They are like a bunch of spoiled kids.

Maybe if we boot more of them out of office in 2012 they will get the message or we can lucky and pick politicians that can actually work together.

It was doomed from the get go, but I think it was the triggers in the original deal that doomed it.

The kicker cuts a TON of money out of the defense department. Hello dems have been wanting to cut the Defense budget for years. WHY would they compromise to not have the triggers kick in when thats what they want cut.

Just my opinion though.

Jeremy, if indeed the democrats wanted to cut the defense budget for years then why has it more than doubled since 2001?

The majority of Americans know that Republican obstinacy is exacerbating the economic erosion this country is currently experiencing...and they'll vote with this in mind in November....

As long as Citizens United stands, our chances of getting to vote for anyone who has any real intention of effecting meaningful change are absolutely nil. Until the sale of our government to the highest bidders is overturned, things will always remain exactly as they are today.

Since the democrats took over in 2007 the Federal Government INCREASED SPENDING OVER 30 %

WHY don't the CONGRESSIONAL CRIMINALS start by CUTTING SPENDING THIRTY PERCENT TOMORROW? Just get back to pre 2007 levels?

Why is this so difficult? Because they are unwilling to stop funding worthless agencies like the Departments of Education and Energy and MAKE MONEY leasing the empty federal buildings out to businesses that cost taxpayers NOTHING?

Completely unacceptable.

Last I heard some Republican named George W. Bush dragged us into 2 wars against religious zealots - I.E. ones that won't end anytime soon. Mind you, wars against anyone believing they have religion on their side are never quick and clean.

I'm for cutting defense spending as well, but that doesn't mean I'm going to take the cheap road on brakes in a car already in motion.

TO: sonmanvb who wrote:

"I disagree, my congressmen is doing exactly what I expected him to do. I elected him to STOP the spending and it seems that is what he is doing by not "compromising" with the dems."

Ok, so you don't want Republicans to "compromise" with the Democrats, SO QUIT BLAMING THE DEMOCRATS FOR THE FAILURE YOUR NON-COMPROMISING REPUBLICANS ARE CAUSING!

What's fair is fair. When Republicans cause the failure of the Super Committee, instead of blaming Democrats, why not take credit?

You said yourself, you sent your Republican representatives to force failure by not compromising, so why aren't you embracing that position and thanking Republicans for the "failure" they are intentionally causing?

That's why the majority of the American People think Republicans are a bunch of liars -- because Republicans won't stand up for what they're doing and say "Hell yes, we forced failure on America AND the American People, because we don't believe in "compromise"?" Why not just say it, instead of blaming the Democrats?

At least then, nobody would call Republicans "liars" anymore.

Democrats won't accept a deal that doesn't increase taxes and spending; Republicans won't accept a deal that does. How is it that only one side gets the blame for not compromising? Honestly, all the Democrats need to do is agree to spending cuts right NOW followed by increased taxes LATER and the Republicans will go for it.

DLC | Blueprint Magazine | June 30, 2003
Starving the Beast
If President Bush keeps listening to Grover Norquist, Republicans won't have a government to kick around anymore.

By Ed Kilgore

Table of Contents

"Bipartisanship is another name for date rape."

"We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals-and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship."

-- Grover Norquist

President Bush loves to talk about his favorite foreign policy doctrine of pre-emption, the radical notion that even in the absence of imminent danger the United States should use force against any nation that might pose a threat down the road. What the president won't admit is that his administration has adopted the same doctrine toward government -- and Democrats -- here at home. For conservatives, a government that's not mortgaged to the hilt poses too great a threat of social activism. That's why, in 2001 and again this year, the Bush administration has launched pre-emptive attacks on the national treasury designed to leave the U.S. government so deep in debt it poses no threat to the conservative status quo. Its motto is: Stop government before it can help again.

The Bush White House will not acknowledge the existence of this domestic doctrine. It can't: George W. Bush owes his presidency in large part to the masterful illusion that he was a different kind of Republican from Newt Gingrich. He's even careful to avoid making overt spending cuts in popular programs, lest he give the enemy atrocities to point to.

But one of the leading strategists behind Bush's secret war on government is more than happy to tell the world all about it. His name is Grover Norquist, and he is the nation's leading advocate of "kill the taxes and you kill the government." If pre-emption is the most dangerous idea any president has had since Richard Nixon, Norquist may well be the most dangerous adviser. Perhaps more than anyone else, his growing influence on the Bush agenda helps explain not only the country's current economic woes, but also the long-term threat the new conservatism poses to a prosperous future. More and more, the administration seems to be thinking about taxes just like Norquist -- tax cuts are always good, because they take money from government.

Norquist, leader of libertarian-leaning groups like his unofficial leave-us-alone-coalition and Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), is renowned in Washington as the avatar of scorched-earth tax reduction. He's a hero to so-called "movement conservatives" (people for whom conservatism is religion) because they still see, through Reaganesque lenses, the government as always the enemy, never the solution. Norquist is the man who compared any and all recipients of government funds -- presumably excluding the Defense Department -- to cockroaches. He also famously announced that he and his brethren in the anti-government movement wanted to reduce the federal government to a size so small "that it could be drowned in a bathtub."

All this would make for an interesting, if grotesque, sideshow except for one thing: What once was right-wing braggadocio is now the heart of the Bush agenda. "What this administration is doing, and most people haven't figured it out yet, is an annual tax cut," Norquist recently told The Washington Post.

Thanks to the strength of his conservative network and the weakness of the Bush economic team, Norquist has become, in many respects, the most potent influence on the administration's economic plan. Most presidencies take their economic advice from respected economists or titans of industry. The Bush agenda comes from the fevered brain of a movement ideologue and K Street anarchist. No wonder the economy is going nowhere. It's as if President Clinton had turned over the Treasury Department to Jerry Rubin instead of Bob Rubin.

It says a lot about the direction of the administration that Bush has made Norquist's battle -- a battle to paralyze the domestic functions of the U.S. government by repeatedly cutting taxes -- his own. It did not have to be that way. The irony, and the deception, is that Bush got elected in 2000 by proving, in effect, that he wasn't Gingrich. Norquism is Gingrich by other means. Although Bush embraced the idea of a large tax cut as a presidential candidate, his campaign, and the early rhetoric of his administration, had other themes -- most notably the idea of a "compassionate conservatism" that would address entrenched poverty and other social ills through a revival of civic institutions, and the pledge to "change the tone" in Washington through bipartisanship and long-range vision.

But over the past two years, serial tax cuts have increasingly become the alpha and omega of administration domestic policy. The Bush White House has grown notorious for its highly political nature and a degree of partisanship extreme even by the distorted standards of the 1990s. The spirit of the Bush administration is not that of gentle souls like "compassionate conservatives" Marvin Olasky or John DiIulio. The spirit is that of Norquist -- single-minded; full of passionate hatred of taxes, domestic government, and anyone who benefits from either; and ready to do just about anything to elevate "our team" over "their team." Norquist's notion of bipartisanship, he said in May, is that it "is another name for date rape."

Bitter partisanship. It's appropriate that Norquist, a confidant of White House political guru Karl Rove and impresario for an enormous network of conservative and special-interest lobbyists and advocates, was right out in front of the effort to enact Bush's latest tax cut package. One minute he coerced reluctant corporate lobbyists to "get in line" behind the proposal to make corporate dividends tax-exempt (far down on their wish list). Next he used his state-level contacts, usually devoted to policing state legislatures to oppose any kind of tax increase, to get legislative resolutions passed endorsing the Bush "growth package." Following passage of the president's tax cuts, Norquist explained his state-level strategy to the Denver Post: "We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals -- and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship."

Norquist's current status as perhaps the most important Republican lobbyist stems from a remarkable career spanning the rise of the right over the last quarter-century. His restless political energy has led him into an astonishing number of crusades. He was Ralph Reed's mentor in the College Republicans of the early 1980s and helped turn the group from a mild-mannered frat-boy civic outlet into a savage ideological force on many campuses. He subsequently spent many months as an on-location and Washington advocate for South African-financed anti-Marxist insurgencies in Angola and Mozambique. (At one time, he was well-known in Washington for swaggering around wearing combat fatigues and sporting a bumper sticker that read: "I'd rather be killing Commies.") One of his ongoing enterprises is aimed at relentlessly harassing federal, state, and local officials to name things after Ronald Reagan. He was reportedly a principal author of Gingrich's Contract With America. His famous Wednesday meetings have served as a sort of Comintern for Washington representatives of the right.

Norquist's main project, however, has never changed: his effort to shrink government at every level, especially by making tax cuts an ideological imperative for Republicans. ATR's anti-tax "pledge," foisted on a generation of Republican presidential candidates entering the anti-tax abattoir of the New Hampshire primary, and on candidates for high and low office around the country, is the ultimate source of his power.

It's also the source of his connection with the White House, and his role as a Janus-faced figure in the Bush family saga.

It was Bob Dole's public refusal to sign one of Norquist's no-tax pledges that led to George H.W. Bush's upset win in the 1988 New Hampshire primary, which, in turn, led to Bush's nomination and election. And of course, it was the elder Bush's repudiation of his own no-tax pledge that played a major part in his 1992 defeat.

The decision by Norquist -- along with such old associates as Reed -- to back the younger Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries was a key moment in the reconciliation of the Bush family with the conservative movement, based on the idea that W. might be the biological heir of his father, but the ideological heir of Reagan. Bush fulfilled his side of the deal by making a big, gratuitous tax cut for high earners the centerpiece of his domestic policy during the campaign.

Bush's alliance with Norquist and other figures of the right was solidified during his tough primary rivalry with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who not only opposed a big tax cut, but attacked "our team" -- the conservative coalition of libertarians, business interests, and Christian activists that has dominated the GOP off and on since 1980 -- with an unprecedented directness and savagery. Norquist's own organization, which usually doesn't get involved in campaigns, ran ads attacking McCain and praising Bush.

He sure got his money's worth. Bush's first tax cut proposal was significantly larger than the one unsuccessfully proposed by congressional Republicans in the late 1990s. And just as importantly, the White House has followed a strategy that appears aimed at an almost endless series of new proposals: Make the first package of individual tax cuts temporary to get the maximum cuts into the budget space provided; then make them permanent; then make private investment income tax-free (a big part of the latest proposal); and then, presumably in a second Bush term, go for the corporate tax cuts that the White House's business allies have been waiting for.

Supply-side rationale. The strategy, of course, is not public; nor is its rationale.

In 2001, when the federal government was projecting budget surpluses so large that Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan worried about a premature retirement of the national debt, Bush argued for tax cuts as a rebate of excess revenues. "American taxpayers have been overcharged, and on their behalf I am here to ask for a refund," he memorably said in his first address to Congress.

As the surpluses melted away, the administration switched rationales and began to echo hoary, if discredited, supply-side theories for additional tax cuts to stimulate a flagging economy. Indeed, they still make those arguments, though they were deeply undercut earlier this year when the Republican-controlled Congressional Budget Office finally agreed to conservative demands that it take the economic effect of tax cuts into account and estimated that the president's budget would have virtually no net effect at all.

But privately, another rationale is often cited by conservatives as the genuine motive for serial tax cuts, regardless of the fiscal and economic condition of the country: Tax cuts are good in themselves because they will ultimately force a shrinkage of government -- without the pain or controversy of identifying specific cuts in popular government programs. Limiting government in the long run, moreover, justifies such immediate negative effects as large budget deficits, burgeoning public debt, higher long-term interest rates, and the inability of government to deal with national challenges.

A recent New Yorker profile of Rove suggested another argument for forcing a reduction of government through tax cuts: It would damage the public-service unions that represent a key funding source for Democratic candidates.

This rationale -- once referred to as "starving the beast" by Reagan Budget Director David Stockman -- is obviously one that most Republicans are a bit reluctant to articulate, representing as it does a kind of gutless Gingrichism.

But Norquist has no problem at all talking about it at length. And he has no moral compunctions about failing to identify which domestic programs to cut, because he pretty much hates them all.

Whenever he talks about taxes and government, Norquist sounds little different from the tens of thousands of American libertarians whose intellectual development ended with their first adolescent reading of Atlas Shrugged, and who go through life expressing contempt for the "parasites" who "confiscate" their earnings through taxes. As such, he represents the ultimate Washington role model for countless young libertarian Internet bloggers living with their parents in suburbs all over America. He's the anti-political guy who made it really big in politics. And he's the radical guy who has gained access to genuine mainstream power. All over the country, state legislators fear being singled out by Americans for Tax Reform as champions of higher taxes. In Washington, he's the go-to guy who can instantly put together a national coalition supporting just about any Republican cause, even matters remote from the tax code, such as judicial nominations.

But there's another and more sinister aspect of Norquist's influence in Washington. The GOP's adoption of his stealth libertarianism is influencing Republicans to become morally lax about fiscal and economic policy.

As the country's fiscal situation has deteriorated during the Bush administration, GOP members of Congress seem exhilarated by the realization that short-term fiscal irresponsibility can be justified as a long-term strategy for restraining the size and cost of government -- a much more satisfying rationale for tax cuts than the complex and largely discredited supply-side economic theory.

Conservative Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, exemplifies the trend. "I came to the House as a real deficit hawk, but I am no longer a deficit hawk," he told The Hill newspaper in February. "I'll tell you why. I had to spend the surpluses. Deficits make it easier to say no."

Deficits seem to make a lot of things easier. As University of California economist Brad DeLong observed in the autumn of 2002: "The whole point of the strategy is to do something that makes the country worse off-create a large deficit that slows economic growth, raises the chances of higher inflation in the future, and diminishes the government's capacity to undertake any expensive new initiatives in the future that national security might require -- and then to count on the fact that one's political opponents care more about the well-being of the country than you do to fix the situation."

It's clear the "starve the beast" theory offers Republicans the political equivalent of a bottomless crack pipe. Tax cuts no longer have to be rationalized by any particular theory of economic growth, efficiency, consistency, or fairness. Politicians are free to defend or extend corporate or other narrow tax subsidies; free to target tax cuts to their favored constituencies; and entirely free from the constraints normally supplied by budgetary arithmetic.

In the end, Norquist is perhaps best understood as a symbol for the respectability of extremism in George W. Bush's Republican Party. Whether or not Norquist is leading the charge in the next tax cut drive, its spirit is his.

And the battle hymn for the Bush administration's other war might well be found in well-circulated anecdotes about the anarchist songs Norquist used to teach his protigi Ralph Reed in their early days in Washington, a city that nauseated the young libertarian with its monuments and other "stuff that looks like Albert Speer designed it." Little did Grover and Ralph know the political power they would wield in this city, as they drove around Washington after midnight, windows down and throats afire with the anarchist anthem:

The state conceived in blood and hate
Remains our only foe.
So circle brothers, circle brothers,
Victory is nigh!
Come meet thy fate, destroy the state
And raise black banners high.

Ed Kilgore is policy director of the DLC and a senior editor of Blueprint.

Chicago:

The reason why "only one side gets the blame for not compromising" is BECAUSE REPUBLICANS ADMIT IT! They don't want compromise.

Don't you understand there are spending cuts that will take place AUTOMATICALLY if no agreement is reached, and those cuts will include an 82% cut in defense spending, AND the Bush Tax Cuts will expire.

What Republicans want is to make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, and our answer is a hard NO.

It could be that Republicans are finally beginning to understand that Democrats out smarted them this time. Democrats created a scenario where they knew that Republicans would force "failure" and the Democrats turned that around on the Republicans to mean "success" for the Democrats.

Oh yes, there will be cuts in Defense Spending (among other things), AND there will be an end to the Bush Tax Cuts too!

I think I like that deal.

Insight: Super committee had glimpse of elusive compromise, then she rolled over and said "not tonight you have a headache"

Note, I do not support either corrupt political party. Vote out the incumbents, for true term limits.

I must agree with FedUp (the ortiginal post): members of Congress have become more concerned with proving that their "team" is right and the opposing "team" is wrong than with passing legislation that moves this country forward. And that is why some real overhaul of our Congress is needed! I encourage everyone to check out and support the American Overhaul Act (www.americanoverhaulact.org), including by providing suggestions to the organization on how the Act can be improved. This is an Act that could really go a long way toward correcting the issues that have caused our government to grind to a halt, and it is designed to be an Act of, by, and for the people, so it takes into account the opinions and suggestions of all our citizens who take the time to comment. Truly a great thing!

Political Discipline, not Just Less Pork

by Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

Added to cato.org on December 28, 2004

This article appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer, December 26, 2004.

PRINT PAGE
CITE THIS
Sans Serif
Serif

Share with your friends:

ShareThis

Suppose you think the federal government is a bloated monstrosity in need of a stomach-stapling, extreme makeover. What should be done? Small-government types - free-market conservatives and libertarians - are increasingly at odds on this question.

Tax hawks like Grover Norquist, of Americans for Tax Reform, maintain that we should "starve the beast": create pressure on Congress to reduce spending by cutting the government's intake of taxes and running up deficits. This is the approach prescribed last year by Milton Friedman and Gary Becker, both Nobel Prize-winning free-market economists, in separate Wall Street Journal op-eds. Friedman predicts that "deficits will be an effective... restraint on the spending propensities of the executive branch and the legislature. The public reaction will make that restraint effective."

However, economist William Niskanen, chairman of the Cato Institute (also my employer), has presented econometric evidence that federal spending tends to increase when tax revenues decline, flatly contradicting the starve-the-beast theory. Furthermore, according to William Gale and Brennan Kelly of the Brookings Institution, members of Congress who signed the President's "No New Taxes" pledge were more, not less, likely to vote for spending increases, which is hard to square with the starve-the-beast theory. Starve the beast" is really a conjecture about the psychology of voters and legislators. The idea embodied in Friedman's statement is that mounting deficits will spur voters to choose representatives who will impose fiscal discipline. But why would voters react that way? Will they be worried about deficits causing rising interest rates, or about the prospect that their children will be stuck with a huge bill?

Starve-the-beast advocates might retort that the theory has yet to be tried. Sure, we're running record deficits. Sure, we've had tax cuts. Sure, most Republicans in Congress nevertheless voted for plush increases in education, defense, Medicare and more. And sure, President Bush has never seen a spending bill he wouldn't sign. The reason "starve the beast" has yet to kick in, they say, is that things aren't bad enough yet.

But if the deficit reaches crisis proportions - and it will, quickly, if it continues to grow at the current rate - we should not imagine that the government will rush to contain the crisis by rapidly cutting the fat from government. As George Mason University economist Alex Tabarrok recently argued, "The combination of changing demographics and current tax cuts is seeding our economy for a fiscal 'perfect storm.' When the storm hits, there will be a crisis, and... small government rarely does well in a crisis."

So, given our monumentally huge deficits, and the unsustainability of current policy, should small-government folks give up on further tax cuts, at least for now? That's a harder question than you might think............................................i posted two articles from 2003 and 2004, one from a liberal pov and one from rightwing cato institute. both predicting the current economic crises we are in and why.

President Obama, do you accept any blame for the Super committee's failure?

Obama: "It's not my job to lead"

President Obama, do you accept any blame for the current state of the economy?

Obama: "The economoy is not job"

President Obama, do you accept any blame for the credit rating downgrade?

Obama: "Again this was not in the job description"

President Obama, do you accept any blame for the division of congress?

Obama: "Again this was not in the job description"

President Obama, do you accept any blame for the current out of control goverment spending?

Obama: "It's not my job to lead"

President Obama, do you accept any blame for the failure of Obama Care?

Obama: "It's not my job to lead"

President Obama, do you accept any blame for the failure of the first stimulus to create jobs?

Obama: "It's not my job to make jobs"

President Obama, do you accept any blame for the Fast and the Furious or Solyndra?

Obama: "That was all Bush"

No looking for mister Obama!

We need to Fire All 12. No exceptions.

I'd be ok with that.

On numerous occasions in the last few weeks I've had the opportunity to hear Intelligent OWS organizers debate with Tea Party organizers.

Four times that I can remember.

Each and every time, once they have gone over the details of what they are looking for, they agree 80% on just about everything.

What they vehemently disagree about is the method to get there, the Tea Party is taking the advice which was doled out during the '60's about you have to be in the government to change it, which is what actually happened back then, believe me I was one of those protesters back then. It does work that way.

OWS has the idea, from what they have learned in school that it was the protests themselves that changed everything. It wasn't, the protests were the catalysts of the change, but the change was effected from inside the government process.

Once they learn that what their teachers have taught them is wrong, and they accept the wisdom of the people that have done it before, they WILL join the Tea Party.

This is because they stand for the same things.

You need to ignore the liberal and ultra conservative rhetoric, and learn to really see what is going on. The truth comes not from the left nor the right,

IT IS IN THE MIDDLE!!!!!

No tax increases without MAJOR government cuts, we do not believe the left that if we give them the increases that we will ever see the cuts.

CUTS FIRST, THEN TAX INCREASES!!!!!!

reaching a deficit-cutting agreement to meet its mandate: find at least $1.2 trillion in budget savings over 10 years.

Their job was to make cuts not get wrapped around the axle on issues that weren't in their purview like raising or lowering taxes. They failed.

Staying on subject - and no name calling.

I see a lot of blame being tossed at both sides. The facts, regardless of what the media states, is that the law is set to reduce the debt by $1.3 Trillion. The Super Committee had the opportunity to better define the cuts than those set in the passed law. Without any change, there are tough cuts to many programs. So, if at one time the Republicans even gave a little in the way of revenue through some tax changes - then the outcome would be better than doing nothing. However, the do nothing result turns the focus back to the preset reduction.

Thus the question, why wasn't the opportunity taken when there was any type of tax increase offered? Looks to me like it would have been better than what will happen now? Trying not to pick sides, but ignoring the MSNBC media slant, there might be a little fault with the Democrats on the committee.

Help me understand why there is so much blame when the outcome was decided many months ago?

all the Democrats need to do is agree to spending cuts right NOW followed by increased taxes LATER and the Republicans will go for it.

Or how about vice versa? Start with the increased taxes on millionaires and billionaires, and LATER do spending cuts?

Horseshoes and Hand Granades! Should of, could of, but didn't! Vote these twelve clowns out next election!

"including all six on the debt panel - had signed an anti-tax pledge authored by the powerful Washington conservative Grover Norquist."

Vote them out.

This is nonsense. We need the flexibility to manipulate our currency to temper the recessions, and to calm the booms.

But of course, the Republicans only goal is to remove Obama from the whitehouse. We cant have a muslim, half-black, communist, community organizer in the white house.

That means, they will push for exactly the opposite of what the country needs.

Traitors, the Republicans.

lib50

Regan tried that with Tip O'Neill. The taxes were raised but the cuts never materialized. I believe the same thing happened to Bush1 with Jim Wright. Now you want to do the same thing???

I don't blame the Republicans for NOT going that rout again. They were burned twice.

"Our Democratic friends were never willing to do the entitlement reforms,"

With entitlements scheduled to take virtually every penny of federal revenues in the future, how can you have any debt reduction without tackling that issue? Let's put it into perspective;

What is the REAL problem with the Deficits?

Just for perspective, I looked at President Obama's 2012 Budget projections, and here is what it shows with regard to just the health care entitlements - Medicare/Medicaid;

Total projected Revenues for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years = $2.730 Trillion.
Total projected Costs for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years = $10.530 Trillion.
That's a net Deficit in just the Medicare/Medicaid programs of $7.790 Trillion.

It's interesting to note that the same Budget projections by Obama for the same 10 year period (2012-2021) show a TOTAL Deficit of $7.206 Trillion, so if it were not for the health care Deficits, we would actually show a net SURPLUS of $584 Billion over the next 10 years. These figures include the added cost of Obama's new entitlement for Obamacare. The revenues and spending projected by Obama can be verified at the following White House link - See Table S-3;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf

It's obvious that underfunded Medicare/Medicaid is the REAL problem with the Deficits.

My recommendation – Fully fund Medicare with increased payroll taxes of about $71 per month each for employers & employees, and for Medicaid, a combination of a small deductible ($10 per doctor visit) for Medicaid beneficiaries plus a National Sales Tax of about 3% (excluding food and medicine). These simple changes would fully fund these programs and lead to a Surplus instead of huge Deficits within 10 years.

I welcome any comments.

A wonderful way to do things there Mr. Roy Wilson. Like it. To bad The corporate dickstained phony republican party is polarized to the point of super stupidity, maybe something common sense like your idea could be implemented. The unhonorable bastards will not agree to ANYTHING. Republicans have reached a place where they are more unamerican and more of a threat to our security than muslim radicals. Completely unacceptable. I will argue till death, republicans HAVE ruined and are continueing to ruin our country! Honor has left the party entirely. Obvious.

Raise the taxes on the super wealthy back to where they were before W cut them, THEN talk to me about cutting my mother's medicare and social security benefits.

Yes, raise taxes but on someone else!! I call that "shared sacrifice"! I can tell you are not one of the "wealthy" and have no skin in the game!! Come back to me when you pay your "fair share"!

Actually, I am one of the millions of former upper middle class people who got slammed back to near the poverty line, so go screw yourself. My last 3 jobs have been shipped to India, and all my former company top executives got multi-million dollar bonuses for doing it. I am not in the poor house yet, and I still fit in the income brackets that pay income taxes. But what happens when my current job gets shipped to India? How many jobs are going to be left for US?

Oh, and did I mention I am also a FORMER Republican, and I am pissed off!

I am "pissed off" as well because I pay over $100000/yr in federal income tax and people like you want to increase it!! I had nothing to do with your jobs going overseas! Go after those people, not me! You can raise marginal rates to 100% and you will not harm that group! But I will retire and you will lose the jobs I provide. Tell me how that will help our current situation!!!

And "screw you"!! I normally would not say that to you in this forum but I am simply using your words!

Increase it? How about just put it back to where it was before the Bush tax cuts?? So we can cut taxes for people who EARN half of what YOU pay in taxes! So we can stop bleeding government jobs so fast it eliminates all the new jobs being created! You are your pals are enjoying the lowest tax rates in a century, and I am betting that if you run a company that will die when you retire, it's not much of a company anyway. What, a dozen employees? A hundred? You talk abourt retiring, I had to cash out every retirement account I had just to keep the house from going under... because selling it would have been worse.

Then you accuse ME of not paying MY fair share?

I don't disagree with eliminating the Bush tax cuts. No, not some of them (just on the wealthy) but ALL of them. If they were truly "for the wealthjy" as the left continually states, then eliminating them won't harm anyone else!! I'm sorry for your luck but don't blame your misfortunes on me!!!

I appologize if it seemed like I was blaming you, or really any one person in particular. I agree with you on eliminating all of the Bush tax cuts. It's just not an easy sell in DC these days. I would even gladly send back the $46 I got back. However I also think that cap gains should be taxed at regular income levels, instead of the discounted 15%. I would easily settle for rolling back the tax cuts on people who make over $500,000 a year, with the exception of those people who actually hire new employees during the year. In other words, raise taxes on hedge fund managers, not small business owners who actually are creating jobs. But if you trade other people's money for a living and make over a billion dollars a year as cap gains, I would think you would be OK with being taxed at normal income rates, eh? Just like the rest of us.

See, we are not so far apart!!

No, we are not. However the far left Democrats, and the far right Republicans have signed third party pledges that mean they cannot compromise. Those Democrats will allow no changes to entitlements, and those Republicans will allow no tax increases. Period. The result is a disaster.

1. Obamas policies have destroyed any potential job growth....I'll ask you, where are all the jobs from the first trillion dollar jobs bill he rammed down our throats?

Obamas policies SAVED US. HELLO Scott from FL. What planet are you on? WHERE ARE THE JOBS Republicans! Where are they? You will be VOTED OUT in 2012. People want JOBS, Like MILLIONS of them that were lost because of George W. Bush. Until then, Republicans LIED in 2010 and will be VOTED OUT>>>>>>>>

Both parties have made mistakes. We need to get past the blame game and focus on solutions. This continual partisan bickering is just making things worse.

Gee, what about what Obama said,"A job saved is a job created"

Indy you just like your leader....Attack the opposing side with rhetoric, lies, whatever. Because your base does not care to search out facts...Just blame everyone but your Leader.....And you say he saved us....Specifically what did Obama SAVE? What did he do to save "it"? don't say his first trillion dollar jobs bill....we all know that it was a slush fund for democrats....and we still have no jobs.....When do you think...that's funny...that you will start too see that your fearless leader is a political hack that knows how to slow the economy not grow it.......Tell me his economic accomplishments......spell it out for all of us too read....

WHERE ARE THE JOBS Republicans!

The bills are on Harry Ried's desk, so you will have to ask him.

Obamas policies SAVED US

That is the dumbest thing I have ever read.

Deregulation bills are not job bills, get your fact straight.

Tony1974,

Removing impediments for businesses to operate will make it easier for them to grow - which usually leads to more jobs. So, streamlining regulations can effectively be a jobs bill. Obama obviously realized this when he put some of the new regulations on hold. Clinton definitely realized this when he tasked Gore to work with the Republicans to streamline regulations.

Obviously, we need to be cautious with deregulation because there may be reasons behind certain restrictions, but looking for ways to streamline the process and remove unneeded red tape is something all organizations should always do.

It is alwasy facinating to me how history is rewritten by those who get their "news" from right wing outlets (need I name them?).

The Bush administration created the Troubled Asset Recovery Program (TARP, I may have the word wrong, but that is the acronym) that bailed out the banks with virtually no strings attached. This money was supposed to encourage lending which had dried up due to lack of confidence after Bear Sterns and Lehman Bros. failed. Instead, the banks used the funds to prop up their balance sheets and began robo-signing foreclosures. When Obama took office, additional funds were used to give to states to pay for construction projects (hiring construction workers), police and firefighters, and teachers. Funds were also used to facilitate the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler, but ALL of that money has been paid back, with interest. So has most of the money given to the banks, but only so they could get out from under restrictions on compensation to the so-called "fat cats". Banks are still holding the bag on vast amounts of property in forclosure and are therefore not lending easily, while their cost of funds is lower than it has ever been.

Meanwhile, states and local governments have burned through all the stimulus money granted to them, and are now laying off the teachers, police, and firefighters that kept their jobs thanks to the stimulus funds. This is causing more foreclosures, etc...

What I would like to know is, when will the private sector job creators have enough to start hiring people? There are estimates of multiple trillions of dollars in corporate coffers already. The answer is, never. This is why government spending now is necessary. We also need to put the changes in place to pay down the debt long term, but there is NO other source for the immediate need, which is expenditure with no short term return. Businesses cannot operate that way, but government can and at times must. I am all for long term fiscal discipline, for requirning spending to have a fixed revenue stream, and ending unfunded mandates to states. Right now, we need jobs, and we need a government that can move forward.

Indy in Michigan

President Obama has told us MANY MANY times he was going to focus on jobs. Go ask him where the jobs are. What planet do you live on? George Bush had a very good record on employment during his administration. That is until the democrats took over Congress in 2007. Remember that they ran on "fixing everything that the republicans screwed up". So we gave themn control and we have been sorry ever since. The democrats have failed the country and we will continue the shellacking in 2012. I get so tired of you liberals always saying that the republicans ran on "jobs" in 2010. They ran on getting rid of Obamacare as the number 1 issue.

DonR,

From someone who gets news from right/left/middle sources...

The banks have paid back the TARP money - it's AIG, Fannie/Freddie and GM/Chrysler that have not paid it all back.

The private sector accumulated cash by expanding their businesses and generating more money. Right now things are on hold due to a lack of demand and excessive uncertainty on taxes and regulations. When these uncertainties are removed, businesses will put their money back on the table and we will probably see robust growth again - like we saw in past recoveries.

In theory I also support stimulus spending in an economic downturn, but the problem is, I have zero confidence in our governments ability to productively spend the money - which is why I'm against another stimulus.

"Where are all those Jobs from extending the Bush tax cuts?" - Pissedoffperson

Thanks for giving me my weekly chance to reiterate that this is going exactly as the model predicts for the extension of the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2010. Please refer to my post here (#1.44 from August). Hiring grew as soon as it became apparent that taxes would not be raised, then the hiring leveled off. (Unemployment is down nearly a percentage point in spite of the large job losses of the temporary, make-work, government employees funded by the failed "stimulus".) Once the new hires were comfortable with their new income source, they started spending. The economy grew.

Next up, businesses will feel better about their own situations and another round of hiring will commence. As I noted, all very predictable results of the extension of the Bush tax cuts. That is unless they are threatened with higher taxes again or Europe tanks because the European governments have been acting like we've been acting, only longer.

One should also note that this rise in economic indicators is well after nearly all of the near trillion dollars of failed boondoggle "stimulus" has been spent and government workers are being laid off. We don't need more of that kind of failure. We need more of the freed market success.

So where are those jobs? You simply need to decide to open your eyes because they are right in front of you.

TA-DA...magic jobs...just open your eyes folks. We should let the 19 million unemployed know about this.

Ron-1861300,
I tend to share your skepticisim regarding government spending, but probably for different reasons. In a downturn, the only "bad" spending would be spending that went towards wealth concentration (savings) as opposed to economic activity. Continuing unemployment benefits and block grants to counties (not states) for education and public safety or public works projects would be the fastest way to put the money to work.

Not to be disagreeable, but you are incorrect about the banks. The big ones have paid back, but there are many smaller regional banks that have not. Also, money spent on AIG basically bought the company and went out the door to the banks, so unless something really drastic changes, that is sunk cost of the meltdown. Fannie and Freddie are pseudo-governmental agencies, and the funds given to them are supposedly invested in tangible assets, albeit not worth as much as the note given the market. I am also pretty sure GM is all paid up because they did not want to be "Government Motors". I had thought Chrysler recently paid off to complete their merger with Fiat, but I could be wrong.

I do appreciate the evenly toned response.

James,

Sometimes things in real life are not easy or quick. We have a large hole to dig ourselves out of, and it's going to take time. I'm not a Rep or Dem - they both do some things I like and some I dislike.

I'm also open to realistic ideas on reducing unemployment - if you have any specific ideas, I think it would be useful to state them so they can be debated. But, just stating you don't like the current situation is not good enough - you need to follow those statements with productive solutions.

TO: Pissedoffperson who wrote:

"Where are all those Jobs from extending the Bush tax cuts?"

Republicans never intended to create any "jobs" as that would be against their pledge to force failure on America and the American people.

As we all know, what Republicans were REALLY intent to do was to create "soup lines" of starving Americans, millions of homeless Americans, and even more devastation than we could imagine, all for the purpose of trying to destroy the First Black American President. Fortunately for us, President Obama was able to avoid that happening, no thanks to Republicans who work AGAINST us, not for us.

Republicans couldn't care less about "the American People", Republicans ONLY care about the Top 1% wealthiest people who live in the United States (being "American" is NOT necessary), and Corporations (being an "American corporation" also is NOT necessary).

DonR,

Thanks for the reasoned response. I may be off on the TARP details, but I don't have time to look it up right now and it's not really that high on my list, so I'll take your word for it :).

As to stimulus, I look at the local projects we did with the last stimulus (ex: multi-million $ turtle crossing, and repaving 10 miles of road to fix 3 pot holes), and it just disgusts me. I feel government at all levels is so out of touch now that they need a few actual lean years to refocus their priorities.

It's difficult for me because I think now is exactly when we should be spending on stimulus work to get us through this downturn and set the stage for future growth. But, I have zero confidence government will focus on the "future growth" aspect, and I suspect a large percent of the money will go to friends of politicians with relatively little positive economic benefit for society as a whole.

So, I'm against another stimulus - even though I wholeheartedly support the stimulus concept.

daryl,

Where the @#$@ did the slavery comment came from?

I understand disagreeing with my ideas - that's fine - but why do you feel the need to try and say I'm for slavery?

TO: Ron-1861300 who wrote:

"Tony1974,

Removing impediments for businesses to operate will make it easier for them to grow..."

There were no "impediments" when Bush was in office and losing millions of jobs every month.

All Republicans are doing is re-hasing their old failed policies of the past that led to the destruction of the entire U.S. Economy, and their "My way or the highway, non-compromising approach" is a loser as well.

Furthermore, businesses growing isn't the problem, if you listen to the news, the rich have been getting even richer by more than 30%, the the American Workers' wages have stagnated and it's the American Workers' wages that keep the economy moving and growing, which also leads to more tax revenues to pay down our deficit.

American Girl,

I am absolutely not a Bush fan, but to be fair, unemployment was low during most of Bush's years, before tanking in the end when we entered a recession. The reasons for the recession are debatable - personally, I blame both parties and we the voters for electing people that say they will give us everything and we won't have to pay for it.

I agree a non-compromising approach is bad - but I see this attitude in both parties. They both make offers that intentionally target the most politically sensitive issues with the other party - then they claim to be attempting bipartisanship. Neither party is working for the people or attempting to work with the other party. There are individuals in both parties that are trying to get good things done, but they are in the minority and none of them are in the party leadership positions.

Ron, agreed...both parties were responsible. The Dems and Clinton's HUD for using GSE mandates to force 1 in 3 US mortgages to be high risk and 1 in 6 to be very high risk beginning in the mid '90s (all in the name of "affordable housing") and then the Republicans and Bush for not putting an end that completely insane policy.

American Girl

Your hatred for the right is in full view. You are dead wrong about there being no "impediments" when Bush was in office losing millions of jobs every month. The jobs didn't start going away until late 2007 and 2008. There was one BIG impediment, the democrats controlled Congress. If you are so blind with hatred for republicans that you can't admit the failure of the democrat Congress there is no help for you.

1/20/2013 - the end of an error

TO: Ron-1861300 who wrote:

"American Girl,

I am absolutely not a Bush fan, but to be fair, unemployment was low during most of Bush's years..."

That was only because of the policies put in place by Democrat President Bill Clinton, you know it, I know it, the world knows it.

Neither George W. Bush NOR the Republicans EVER did anything to benefit the American People, which is why they left office with soaring unemployment, and devastating deficits.

The only folks who benefitted from 8 years of the Republican Bush Administration, were the corporations, and specifically the Oil Companies.

Mike in SA

Bush and the Republicans tried to do just what you say. They tried in 2003,2005,2007 and 2008.

But Frank,Dodd,Waters,Clyburn,Meeks,Rangle and other Democrats stopped the efforts.

TO: JH-479998 who wrote:

"American Girl

Your hatred for the right is in full view. You are dead wrong about there being no "impediments" when Bush was in office losing millions of jobs every month. The jobs didn't start going away until late 2007 and 2008..."

Bush was still in office in 2007 and 2008, and again everybody was there and saw John McCain rush to Washington, D.C. because of the Economic Crisis that was in full bloom under the Republican Bush Administration.

Republicans are so partisan, they could care less if what their party does is right or wrong, so long as it's a Republican doing it.

It is very interesting to listen to all of misguided information about TARP and the bailout of banks. Go to the US Treasury website an read the 3yr update of the TARP program. Banks received 245 billion in TARP capital injections of which the Treasury has received 256 billion in returned. AIG and Auto companies have not repaid the allocations of TARP they received. Interestingly enough if you read the report the biggest supposed bailout cost to the taxpayer is almost $46 billion to housing programs for homeowners. It certainly seems that Treasury reports contradict the perception of who got a bailout from tax dollars.

American Girl

You are a typical liberal. You do the same thing that Larry O and Rachel Madcow do, you leave out some important information when you quote someone. Please go back and add to the quote that you attribute to me: "there was one BIG impediment, the democrats controlled Congress" in 2007 and 2008. I know you don't want to believe that the democrats have FAILED in their job of helping the country, but it is a fact.

I sometimes like to quote the highest ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives of the United States of America. I just change a few words.

Progressives/liberals can "go to hell"

Slodon, just as it was Clinton's HUD that unilaterally implemented the GSE mandates that caused the sub-prime bubble and ensuing crash, it was Bush's HUD that kept those mandates in place when he could have had them rescinded. As a conservative, I know that it may have been Clinton's idea, but Bush also went along with it. Because of that, both are to blame for that big government intrusion into the previously well functioning US mortgage market and the collapse that inevitably followed.

Are you blind? Do you really believe the economy toppled because of some 200-300 billion worth of mortgage defaults?

Lies, the economy was brought down by Wall Street de-regulation allowing them to gamble with extremely leveraged multi-trillion dollar gambles called derivatives and credit default swaps. Mortgages were simply what they held up as supposed collateral with AAA ratings from the liars at S&P. As is always the case in crime novels, when a crime has been committed, follow the money. In this argument, Republicks are bought and paid for hacks for their corporate masters.

scott fl

Obamas policies have destroyed any potential job growth....I'll ask you, where are all the jobs from the first trillion dollar jobs bill he rammed down our throats?

You should consider it a success, most of it went to tax cuts.

Progressives/liberals can "go to hell"

We're already there, we've been there for over 30 years...and we'll soon be dragging you in with us.

Pat in SoCal, thank you so much for once again allowing me to completely debunk your misguided theory by documenting how your liberal claim of Bush/deregulation/derivatives being the cause of the financial collapse is again nothing more than a partisan lie. Note that my documentation comes from pre-meltdown sources, before everybody started covering their butts.

Instead of blindly passing rhetoric as truth, you should open your eyes for once and be blaming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or more realistically HUD for their huge role in this starting back to the Clinton HUD in the mid-'90s. It's hard to believe that any intelligent person would still be following the false trail of deregulation, derivatives, and intentionally underhanded banks, but you are a liberal so I guess that explains it.

Derivatives aren't what caused this. While I do agree that that market needs more transparency and oversight, the derivatives themselves were not the problem. A vast majority of the derivatives market was innocuous and still is. The only tiny, miniscule segment that wasn't, was the segment tied to loose lending/underwriting standards advanced by HUD/Fannie/Freddie in their all-out push for "affordable housing". That segment of the derivatives market would have also been innocuous had it not been for HUD/Fannie/Freddie pushing irresponsible underwriting standards and pushing toxic mortgage-backed securities into the market. No BS underwriting standards, no derivatives market collapse. It's as simple as that. Don't believe me? Ask MSNBC.

"When homeowners defaulted, the agencies downgraded billions of dollars of investments at once. That helped spark the financial crisis."

http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=37467621&afid=1

And the first to default were the riskiest mortgage holders before finally extending up to the wealthy. From the New York Times:

"The housing bust that began among the working class in remote subdivisions and quickly progressed to the suburban middle class is striking the upper class in privileged enclaves like this one in Silicon Valley."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/business/economy/09rich.html

Homeowners started defaulting because people who had no business buying houses were in fact buying houses, the market being fed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their attempt to meet HUD mandates from the '90s. Fannie and Freddie were at the core of every aspect of the whole thing from day one (pre-Bush), forced there by HUD. You see, Fannie and Freddie (the GSEs) were given a mandate to drastically raise the number of loans to groups known to be high risk (low and very low income) by Clinton's HUD in the mid-90s. See the page 3 introduction and the bottom of page 5 which explains how Fannie and Freddie did this. Note phrases like "enhanced their product offerings" and "featured underwriting criteria that depart from industry norms and allow for higher risks". This goes back to 1995-1996. http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/lusk/research/pdf/wp_2006-1005.pdf

"In addition, Listokin and Wyly (2000) and Temkin, et al.
(2001) show that the GSEs enhanced their product offerings so as to facilitate more
purchases of loans from targeted communities. These new products often featured
underwriting criteria that depart from industry norms and allow for higher risks."

Table 8 of this next Fannie Mae report (Listokin and Wyly) from 2000 shows what kind of underwriting Fannie and Freddie were promoting. It is virtually a point by point list of the most egregious underwriting "standards" that have been documented and they were in full use and actively advanced by Fannie/Freddie by - at latest - 1998. What you won't see is the names of investment houses and major banks except for B of A. http://foundingbloggers.com/img/grabs/rep_newmortmkts_background.pdf

You see, Fannie and Freddie, until a couple years ago, were not allowed to buy non-conforming loans. To get around this, they worked with non-bank lenders - many of them "mom and pop" shops - to make virtually all loans conform and it was the non-bank lenders (not Wall Street) who originated almost all of the sub-prime loans. If you didn't have a good enough debt-to-income ratio for your loan to conform, a company like Countrywide was allowed to let you claim income that you could not document (liars loan). They would then give you a "conforming" loan with that information (wink-wink) and Fannie/Freddie would gladly buy those loans from Countrywide, package them up, and resell them as mortgage backed securities (MBS) infecting the capital markets, with an implicit guarantee by the government as a government sponsored enterprise (GSE). The new home owner was happy because they could purchase a house that in reality they couldn't afford. Countrywide was happy because they could make boatloads of cash knowing that Fannie/Freddie would always gladly buy their continuous river of junk loans. Fannie/Freddie was happy because they were meeting their HUD mandate, besides almost all the risk was born by the suckers who bought their MBS. In fact Fannie/Freddie kept the lower risk MBS in-house and made sure it was the higher risk ones that were put out to the open market. They were all happy until it collapsed like a house of cards.

Blaming the Countrywides of the world is off base too. If Fannie/Freddie had not created a huge market for those bad loans by buying them all, then Countrywide et al would not have produced them, or would have produced very few of them. Without the GSEs capitalizing the lenders by purchasing the loans, they would have run out of money to loan very quickly.

Now, if you were not a huge entity like Wells Fargo or Chase and the industry titans that are Fannie/Freddie encouraged you to do something, you had better damn well do it or risk non-existance. Did the Countrywides and Norwests make money with it? Yes they did...lots. Would they have been put at a huge competitive disadvantage if they hadn't? Yes they would have. Would it have caused them to ultimately go under or be taken over if they hadn't? Most probably. So yes, when Fannie and Freddie encouraged them to make those loans, the GSEs put a figurative gun to those lenders'/originators' heads.

It wasn't just a few loans either. In the 90s Fannie/Freddie securitized roughly 2/3 of all mortgages, HUD mandates forced Fannie/Freddie to buy the risky loans at a 50% pace by 2000. This means that Fannie/Freddie created a market that demanded that 33% of all loans originated in the whole US mortgage market were necessarily high risk. Not only that but HUD mandates forced Fannie/Freddie to buy "special affordable" loans at a 20% pace by 2000 (and later, a 24% pace). "Special affordable" loans are very high risk loans made to borrowers with income less than 60% of their area's median income. This means that Fannie/Freddie created a market that demanded that nearly one in seven of all loans originated in the entire mortgage market were necessarily these VERY high risk loans. I'll restate, because of the HUD mandate, 1 in 7 of all home loans made were very high risk by 2000.

Hell, Fannie/Freddie didn't just lead the game either, they practically designed the game. They were the ones who created the giant bundling market and they were the ones actively promoting ridiculously lax underwriting standards to meet HUD's mandates. Had they clamped down on those standards instead of promoting them, Countrywide would not have pushed them to their consumers. And Fannie/Freddie pretty much controlled it all. In the late 90s Fannie/Freddie accounted for nearly two-thirds of the capitalization in the MBS market not the banks or investment houses, and they were making gobs of cash doing it. http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Mor-Off/Mortgages-Mortgage-Backed-Securities.html

This continued on through at least fall of 2006 at which time their MBS issuance line of business still were issuing "residential mortgage backed securities (mbs) in amounts that historically have exceeded half of all mbs issued in the United States."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=944912

In total, Fannie and Freddie were tied to over 70% of all mortgage backed securities (toxic assets) in one way or another. They held ~20% of the MBS in their own portfolio and sold (infecting our markets and banking system) over 50% of the rest of them...the most risky, I'll add.

This kind of leads us to the whole "Bush deregulation", "Republican deregulation" fallacy that you guys tend to assert, which again is a gross misrepresentation.

To attempt to solely blame the Republicans for the deregulation surrounding the meltdown is completely ridiculous. Clinton's Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin was pushing Congress to repeal of Glass-Steagall as early as 1995, testifying before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services. http://www.allbusiness.com/government/business-regulations/500983-1.html

"Among Rubin's recommendations for financial modernization were

* Permitting a depository institution insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to affiliate with a securities firm, insurance company or other financial company.

* Repealing section 20 of the Glass-Steagall Act. Section 20 prohibits a bank that is a federal reserve system member from affiliating with a company principally engaged in underwriting or dealing in securities that a national bank cannot underwrite or deal in directly.

* Allowing insured depository institutions to affiliate only with firms that were well capitalized and well managed and had internal controls that adequately managed financial and operational risk, and only if the institutions' safety and soundness were unimpaired.

* Maintaining the Federal Reserve Board's authority to impose consolidated capital standards as a safeguard on bank holding companies whose subsidiary insured depository institutions constitute their principal business."

The Clinton administration's push for deregulation didn't stop there either. In fact in late 1997 and early 1998, Clinton's administration approved the 3-headed merger of Travelers (insurance), Salomon-Smith-Barney (investments), and Citicorp (banking) a full 2 years before it was even legal. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/citicorp-and-travelers-in-155bn-merger-1155012.html That's right, they signed off on the merger over a year and a half before the legislation making it legal even hit the floor for debate!

I can't restate this enough so I'll state it again...the derivatives themselves were not the problem. A vast majority of the derivatives market was innocuous and still is. The only small segment that wasn't was the segment tied to the deliberately loose lending standards I documented above. Those derivatives would have also been innocuous had it not been for HUD/Fannie/Freddie pushing irresponsible underwriting standards and pushing toxic MBS into the market. No BS underwriting standards, no derivatives market collapse. Again, it's as simple as that. We don't have high unemployment right now because of the derivatives market, we have high unemployment right now because of the HOUSING MARKET.

Even if you want to blame the derivatives market, again the lack of derivative regulation can be traced back to Clinton's administration. In fact just in April 2010 Clinton was lamenting this decision, pointing the finger at Robert Rubin and Larry Summers (both served as his Secretary of Treasury) and saying he was misinformed by them. The following is a great read from Lawrence H. Summers (Clinton Treasury Secretary), Alan Greenspan (Clinton Fed Appointee), Arthur Levitt (Clinton Chairman SEC), and William J. Rainer (Clinton Chairman CFTC):

"Specifically, with respect to OTC derivatives, the Working Group is unanimously
recommending:
· An exclusion from the CEA for bilateral transactions between sophisticated
counterparties (other than transactions that involve non-financial commodities
with finite supplies);
· An exclusion from the CEA for electronic trading systems for derivatives,
provided that the systems limit participation to sophisticated counterparties
trading for their own accounts and are not used to trade contracts that involve
non-financial commodities with finite supplies;
· The elimination of impediments in current law to the clearing of OTC derivatives,
together with a requirement that any clearing system for OTC derivatives be
regulated by the CFTC, another federal regulator, or a foreign financial regulator
that satisfies appropriate standards;
· A clarification of the Treasury Amendment that clears the way for the CFTC to
address the problems associated with foreign currency "bucket shops" and
excludes all other transactions in Treasury Amendment products from the CEA,
unless they are conducted on an organized exchange;
· A modification of the exclusive jurisdiction clause of the CEA to provide greater
legal certainty to hybrid instruments; and
· A statutory clarification of the inapplicability of the Shad-Johnson Accord to
hybrid instruments that reference securities."

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/otcact.pdf

Clinton didn't just accept these parameters of derivative deregulation as you can see from the above, Clinton PUSHED for these parameters and these Clinton adminstration parameters were integrated into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CMFA). Please note the "Signed by President" date of Dec. 21st, 2000 and the name William Clinton. You should also note that Republicans at least put up token opposition to it (~25%). Democrats meanwhile only mustered a whole 9 votes in opposition (4.5%) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h106-457

So, the idea that the Republicans somehow pushed bank deregulation and the lack of oversight for the derivatives market on Democrats and the Clinton administration is, again, a blatant fallacy...so you can drop that leftist talking point too.

One other point you guys can drop, that sub-prime lending started it's expansion during the Bush years. I've had multiple liberals try top make the same type of argument as the one below:

"The debt load of sub-prime loans was 9% for F&F up until Bush's deregulation of banking and loans. Then pushed F&F to take on more sub-prime bad loans, during that time the debt load went from 9% in 2000 to 26% in 2006 went it all went bust."

A) As noted above, it was the Clinton administration that deregulated banking and loans.

B) As noted above, it was the Clinton administration HUD that started the push for bad loans.

C) The sub-prime market was virtually non-existent before the HUD mandate in 1995. Sub-prime debt load went from 0% to 9% in the 4 years after that mandate. That it increased at basically the same yearly rate under Bush that it did under Clinton should be no surprise.

Actually sub-primes were quite profitable even back in the '80s, yet financial institutions primarily only used them as bridge loans to tie people over during the process of buying one home and selling another. Outside that construct, they understood that it was high risk/high reward and stayed out of that business. That is until Fannie/Freddie started buying them up as fast as they could. Sub-prime originations were only $35 billion as late as 1994. In 1995 when HUD gave it's mandate and Fannie/Freddie started gobbling up bad loans, that number almost doubled to $65 billion and by 1998, that number was $125 billion. That's not a coincidence.

Plain and simple, Fannie and Freddie were at the core of this meltdown, forced there by HUDs "affordable housing" mandates (home loans to low and very low income people who could afford them). Did the big banks participate? Yes, eventually , but they were merely trying to keep up in the game created by HUD/Fannie/Freddie. This is evidenced by their late entry into the game. However, going back to the original argument, it was the collapse in the sub-prime housing market that led to the downgrade of trillions of dollars of securities and it was over-regulation of the housing market and the "progressive" agenda of affordable housing for all regardless of credit history - not deregulation or derivatives - that caused the collapse of the housing market.

Actually it's hard to believe that -- with the volume of documentation to the contrary -- anybody could still ascribe to your theory. Even Barny Frank eventually had to admit that it was a partisan lie, fabricated merely for its finger-pointing potential.

And where is your information on the total value of defaulted mortgages? Nobody can claim that even 300 billion, although nothing to sneeze at is what is responsible for the downfall of an economy that outputs trillions (even your MSNBC quote only says "helped spark"). The repeal of Glass-Steagall, although some Democrats signed on was substantially a Republican drive. As usual your "conservative" ideology has you blaming low income people for the actions of large lending, "too big to fail" institutions and their excessive gambling. De-regulation is a Republican mantra. You haven't debunked a damn thing only confirmed what vulture capitalism is all about. You have only swallowed the lie your party wants you to believe.

The bill that ultimately "repealed" the Act was brought up in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate

You forgot to mention that Bill Clinton signed it into law.

As I said some Democrats signed onto it.

Pat in SoCal, saying $300 billion in defaulted sub-prime mortgages couldn't cause the credit freeze and resultant crash is like saying the failure of a tiny country like Greece couldn't collapse the Euro and bring down the European Union, yet that's exactly what has had European financial markets gripped in fear for the past 2 years.

That 25% of the sub-prime market had the contagion effect on the rest of the less than prime market that many feared would happen in Europe with Greece. That 25% failure made any asset containing any of the other 75% into worthless toxic assets. And it was much, much more than $300 billion that ended up being written down because of that $300 billion:

"In 2007, the housing bubble burst—there were too many homes available with no one left to buy them, and existing mortgages were going into default and foreclosure at rising rates. Home sales dropped and housing prices crashed, meaning that the value of homes being held as collateral went down. This encouraged homeowners carrying mortgages worth more than the home itself to default, which in turn meant that the asset values of the securities based on those mortgages fell, to the detriment of investors. Furthermore, the massive scale of defaults and the complicated nature of the mortgage-related financial instruments made it difficult to determine the value of these assets once the crisis hit. The safeguards that earned these instruments high credit ratings and lulled investors into a false sense of security no longer offered sufficient protection for investors when defaults occurred on such a huge scale. The global financial crisis resulted in staggering losses. For instance, in April 2009, the International Monetary Fund estimated that banks and other financial institutions would bear US$4.05 trillion in losses." - University of Iowa Center for International Finance and Development

I also find it interesting, Pat, that you managed to copy half the paragraph from Wikipedia (without giving credit I may add), yet somehow completely missed the rest which states:

"The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362–57 (15 not voting)." - Wikipedia

90-8 and 362-57. That sound like more than "some". Funny, it's almost like you're trying to be...well...purposefully less than honest when it comes to this.

"As usual your "conservative" ideology has you blaming low income people for the actions of large lending, "too big to fail" institutions and their excessive gambling." - Pat in SoCal

I'm not blaming "low income people". I'm blaming the politicians who were trying to expand their voter base by telling people who clearly couldn't afford a home that they could and then advanced a facility for those people to borrow, fail, have their home foreclosed on, and go into bankruptcy. That's who I'm blaming. You know...just to be clear.

Can someone explain to me why did we lower taxes to begin with? What was the rational and particularly after 911 when we needed the revenue to fight the wars that were not paid for. Had we stayed the course with the Clinton budgets we'd probably would have elected a Republican in 2008 because they would have been so successful. As for the housing problem, the banks (and I worked for one) were making hand over fist closing bad loans! They had the ability to push back on Fannie and Freedie but the money was too easy to pass up!

This is an amazingly good economy, for the wealthiest 1% of Americans.

James you are a naive MSDNC koolaid drinker....You have no concept of how our economy works...

Scott, whatever. If you had any sense you might say something other than drivel. Do you think the 10 men holding all the hammers can out compete the 10,000?

I have been very successful working within our economy and have no reliance upon ignorant folk for information...Scott.

Spoken like a good little socialist.

canon has more drivel from the garbage pile. Who is the socialist? those wanting to foist the environmental destruction upon society or those who want the oil industry to keep it contained?

To me, saying "get money away from the hoarders" means you want to penalize me for being fiscally conservative. I've always saved - even when I made 10k/year in the Navy. Why should I be penalized for saving? I've never made 100k in a year (doubt I ever will), but I have saved a good bit, and I see no reason why someone should be able to take that away from me.

What we need is to stop living off credit in this country. We've become a country of instant gratification - people don't seem to be able to differentiate between needs and wants anymore. That's fine when it's your money - but when you want to take my money for your wants, that's a problem.

How about this James, in order to get the money away from the horders, get an education, get a job, show up and work hard. Don't expect Uncle Obama to just play Robin Hood and steal the money for you.

I'm going to have to call BS on you guys. The hoarders are the 1% and the corporations and big banks and the financial sector. This small group of people have purchased the government and have been shoveling money from the economy and the treasury since the Glass-Steagle act was trashed.

Canon...I'd bet that most people have a better education than you and work harder than you. Your talking points are nothing.

Ron pretending that a working man's small savings is equivalent to hoarding is a straw dog argument and has no bearing on the fact that the tax code has been set by the rich to provide for the rich. And trying to blame the exodus of our economy on people living on credit is simply wrong. The jobs left because the 1% enabled themselves through the purchase of our government to live off the fat of slave labor in China. When the jobs left, Americans were without means to continue payments to debt.

Ok James,

I will play your game. Yes technically, 10,000 people can get more work done if they each own a hammer. I will not debate that point because it is fact.

BUT what gives the Gvmnt the right to go into someones home, and demand that they give up 9,999 of their hammers and give it to someone else? Stealing someones hammers ( because that is what is boils down to ) and giving ( redistribution ) them to someone else is wrong. Taking 99.9 percent of someones private property seems excessive to me.

I think that is what is wrong with the Democrat Party. They see the people who " have " something, and want to take it away to give to the people who do not have anything. Who gets to decide that all of a sudden, that because I have X I am fine, but if I have X+1 I now have too much and need to be robbed until I am back to X?

James I think most would agree with me...your clueless...I own my company, and have 10 employees. I do know how the economy works. I do know how this administration has slowed the growth of this economy, I see it every day. We laugh at your statements. They are truly naive. I don't care if you don't admit it. We already know where the path you want to take this country leads...We will not follow you into bankruptcy or socialism. Your party was decimated last November...you lost, we don't negotiate with losers......The losers need to follow the winners into prosperity instead of bankruptcy.

James its theirs to hoard they earned it and if they choose no to invest money in Obama economy how can anyone blame them. He is a moron and does not have a clue as how to stabilize it.

As far as my education I paid for my degree in engineering out of my own pocket without a goverment loan or grant. I work hard every day to put food on the table and a roof over my families head. I don't expect had outs from others and certainly don't expect the goverment to pay my way. What I do expect is for them to use a little common sense and realize that the 50% that pay are getting damn tired of paying for the 50% that don't. Such as yourself.

Jeremy, the right given the government is the rights of the people to be the government. If there is a small group of individuals buying our government and stealing our economy we the people , through our government can alter the course to our nations advantage.

Just because a fascist gets control for a minute does not mean he will remain in power. Our government is the people and a consensus will be found.

If the majority thinks the rich should run everything and have all the treasury then it will be that way. I do not think it will end that way however and I speak for the people who are being disadvantaged by the rich.

See James you are wrong..

WHERE in the Constitution does it grant that right... We the people is one thing, but the will of the people does have a limit. its the Constitution.

Jeremy you are correct...The Democrats only tool for survival is to tell their base we are going to take what we can from "them" and give it too you...So don't vote for "them", because they will take from you what we gave you...So here you have a class of dependent people that vote Democrat, not because of the good for country concept....They vote Democrat to enable their dependency.....That's all the Democrats have....They could care less about the folks that make this economy run.....They work to keep more people dependent. Just like why the Democrats are pro union. The more people paying union dues, the more money in Democrat coffers.... Which gives them more power and more to spend on pacifying the liberal democrat voting base..

James you speak for the dumb masses....

Scott, you are nothing but a fool. You think because you have it made then everything is fine and hunky-dorry. Others who have it made do not think that way.

Our economy has been high jacked by thieves, not little fellows like you, but thieves the likes of who can steal 8 billion from right under the nose of our government and never worry about being caught and thieves that can charge whatever they feel like on government contracts because they were given cost plus no bid contacts and thieves that use tax free foundations to employ their entire families and thieves that only pay 15% on capital gains while a working person pays much more.

You claim that there is 50% of people not paying income taxes and pretend that it is their fault that they don't get enough for their work to even support their families. Pay income taxes when you can't even buy food or go to the doctor. You are just so self centered and simple it is too much to think you are even a real person. How many of those people that don't pay taxes are wealthy...these are the bad seeds. It is not the fault of workers who do not recieve the income to make them qualified to pay taxes.

Scott, you hardly speak at all and it is all self centered drivel when you do.

James,

I think everyone will agree some changes are needed to mitigate the impact of undue influence by specific individuals or groups (be they corporations, unions, etc.) - there is always going to be a tricky balance to maintain and it will swing too far in one direction occasionally. However, when you talk about taking from "hoarders", you need to understand that most millionaires are first generation - and got there on less than $200k salaries and/or sacrificed years of their lives and took many risks to get their wealth.

I personally know a number of millionaires, and I would not trade places with them for a minute because I see how hard they have worked and how much they have sacrificed to "make it". They generally worked 80 to 100 hour weeks for decades to achieve their success. The ones I know that made it, also created good paying jobs for hundreds of other people - that is the main benefit they gave to society through their hard work and willingness to take personal risks.

I also know even more non-millionaires that took the same risks and made the same sacrifices, but didn't make it. The ability to "make it" must be there so people will take risks - otherwise nobody will try to make the next Facebook or Microsoft - and then we all lose.

If you want to get a better understanding of the difference between wealth and income, and how wealth is accumulated (i.e.; hoarded), read "The Millionaire Next Door" - it's a very informative book.

If the government liberal dependents continue to vote for Democrats and expect a different outcome they are well, just like you, ignorant of facts and misinformed by MSDNC...They continually vote Democrat and continue to complain how bad life is....It truly is moronic..

You guys sound like our congressional leaders. All this bickering, 0 compromise.

Ron, you too fall into the trap of not understanding who is calling the shots and who are the hoarders. A first generation millionaire is a person who has done well; no one regrets the person who is successful.

The hoarders own this type of millionaire.

James,

If you read my post, I said some changes are needed (that's in my first sentence in 3.17). I do understand there are inequities and I do agree some changes are needed. I do not feel the US is anywhere close to the level of dysfunction that exists in pretty much the rest of the world. But, I'm all for prosecuting those that break the law, and changing laws to make congress adhere to the same insider information (and other laws) that the rest of the population follows. If it were up to me, congress would have to follow these laws, and I would run continual undercover stings and prosecute elected officials that take bribes.

Going back to your post in 3.20, my guess is you have a different definition for "hoarder" than I do. For me, it's someone that accumulates a resource.

What do you mean when you say "hoarder"?

James you are correct. I am not my brothers keeper. I made my own way in the world. Left home at 17 and joined the military, put myself through college, and got a good job without the aid of affirmative action.

So no I don't believe that not earning enough for whatever work people do is an excuse. Work harder, get smarter, strive to better yourself. Instead of expecting the government to hand it to you.

I believe in helping those that cannot help themselves but I be damned if Im going to raise someone elses family just because the SOB is too lazy to work.

@ James Reynolds

Jeremy, the right given the government is the rights of the people to be the government. If there is a small group of individuals buying our government and stealing our economy we the people , through our government can alter the course to our nations advantage.

You mean Obama's campaign bundlers and supporters?

According to lib logic all Problems in the US can contribute to the following items. Any dem or liberal rebuttal or attack will contain a reference to one of the following as the root of their argument.

TEA Party

Bush

GOP

Obstruction

Fox

Rich People

Greed

Grover

As where greed may be the root of evil, there is no greed greater than socialism, wealth redistribution and feeding on the success of others. Dems and libs are narrow minded, rude, arrogant, immoral, fascist, masochist, blind, sheep, being led to slaughter by the very things they hold dear.

What percentage pays taxes? To receive benefits from something which you have not, do not and will not contribute too is theft, unless you are physically and mentally unfit for anything.

The world does not owe you a living Grasshopper!

If our current president is unable to unite and lead the people of our government then maybe he is not the man for the job. He has proved ineffective in dealing with almost every domestic issue he has been faced with. Instead of leading he points the finger and blames.

Libs and Dems, the winter is coming 2013

Take a closer look at Obama's bills, they look awfully Republican. Republican's rejected Obama outright, to get them to listen Obama incorporated many Republican ideas into his bills giving Republican's a reason to reject their own ideas.

The entire political institution is starting to lean to the right, Republican's are Completely up against the right wall climbing over each other to get even further right, while Democrats are heading toward the center. I'm starting to wonder where the center is anymore, somewhere in the red i believe.

Look out cause this can lead to more democrats in office. Centrists start leaning left because the right is looking more and more crazy (I mean stupid) while the left doesn't look as bad.

I'm in a red state and everyone is laughing at the republican cantidates while at the same time frustrated and infuriated for 3 reasons: there are no good republicans to vote for, they are making fools of themselves on television, and.... theres the... crap, I pulled a Perry.

With corporations and wealthy donors openly financing campaigns and with lobbyists purchasing representatives opinion, the representatives actually represent special interests, corporations, and wealthy contributors. They didn't put you into office for free or from the kindness of their heart!

This ammounts to taxation without representation.

They are in office NOT representing the American People! We should collectively SUE the government preventing them from collecting taxes on the basis that it is unconstitutional. A government of the wealthy for the corporations cannot constitutionally tax the individual. Or would they reject our class action lawsuit and force us individually into arbitration?

Instead this government of the wealthy for the corporations is intent on pushing the tax liability onto the individual, away from the wealthy and away from the corporations. You are blind if you think otherwise. 20% or even 18% federal tax is a heafty increase on the middle class, all in the effort of reducing the tax liability on the wealthy (the idea of Cain and Perry). THAT IS CLASS WARFARE. They don't create jobs, they HOARD money, and they want to pass a law to make them even more money.

Instead I'm poor yet somehow greedy because I don't want them taking more of my money????? They are not greedy because they want more of my money????? That doesn't even make sense! How does me paying less taxes and asking wealthy pay more, make me a socialist???? I don't want anyone to get a free ride or a hand out!!!! I just think they have the capacity to pay a higher tax rate. Putting money into the hands of those who are guaranteed to spend it will stimulate the economy, I'm fairly sure that's in the definition... Putting money into the hands of those who already have way too much, they can't spend it fast enough, isn't going to create any more jobs. Not a single rich person looks at their bank statment and says 'crap, I have way too much money, I'd better hire someone quick!' or 'I'd better spend some quick!' That doesn't make any sense!

James, you tried. Some of these people have obviously no intention of learning about economics, they are too busy slurping up the trickle down from the elite.

scott fl

James you are a naive MSDNC koolaid drinker....You have no concept of how our economy works...

You need to check your drink Scott. I submit you have no concept of how our economy works. The foundation of our economy, and in fact, any economy is the law of supply and demand. With the redistribution of wealth over the last 30 years (top 1%-250% growth remaining 99% flat growth) it really doesn't take a genius to understand that demand has been fundamentally destroyed. Without a strong middle-class there IS NO DEMAND! Without demand THERE IS NO ECONOMY!

Let me give an example to those out there that think we should keep our hands off the rich even though they may be taking this country down the path of destruction. Let's say I make $100K a year and go into a store to buy a $3.00 loaf of bread. Now you are a person that makes $1MM a year and you go in to that same store and you buy it for $2.00. That's what's happening in our society today with our tax system and many other benefits that go to the wealthy. So when I pay 35% on my $100K income but you pay 22% on your $1MM income that how it works out in America. Now tell me why you should be able to buy the bread for 33% less than I pay for that bread!

Showed your hand there didn't you Scott. The pipeline is the answer to all. Foolish fellow the pipeline is trivial and is only a pursuit for the rich to gain more while the public cleans up their mess. How does Canadian oil being pumped through the US equate to US self sufficiency? Even the People favoring the pipeline understand that it does not need to go over Nebraska's main water supply. A little rerouting wouldn't hurt anything.

Another point no matter where the Canadian oil finds the coast, it will find the same world market and it will effect supply in the same way. Simply because Canada does not want the pipeline to traverse their delicate lands does not imply it should be routed through the US delicate lands.

Why not build a new processing plant in Canada or North Dakota? Keep the oil contained where better measures could be applied to keeping it safe?

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a ...mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

-Author Unknown

...There are currently 25000 pipelines all over that area...I haven't heard of a problem....

Scott, you should claim authorship, it sounds just like the drivel you expose.

In case you forgot, it was the previous administration that increased the government by 85%, while cutting taxes, making it unaffordable for future. But that of course is more simple truth that you don't like much.

If you say drivel one more time I'm going to slap you...That's a liberals come back to facts...either say it's drivel, or you change the subject....You are so predictable....

Hey, Scott, could you quote your sources? I only found the transcripts for two (2) interviews of president Obama by Charles Gibson and there was never any mention of the capitol gains tax in either one. Based on my research I would make an educated guess that you actually DON'T know "the answer". I am actually pretty sure that you have the question wrong too. Better luck next time and thanks for playing. :)

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/President44/story?id=6795877&page=1

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/charles-gibson-interviews-president-obama-full-transcript/story?id=9345954

Slap yourself already.

Scott...History has also proven that you don't cut taxes while engage in two wars, it has never been done in any society known to mankind except by GWB. History has also proven that even with high taxes the economy grows exponentially case in point Bill Clinton's term where he left with a surplus. History has also taught as that the so-called "trickle down" economics does not happen, it sounds good in theory and looks great on paper but it's a myth yet to be transformed into reality.

Your post trends to have lots of anger, hatred, and rhetoric with false accusations and false claim. Most of your allegation is the same allegation I read at Faux News and no where else. You claim to have a company that employs 10 employees, yet you're mad at the Democrat? It's the Republicans that have been stalling the small business act to help those entrepreneurs with filibusters and fatuous amendments. Furthermore, those so-called "Job" bills are no more than deregulation bills that defunds the EPA.

It's crazy how the majority of the people spills fatuous lies and comments and going against their own good in order to protect the 1%. I have never cared about paying my share of taxes, but if a Warren Buffet pays only 17.4% of his taxes on a +60million earning and the vast majority pays more than 20%...something is wrong. I really don't think he'll miss a few millions as compare to the middle and lower class missing a few hundred or thousands from their paycheck because it's the difference between having enough money for gas or utility let alone the necessity needed for a daily life.

M.Fisher, I'm sure he read that on Faux News somewhere, because most of his claims are nowhere to be found even when google and to think google is the top search engine on the internet. I can even find my own pictures that I never knew existed on google. Yet his claims and allegation can not be verified, I guess it shows you where he gets his information from...Faux News, Limbaugh, and Beck.

It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

So anyone who doesn't think like you lacks common sense and good judgment, etc and so forth, blah blah blah... Nice. So what do you suggest that you and the other people with the monopoly on the aforementioned do about everybody else? Shall all be herded into camps for repatriotization?

daryl,

I'm ok with arresting people for breaking laws and interfering with public access to other people (i.e.; parks, streets, subways, ports, etc.). If there have been other types of arrests proposed, then I'd like to hear the details.

If it starts with cutting spending why did the republicans start with more tax cuts for the wealthy?

I guess the 300 billion they offered wasn't enough, huh. The Democraps think that to cut spending 1.2 Trillion you have to raise taxes by 1.2 trillion.

You leave out the part that the little cuts they offered was conditioned by making Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent.

Just a small white lie eh canon?

Why not make them permanent. Obama agreed to it, right. At least until the whole system can be torn apart and fixed. Such a mandating the everyone pay taxes including the 50 % that don't pay squat. I sure that you are one of the 50% that don't pay taxes just from the way the you demand that those that do support you.

To hell with the hammers analogy. I wish someone gave the Dems at least one calculator.

Look, folks- the 1% already pay 37% of ALL income collected. (Source:IRS). If they doubled what they paid, you would still not make a dent in the deficit.

The reason Republicans are opposing tax increases is because there is no equal sacrifice on the left.

Folks, Social Security and the like are nothing better than a flipping Ponzi scheme. The working generation pays for the benefits of the retired generation and so on- that's how it really works. That's why you earn "credits" and not real dollars. You don't pay "into" Social Security. You pay for someone else's.

When FDR put this plan in place, families were larger. Over time, our population's birthrate has decreased to 1.9- when 2.0 is needed to maintain population. That means we have fewer of the next generation to pay for the retired generation...and analysts called this situation years ago when the Baby Boomers reached retirement age.

Unless we all get a grip and realize that we have to change this Ponzi scheme, we can never raise enough taxes. It's not about class warfare. It's not about protecting the rich. It's about getting fiscally sound in our house.

To hell with the hammers analogy. I wish someone gave the Dems at least one calculator.

Look, folks- the 1% already pay 37% of ALL income collected. (Source:IRS). If they doubled what they paid, you would still not make a dent in the deficit.

The reason Republicans are opposing tax increases is because there is no equal sacrifice on the left.

Folks, Social Security and the like are nothing better than a flipping Ponzi scheme. The working generation pays for the benefits of the retired generation and so on- that's how it really works. That's why you earn "credits" and not real dollars. You don't pay "into" Social Security. You pay for someone else's.

When FDR put this plan in place, families were larger. Over time, our population's birthrate has decreased to 1.9- when 2.0 is needed to maintain population. That means we have fewer of the next generation to pay for the retired generation...and analysts called this situation years ago when the Baby Boomers reached retirement age.

Unless we all get a grip and realize that we have to change this Ponzi scheme, we can never raise enough taxes. It's not about class warfare. It's not about protecting the rich. It's about getting fiscally sound in our house.

To hell with the hammers analogy. I wish someone gave the Dems at least one calculator.

Look, folks- the 1% already pay 37% of ALL income collected. (Source:IRS). If they doubled what they paid, you would still not make a dent in the deficit.

The reason Republicans are opposing tax increases is because there is no equal sacrifice on the left.

Folks, Social Security and the like are nothing better than a flipping Ponzi scheme. The working generation pays for the benefits of the retired generation and so on- that's how it really works. That's why you earn "credits" and not real dollars. You don't pay "into" Social Security. You pay for someone else's.

When FDR put this plan in place, families were larger. Over time, our population's birthrate has decreased to 1.9- when 2.0 is needed to maintain population. That means we have fewer of the next generation to pay for the retired generation...and analysts called this situation years ago when the Baby Boomers reached retirement age.

Unless we all get a grip and realize that we have to change this Ponzi scheme, we can never raise enough taxes. It's not about class warfare. It's not about protecting the rich. It's about getting fiscally sound in our house.

tambo-3087517

To hell with the hammers analogy. I wish someone gave the Dems at least one calculator.

Look, folks- the 1% already pay 37% of ALL income collected.

You sort of forgot to mention that the 1% control 40% of the GNP. Don't look for sympathy from the 99%.

Yes, but raising income tax doesn't effect what they "Control". Most of that money is put in tax free revenue sources. Raise the top rate to 100% and it won't really effect those people. Which is why you often see them pushing for raising taxes. As a result, raising income tax like that mostly hits small businesses.

A better idea, would be to close all those loop holes and tax free revenue sources the super rich take advantage of. Only then would you really effect that 40%. Try that and you'll see the rich, like Warren Buffett, balk.

Wow, all these repulican presidents and congresses and you are shouting decades of tyranny by the left? Please take the crack pipe out of your mouth before you do further damage to self and others.

James believes that we should just immanent domain all of the wealth of the top 1% and give it to the 99% and that will solve all the problems. He also believe that unicorns fart ferry dust, and that Bill didn't inhail.

Isn't that right, Commrade James

“There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.” John Adams

I think if we divide all the money evenly...It would take a year or so and the once rich would be rich again, and the poor would be poor again....The so called rich have the drive to succeed. They will work 18 hour days until their goals are reached... The rich know how to save and the poor know how to spend....The Democrats have done more hurt to the poor by giving them somethingand not expecting anything in return but their vote...Again it is the only way for democraps get votes....How does this ideology help bring people up in class? I say it doesn't, it keeps them right on the plantation...

james-1330058

Wow, all these repulican presidents and congresses and you are shouting decades of tyranny by the left? Please take the crack pipe out of your mouth before you do further damage to self and others.

I'm not a Republican, I'm a libertarian and I can rightly call the Republicans socialist light to the full blown marxists.

Wilson gave us the marxist unconstitutional dept of Labor

FDR staged a coup against the Constitution with his New Deal after the Supreme Court rejected it and he then threatened to add up to 6 additional justices to get his way. SCOTUS then reversed themselves and approved his marxist unconstitutional New Deal which laid the foundation for tyrannical oppressive marxist govt. LBJ expanded it with Medicare and the Great Society marxist programs. Rockefeller liberal Nixon further expanded it with OSHA, EPA, Wage and Price Controls, and ending the Gold Standard (to name a few). Carter gave us the dept's of Energy and Education-both unconstitutional expansions into 10th Amendment state authority. Bush added No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Drug program- both again unconstitutional expansions of the Federal Govt.

I vote 3rd party because the Republicans have historically agreed to full socialism on a slower scale than the rabid marxist Democrats.

Like most Americans and certainly nearly all leftists, you are ignorant of both US history, the Constitution, and the principles of individual liberty vs the tyranny of a massive central govt that the Founders sought to prevent.

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. "
-- James Madison, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention [June 16, 1788]

"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."
-- Thomas Paine

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
-- Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821.

"When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it."
-- The New York Times, in a 1909 editorial opposing the very first income tax

"We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government."
-- James Jackson, First Congress, 1st Annals of Congress, 489

Thank you, Larry!!! People should be taking to the streets alright- not to protest the rich, but to protest a government bent on controlling the populace by systemic threat of their constitutional rights.

People, you have a right to keep what is yours!

The Constitution gives you the right to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness- not a promise that you will be as happy as someone else. Not the promise of a house. Not the promise of college, let alone loan forgiveness. None of that is provided as a right.

The more you give the government to control, the less life and liberty you will have. Is that really what you sheeple want? Then who will you blame?

Daryl, I would argue that Paris Hilton deserves it more. She is a legal citizen.

Yea, teabaggers, I would love it if we could live in the United States as though there were only aprx. 4,000,000,000 people in the whole country as there was in Thomas Jefferson's day. Clean land, air and water were plentiful back then...<sigh>

Now there are 60 times the number of people in the US. I'm thinking that a "wild west" attitude with 250,000,000,000 people would make for a pretty nasty existence. What do you think?

I'm pretty sure that wishing for the happy days of the 17 or 18 hundreds when there were slaves, people died from strep throat and old age was a very unhappy 40 or 50 years old is very appealing to some conservatives and tea party crowd but it's just not very realistic for the 21 century.

I think the rich class realizes that things are naturally going in a more socialist direction and it scares the s**t our of them so they are using all of their economic powers to kick and scream all the way there. In the process they are destroying everything around them. Will the US become a socialist nation? Not any time soon but I would bet money that it will given time...and then I would have to give a good portion of my winnings to the then government, I suppose.

Change is a bitch, isn't it?

All that vitriol because we have a progressive tax code, which simply states that you are free to make whatever you can without exploitation or unfair practices you simply have to pay more tax as you reach ever higher income levels. It worked pretty good during the creation of the middle class during the forties thru the seventies. What we had before then was a few wealthy people controlling everything and their paid for Congress writing ever more benefits for themselves. Nobody is taking away the wealth accumulated by rich individuals they are taxing only the higher yearly income which they received through leveraging the work output of the rest of the people. They did not earn that by much by themselves, period. To the extent they don't pay fair wages, they should not be allowed to keep so much more of the pie of society. Any wages they pay are tax deductable. The taxes paid are small restitution to society from which they have handsomely prospered. Money itself is simply a promise for things from the very same society.

Now taxes are the lowest they have been in sixty years, and do you see a correlation between the state of the union and these lower taxes which are purported to "stimulate the economy"?

The crisis we have was artificially created by the Bush tax cuts (they said to refund the surplus as opposed to retiring the debt), which went to the uber-wealthy, whilst increasing spending exponentially to end up in fiscal crisis they could use to destroy the middle working class and end environmental regulations. You do understand that poisoned people are a hindrance to job creation. Corporations want all the power, and informed people are their worst enemy. They do not have the countrys well being in mind at all and they hate any challenge to their supposed superiority because they control all the wealth.

If you argue that deregulation bills- designed to make business easier- will not produce jobs, then perhaps you can explain how the government can create jobs at all.

Where are the jobs from the TRILLION dollar stimulus?

People are so damn short-sighted. If the rich really wanted to hoard all the money for themselves, then why would they not want to make more? They can make more with additional enterprises- if they can do so economically. Excessive regulations prevent that from happening.

We want the 1% to create our jobs, but then we want them to pay even more than they pay now for social programs that none of them will use. It is just so damn hypocritical that it makes me laugh.

You mean like the "we know how to handle your money better than you do" bills supported by the Dems, right?

The ones where the government takes care of us so we don't have to take care of ourselves.

And if you are going to quote such bills, please state your source. Thanks.

He said he does not want a deal....His plan is too blame someone else.....he's not a leader, he is an attacker....

Scott, even your threat of a slap is drivel. You do realize you are poking a computer keyboard and it is ridicules to threaten someone with drivel while doing so?

Daryl, we are borrowing 43 cents out of very 1.00 we spend.
Go look it up.

Now, if you have that calculator handy, take a look at our deficit of $15 trillion dollars and multiply that by 0.043 to see just how much we would need to collect in "new" taxes to cover the deficit.

If you are smart, and I want to hold out hope that you are, you will see that the rich do not have enough money to cover just what we BORROW...let alone the whole deficit.

We don't have enough rich people in this country to make that happen.

You have to cut spending- hard.

The American people have a choice in 2012: keep gridlock as it is, give total power to Republicans, give total power to Democrats. Note that it takes a minimum of 60 Senators to control the Senate these days. With Supreme Court appointments in the next few years, total power is a good description.

Question: Is the 2012 election about CATHARSIS without regard to any consiquences? Maybe it is.

@Tambo

Awww. Isnt' that cute? The retard tried to convert a % into a decimal. And he almost got it right! It is really hard to move a decimal two places over. And he also confused debt and deficit.

And republicans wonder why we liberals think their "thinking" is muddled.

US 10 year treasury notes are now at less than 2% interest. The world wants to give us money for infrastructure, research, education and invironmental protection. We need such projects to create jobs and to create wealth. Republicans, it seems, want to wait until the world demands 10%+. Its about cutting destructive spending and not about cutting all spending (except, of course, for weapons).

You can't fire the whole government all at once the founding fathers did a good job there in separating the elections. What you can do is shake them up enough to hopefully wake them up that in this, the world is watching you internet age, slave capitalism and selling out to special interests will no longer be tolerated. This is not just the US but many governments of the world, people are waking up. This is the price of the masses getting an education and getting connected like never before in the history of mankind. We live in very interesting times, where the world goes from here is anyone's guess.

M.Fisher

Looks like you missed this one. It is during a Clinton Obama Debate.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4670271&page=18#.Tsv-aFbNkqM

I agree with you, however, Americans have played a very big role in these politicians mind set by not being involved. We are all concerned, and while griping on the web may be satisfying it doesn't do anything to correct the situation unless we gripe to the appropriate people. We DO have a voice as per the latest news concerning the judge who beat his daughter. This news article said that the public expressed such outrage by contacting officials and in such great numbers, that they, "in a rare move," started an investigation. So, there it is; contact your representatives in Congress - let them know that we are fed up with party affiliation first and America second.

Look this up Alex, in late 2006 we almost had a balanced buget, then the dems took over congress and the senate in 2007 and had total control until 2011 and we now see we have $5T in new dept. While I hated the spending bush was doing, he did not spend as much as this president has.

Do you realize that if the dems had kept control after the 2010 elections that obama would have gotten us a TOTAL down grade and we would be already over the cliff and obama would still be blaming every one and every thing except his policies?

And if you really want to talk about the constitution, then you should be looking fro reps to dismantle every thing the feds do that is not on the 18 powers given to it by that same constitution.

Balanced budget in 2006? You call almost 300 billion in the red "almost balanced"? And that does not even count the wars. No wonder we're in trouble.

Balanced budget in 2006? You call almost 300 billion in the red "almost balanced"? And that does not even count the wars. No wonder we're in trouble.

bfitz,

Racist? Please explain. The last I checked Obama's staff is almost entirely filled with white men and women...

Vipp,

He probably believes that idiocy that was spouted before the election, and is STILL clung to by some, that once we get a black man in office, whites will be enslaved, as retribution for 19th century and earlier slavery.

Sadly, I heard of kids in school saying this - no doubt learning it from their parents...

I wonder if bfitz knows that the President is half black and half white?

No, not making a decision is a decision, it's deciding to let the automatic cuts happen.