apparently playing the class warfare game and distorting reality.

No distortion at all, jim. Everyone who isn't deliberately being dense understood that my saying "millionaires and billionaires" was just a shorthand way to refer to those making more than $1 mil/yr.

And, that the tax cuts apply to everyone is understood too. The problem is that the Dems don't want to extend the tax cuts for the rich, but the GOP absolutely insists that millionaires and billionaires get their tax cut too!

We all remember how last year Mitch McConnell made all the GOP senators sign a pledge not to allow anything to get passed by the senate unless the millionaires and billionaires got theirs too!

I really don't think these guys understand how %$# damn angry we are !!!! I have to admit my lack of understanding of the purpose of OWS and other similar activities kept me from getting more involved,but somebody has to do something. At least they have the balls to get off the couch and do SOMETHING. A POX ON ALL YOUR HOUSES YOU GREEDY ARROGANT BASTARDS in Congress,I hope ALL of you get your asses fired !!!! I am on my way downtown !!!!

These people both D & R don't care about this Country. They are only promoting their own party's agenda and their self interests.

When are the American people going to realized Congress isn't about doing what's best for this Country, it's about doing what's best for their party.

Have you seen the last brilliant decision Congress made. Pizza sauce is now a vegetable. They are debating, wasting time on crap like this while the health insurance companies are raping our health-care, while the banks and credit card companies are raping their customers and more companies are laying off or sending their jobs overseas.

Its no wonder this country is becoming a 3rd world nation; its citizens are demanding it.

The 6 republicans don't want a deal?

Get a clue, the balanced budget amendment (no riders about taxes, rich, poor, healthcare, etc.) was a very simple amendment (don't spend more than we get in taxes), and it just failed in the House.

4 republicans opposed a balanced budget, 161 democrats opposed it.

WHO DOESN'T WANT TO REDUCE OUR DEFICIT?

totalitarian govt that steals from those who earn.

You got it Larry.

There is that certain class of people that no matter how much government money you give them, no matter how you advantage them with tax laws, no matter how much government welfare you give them, no matter how many government programs they benefit from, no matter how long these parasites slurp off the system, no matter how long they flaunt their entitlement attitude these people will NEVER, NEVER get a real job, off the government dole and go to work, and get productive at a real job, earning real money in the real world.

WE CALL THESE PEOPLE REPUBLICANS.

Mac

I think you should be blaming Europe and not the Congress for the Stack Market in August and in the near future.

MCROB: Do deny that your party has obstructed EVERY SINGLE THING Obama has proposed???

If so, you have not been paying attention. Many things which the GOP has advocated in the past they now reject because it would never do to agree with the president.

When you have the senate minorty leader saying that his #1 goal is to defeat Obama it is not exactly a state secret what the GOP plan is. What did Sen Jim Demint say, that if they could stop Obama on health care they would "break" him and it would be his "waterloo".

Your party would gladly see the economy go further down the tubes if it thought it bettered their chances of beating Obama and that is exactly what they have done. Had Democrats done this to a Republican President you'd be calling for their heads.

McRob: I blame every damn one of them..... Every damn one of them thinks they're right and there's no room for compromise. I believe each of them enjoys puffing up and hearing their own voice....

Ozzie Boy

Interesting that you emphasis that EVERY SINGLE THING that Obama proposed is opposed by republicans.

So that maybe we can get on the same page, does or does not Obama want the deficit reduced? Does or does not the Balanced Budget Amendment do just that WITHOUT all the riders that typically cause the division between parties in big budget bills? Go read the article about the balance budget amendment, and THEN tell me who wants to reduce our deficit and who doesn't. Republicans are fully onboard with Obama's wish to reduce the deficit (as shown by the budget vote that isn't clouded by any imposed methods for accomplishing this).

It was a simple vote, do you want to reduce the deficit or not, unlike all the complicated specifics including in either a (R) or (D) budget.

If you know something about the House vote that I don't know, please elaborate, I am willing to listen, but please stop trying to avoid the truth by avoiding the topic of this thread THE DEFICIT!!!!!!

DARREL: Uh, you kinda, sorta sound like a John Bircher nutcase.

Sure hope you got the bomb shelter well stocked with canned provisions and plenty of ammo for when armegedon comes. LOL

Ozzie you just proved the point that you post comments with out even knowing or understanding the facts

EVERY BODY LOOK AT THE TIME WHICH I MADE MY POST , and the time Ozzie made his post , Ozzie could not have reviewed the video , there fore Ozzie has no clue what I am talking about ,

OZZIE your creditability just went in the toilet