E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe bipartisan leadership of a special congressional deficit super committee has officially announced that the panel failed to reach an agreement. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell has more.
The Associated Press
Updated at 6:45 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON - Congress' supercommittee conceded ignominious defeat Monday in its quest to conquer a government debt that stands at a staggering $15 trillion, unable to overcome deep and enduring political divisions over taxes and spending.
Stock prices plummeted at home and across debt-scarred Europe as the panel ended its brief, secretive existence without an agreement. Republicans and Democrats alike pointed fingers of blame, maneuvering for political advantage in advance of 2012 elections less than a year away.
The impasse underscored grave doubts about Washington's political will to make tough decisions and left a cloud of uncertainty over the U.S. economy at the same time that Greece, Italy, Spain and other European countries are reeling from a spreading debt crisis and recession worries.
Lawmakers of both parties agreed action in Congress was still required, somehow, and soon.
POLL: Who is to blame for deficit panel failure?
"Despite our inability to bridge the committee's significant differences, we end this process united in our belief that the nation's fiscal crisis must be addressed and that we cannot leave it for the next generation to solve," the panel's two co-chairs, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Tex., said in a somber statement.
They added it was not possible to present "any bipartisan agreement" — omitting any reference to the goal of $1.2 trillion in cuts over a decade that had been viewed as a minimum for success.
President Barack Obama — criticized by Republicans for keeping the committee at arm's length — said refusal by the GOP to raise taxes on the wealthy was the main stumbling block to a deal. He pledged to veto any attempt by lawmakers to repeal a requirement for $1 trillion in automatic spending cuts that are to be triggered by the supercommittee's failure to reach a compromise, unless Congress approves an alternative approach.
Those cuts are designed to fall evenly on the military and domestic government programs beginning in 2013, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as well as lawmakers in both parties have warned the impact on the Pentagon could be devastating.
In reality, though, it is unclear if any of those reductions will ever take effect, since next year's presidential and congressional elections have the potential to alter the political landscape before then.
The brief written statement from Murray and Hensarling was immediately followed by a hail of recriminations.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Republicans had "never found the courage to ignore the tea party extremists" and "never came close to meeting us half way."
But Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who authored a GOP offer during the talks, said, "Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues refused to agree to any meaningful deficit reduction without $1 trillion in job-crushing tax increases."
Said Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, a GOP presidential hopeful, "It's amazing to what lengths he (Obama) will go to avoid making tough decisions."
It was unlikely the outcome would materially improve Congress' public standing — already well below 20-percent approval in numerous polls.
Gingrich: Super committee failure 'good for America'
And the panel's failure left lawmakers confronting a large and controversial agenda for December, including Obama's call to extend an expiring payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits. Democrats had wanted to add those items and more to any compromise, and lawmakers in both parties also face a struggle to stave off a threatened 27 percent cut in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients.
Based on accounts provided by officials familiar with the talks, it appeared that weeks of private negotiations did nothing to alter a fundamental divide between the two political parties. Before and during the talks, Democrats said they would agree to significant savings from benefit programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security only if Republicans would agree to a hefty dose of higher taxes, including cancellation of Bush-era cuts at upper-income brackets. In contrast, The GOP side said spending, not revenue, was the cause of the government's chronic budget deficits, and insisted that the tax cuts approved in the previous decade all be made permanent.
The Democrats' "idea was this was the opportunity to raise taxes,'" said Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Senate's second-ranking Republican and a member of the supercommittee. "It didn't matter what we proposed; the price of that was going to be $1.3 trillion in new taxes," he added in a CNBC interview, although Democrats made at least two offers that called for smaller amounts of additional tax revenue.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said on MSNBC, "I have demonstrations outside my office. I've had rallies. I've had unbelievable amount of pushback because we were ready and prepared to put on the table some of those so-called sacred cows." Republicans, he said, refused to consider cancellation of the tax cuts for the wealthy.
The talks also were hampered by internal divisions within both parties.
Republicans offered a plan crafted by Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania about two weeks ago that included an additional $250 billion in tax revenue through an overhaul of the tax code that included reducing the top tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent. Some Republicans criticized it as a violation of the party's long-standing pledge not to raise taxes. Even some in the GOP leadership, including Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, declined to endorse it in public.
At the same time, Democrats ridiculed it as a tax cut for the rich in disguise — even privately criticizing Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., when he said it could signal a breakthrough — and it failed to generate any momentum toward compromise. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and others also accused Republicans of bowing to the wishes of Grover Norquist, an anti-tax activist whose organization has gathered signatures from GOP candidates on a petition pledging never to raise taxes.
And Democrats had problems of their own. An offer presented by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., to cut about $3 trillion from future deficits failed to win the backing of two of the six committee members of his own party. Officials said they objected because it would have curtailed future cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients, some liberals said in remarks on the Senate floor they opposed it and Republicans criticized them for intransigence.
Baucus jettisoned it from a subsequent offer that also slashed an earlier demand for tax revenues.
The panel's failure marked the end of an extraordinary yearlong effort by divided government to grapple with budget deficits that lawmakers of both parties and economists of all persuasions agreed were unsustainable.
Negotiations in the Capitol led by Vice President Joseph Biden were followed by an extraordinary round of White House talks in which Obama and House Speaker John Boehner sought a sweeping compromise to cut trillions from future deficits. They outlined a potential accord that would make far-reaching changes in Medicare and other programs, while generating up to $800 billion in higher revenue through an overhaul of the tax code. But in the end, they failed to agree.
By contrast, the supercommittee never came close, instead swapping increasingly small-bore offers that the other side swiftly rejected.
Within the past week, Democrats said they would accept a Republican framework for $400 billion in higher tax revenue and $800 billion or so in spending cuts, while rejecting numerous key proposals.
Late last week, Boehner floated an offer that included $543 billion in spending cuts, fees and other non-tax revenue, as well as $3 billion in tax revenue from closing a special tax break for corporate purchases of private jets. It also assumed $98 billion in reduced interest costs.
It was swiftly rejected.
Leave a Comment:
The repubs put 500 billion in revenue on the table and the dems couldnt put any cuts on the table if they did what were they ? If the dems cant tax the rich they just killed the whole thing.Thay got 500 billion what are they putting on the tablt???
It doesen't matter . The whole thing was set up to fail wright from the start . That way congress can finger point at and blame each other . The meadia spins the story which ever way they choose . They win and we are stuck to pay for their folly.
bob
Republicans' only goal is to "fail" then try to blame others. They promised to do everything within their power to fail, and they work hard at it everyday, even signing pledges that go against the will being of the American People.
American Girl,
I could make the same case for the Dems. (they didn't sign pledges, but they still continue to make proposals they know Reps will not go for - just like the Reps do to the Dems)
Both parties are failing badly at showing leadership and actually doing their jobs.
Kevin,
Have you read anything at all about the offers from this comittee and prior to. The Democratic offer has the same numbers as Toomey's only the tax cuts are real. The cuts total 875 billion including 275 billion from medicaire and medicaide a huge and politically painful concession for Democrats. The Toomey revenue scheme is a crock Toomey has proposed $400 billion in revenue to be raised in this manner: $100 million from dynamic scoring which means anticipated revenue generated by Federal Spending on stimulus programs like infrastructure, $100 billion in unspecified fee's and licenses which the CBO calls a spending cut and finally a $200 billion middle class tax increase with a reduction of the highest brackets by up to 10%. The Dems without a nickle in revenue already agreed in August to $900 billion in discretionary spending cuts.
Pat Toomey was a freaking derivative salesman who destroyed the economies of municipalities throughout the nation, was president of the Club for Growth and made a fortune as a financial consultant to the Chan brothers in Hong Kong. Ronnie Chan was an Enron Director and they are heavily invested in Chinese manufacturing and export to US markets. Toomey may not be as bad as Kyl or Hensarling and that speaks volumes about the other two.
Instead of believing GOP talking points you might want to do a little research on the players their positions and proposals.
jkh
End the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Anything else is BS.
End of story.
TO: kevin mcneil-2274184 who wrote:
Writing your own news these days Kevin? You're obviously not listening any, and not reading any either.
Bob - ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich doesn't even come close to 10% of our yearly deficit. Entitlements and Defense are going to also have to take significant hits - or all of us are going to have to have significant tax increases (and if we wait a couple years, we'll probably have to do both).
The GOP T-ReTards in Congress will be taking a rating dive for their Rich buddies !!!!
The GOP Teatards are a new world order trying to put us back in the dust bowl, like during the great depression !!!!!!!!!!!
PATRIOTIC RE-TARD LIB LYING SACK OF S&%T. You gotta lot of nerve calling yourself American. You know nothing about the depression or anything else.
Watch carefully while I do what you just did...
"The repubs put 500 billion in revenue on the table and the dems couldnt put any cuts on the table if they did what were they ? If the dems cant tax the rich they just killed the whole thing.Thay got 500 billion what are they putting on the tablt???"
The Democrats put 500 billion in revenue no the table and the repubs couldn't put any revenue on the table. If they did, what were they? If the repubs can't make the rich richer, then they just killed the whole thing.
Don't you understand what "compromise" means? If the republicans put forth 500 billion in SPENDING CUTS (spending cuts ARE NOT REVENUE), and the democrats put forth 500 billion in tax increases, I'd call that a pretty even one trillion dollars. But the fact is, that's not what happened. Unfortunately, republicans and dems are willing to cut spending, but the republicans are the only ones opposed to increased revenue (taxes for the rich rich rich). That says that the republicans are unwilling to compromise, and the dems are.
PARTY OF NO!
Egypt did it and the only honorable soulution for the politicians in Washington is for the people to accept their resignations.
INTENSE DELIBERATIONS ? You have to be kidding me. The GROUP OF 12 did not meet together for TWO WEEKS. And they couldn't even come up with $ 1,200,000,000,000 in deficit reductions.
Total and complete FAILURES, all 12 of them.
Time for this GROUP to face the public on National News so the voters can get a good look at these elected FAILURES.
Kevin McNeil,
Where do you get this information from? Repubs put Less than $200 Billion in new revenue on the table. They also wanted to make bush tax cuts for the rich and the estate tax cuts permanent. They were giving $200 B and wanted to take away over $4,000 in 10 years. In effect, they wanted to take away money from the table and give more to the rich.
Wake up and smell the phony proposals from the Teabagger Congressmen.
Bottom Line, The Middle Class Tax paying Citizens, such as myself, are shackled to idealistic, partisan hacks on both sides. Compromise is totally reachable, but the Extreme Right and The Extreme Left hold the Idealistic Gun to the head of our Congressman reducing them to little more then YESMEN or rather NOMEN!
I can't think of single Congressman that has stood up and defied their Party in the name of Progress. They are all useless and until we get the big money out of Politics we are headed for disaster...
What a lame ass system. Run by lame asses. Grow up. Please.
Are you serious?
Bob-3241043
"End the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Anything else is BS." Define "rich". I presume it means anyone who makes more than you.
You could tax the milliionaires 100% of their income and we'd still be running massive deficits; what is your solution to that fact?
In a surprise move Dancing With the Stars moves to Sunday nights! Huh? All this is a total distraction. The Stupor Committee was a Band-Aid covering a mortal wound, and now it's coming off.
Neither party will ever take responsibility for doing what needs done. This is all distraction, and the next step is to kill the automatic cuts. Political posturing was always the plan, vying for position. Why do you think they call it a political race?
Let's see the stock market went down today, 21 Nov. 2011, and in the next couple of days or weeks threats of a rating downgrade are next. See you all then!
Note: I do not support either corrupt political party. Vote out the incumbents, for true term limits.
There has been some sincere remarks about voting out incumbents, one thought I have about voting that way is if enough of us do it, it will scare the stuffing out of our politicians. Our government needs to fear the people.
Matt Fischer
What do you know about the great depression? I lived through it. I literaly watched people die of starvation. It was a Democratic President that saved this country and later after WW2 it was a Republican Ptresident that made it even Better, That would be Roosevelt and Eisenhower.
Did you know that during the Eisenhower Republican Administartion taxes were as high as 90% on the rich? Do you have a clue who benefitted most in the long run from that taxation? It was the rich.
Best you get educated before you offer your knee jerk crap.
You are a typical Hard Right Winger that just throws insults around.
Come on, smart ass, tells us how to fix the economy?
No surprise here - everyone and his blind uncle saw this coming. As I stated before in the article that preceded this; regardless of what side you stand on, both sides are to blame for the current situation the country finds itself in and all politicians in DC have lost touch with reality (some just more so apparent than others). Everyone one of these worthless losers should be removed from office effectively immediate. Once again they have failed to do their jobs. Stop drinking the party kool aide and stand together America. That is the only way we will get anything done. Don't think for a second that when the ship starts to go down any of these guys we be throwing out the life jackets or helping you on board the lifeboat. The average American, regardless of the sworn, unquestioning, and blindly following party allegiance will be left in the icy cold waters while our elected ones (if they are lucky) and their masters will float away in the life boats smoking cigars and sipping brandy.
It is time America, we can no longer let them divide and conqure. They know if we come together their days will be numbered.
500 Billion on the table.?.?.?
What are you talking about???
This is total BS. We all knew that it was a glorious waste of time! They were talking to Norquist before they even started the negotiations.
What a bunch of morons are the Republicans! They are all FIRED!! A***S They prefer to kiss Norquist's Ass, ahead of the interest of the country.
We have elected failures to run this country. It's time we throw all the millionaires/greedy bums out. We need to clean house asap.
The Pew Center reported in April 2011 the cause of a $12.7 trillion shift in the debt situation, from a 2001 CBO forecast of a cumulative $2.3 trillion surplus by 2011 versus the estimated $10.4 trillion public debt we actually face in 2011. The major drivers were:
Repeal those dumb ass tax cuts, cut defense, and place a surtax on those who earn above $1M/year. The right just wants to hammer away on domestic spending and cover the asses of the uber-rich.
Bob @ comment 1.5
Agreed. But then I have to ask, why in the hell did Obama extend them?
"Republicrat, Democran: One Party System!" --Sage Francis
Kevin, you are substantively incorrect. The revenue increases that the Republican members put on the table were and INCREASE of the current taxation level. Said current taxation includes the "Bush Tax Cuts" that Obama signed.
What the Dems countered with was essentially, 'Well, that's nice, you offered new money, just look how much we'll have when these other tax cuts expire also."
The Repubs said "Hold your horses, make the existing tax code permanent if you want this deal."
Dems replied "We want it all."
Repubs said "What about the spending cuts?"
Dems said "With all this new money, we don't need any cuts now"
Repubs (like they should have) told the Dems "No deal"
---------
The who things has been a farce from the beginning. 1.2 trillion in cuts spread across 10 years is 120 billion a year, when the DEFICIT spending is 1,500 billion EACH year. The "cuts" were going to equal LESS than 10% of the problem.
We need a MINIMUM of 1.2 trillion cut from the ANNUAL budget. Before someone starts whining about the "unfunded Bush War" That was 85 Billion a year, the deficit (under Obama) was 1,500 billion per year, the wars are less than 6% of the deficit. Money I would prefer the US didn't spend, but still only a drop in the bucket, it is dang near the level of a rounding error.
I wonder what the GOP/TP would say if the DEMs proposed to end all Farm Subsidy payments, one of the biggest and really true (unlike Medicare, which people pay for) entitlements there is, being paid by the US taxpayers in high population density places like Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Boston, etc. mostly to large farm corporations in the low population Farm Belt (RED) states, with Iowa being the largest recipient. You can Google it and look it up in Wikipedia. Oh, and how about the entitlements to Israel (non-US citizens). Please start with THOSE entitlements Boehner, Ryan, McConnell and Cantor.
THis was a great win for all Americans. This is to cut future spending on programs and we need to cut more in the near future. It is good to hear we are going to cut this 1.2 trillion over the next ten years but we need to cut that much out each year to try to pay off debt of 17 Trillion and pay it back. If we pay just 200 billion each year it will take only 85 years to get our debt paid off that is if we do not spend more than we take in. I love to read where liberals feel the riches are not going to pay thier fair share. Well the news is out the very rich never pay taxes anyhow. THier accountants and attorneys have already figured out how to not pay takes with our tax sytem we have now. George Kiaser (Solyndra)has not paid taxes for over 6 years. He lives in my state and he is a worthless liberal to say the least. So keep thinking our tax system is a good one but it stinks to high hell. So raise taxes so the small business man can pay for everything and not the very rich.
@!$%# the super committee. Can't even reach a compromise. Are you kidding me? Why the hell do the rich hold this much sway over the Republicans? Apparently they are only interested in 2% of the population of this country. Everyone else can screw off apparently
Sandrich: Projections are meaningless political argument fodder. Look at the ACTUAL revenue collections and spenging for the last 11 years.
The GOP only agreed to the poison pill, because they were banking on the Dems to blink. The Dems only agreed on the poison pill, because they wanted to paint the GOP in a bad light. Now that both sides did not blink, we are face with true consequences and I say good. Let's cut everything across the board. Maybe we will finally get some politicans that are truly moderates to run this country. We don't always get what we want and this country is govern best from the middle.
Term Limits now for the House and the Senate. If two terms is good for the POTUS (if re-elected), then it should be good enough for the law makers.
Sequestration 'cuts' are better in this case than a lot of other options were, and they aren't actually 'cuts' at all, simply a reduction in the RATE OF INCREASE. The 'failure' of the super committee, isn't exactly a 'failure' for the nation though, at least its a tiny move in the right direction:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/sequestration-is-a-small-step-in-right-direction-not-something-to-be-feared/
tea sucks - revenue increases don't always mean tax rate increases. As reported above...
Obama should be pizzed at the democrats as he specifically said in the 2011 state of the union message that revenue nuetral approaches would be considered. Seems that the right was willing to put revebues on the table but the left balked. Good for the right bad for obama and company.
Guess I didn't realize that tax breaks were income delineated to qualify for them... if so, we definitely need tax reform.
There were NO cuts offered by Democrats. Not increasing the wild spending is NOT a cut!
But according to this committee, they were calling "not increasing; a cut".
Matt Fischer, chill out with the personal attacks. You're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
One group couldn't raise taxes, the other wouldn't cut entitlements. The result, another bipartisan failure by our leadership. Raise revenue, raise taxes too, although both can be seen as the same thing is a sense, but also please please please cut entitlements. We can raise taxes all we want and it won't do a thing if entitlements are kept on the path they are on.
Shame on you Republicans and Democrats for not finding common ground. I wish I could have been part of a Chuck Norris negotiations team sent in to that deficit comity to kick the pants of the two sides till they had some sense knocked into them. Democrats want 5% tax hike, Republicans say no tax increase, 2.5% increase it is. Democrats say no revenue increase, Republicans say 500 billion, 250 billion is what you get. Democrats say don't touch any entitlements, Republicans say cut spending by X amount, I say 1/2 X cut in spending. If both sides don't sign on the dotted line approving it, I tell Chuck Norris to start breaking fingers till everybody signs. Perfect plan minus the finger breaking part.
Nice Try ADAM, When we entered the IRAQ War when we were already in a huge deficit, We borrowed the money and to this day are still deferring payments. Sorry but your information is just number fudging for the purpose of defending Bush. If you have no money in the bank and you enter a war, that would be consider un-funded. In WWII we sold bonds and taxed accordingly, Bush took us into war while telling the Country "No Worries." Funny how soon we forget the saying of that time "Our Troops went to War, while we went to the Mall!" Remember that saying.. Short memories...
I'm not defending the current Administration or Congress, I'm stating facts no matter how you sugar coat them..
When they failed to make any progress the old and poor are the automatic loosers if there is a automatic cut. Why should there not be some punishment for the nonperformers. If their retirement is not in social security then it should have been cut twenty percent for failing their job. That would have given them incentive to work to save the country. They have nothing to loose. Why should anyone vote for the slackers?
Neither party has a monopoly on stupidity. The committee should have been given their charge this way.
Repubs: Increase taxes by $600 billion
Dem: Cut programs by $600 billion
End result, +$1.2 trillion
Instead these people screwed us all.
I am a Republican but I am getting more fed up with all politicians every day.
I guess you don't remember the Republicans were holding a gun to the American people's heads; stating that they'd be willing to let the country fail instead of giving up the Bush tax cuts. That's why.
The same party was willing to let GM and Chrysler fail at the cost of hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs. They're doing well now, thanks to the stimulus which has mostly been repaid by these corporations - and they're still employing the millions of people the Republicans would have not even batted an eye at - and would certainly never would have extended unemployment benefits if it had been McCain/Palin in 2008. What kind of a nightmare would this country have been living under given the unrestrained might of the Republican Tea Party? I shudder to think.
No responsibility for anything, ever: That's today's GOP.
Here we go! Let the tail spin begin.
Great job Super Committee! Nice to see you didn't let us down. It would have been a real tragedy had you succeeded in doing your job!
After all, you wouldn't want the American people to think you care about the people! That would be political suicide! What corporation would pay for your country club membership then?
The objective of this committee was to come to a compromise and "reduce our deficit". There are 2 ways to do that: cut spending and increase revenue. I see the Dems as willing to compromise and do both. The Republicans think the point of this committee is to cut spending. Are the Republicans that blinded to what America wants? When will the rational people in their party speak up?
We can also thank Grover Norquist for his pledge, he is the most powerful lobbyist in Washington, its time to get rid of ALL LOBBYIST they one of main reasons why this Congress cannot get anything done, its all about pay back, and screw the American People!
I'm tired of hearing about comparisons of the Great Depression and this era. Looking back with some nostalgia about how this party or that party pulled us thru it with this approach. It is a new world, new rules and a whole new dynamic.
The simple truth is, everyone is at fault. From the multibillionaire lobbying for tax breaks on this 32nd mansion in South Dakota, to the guy or girl living in a busted apartment below the poverty line and everyone in between. We all did this. It isn't democrat, it isn't republican. It is human nature. We all want everything we can get. Difference is, some people have the drive, the connections, or whatever to get it. Some don't, some of them choose to whine and moan about it (see OWS or many people here). Everyone wants someone to blame for their misfortunes. So I say, get up, go look in the mirror, whether you voted or not...there is the first person you can blame.
From the time the original agreement on raising the debt was approved this select committe had absolutely no real chance for success. The "Terrible Twelve" appointed by the "Fractuous Four" and approved by congress were never going to achieve any agreement in two ( 2 ) months that could not be accomplished during the past two ( 2 ) years. Rather than proposing a program that would really benefit the country all of the members of congress and the President have positioned themselves for reelection by keeping every piece of the pie they can for their voters, their lobyists, and their friends, not to mention themselves.
I have a novel approach to the Presidents proposal to force the wealthy to carry a share of the overindulgent give-away programs that have helped get us in the situation were are in financially. It must be a given that these "wealthy people" have achieved financial success by being more than just adequate in their jobs, their investments, their future financial profiles, their cost controls, etc., etc., etc. ! ( Forgive my borrowing from The King & I .) If we are going to take their money they should have some say in how it should be spent. Maybe the idea of replacing congress with people who know how to balance budgets, hire people who produce instead getting paid to sit at home doing nothing, are knowledgeable about how to structure contracts with other corporations, forge trade agreements that work for all parties not just political allies. And if they don't live up to their contracts they don't get million dollar severance packages, they get replaced. Then the men and women in congress who have voted themselves benefits the rest of America can never receive can sit at home enjoying the fruits of their labors. Of course, there will be no mirrors in their homes.
Democrats must be happy , this is a win win situation for Obama to continue blaming Republicans in Congress and for Democrats who want cuts in the military and the end of Bush tax Cut, now they got both. It can't be more clear, Democrats want it to fail. However the middle class will pay with an increase in taxes once the Bush tax cut expire. This is how Democrats help the middle class.
Kevinoffsite: I never disputed the paying for war with debt, I disputed it as the cause of the deficit as many try to paint it. 85 billion annually is the appropriation for the military actions, 1,500 billion annual is the deficit that Obama and the Dem controlled House and Senate ran up.
Those are the cold hard numbers.
Bush may well have been irresponsible. If so however, the Obama and Pelosi were the next best thing to criminal.
excellent rewrite of history, but it was WWII that ended the depression.
Jeffthe nonsowonderful,
Yes some rich do pay taxes. My boss takes in 3M a year (he employs me and me only) and pays 1m a year in taxes. Yes you say quite the bite, but that is 30% He still has 2m a year to keep for his trust to his children. An no he has no plans on helping with jobs (hiring more) or spending more. He is 80 with diabeties and its medicare that pays all doctors and hospital costs for him. And he and his wife are taking in greater than $3,000 a month in SS. So I don't buy the no new taxes for the rich. I think there is definately a need for a tax increase (or I should say the expiration of the Bush tax reductions, heaven help me call them increases) for the more well off and social security and medicare needs to be means tested. Just my thoughs
Let's pretend for a moment the Democrats were willing to make some cuts in entitlements and/or the Republicans were willing to raise some revenue one way or another. Why was one contingent on the other if the these things were in the best interest of the country? Both sides could have said we're willing to do X with or without the other side doing anything, and we'd have gained as a nation. Why couldn't they even do that much?
Your thoughts?
Guess how many meetings Obama sat in on with this Supercommittee....zero.
Guess how many times he called or talked to Congress....zero.
Quite a leader huh? Actually this is exactly what he was hoping for. Now he can whine about a do nothing Congress. Just as he planned it. This WAS a bipartisan committee, so what's with him blaming only the Republicans on it?
Even Chris Matthews, who was so thrilled when Obama was elected got chills up his leg..has said Obama is no leader.
I see you hit all of the left wing nut talking points. I'm not a Republican, and I have voted for far more Democrats in my lifetime than Republicans, including Obama. I am probably more socially liberal than 95% of this country. But lets *actually* be real for a minute 'real' rick.
The Democrats have sent federal spending skyrocketing in just a couple of years. Bush was bad for the deficit and the Republicans were certainly not sterling in keeping government expenses down, and the wars they got us into cost too much in terms of life and defense spending... but it really took off after 2006 when the Democrats got a hold of the purse strings and won both houses of Congress. After all checks and balances were off and the Democrats held both houses of Congress and the Presidency, the rate of increase in government spending spiked higher than at any time in history. Since Clinton has been in office, over all taxes burdening the citizens of this nation were down by about 14%... federal spending is up almost 54%. Some of that came under Bush in the Republicans when they were in total control, certainly the tax decline did, but some of the spending did too to be completely fair. But the bulk of it has happened under the Democrats control and behest, with the most staggering rates when they had full control. It was like years of progressive angst and frustration were vented in a miasma of cancerous government growth. And that has barely been stopped by the election of a Republican held House in 2010.
The Democrats were the ones who really put us in up the creek in terms of the debt limit. You can try and spin it any way you want, but minus the "Bush tax cuts" Obama and the Democrats would have nearly put us at the limit anyway, the loss of money taken from hard working Americans for the tax rates over close to the last decade would hardly touch the increase in spending that started its perilous climb under Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. The whole reason for our nations first ever credit downgrade lies with them for putting us into that dangerous situation in the first place as though it didn't matter.
And perhaps you missed the news this week about how much it cost to pay off the Democrats union cronies in Detroit, but the taxpayers (along with the secured credit holders that were legally shafted by Obama's extra-legal 'bailout' union giveaway) are now set to be saddled with even more corrupt cronyism costs for GM and Chrysler. The cost per job in Detroit that was 'saved' is utterly obscene. We already can't meet our obligations, and we are having difficulty meeting our charitable entitlements to the needy, anyone who is sane should be absolutely livid over how much we wasted on those unions, and even more about how much was wasted on their behalf with the corrupt 'cash for clunkers' fiasco.
So you can parrot left wing rhetoric about the 'rich', or you can realize that the economy isn't a zero sum game, and that burdens on business have consequences, like the unemployment crisis we are currently facing. You can realize that people respond to incentives, good or bad. You can realize that income mobility matters far more than the income inequality when measures to cap one hinders the other.
That's the reality... and its primarily the Democrats fault.
"Have you read anything at all about the offers from this comittee and prior to. The Democratic offer has the same numbers as Toomey's only the tax cuts are real"
hahahahaha...right
Adam where are you getting this 85billion number, There is a reported 35 billion in defunct contracts alone, I think the number is much bigger..
It was data and not projections. Note that the period of 2001-2011.
These people all of them have to go!
The reason our politicians don't raise taxes or cut spending is because they are afraid that if they do their votes will be used against them in future elections. Democracy starts with us, people. If you're a Republican, write to your Republican representatives or senators demanding that they allow tax increases. If you're a Democrat, write to your Democratic representatives or senators demanding that they cut spending.
We can't afford for them to tiptoe around these issues while worrying about the political fallout - it's time for butcher's work. Let your government know we are ready for them to do what needs to be done. They follow our lead, not the other way around.
The way I see it, as someone mentioned earlier, 1.2trillion over 10 years is only 120 billion a year. I f we really want to reduce the deficit, we need to cut a minimum 500 billion a year, and no taxes. Cutting 500 billion a year and then raising taxes 500 billion, kind of negates each other, dont ya think? (numbers are just random) The point is, if you cut an amount and then raise the same amount in taxes, they just negate each other. If taxes were raised, what is congress going to do with the extra revenue? If it is used to pay down the debt, then all good, but somehow, I don't think that is where the money will end up.
I think the Republicans offer to reform the tax code was fair. The nasty vile rich, get their money form the tax code. 72,000 pages that takes a PhD to comprehend, that is just CRAZY.
And really people, get off of your partisan high horses. Remember the 2010 elections? where the democrats took a shellacking? If I remember correctly, the republicans were voted in to stop the spending of our current government. Looks like they are doing what they were elected to do. Are the Democrats doing what they were elected to do? I suppose on how you look at it now, doesn't it?
Tea -
Raising taxes does not negate anything. Even if that money isn't used to pay down the debt, new taxes in no way negate spending cuts. The point is that we are borrowing too much money. If we borrow less money (i.e. spend less) the deficit goes down, but doesn't disappear; the debt continues to grow. In the same way, if we increase taxes we can fund programs that currently are being funded by borrowed money. Reduce the deficit, but the debt continues to grow. Increased taxes and decreased spending both help reduce the deficit. However, we can't really start to pay down the DEBT until we have a balanced budget.
No surprise. Democrats not being able to find cuts to future scheduled increases only shows them as the party of too much spending.
The fact that they cant find cuts to SCHEDULED INCREASES is rediculous. We should also ask why we even have scheduled increases anymore.
Who's the "Party of No" now? Republicans are trying to negotiate and compromise, even offering hundreds of billions of dollars in tax increases.
@ Chris
Exactly. Republicans compromise yet the dems just reject without a fair look. Funny isnt it.
Ive never seen the general public so eager to pay more in taxes. Oh Wait, they want to vote a tax increase on everyone but themselves!
Brendan: Republicans? Compromise? You must be dreaming. I've been reading post after post after post with Republican Voters/Followers begging their Reps to NOT compromise, and we've ALL seen McConnell on TV promising to force failure on America, and the American People.
The "Republican Party of Amnesia" is seriously delusional.
So, it appears that the obligation, according to what the GOP is saying, will task the middle class, AGAIN, why is that? They are completely unwilling to put any additional obligation on the 10% of Americans who own 80% of the US wealth...yet, they have no problem throwing further obligation on the few of us left in the middle class. Those making 80% of the wealth should meet at least 60% of the obligation, instead of those of us eaking out the 20%.
@ Military Man.
Look at the percentage paid of income taxes vs tax bracket. the wealthy pay the most in taxes already.
This myth that the rich pay less than secretaries is just that, a myth with no factual basis.
Capital gains is already after tax money, so the 15% they pay on capital gains is already considered double taxation.
Maybe actually doing research and not listening to left wing talking points would benefit you.
@ American Girl
You are correct, the voter base wanted to compromise at all. Why should the rich pay more or anyone regardless of income amount pay more when washington spends like a drunken sailor and none of it would be used to pay off debt? They already pay the most, why should they pay more?
Funny thing is that the bush tax cuts actually benefit the lower to middle class by 85%. only 15% of the tax cuts affect the rich. How about we repeal all of them and we all pay more?
This is where you spout class warfare.
AG - Maybe you should stop reading forums and read some actual news (The Daily Show doesn't count). I can point to just as many rabid Democrats on this subject if you're only source of information is forums.
Republicans have put forward a lot of compromises but Democrats are refusing to move an inch. You can look it up, the right wing sights are not happy with Pat Toomey for his 300 Billion tax increase compromise. Not that the Democrats will even negotiate, so it doesn't matter.
The Repukes have refused to consider ANY compromise, instead, opting to try to blame THEIR MESS on President Obama.
Party over Country every time with the Pukes.
Chris, as usual Republicans remain uninformed.
Ya, I'm the one who's uninformed.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/pat_toomey/index.html
You might not like the proposal, but that's were you're supposed to negotiate, you don't just dismiss it. Where's the democrat's compromise?
Brendan and Chris,
What you state is categorically untrue, the difference is raising 400 billion in revenue. Toomey is proposing accounting tricks and a $200 billion middle class tax hike and up to a 10% reduction in top bracket taxing. He proposes $100 billion in dynamic scoring which is not a revenue increase and $100 billion in unspecified fees and charges the CBO lists this as a spending cut not a revenue increase. Dynamic scoring is the counting of anticipated revenue increases by the creation of job producing Federal spending (ie infrastructure). He then immediately argues that such expenditures are a waste of money and hurt the economy. The Dem plan has the same $875 billion in cuts and they agreed to $900 billion in August with no revenue offsets. The Dems have agreed to 1.7 trillion in cuts with the Republicans offering $200 billion in tax increases to the middle class coupled with as much as a 10% cut in the top tax rates. Gee what a great deal.
jkh
GOP T-ReTards that signed the pledge allegiance to Grover Norquist should be prosecuted and put in jail for deliberately sabotaging our Nation.
@ Jim Hayes
Revenue =/= taxes. Lets call it what it is.
Lets also not beat around the bush. Both plans are awful.
Brendan,
What's wrong with the Dem's plan it seems like everything they have been asked for with actual revenue increases.
My god this is getting old. Libtards, Repukes, Teabaggers....no one is ever willing to point the finger at their own party of choice. The truth is that both parties are playing games. The supercommittee members were chosen by their parties because they KNEW these people wouldnt compromise in any real manner. More party B.S., more kicking the can down the road. Just as long as these mental midgets get their paychecks and kickbacks then all is well in the world.
Keep bashing the 'other side'. We all see where that has gotten us so far....
Haven't we catered to the repulican for long enough? They can't even agree between themselves. Liars all, I say.
I'm done with them all.
@ Jim
The problem with them is cuts in scheduled increases, not even real cuts. Neither party is really taking our debt issue seriously if we can't even decide on what to cut from future increases.
Government expanding at 6-7% each year is incredibly unsustainable. The solution should not be how can we increase taxes to pay for this spending, but how can we cut the current government down so that no one has to pay more. There is no reason that 2.3-2.4 TRILLION a year in tax receipts is not enough to fund a government for 330 million people when other countries do the same or more for far less.
Both plans are unacceptable and don't confront the real issue, thats whats wrong. And that goes for both repub and democrat.
Perhaps both are to blame instead of "The Dems did this" or "The Reps did that".
With the arguments from the posters on both sides it seems even the general populous can't agree.
Perhaps what we can agree on is wondering who the 12 new candidates running for office will be to take the jobs of these 12 complete wastes of time and money.
kim - you think the dems are better? LOL!
This was planned from the beginning: The dems got to raise the deficit like they wanted and the GOP got its cuts. In either case neither party has to claim responsibility now and can blame the other. Perfect Washington solution, people.
Both the Dems and the GOP are to blame. The Dems had some good ideas but where unwilling to compromise on basic premises and GOP had some good ideas and valid points but where unwilling to compromise as well.
Also, the White House is in no position to criticize anyone since every time we elect someone to that office IT IS FROM ONE OF THE TWO PARTIES IN CONGRESS THAT CANNOT GET ANYTHING DONE.
Congress failed to do its job letting Bush wipe out 100 years of foreign policy when he invaded. Congress failed to do its job allowing Obama care to pass without first cutting the cost of healthcare before mandating that everyone buy it.
People, you getting the picture that the president is not a Magician and congress and the two parties are the root cause of our dysfunctional government? Have you seen the light and become an independent voter and realise we need a third party yet?
The objective of this committee was to come to a compromise and "reduce our deficit". There are 2 ways to do that: cut spending and increase revenue. I see the Dems as willing to compromise and do both. The Republicans think the point of this committee is to cut spending. Are the Republicans that blinded to what America wants? When will the rational people in their party speak up?
So many of you here have your heads stuffed firmly up your Fox News.
Really? Do you even know what Capital Gains are? Let me give you a short lesson in tax law. There are two types of stock sales that are taxed and these are taxed at different rates - one is short term capital gains, the other is long term capital gains. Short term gains are taxed as ordinary income. These gains have never been taxed before, so calling them "double taxation" just betrays complete ignorance. The other is long term gains and these kick in for stocks and other assets that are held for 365 days or more. These are taxed at a 15% rate and this gain has also never been taxed before.
Now, dividends payments are also taxed at a 15% rate. In theory, these could be "double-taxed", except that dividends are paid by very large companies, and a very large percentage of corporate America doesn't pay any taxes at all, so it's very likely this is the first time this money has ever been taxed. In any case, this money also avoids paying any of the 13% (1/2 you, 1/2 your employer) social security taxes or the additional Medicare taxes that are paid otherwise.
Really? The tax code is a "left wing talking point"? Kind of desperate, aren't you?
Ok Rick's Real,
Give us the percentage amount the top 1percent should pay and how much that will create this year? Next year?
Should Kobe Bryant pay 23 percent tax on his $25 million and pay $5,750,000 in taxes? Or should he pay 33 percent and pay $8,250,000? Maybe you will be satisfied with 50 percent and pay $`12 million?
Just how many of those earning over $10 million are there? As of 2008 budget (last one I found), shows there are 13,480 of them. So if each pays 28 percent more each year, we would get an extra $94 Billion dollars a year.... Hardly puts a dent on the $1.5 Trillion dollar deficit!!!!
They're feeling so much 'angst' that several show up to their job? what about the rest of them? Not that they're getting anything done, but they could at least pretend to do their job.
Grover Norquist told them that he would shoot them on the knees if they decided to raise taxes. They only needed ONE of them to go for the increase of taxes.
WHAT A BUNCH OF COWARDS! They deserve to be shoot by We the PEOPLE! OUT WITH THIS BUNCH OF INCOMPETENTS!
lol
This is moot.
Republicans offered to raise some taxes but the Democrats turned down the offer.
WRONG! The Republicans offered to just close the loops. NEVER to raise taxes.
And closing those loopholes would have significantly hurt the middle class more than the wealthy. This is why the Dems opposed it. They wanted REAL action on those with $1M+ in income.
When the super-duper committee was first formed, the GOP announced that they would refuse to make a dent in the deficit, and they performed exactly as advertized.
Your family would probably do the same. If expenditures exceeded income, the first thing you would do would be to try and reduce income as much as possible, right? Then reduce expenditures by a mere fraction of the reduction in income?
This ain't your grandpa's GOP!
I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with returning to the Clinton era tax rates as long as it is done AFTER budget cuts are in place. Democrats on the bogus "supercommittee" (and that's a bipartisan bogus, since Republicans had no intention of doing anything either) made ZERO budget cutting proposals. That's not much to work with, even if Republicans had no intention of raising tax rates even after budget cuts were made (which is where I oppose their bogus take on "fiscal responsibility" ) !!!
Heck, I could find $5 trillion in savings with my eyes closed. I could find (435+100) x $174,000 = $93,090,000 (base salary) in spending reductions right off the top until they solve the issue.
They weren't trying very hard it seems. I say lock them in the room until they send out a plan. No calls, salary or food. Water and bathrooms only. We will have a plan within 48 hours. Then do the same with the remaining Senate and House. No one leaves until it is solved. 72 hours max and we can be on our way.
The GOP is willing to kill this country and its economy in their attempt to remove the president. Why would anyone vote for these people? A mystery to me. The GOP REFUSES to add revenue but still wants to cut???? The cuts won't even cover the deficit - so how does the GOP ever plan to pay off the debt????
THEY DON'T! They racked up two wars worth of bills - over $3 trillion - completely unfunded. Yet they claim they are about saving money???? They scream if anyone says to cut the miltary budget - even when THAT budget is a half trillion $$$$ every year MORE than it was during the Clinton years.
I knew in 2000 when the courts handed GWB the White House the country would collapse. It has - The GOP and the Neo-cons want only one thing - the rich getting richer and American debt to pay for the bloated military that defends Israel. It is nothing about protecting the USA or improving the lives of our citizens - all of them. Why don't more of you see this?????
They need to repeal all of the "temporary" Bush tax cuts. Across the board.
Deeto, both wars have, financially, cost a little over 1 trillion. Significant, but what about the other 14 trillion?
You only have to look at cities like Detroit to see where this country is headed.
There should be laws that take into account people like norquist who uses his money to influence the government disproportionately, and there should be laws that would prevent lawmakers from signing pledges that supercede the oath they take to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Zeroaster- Look into what the bush tax cuts cost us! Gore said it would be devastating before two wars started. Also look into the cost of the prescription plan is costing this country because of said tax cuts. This was a giant gift to the pharmaceutical industry from the republican party. There were no arrangements made to pay for this benefit.
Let's get REAL for a moment.
When Congress says they are unable to compromise on "cutting the Deficit by $1.2 Trillion over 10 years", they are not really talking about actually cutting the Debt, but merely slowing the INCREASE in the Debt. Here are the actual projections, according to the official 2012 White House Budget prepared by Obama;
National Debt at the end of fiscal 2008 (Bush's last year) = $10.025 Trillion.
National Debt today = $15.039 Trillion, a further increase of $5.014 Trillion.
Obama's projected National Debt in 2021 = $26.345 Trillion, an increase of $16.32 Trillion over 2008.
In other words, the so-called 'Deficit Reduction' they are stalemated on will not actually REDUCE the Debt, but allow it to INCREASE by $15.12 Trillion (Obama's projected increase of $16.345 Trillion minus the $1.2 Trillion being debated).
Now that's really "Change we can believe in".
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
Here's the link to Obama's 2012 Budget projections to verify - look at Table S-14 - It's easier to read if you Rotate Clockwise;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf
IgnoredDad - you're too kind. I'd ship in a porta-potty instead of allowing bathroom breaks.
xrayspex "I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with returning to the Clinton era tax rates as long as it is done AFTER budget cuts are in place."
Amen to that.
The Spending level for Clinton's last year (2000) was $1.789 Trillion, and Revenues were $2.025 Trillion, for a net Surplus of $236 Billion.
The Spending level for Obama's second year (2010) was $3.456 Trillion, and Revenues were $2.163 Trillion, for a gigantic Deficit of $1.293 Trillion.
While Revenues went up $138 Billion, Obama's spending increased by $1.667 TRILLION, almost double - Just for one year.
Obama's Deficit for 2011 is estimated to be just as high as in 2010 - about $1.3 Trillion.
Here's the ultimate irony.
Politicians say "We need to keep borrowing money to spend on the children - they need our help".
And where do they get the money? They borrow it now to get more money to spend, and they expect our "children" to repay it, plus interest.
So "Are we borrowing the money FOR our children, or are we borrowing it FROM our children"?
The reality is that politicians are borrowing the money from our children's future to finance their own re-elections.
Guess how many meetings Obama sat and met with this Supercommittee....zero.
Guess how many times he called or talked to Congress....zero.
Quite a leader huh? Actually this is exactly what he was hoping for. Now he can whine about a do nothing Congress. Just as he planned it. This WAS a bipartisan committee, so what's with him blaming only the Republicans on it?
Even Chris Matthews, who was so thrilled when Obama was elected got chills up his leg..has said Obama is no leader.
Tyler
from Irespond
"WHAT A BUNCH OF COWARDS! They deserve to be shoot by We the PEOPLE! OUT WITH THIS BUNCH OF INCOMPETENTS"
not mention the grammatical errors...calling for shootings?...interesting
"This ain't your grandpa's GOP!"
calling for increased spending on "entitlements" and free healthcare and free mortgages and free college tuition and free school breakfast , lunch and dinner ...etc...etc...etc...
that aint JFK's democrats!...it's the 50's and 60's communists that infiltrated the demo party...'bout sums it up
You have to be ignorant or naive to believe that this 'supercomite' would come to some agreement. From the beginning to see the animosity in both parties in selecting its members of this supercommitee, nominating
just those who are most ardent supporters of his ideas, on how to reduce Government spending was a recipe for failure. Obama meanwhile, remained as an observer waiting for the right time to criticize only the Republicans. Even so, gathering twelve congressmen to agree to reduce costs by 1.5 or 2 trillion in 10 years is ridiculous when Obama has already spent $ 4 trillion in less than three years.
We were led to believe by the somewhat unbelievable Bush and company that tax cuts for the rich would ultimately create more jobs and be good for the economy.....that the extra money for people who believe they can never have enough money would somehow trickle down to the lowly masses. Rather than trickle down, it is my opinion that we've been trickled ON....trickled on with urine, pepper spray, unfunded wars, Grover Norguist, and generally lie after lie. The Republicans, especially the baggers, have made it clear that their primary objective is to defeat Obama in 2012, no matter the cost to the country due to outsourcing, foreclosures, union busting, bailing out their bankster buddies while they give themselves multi-million dollar bonuses. Yes, we're being trickled on alright.
This super-committee was nothing more than a gimmick by both sides to procrastinate and score political points.
There's no justification for keeping the Bush-era tax cuts!
Bush only made those cuts because he entered office with a budget surplus and decided that the government isn't a for-profit organization and that those funds should go back in to the markets rather than accumulate in public coffers.
The myriad of mistakes and miscalculations after that decision were astronomical.
All-the-while. The Bush tax cuts continued! At not one point during the moments in time listed above, did the tax cuts be repealed! The justification was the government surplus, yet, the tax cuts got a life of their own!
Bush was irresponsible by trying all sorts of budget gimmicks than to repeal his cuts! Leaving the wars off of the books, never paying for Medicare Part D, allowing BS repatriation of offshored cash, etc etc etc. Bush et al didn't want to let go of the tax cuts
I'm not thrilled at all about the Democrats' spending measures, but fighting to keep any shred of the Bush tax cuts in place is utterly irresponsible.
a panel was conviened a couple years ago and made some suggestions that neither the republicans or democrats liked...but the panel was probably right...to get out of this mess will take spending cuts with tax hikes of some sort..its gonna hurt thats for sure...
Enough. Stop pointing fingers.
The reason our politicians don't raise taxes or cut spending is because they are afraid that if they do their votes will be used against them in future elections. Democracy starts with us, people. If you're a Republican, write to your Republican representatives or senators demanding that they allow tax increases. If you're a Democrat, write to your Democratic representatives or senators demanding that they cut spending.
We can't afford for them to tiptoe around these issues while worrying about the political fallout - it's time for butcher's work. Let your government know we are ready for them to do what needs to be done. They follow our lead, not the other way around.
HChris - the Republicans will cave while the Democrats dig in and not give an inch.
DB Akron -
Seriously? I don't want to sound like a jerk, but did you even read what I posted? Fingers? Pointing? Stop?
The comittie was destined to fail. Dems wanted it to fail because they didn't want to cut anything, yet wanted more taxes to pay for nothing. Repubs wanted it to fail because they know more taxes would only make things worse, even though they were willing to bend on deductions and credits.
Bottome line: America screwed itself and continues to do so by reelecting those who only care about themselves. Top of the list is Pelosi. Investment banker husband and regulations she doesn't want read until after passed are her signature.
What is is new. They never were able to do their job before, so why be shocked. They just like collecting a generous paycheck off the backs of the people for doing nothing.
I hope they are now accepting applications from people than can actually accomplish something.
Fire every one of them
This class warfare has to stop! I've lost my house even though the appraised value was $375,000 and I owed $306,000. I am broke. The small income I still have was insufficient to pay my bills and the mortgage too.
It is not about people paying more in taxes. Whether people pay more taxes or less taxes, they will make decisions differently. That is why the federal income needs to end. People should be able to earn as much as they can without worrying about the tax man.
What we need is people like Warren Buffett that need to buy corporate jets for $10,000,000 to immediately pay $3,000,000 in a national sales tax. Why not support that effort instead of fighting to raise income taxes on anyone?
It is fine, well and wonderful to get other people to pay for WHAT YOU WANT, unfortunately they do not see it that way. The higher you raise income taxes on anyone the more they will change what they do to avoid those income taxes. A consumption tax is much much more difficult to avoid.
Once we have cut spending, we need to beef up our education system. Just think for a minute, have you ever heard of a required course for our students in "Mortgages and related expenses"? NO! And yet we have destroyed our collective net worth and given it to bankers. What is wrong with us?
We need to be on the same side and end the class warfare!
Perhaps you should take a look at http://www.lcurve.org/ ...
Maybe just MAYBE they've run out of room to kick the can down the road? NOT a chance. CONGRESS... ALL of congress, not any one individual or group or party just doesn't get it. They have been spending Other Peoples Money for so long they've forgotten what a BUDGET is.
Let the games begin. Now they will do everything in their power to avoid the mandated cuts, especially if it is for their pet project. We will now hear the term too critical to cut.
Trust, cuts are going to take place with or without any agreement from the Super Committee, and THAT is what this "Deficit Reduction Committee" is all about. If they don't agree to what they want cuts, automatic cuts will take place instead.
I wish automatic cuts would happen, but they aren't even scheduled to start those until 2013...and they are already working on ways around those cuts. I seriously doubt the "mandatory cuts" will ever happen - until we are in Greece's situation - then China will tell us what to cut and when, and that won't be pretty or painless.
America could save one Billion a year just by vastly reducing the teatard trash do-nothings in Congress.
Job? Lucky for them.
We also need to get rid of the Lobbyist, Grover Norquist is the most powerful lobbyist in Washington, if it were not for his pledge, Congress might of actually got something done. I say get rid of ALL LOBBYIST because its all about who can buy who and then of course we have payback, while the American People get screwed as usual.
or stopping to suckle a few of the undeserving piggies on the government teats,
Your alternative, patriot, would be well over one billion.
The dems have been able to snooker the spineless repubs for so long that they probably are truly shocked that they weren't able to do it again. The charge of the committee was to come up with cuts in the budget. The dems determined that it was an opportunity to raise taxes. They figure that every time this comes up, they've been able to get the repubs to go along with tax increases immediately, along with promises of future spending cuts. The problem is that the promise of future spending cuts never comes to pass. The dems always back out. And, since there is no way for one Congress to bind the future Congresses, they feel that this is a good way to score political points because the attention span of Congress and the American public is about the time of a 30 second commercial
So, it makes sense that they are shocked. I must admit it is a pleasant surprise that the repubs are standing firm. It is clearly not what the RINOs want to do, but the Tea Party has put the pressure on them to at least stop voting liberal, even if the RINOs don't talk conservative.
Since we haven't had a budget since Obama took office, maybe the repubs will stand together and demand reductions. After all, nothing can be spent without their permission, and they do control the House.
Cut the defense budget in half. Close all the bases and put all those people on unemployment. Then borrow the money from the Chinese to pay for all the unemployed soldiers. And then give every rich person in America another million and a half over the course of 10 years.
Simple.
Cut their pay. I have no problem with switching Congress over to pay for piece work. Those idiots don't deserve a salary.
Any of them.
There aren't any cuts and there never were going to be. Even the automatic 'sequester' aren't actual cuts. They are just reductions in future spending increases like the phantom cuts the democrats are promising.
The whole thing was just theater for political points by Obama and Reid. Unfortunately for them, America will blame them more by the election. That's the way it works. The president gets the credit or the blame. Welcome to reality libs.
jpsotw: That's exactly right. I think the first thing that should be done is for the House to pass a bill requiring that there are NO automatic increases in the budget and that the budget is based of actual budget of previous year. That way, when the term "cuts" are used, everyone knows that they are talking about cuts and not reduction of built in increases. If they can't get that passed, as the Senate would most likely not pass it, they should still talk like it has passed. The only way to change things is to speak the truth. Using the "it all depends on the definition of what "is" is just won't do it. If the repubs aren't willing to correct the erroneous language, then it is clear that they are all talk and no action. Thus, those who don't speak the truth should be voted out, whether dem or repub.
witchrunner; I just don't see the Democrats ever trying to work within a budget and that is allot of what this is about it's all over the spending madness that that party is most guilty of, the republicans are starting to stand against the spending, I believe we need some fairness in the taxing but we also desperately need to stop this money spending, especially now that it is draining what is left of our economy, there is no room for frivolous spending any longer. its sad that the citizens of this nation are so blind to what their parties are doing and stand up for their actions without really grasping the reality of the situation. we need to live within our limits there is no magic checkbook the Democrats don't understand that and we may need those tax increases in the future they are like a wild card you dont play it till you have to. the media is no help in this matter all the bits and pieces of info without all the facts.....the two parties can only work together if the Dems learn to budget.
The political parties have their fingers on the burner on the stove. America is the frog in the pan of water getting hotter and hotter.
The Democrats are saying it's the republicans fault that we have to use this much heat. The Republicans are saying we think the waters getting too hot.
What we know is that at some point the frog will cook to death. Who should you be listening too?
Republicks created this staged crisis. Read Norquists comments and you will find that events during the Republick heydey of Shrub Jr.s reign came to pass. "Kill the taxes and you kill the government" " I want to drown the government in a bathtub". The national debt doubled during Bush's term and the teabaggers said nothing, there was no"take our country back" BS emanating from the stinking pile. Instead they cut taxes, mostly for the rich, and found new ways to flush money down the toilet in Iraq. Compounded interest on the debt unpaid or reduced during this time led to the circle jerk we are on now. The true goals all along are what Norquist expounded on, destruction of Social Security, Medicare, union busting, depressed wages and the contraction of wages for the destruction of the middle class so the corporate hogs can eliminate all environmental or financial regulations. They didn't want the defense "entitlements" to go away however.
You cannot responsibly insist on maintaining the Bush tax cuts in their entirety, given that such a step INCREASES the national debt by $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years. You can cut Medicare, cut Medicaid, cut student loans and cut Social Security, but if you do all those things AND make the tax cuts permanent, you have succeeded in making life tougher for a lot of people but you accomplished nothing toward reducing the deficit.
The $500B is all smoke and mirrors and none of it is actually guaranteed to happen. It depends on too many conditions which will never all happen such as vague promises like "overhaul of the tax code" and from proposals such as auctioning broadcast spectrum, raising Medicare premiums and increasing aviation security fees.
Re-Elect,
While I agree the Bush tax cuts should go, if we only eliminate them for the upper 1%, it's still only a drop in the bucket (about $70 billion/year when we are running $1+ Trillion/year in deficits). To make a real difference, the tax cuts need to go for everyone.
Also, nobody is talking actual cuts - they are only talking about reducing how much the spending will grow. They budget government growth at something close to 7 or 8% - which is several times the GDP growth rate. The "cuts" still have government growing faster than GDP.
We are living in a fantasy land of easy credit - and the credit isn't going to be here much longer. People need to open their eyes and start thinking this through. We can and will be another Greece if we don't take serious steps in the next couple of years.
Trickle down is Trickle up, up, up, and away it goes and its not coming back down !!!!!!!!!
Thank you.
ANyone who refers to the Bush Tax Cuts as being for "the rich" is an uneducated troll parroting the left.
If you look at the cuts (for real) they benefited the middle class 80% more than the rich.
people should do a search on "what the bush tax cuts" cost America.
Seems that letting the tax cuts expire for the wealthy (2%) increases revenue over 10 years by about $800 billion. Letting them all expire across the board give us a revenue increase of about $3.5 trillion.over ten years.
If obama and company really wanted to promote fairness they would let them expire across the board. Think about it, $3.5 trillion in more revenue over ten years + significant spending cuts over ten years would make a significant impact on our debt. Add tax reform and we are starting to talk serious $$$$.
Lovely- what further proof is needed that this all simply doesn't work anymore?
If the government did not automatically increase its budget over the next ten years, that would account for about 10 trillion in savings not to mention if we reduced what the so called lawmakers have when they are voted out of office, (even if they only serve 4 years), that would account for more significant savings. Lastly, we should make the lawmakers subjext to the same laws, i.e. obamacare, ss, etc. so that they get a reality check.
Raising taxes is easy, cutting spending is difficult for our politicians. EVERY businessman has to deal with spending decisions......the government has never dealt with spending concerns as they just send the bill to the next generation.
The decision (or non decision) to cut spending or raise taxes is really a decision between government and private economy. In fact our government makes nothing but paperwork. How many businesses spend money on really stupid things?... not often or they are out of business. How often does the government spend money on stupid things?.....read about it in the paper every day.
50 years ago, We Americans were happy and the economy was growing. The paper was full of stories about what new factory, what new product, what new store...,,,Now? the paper is full of what fraud some government agency engaged in, what celebrity is arrested for drugs and what foreign war we are in.
More government is not the solution , it is the problem. Higher taxes on (always someone else) is easier than cutting the spending (bribes) to get reelected
Why, so we can go deeper into debt. Here's what will happen. We'll vote the dam muslime out of the white house repeal obamacare and get rid of this welfare state we live in. We're in this mess now because of bleeding heart liberal commies who are ruining our country.
End the Bush Tax cuts by letting them EXPIRE and pull our troops OUT of Iraq and Afghanistan! The US needs to start concentrating on its own country not everyone elses..........PULL THE TROOPS~~OUT. These wars were unfunded wars that were "off the books", and now they are on the books and keep adding to the deficit. Why? Keep your promise President Obama, and SLAM the door on these illegal wars..........
End the Bush tax cuts, ALL of them, and get rid of the cap on social security contributions.
It is interesting to see that there are still people out there that actually believe that Obama cares about America! Wake up folks! This guy is the enemy of every Freedom Loving American! His actions have proven this!
Thats Right... It's the Dems and Obamas money
I can't believe the media give these " pledgers " a free ride. To these member take an oath to the constitution or an oath to Norquist?
Ron - Don't get me wrong, the country won't survive without some taxes being paid.
The economy works like this.
When Cocacola pays more in tax, that can drop the return to investors. If they allow the profit amount to drop investers pull their money and go to some company that is doing better. Since that cannot happen, Coke pays people to figure out how to get that amount back by laying off people, cheapening the product, Charging more, decreasing the quantity for the same price, or send production out of the country (like Hershey's chocolate did this year).
A few years ago Maryland passed a millionare surcharge. They expected a revenue increase, but instead experienced a revenue decrease twice the anticipated revenue increase. NYC likewise did the same thing, and they too exprienced a huge drop in revenues while everyone else experienced much less of a decline.
@ DB Akron
I contend that there are two flaws to your assumption that you are not taking into account
First, corporate taxation and layoffs are not a zero-sum game and are not directly correlated. Companies don't base their hiring on taxes (within most realistic tolerances), and they don't base their layoffs by how much they pay in taxes (within most realistic tolerances). Companies base their hirings and layoffs on profits, and while taxes take a bite out of profits, that's after all expenses are taken into account. That's after capital investment, payroll, foreign tax credits, etc etc etc. While I'm sure some companies will conduct layoffs of workforce in response to actually having to pay taxes, the ones that will do so the most will be the ones that have been most abusing the loopholes to avoid having any significant tax-liability in the US in the first place. I'm not sympathetic to money-launderers, even if they have a legal carve-out called "transfer pricing"!
Second, you act as though only a selection of companies are going to be paying higher taxes. The entirety of the US private sector would be subject to the same tax laws and all foreign businesses doing business on our shores as well. Investors invest in US markets to make use of both the productivity of US companies, but also take on the characteristics of the aggregate US market-risk (i.e. systematic risk). I contend that investors aren't going to shift their investments into foreign stocks any more than they usually do! Part of diversification is to straddle and try to cancel out some of the systematic risks associated with one particular market just as the other part is to hedge against the non-systemic risks associated with individual companies and industries. In-short, if the US market is going to be paying more taxes across the board, it will be a systemic-shift and unless investors want greater exposure to foreign markets and their risks (including exchange rate risk), investors will just complain about the slight dent in profitability and demand that companies do more investment and expansion to lower their tax liability.
As for individual taxes, that's a different ball-game. I think we simply need to roll-back the Bush-era tax cuts. Bush's cuts were based on entering the White House with a budget surplus and the belief that government shouldn't be a for-profit enterprise. Since the US is in massive debt and perpetual deficit spending, it's time to at least bring taxes back into a realistic level and actually act like we want to pay it off.
Now that this so called Super-Committee couldn't come together and tackle the deficit problem these automatic cuts will slice and dice everything and everybody. Isn't that what the GOP/T-pers wanted from the get-go. Hah... I don't think so. This time they outmanuvered themselves. Because now that these cuts are being initiated. The GOP/T-Pers corporate masters will be up in arms (funny)... This time they have truly have cut their noses to spite their faces. Their corporate masters will be real sore at them and their filthy bribe money will be slashed. Welcome to our world... Ha Ha... "No" on that...
Alex, you got that right, and Republicans' top stock market pick and investment are the first to go: 82% Cut in Defense spending.
@ American Girl
you know that history proves that democrats are more so warmongers that republicans right? Obama of course just continuing that legacy with illegal wars in libya and the execution of american citizens without trial, something he should arrested for.
GOP T-Retards are the blame for supporting that tax aid bull$hit that the rich are getting. "Even" the 2% are saying we should pay more in taxes.
God help us.
And if we didn't go to war with Libya?? You would have been pissed about that!! All republican'ts are the same worthless liars and cheats!!! Trying to manipulate the truth!!
Brendan,
While I am not a supporter of Obama and can't wait until he is out of office (voted out that is, just so no one takes it the wrong way,) I must say that about the only thing that Obama has done correctly since he has been in office is put the terrorists on the run by letting them know he does not care if they "were" once American citizens or not! Putting our people in harms way in Libya while not illegal in the manner he did it, was a poor decision on Obama's part which does not surprise me having watched Obama over the past 3 plus years!
Lord knows that Obama has done so much damage to this country that we may never recover, so lets not slam him for the few good thing(s) he has accomplished. There is plenty of fault to go around where Obama is concerned and it is easy to find! All a person has to do is watch what Obama does and pay no attention to what he says about the out come of his actions, especially when he fails.
TO: brendan-4 who wrote:
Oh pleeeeze! George W. Bush and Dick Cheney lied us into that multi-trillion dollar war in Iraq just so that they could steal that oil, and everybody knows that.
Since then, Republicans have had to tell lie, after lie, after lie, after lie, to try to make Bush and Cheney NOT look like the scoundrels that they really are.
Don't freaking bore us anymore with more lies. We know what happened, you know, and the world knows.
Brendan, please be serious. To be a war-monger is not merely a matter of involving our nation in a war. It is is a matter of involving our nation in [bolded for your benefit] an unnecessary war.
Most rational Americans do not regard either of the World Wars as unnecessary, or in any way avoidable. Vietnam, yes, a mistake, but a bipartisan one, and perhaps understandable given the state of the Cold War. Korea? I believe history has shown without a doubt that we acted in both our own and the South Korean's interests in resisting the aggression of the North. Iraq? Dumb-ass mistake, a reckless misdirection of out nation's resources at a time when other matters [such as the war on terror] were certainly a higher priority.
Democrats war mongers. Yeah, right. Next you'll be telling me that Bush was a fiscal conservative.
wow lol people actually defend the republicans, somehow you pass this on to the democrats? Sorry people but your republicans are trying to screw you all over, their friends are rich enough they will never need medical insurance or social security that is why they want to cut them. Seriously if you guys really believe republicans are trying to help you, well you are as dumb as their leaders think most of you are.
Cutting what repubs call "entitlements" are in fact.....willing to take what Americans have already paid into. Middle Class America deserves what Retardpubs call hand outs and "socialism". Baloney. Hard working Ameircans PAID INTO that system......and deserve to get paid what was promised to them.
BUSHY TAX CUTS.....grew this horrendous problem through 2 unpaid wars Repubicans.......face up and own it. Protecting the rich......and not returning to pre-tax breaks of BUSHY...is continuing to erode what we used to call America.......with bought and paid for puppet Repubicans. VOTE ALL THE REPUGS OUT IN 2012!!!!!!!!!
In 1984, President Reagan charged the Grace Commission with the task of uncovering government waste and ineffeciences. The commission made over 1000 recommendations to cut government waste alone. In his cover letter, Peter Grace, a DEMOCRAT and now deceased stated the following:
Now not one Congress, either republican or democrat controlled, ever approved or passed even one of the recommendations. So the debt to revenue shortfall just multiplied until we have the problem we have today.
But that's alright go right ahead and live in a dream world and continue to be nothing more than a Bush hater.
GC,
You are aware I guess that the Reagan Administration created a 2.7 trillion dollar deficit and laying it at the feet of Congress is a new bit of persiflage used to shift the blame for failed economic policies of the Chief Executive. Since the beginning of the Republic the President has set the economic agenda not Congress it is only in the Clinton and Obama years that Congress has tried to derail a presidents economic agenda. Throughout the 80s democratic calls for tax increases and military spending cuts(see Star Wars) were answered by a guarantee of a veto the same under Bush the Lesser. Each Reagan and Bush Budget were passed in full leading to this absolute mess if taxes had remained at Clinton era levels none of this nonsense would be necessary.
The election of a president has always been seen as a national endorsement of their plans. It was FDRs New Deal not Congess the same for Nixons New Economic Plan,( I always wondered how none of his guy"s noticed it was the same name as Lenin's first Soviet economic plan) Reaganomics or the Bush Tax Cuts. This blaming of Congress is almost entirely an attempt to shift blame by the Right who caused this crisis.
jkh
Two comments, jkh: (1) Everyone can make a case for anything especially if it is favorable to their cause. (2) Congress, i.e., the House of Representatives approves the expenditures for ANYTHING. Thus, in my opinion the root cause is the Congress. And althought I have no problem with your reasoning because it is rational, I think your last statement is entirely irrational. My opinion. Interesting isn't it, the posters on this and other vines cannot agree but we expect Congress to react differently.
Thanks "W", Thanks Wall street, Thanks GOP T-Retards, Thanks Grover Norquist and the Kocheads, Thanks Fox bull$hit liars news trash network for Destroying our Country. All should be removed from Society !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Listen everyone, This is not a democratic or republican issue.......One solution vote all them out.
Stop supporting your political teams, they both are equally responsible....once our representatives realize if they do not represent the people in thier districts and states they are out....no more 4 year, 6 year terms re-calls are much faster and send a definite answer quickly. Lobbyist, Big business, all the money in the world cannot vote them in.
shame, shame, shame...
Do you ever notice how, when Republicans blame Democrats, they show charts, and interviews with "experts" and provide heresay and second- and third-hand accounts? And when Democrats blame Republicans, they show Republicans on videotape using their own words to hang themselves over and over and over. Just look no further than the video from the hilarious Republican presidential debates!
It's the same kind of idiotic ignorance displayed by people demanding to see the President's birth certificate and never being satisfied that it's for real. That's just plain human STUPIDITY, and it makes the Tea Party look like fools.
Can anyone please explain to me why races between Democrats and Republicans are ever close contests? Are people really so easily fooled?
so the republicans insist on further tax cuts for the rich or they wont agree on anything.i cant understand how they can convince people that arent rich to vote for them
commie fag
thanks norm.i see now how they stay in power.they appeal to the not very bright crowd
Jerk.
In response to #8.8. That is where fox news comes in! Now lets get the people to think what we want them to and ignore the facts! It worked in 2010 didnt it? Now look at the buyers remorse but it doesnt appear the pubs learned a thing. Still sucking that straw.
GC,
This crisis is 100% the GOPs fault and you can start in 1968 with Nixons election. Nixon renounced the Breton Woods Accords and allowed the dollar to float. He also declared two National Emergencies over a Postal Strike and balance of trade issues in order to exercise War Powers and institute wage and price controls. He inherited Federal Spending of 178 billion and a debt of 368 billion by the time his "New Economic Plan" had run its course he and Ford had raised spending to 372 billion more than a 1255 spending increase and a 75% debt increase to 629 billion. Since 1961 under two Dems there were 85 consecutive months of econonmic growth inflation was 4.2 and unemployment 3.8 when Ford handed off to Carter a disasterous inflationary spiral and high unemployment were the order of the day at 8.7 infation and 8.4 unemployment, both over 100% increases. Carter actually did a great job with deficit, debt and unemployment but the inflationary spiral he inherited proved disasterous. Reagan took office with unemployment at 5.9 % inflation at 13.5 government spending at 590 billion and the debt at 909 billion. Reagan never got employment figures below 6.2% spending at 1.06 trillion and the debt at 2.7 trillion and inflation at 4.7%. He spent a total of over 9 trillion dollars in total spending closed thousands of factories, attacked labor, demonized the poor and started the economic ball really rolling downhill. Bush I finally had the balls to increase taxes to avoid disaster. Clinton managed to restore sanity to the economy inspite of not because of an extremely hostile opposition. Bush II economics would take a thousand words enough to say it was Reagan on steroids.
jkh
You nailed it right on the head. I believe the Star Wars Defense Initiative began the point of no return and then they had the nerve to declare Reagan took down the USSR single handed when it was spending on defense that destroyed the USSR. Does this scenario sound familiar to anyone out there in cyberland? If not think about the Military Industrial Complex we have right now. If we do not stop spending so much on defense and begin rebuilding our infrastructure at home we will end up like the former USSR only worse. These United States do not have the untapped resources to keep themselves afloat like Russia does and we all will sink and become slaves to a different master of not our choosing or liking. Anarchy will fill this country from every corner if we do not open our eyes and look at what happened to other nations, past and present.
I would use another word after "Super" to describe the idiots on the committee. Apparently their purpose is to bicker and be partisan and let peer pressure make it impossible to reach across the aisle and find PRACTICAL common ground in order to move forward. This is junior high stuff. When the wealthy are continuing to get more wealthy, and the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is mostly disappearing downward..... its BROKEN! We need to RE-regulate! Regulations are there to protect society. Actually enforcing them is crucial. Allowing the Foxes to run the Chicken Coop is only asking for trouble. Allowing Corporate Funding of elections creates conflict of interests. Our Representatives, especially Congresspersons, have to run an election every 2 years. Considering the costs of an election these days, they concentrate on funding, not working on logical bills to move our country FORWARD. Perhaps they need their dictionaries. I suggest Leadership and Pragmatic to start with for looking up.
Regulations are killing us. Not the answer. How sad and pathetic that people want to use regulations to take what other people have earned. Liberals sound like a bunch of kids that want what the other kids want. Why on earth do you think businesses are not spending money? Too many regulations. Even obama suspended a whole series of them. Why? Because they cost businesses a lot more money. And believe it or not, businesses paying more does not create more jobs, it takes away jobs. The great healthcare bill has also cost people jobs. They are not hiring, knowing the increased costs to their business. US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. And your liberal answer is, raise their taxes. You tax more and the coporations move out. You increase the regulations more and the corporations move out. You increase the costs or make costs uncertain, the corporations move out or do not hire. It does not take a smart person to understand this. Must be why liberals do not understand. The only thing the liberals understand is tax more, spend more, redistribute more, and take what others have earned. And for all you people that want the Bush tax cuts to expire. Do any of you really understand what this means? I hardly believe one of you really do. Most of you liberals think that only the rich will have their taxes increased. Surprise, you are wrong and sadly mistaken. Lower and middle class working people will also have their taxes increased.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/CutYourTaxes/what-if-the-bush-tax-cuts-expired.aspx
Supercommittee staffed by Super idiots, what a surprise! Congress can't wipe its own butt and we expect those knuckleheads to do something right - we're nuts! Get rid of every incumbent in every election, they all suck the life out of this country for their own self-enrichment! Stop playing the political party game, they're all crooks regardless of political affiliation. The blame game is how the idiots stay in office by feeding the voting idiots a line of crap they want to hear then not doing a damn thing they promised.
cliff, you are dead on.......super committee....what a joke!!!!! we need a dramatic change in how we do business in dc........or we will soon be a banana republic. god bless america!
These cretins wouldn't know what it's like to work hard if it slapped them across the face. Hard work to them is making sure their whore doesn't squeal or hiding their addiction to fornicating with farm animals. Creativity is associated with being able to take multiple bribes from multiple lobbyists while avoiding a DUI charge. Somebody please flush the toilet and send all of these losers to the waste treatment plant.
No thanks, I work at a wastewater treatment facility, I don't want them polluting my plant.
The nation is now faced with omambanomics. He gave $60 Billion to GM for saving the socialist UAW because their corrupt pension plan meant so many votes for the narcissist, took what the previous stockholders had in stock and they got nothing for it. Then the US got shares of GM instead of getting their money back, valued the stock at $35 per share for our tax dollars stolen from us................today GM closed at $21.10 per share, the taxpayers (US) lost 40% of their value.
Get the idiot out of office!!
So roc -- what about the 750,000,000,000 given to socialist banks??
And replace him with which other idiot?
it's just too damned bad that part of the "trigger" wasn't a firing squad if they failed. There is NO consequence to them if the failed or flew high. They manipulate every bill or law ever written for their own unbridled greed or party preservation.
I'm so tired of seeing these clowns - ALL of them - continue with their bad acting on this national stage - and then they go home to their mansions and rolling hills and maid service - and act like its such a big, tough job! Oh the angst!
Congress needs a COMPLETE and THOROUGH overhaul. The number one requirement for the new replacements: you cannot have ever been or ever aspired to be - a lawyer.
.
Is anyone really surprised that this fiasco has failed? The baggers have all pledged to Grover Norquist that they would'nt raise any taxes on the wealthy and the Democrats have said that they will protect the middle class and the poor from higher tax rates and bigger cuts to social programs that millions depend upon.
The Republicans do not want taxes raised on anyone. Not just the wealthy. The democrats could care less. Do you realize that if the Bush tax cuts expire, it will mean more taxes for the lower and middle classes, also? Not just the wealthy. A family making $80,000 will pay about $2,200 more per year.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/CutYourTaxes/what-if-the-bush-tax-cuts-expired.aspx
Spending is easier to control than tax revenue. When times are good and employment is high, tax revenue goes up regardless of the tax rates. When times are bad, tax revenue goes down. Tax revenue will go up in the future as the economy improves (assuming it does). Why place increased taxes on anyone? Spending is easily controlled. We could eliminate the ANNUAL budget deficit quickly and simply by forcing the federal government to do what it was originally designed for. For example, eliminate the Department of Education. Education is funded and controlled at the local level by property taxes and other state taxes. Get the feds out of it. Eliminate and combine other agencies to reduce redundancies and excess (i.e. Homeland Security, TSA, ATF, FBI, etc., etc., etc.). This can all be done without tax increases, or messing around with social security and medicare/medicaid. Those areas are an entirely different problem that will need another set of solutions. The key is to reduce the size of government. It is a weight around all of our necks and will continue to pull us down.
The party of Give Aways has to spend they have to give money to groups for VOTES its the only way they can get votes. Odumbo knows that
We will never forget.
some of you explain perfectly why yours business fail and you have to go bankrupt. There are different modes you have to work in. You have to know what they are and when to employ which strategy. When you are in a crisis mode you have all hand on deck and you are very involved. Doing nothing will lead to failure. And that explains why some of your businesses and places you work just fail. But then a lot of you like failure for some reason. I don't.
Any bets that Congress will find a way to avoid the 'mandatory cuts' that result from their failure to agree?
No arbitrary cuts will ever happen...........not ever.
Obama will be gone well before 2013, and the new President and congress will do something else. This congress cannot hold the next congress, or the next President, to any "deals" made before them.
Dont think so. Obama has promised to veto any attempt to block the automatic cuts.........Saw it on the news a little while ago.
There isn't anybody across America who doesn't get it that we have to cut some entitlements and we have to some raise taxes. So how is it that this SuperComittee cannot see their way to the light of the day??
All I see is more reason for more folks to join up with the likes of the current group of protestors - and let it all spill over into the streets. Let it be a scandal for the world to see what a huge mess our entire government has become. These idiots don't need WikiLeaks to spill the beans - they are doing it all on their own!
These committee clowns can't negotiate - all they can do is try to slit the other guy's throat all for the sake of political preservation.
I really didn't hold out much hope that this would ever work. There is simply too much partianship in Washington. Democrats don't know how to control spending and Republicans don't know how to collect taxes. We the people get stuck in the middle and get the shaft. Business will not spend in this environment and Congress does not have the backbone to make the changes needed. Obama and his class warfare retoric have taken hold and it will probably get him reelected. So 4 more years of trillion dollar per year deficit spending, if the Chinese will keep buying out debt, and no jobs. Not saying that a Republican president will make much of a change especially with the group of fools that are running. Welcome to the begining of the end, or the middle, however you look at it.
This thing was supposed to fail. It was set up that way from the start. Now the budget cuts start and no one takes the blame, or they blame each other. Government gets what it wants by doing nothing.
Don't say "Government" but rather Radical Republicans. Everyone knows who refused compromise by refusing Tax Hikes in any guise, including the expiration of the Bush Era tax cuts on the Wealthy (and everyone else).
I bet these people did nothing but talk about trivial crap and get drunk. People in Congress dont want to work. Christ they are just about all millionaires.
Since when is conceding to allow 300 billion in tax increases in a 1.2 trillion deal not a comprimise.
Why is it that liberals simply want to increase taxes to that they can spend more. Exactly what have we gotten for the money that has been spent so far? Lets face it Democrats cannot afford to cut welfare, food stamps, Public housing assistance, medicaid, etc. etc. entitlements, or they will loose their voter base.
You don't raise the kids allowance until they can be responsible with what you give them.
GOP did offer tax increases that the Democrats turned down.
Please explain briefly.
This was foredoomed to failure the minute some idiot in the GOP assigned 6 Congress-persons who had preordained declarations to "No Tax Hikes Under ANY Circumstances" as a rallying cry. NO NEWS HERE.
Our problem with our country is that we are not taxed enough, it is that we spend too much. If we give the democrats more money in tax increases, they will find ways to spend it instead of paying down the debt. To all you liberals. Why is it that obama is flying all over the world and has not proposed one idea at all? Not one!!! The democrats have no idea on how to budget. The senate has been without a budget for 3 years, which is against the law.
Recheck your specs, Mark. President Obama has been flying all over the world, yes. By doing so he is repairing the damage caused in our standings worldwide by prior faux pas. He is trying to enhance our trade standings in relation to other nations and reduce the influence of China on Pacific Nations.
Meanwhile, if you check the records you will find that Obama has made SEVERAL suggestions and motions to the Congress regarding balancing the budget.
It just shows man's failure to govern. Exactly, just a bunch of finger pointing and blame. The Republicans and the Democrats neither are better than the other. And this will continue as this world gets worse before it gets better. The world itself is on a decline not just here in the U.S. The Bible show the U.S. and British Super power. No one else is listed as the new power. It talks about the prior world powers before the English and US. I believe something is coming. We can't stop or control that. People laugh and mock what the Bible says but it's been proven accurate if you do the math. Just a thought I don't need the verbal attack..
Sorry George, but the bible is chock full of ludicrous nonsense from cover to cover.
leroy, have you read it cover to cover or are you just spew liberal vomit as usual?
Yes Mark, I have read it cover to cover, twice. It is the bible itself more than anything else that convinces me it is NOT the word of a supreme being even if such a being DOES exist. I wish christians would read their bible more, and not just the passages their minister points out to them.
Did anyone seriously think there would be any other outcome than failure?
Nope. Turned out just as expected. I say we all do the country a favor and throw both the D's and the R's out come election time. Can you imagine if both sides were to lose there power? I wouldn't give you a nickle for either party!
This is a total outrage ! How many months did this so called super committee have to work on this. This so called super committee does not seem to super to me. I urge everyone to call your congressman, senator.. How much were these so called super committee members paid ? If a person working in the private sector failed this badly, they would be fired, shot, hung by the neck or worse.. or all of the above. Don't forget to call and write and COMPLAIN LOUDLY ! super committee MY ARSE.
Just wait Roger, the superDUPER committee is coming to the rescue!
The super duper committee will no doubt = Bozo the clown, Crusty the clown and Homer Simpson. I can hardly wait !
How about Obama and McConnell duke it out in the octagon? Winner gets to pass a bill.
Kerry vs Kyl on the undercard
Collapse.................failure..................
All words we as a society are becoming more accustomed to hearing on a daily basis.
'Waist deep in the big muddy, and the big fool says to push on'
-Pete Seeger
Great Song, Greater American. How true in so many ways.
The situation is hopeless. For many decades, due to FED's easy money policy, Americans have borrowed and spent. This inflated the money supply, prices and salaries (inflation). But now borrowing has stopped. We ran out of borrowers. M3, which is broad definition of money supply, is deflating. With a deflating money supply it is not possible to pay the same salaries in the economy. For example, with money supply of 50 trillion, if avarage salary is 50K USD, when the money supply falls to 40trillion, average salary will have to fall to 40K. This is the reason why we have unemployment. State and local governments are going bust. Their programs, pension plans were built based on an inflated money supply. When deflation hits, states, local governments have to cut back spending drastically, or declare bankcruptcy. Google for "financial mania continues" to understand the stock market bubble we have.
IMHO, this has been about political theatrics... and nothing more.
The Republicans on that supercommittee, who want absolutely no tax hikes... just spending cuts, get pretty much what they want, whether the supercommittee could come to an agreement or not. And that's because, if they can't come to an agreement, that automatically triggers steep spending cuts.
What a waste of time... and tax payer's money.
David H.....sorry not buying BOTH PARTIES are the problem. Get all the facts, better yet vote all encumbents out.
Isn't that the truth. BOTH parties are to blame, not one. ALL are politicians, and they share in the glory together, and they must ALL sink together. I agree, that ALL those now in office, should be voted OUT. Let us start anew, and see if some answers can be arrived at. IF, that doesn't work, then we should vote THEM out of office and start anew once again, and we should continue with this action until somebody wakes up and does get a clue. Is this feasible? Yes, but only after the old guard leaves town, as we don't too many remnants of the disorder we have now, to infect the new guard.
Both parties cannot be to blame; only one in a two-party system can ever be held accountable, and only by the votes of the people. One party will be majority, one will be minority; therefore it is virtually impossible to place blame on both PARTIES; it will simply continue to seesaw back and forth until something drastic changes. If Scott Walker loses his recall election for Governor of Wisconsin in January, I'd look at that as a sign that Tea Party end of the seesaw will be hitting the ground at about 90 MPH a short 10 months later.
Old Pete and his commie banjo ... was a commie and didn't even have the courage to admit it in front of Congress, and let his commie buddies twist in the wind. Hey, maybe that's where Dylan got the idea for "Blowin in the wind".
Sad as it seems, I think ol Ricky is right. Short ride for the Tea Party. The socialists will have had several years.
Yeah, then all the demo hogs at the trough can vote the public servants a raise with borrowed money. The ponzi scheme is failing across the pond and the lib's want to try the experiment here. STUPID ,STUPID,STUPID!
And they will Yankee. You can bet you retirement on it! Ha Ha Ha. Not so funny, sorry.
Socialists, commies, facists; union thugs, Chicago-style gangsters - you folks on the right really need to update your roll-o-dexes in the name-calling section. I'm sure you could use a bottle of that newfangled invention of modern science to help you make corrections - it's called Liquid Paper...
What happens when the demos get their tax hikes? We will still have a huge deficit running year after year. Are they going to ask for another trillion again..again..again in tax increases? At some point they need to admit that this problem we've got is there with or with out tax increases. Until they do we will continue to run this country into the ground... Entitlements have to be reined in and there is no getting around that. It is irresponsible not to admit that. I say give them their tax increases because they won't have a platform to blame any longer.
For the record, I'm not saying both sides are equally to blame (although, I think it's fair to say neither side is entirely blameless).
I'm saying, if the Republicans were going to essentially get what they wanted just by waiting for the deadline to pass... should we be all that surprised that this exercise in "political theatrics" failed?
Realistically, the Democrats on that supercommittee had no chance of getting what they wanted in this.
It's very much like what happened up in Canada a few months back with Canada Post. The union and the corporation had been negotiating for 8 months... and still no resolution. So the Federal Government got involved... and basically said if the 2 sides didn't resolve the problem (and quickly too), they were going to table back-to-work legislation and give the union less than the last offer tabled by Canada Post.
At that point, why the heck would Canada Post do anything other than sit back and wait for the Canadian Government to make good on their threat? There was no need to negotiate with the union anymore... 'cuz the last offer that Canada Post put on the table was more generous than the Feds were going to be. They'd be foolish not to let the clock run out.
And that's what I believe has happened here too. The default outcome was just too heavily weighted to one side's position. All the Republicans had to do, ultimately, to declare victory on this supercommittee... was wait out the clock.
But to reasonable smart people that may have started another clock ticking. Til Nov 2012 when they can get kicked right back out to where they came from. I think America should have had enough of the teaparty thgs by now. If not they eventually will.