E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jonathan Ernst / REUTERS file
Harry Reid, center, hasn't ruled out other ways of offsetting the revenue loss caused by the payroll tax cut, if Republicans succeed in blocking the surtax.
Over the next few weeks, Congress faces a sprawling mess of tax and spending decisions, with the likely outcome being an overstuffed pre-Christmas package held together with the legislative equivalent of wrapping tape.
Complain if you will about congressional gridlock, but right before the holidays is often when the gridlock eases because everyone is focused on getting out of town and back to their families.
This week is merely the opening round of the bargaining. The decisive question: What tradeoffs will members of Congress be willing to make as the clock ticks down to the middle of the December?
This week’s action focuses on Senate votes to extend the Social Security payroll tax cut which Congress passed almost exactly one year ago in a similar end-of-year bargaining bazaar. Without the extension, a worker who earns $40,000 would see his or her payroll tax go up by $800 in 2012.
“Republicans know that raising taxes on the middle class is the wrong thing to do,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Tuesday after the weekly strategy luncheon with his Democratic colleagues.
Democratic leaders propose to pay for an expansion of the payroll tax cut with a surtax on incomes over $1 million, an idea Republicans oppose.
On Tuesday, Reid didn’t rule out other ways of offsetting the revenue loss caused by the payroll tax cut, if Republicans succeed in blocking the surtax. “We are going to continue working until we get the payroll tax (cut) extended,” Reid said.
Reid also didn’t rule out simply passing the tax cut without any offsetting revenue raiser. “Let’s see what happens on this (surtax vote),” he said.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) lays the reasons why he thinks "we have a good chance of actually getting a good package for deficit reduction in 2012."
Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl said Sunday that the payroll tax cut “has not stimulated job creation.” But on Tuesday two other Republicans from opposite ends of their party’s ideological spectrum indicated they weren’t opposed to the payroll tax cut.
“I don't like toying with taxes the way we are doing,” said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. But he added, “I just don't think it's a good time to increase any taxes, so we're looking for a way to pay for it.”
And Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, voiced support for extending the tax cut, but wasn’t too enthusiastic about it. “What I've heard from employers is that a one-year policy isn’t going to be sufficient” to create sustainable employment, she told reporters. The payroll tax cut is “a short-term measure that’s not going to achieve the long term results … We should be doing more long-term policy of fundamental structural (tax) reforms … .” But despite talk of the long term, Congress now seems able only to legislate for a year at a time.
Senate staffers on both sides of the aisle indicated that the payroll tax cut extension will probably pass, after some theatrics, assuming some revenue offset is found.
The other must-pass contents of the end-of-year package that Reid mentioned Tuesday included:
1. An extension of emergency unemployment insurance benefits which currently provide up to 53 weeks of additional money after the regular 26 weeks of state payments have been exhausted. Of the dozen policy options, including the payroll tax cut, which Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf examined in his Nov. 15 testimony to the Senate Budget Committee, extending unemployment benefits was the most cost-effective way of creating additional employment. That might sound paradoxical, but he said, “Households receiving unemployment benefits tend to spend the additional benefits quickly, making this option both timely and cost-effective in spurring demand for goods and services, and thereby economic activity and employment.”
2. The postponement of the scheduled 29 percent cut in payments to doctors serving Medicare patients. The cut in payments to doctors is a result of the 1997 budget law, which attempted to restrain Medicare spending. But each year since 2003, Congress has overridden the reduction in payments and allowed the postponed reductions to accumulate. So if Congress fails to act, doctors next year will see a sharp cut in what they get paid for treating Medicare patients
3. The extension of at least some of the 53 tax credits and preferences which Congress created or preserved last December. The platter of tax breaks includes something for almost all tastes: the deduction of state and local sales taxes, which is worth about $2.8 billion to taxpayers who itemize, the economic development credit for American Samoa, worth about $15 million, a tax break for mine safety equipment, worth about $20 million, and many others.
With the holiday break approaching, Congress still has plenty on its plate including avoiding big pay reductions for Medicare doctors and avoiding another government shutdown. NBC's Luke Russert reports.
Almost certain to be in the final package is a “patch,” or one-year adjustment, of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which will otherwise hit upper-middle class people who have lots of deductions. The current AMT “patch” is providing about $136 billion of tax relief, according to the Joint Congressional Committee on Taxation.
The vehicle for all this is likely to be a bill providing funding for the agencies and departments for which Congress hasn't yet passed annual appropriations bills. The current funding runs out on Dec. 16 but Congress could pass a stopgap extension and then a longer-term one before it adjourns for the year.
If the package does pass, the budget deficit in the current fiscal year may not be any smaller – and depending on economic growth, may be bigger than the Fiscal Year 2011 deficit of 8.7 percent of Gross Domestic Product . Despite the attempt to “pay for” the payroll tax cut with some offsetting revenue, the other elements in the package are all revenue losers
Leave a Comment:
Heere's PINKY! Spend that munny, Bozo!
Sheeeesh, just get Pelosi in on the "back room grand deal" to pass more spending. After all, she will find a way to "PAY AS YOU GO":
Nah, she should follow Mr. Frankie out the back door.
Notice that Congresswoman Murray on the right side of the picture. That is really nice of her to show up.....since she did such a wonderful job on the Super 12 Ring Circus Committee in reducing our National Debt/Deficit. Applause, applause, applause.
15 Trillion in debt and Democrats want to spend more to " help the poor" . Obama went to EU to demand to tight their belt while here at home spending has no limit. Base on the CBO Democrat Stimulus I , was a failure did not create job. The failure of the Supercommitte another failure in which POTUS stay away from negotiations. Democrats do not want to create jobs in private sector and oppose any measure to reduce taxes and eliminate some of the extreme regulations that cut jobs, they want only in public sector jobs because that is their base. They want pick and choose who will be the winners and looser giving money to green industries that will go to bankruptcy. The rhetoric that cutting budget we'll fire police , teacher , nurses is another fallacy , because there are many other institutions where the government can cut resources, without affecting the police, teachers and nurses , beside all the waste in the whole administration. The class warfare use for populist purpose is contributing to disagreements in congress.
Oh, they're actually going to try and accomplish something! Of course they'll work to save the top 3% and big corporations their fair share at the expense of the consumer! Of course, they'll be bombarded till then to make backroom deals and by the many lobbyists that have bought Washington, over the next couple weeks. It's nice to see that they're so concerned about getting home for the holidays, when A LOT of Americans are trying to figure out what they are going to tell their children when there is nothing under the Christmas tree for them, or why they are going hungry because mom and dad can't find jobs, or why they're living in their car/truck because they lost their home. Congress has no grasp on the reality and seriousness of what is happening in this country, it's all about their own personal greed. So, until they start making changes to tax laws and close the exemptions and loop holes the rich are using, it will be more spending and a bigger deficit. A friend of mine started a web site and is discussing things that are wrong in the country and trying to build a voice for the people. He asks that everyone take a little time look at it, it could prove interesting and insightful for you I've enjoyed reading it, the site is: FREEDOMISNTFREE2012 dot com
Wish I could work for 2 weeks out of the year and make +150k salary.
Obama's policies have worked, but are not enough, and he won't get help from the blocking, stalling and obstructing Republicans.
Here are the graphs: Bush increased spending 88% and Obama just 7.2%. Deficits were going up with Bush and going down with Obama. The last chart shows that the stimulus worked. It created of saved about 1.5 million jobs.
http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011083428/three-charts-email-your-right-wing-brother-law
And of course they are preparing for the festivities , parties and presents that they DON'T DESERVE, courtesy of We the people.
You know I read these comments day after day and it's always the same thing republicans bashing democrats and vice-verse. This is exactly what these politicians count on. Politicians will say and do whatever they have to, to get elected. They count on the voter that says I'm a republican or I'm a democrat and goes in the voting booth and votes that way right down the line without knowing anything about the person or what they say, they represent. You can see this in our history, as the platforms of the republican and democratic parties are completely switched from what they were 150 years ago. Perhaps it's time we take a little advice from more than 200 years ago.
“Let us trust God, and our better judgment to set us right hereafter. United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs.”
Patrick Henry, 1799
Bush's "Fed" gave banks $8,000,000,000,000 in addition to the $800,000,000,000 under his TARP, and the Party of No and Baggers complain?!
Tax cuts do not need offsetting spending cuts. The Republicans have stated emphatically and often that cutting taxes INCREASES government revenue. That is how the 2001-2003 tax cuts were justified. The Republicans will cite numbers, charts, data and the Laffer curve to PROVE that tax cuts increase government revenue. Republicans calling for offsetting spending cuts in exchange for a tax cut is quite simply obstructionist politics - or - the Republicans have lied to justify cutting taxes. Which is it?
The Republicans have stated emphatically and often that the government does not create jobs. Jon Kyl is stating that the payroll tax holiday has not created jobs. Olympia Snowe has stated that any jobs that may have been created by the payroll tax holiday were only temporary. The Republicans have endorsed the fact that tax cuts do not create jobs. If tax cuts for workers do not create jobs - why would maintaining tax cuts for 'job creators' do any better?
Maybe the Democrats are trying to expand government - maybe not. But it is clear the Republicans are definitely working to expand the culture of 'too big to fail' entitlement. The Republicans are simply working toward a high class welfare state ...
The Republicon Congress is preparing for the Big End of Year Screw to the People.
The Scrooge before the ghosts would seem too generous!
I'm guessing it's a last ditch effort to run their approval rating into the single digits.
Never Stop Asking Questions, party line rhetoric much?
Hey guys, let's not go off the deep end with faulty information! Remember, the last 3 GOP presidents signed TWENTY deficit riddled budgets that added over $11T to the debt AND saddled Pres. Obama with a $1.3T deficit even BEFORE he was sworn in.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
They were following a plan initiated under reagan to "starve the beast"--- that is, mortgage the government to the hilt so they could privatize SS and Medicare.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/tax-cuts-republicans-starve-the-beast-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html <== Conservative republican
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/28/999759/-Hardball:-Bruce-Bartlett-desroys-every-Republican-fiscal-talking-point-in-5-minutes-
Transcript /video of the same guy, a former reagan and bush jr official!!
So, you remember that OK?? Cuz the cat's out of the bag opened by none other than one of the people who was there and a TRUE conservative! So much for the big spending DEMs eh??? The facts are this is a GOP created debt crisis, which was DELIBERATE, and millions and millions of Americans now know it! ( and no, these presidents didnt always have a DEM Congress--far from it)
Obama saddles himself with debt
Eric you are nothing but a tool.....Obama's policies have made a bad situation worse and at a very high price. Thank God we got some true conservatives into the house in 2010 or the liberals would still be on a drunken spending spree....Enough is enough.....
The GOP controlled House of Representatives may as well go home and stay there until their voted out of office in 2012. They haven’t accomplished a damn thing since they conned an uninformed electorate into voting for them in 2010. When will people learn; REPUBLICANS ARE CORPORATE SHILLS AND DO NOT KNOW HOW TO GOVERN !!!!!
Deb: If you subtract the $1.3T deficit that bush left to Obama from Obama's 2 fiscal years, what do you get in terms of debt? That deficit didnt go away like magic did it??
Obama saddles himself with debt
People who think Obama started with a clean slate crack me up. Bush bought two houses, a new car, quit his job, and then handed mortgages car loan over to Obama. Wake up! You've been watching too much Limbag.
Congress first needs to pass a budget for FY 2012. Remember that our President promised the American people that the 2012 federal deficit will not exceed 229.27 billion dollars. To do that the federal government will have to spend more than 1 trillion dollars less in 2012 than it did in 2011. The congress, especially the Democrats need to support the President and his promises to the American people. The President also said that taxes should not be raised during a recession. So in support of the President the congress needs to pass a budget for 2012 that does not raise taxes and that restricts the Federal deficit to not more than 229.27 billion dollars.
Tom in NH - I agree with you that the republicans have a big share of the blame for the fiscal mess we are in. I just don't understand how you can advocate voting for the party that is for even more spending while railing at the spending already done. I'm sure you have railed against the tea party members as well for trying to stop spending increases from either party. Can't have it both ways. Can't point out republican spending as wrong and then advocate for those who would spend even more.
I can't remember did the GOP offset the Bush tax cuts?
Remember when Reagan promised to lower the debt more than any other president? And then he raised it more than any other president? Or when Bush promised the "biggest debt reduction in recent times" and managed to beat Reagan's record?
Social Security is going broke so we cut it's income in half. Then we give even more back in the form of the earned income credit.
HUH???
They will replace this with a 3% tax on the rich. BULL!
Just ain't enough people making over a million for this to work.
CLASS WARFARE IS ALL THIS IS!
Mr. Anon, neither Bush nor Regan are currently in office. Past politicians not keeping their promises is no excuse for current office holders to not keep theirs. I want what our President promised the American people.
john r..... the reason the Obama deficits are so big is that he INHERITED a $1.3T deficit from BUSH!!! It didnt go away. It is affecting busgets and deficits. Budgets arent a zero sum game. So when people talk about an "obama spending spree", they HAVE to take into account the spending obligations that the bush deficit imposes. IF you were to subtract that $1.3T deficits of the last 2 years, what would the deficit be?? We KNOW the President, in a time of economic crisis, for a stimulus package passed and another bail out bill. But what OTHER major spending has occurred. In addition to that, interest on debt has skyrocketed because of the bush deficits!
Why would ANYONE want to vote for a party that did all this DELIBERATELY just so they could privatize SS and Medicare??? Do you expect that Republicans will get us out of the mess they put us in until they've accomplished their goals??? ??? They havent in 30 years. As it is, they're obstructing everything that would cut the budget, address the deficit and debt, improve the economy and create jobs! Hell, they want ANOTHER tax cut for the rich, lowering the top rate down to 28% PLUS making the bush tax cuts permanent.
I favor re-electing Obama, giving him a GOP-proof congress, and let them get to the business of cutting spending substantially, increase revenues substantially from the rich and try to get the economy and jobs picture to improve. We've been in gridlock for FIVE YEARS!!! Enough is enough! And if the Dems dont start doing what they need to do for the country, fire their asses too and get some independents to replace them.
But please, let's NOT let the foxes loose in the chicken coop and pen after they already eaten SO MANY CHICKENS!!
OK, keep blaming it on Bush!! When does it become Obama's problem!!?? They ( the Dems) will never cut "spending substantially"!!!! They only want to increase taxes (but only on the group that already pays over 50% of individual federal income taxes!! A "GOP-proof congress" will only lead to more spending (only on the group that already pays more than 50% of individual federal income taxes!!!
The republicans sit there and say "the tax cuts" are not helping to stimulate jobs... If that's the case, then what is YOUR plan to create jobs? Hasn't congress controlled the house of representatives for over two years? That's right, there isn't one. They are to focused on tearing apart the democrat's plan to come up with their own.
Obama will never take responsibility for his failed leadership because the lap dog media says he does not have to
Obama has been in charge for about 35 months now, and what do we have to show for it?
Unemployment is about 20% higher than when he took office, and there are now about 6 million fewer people working than the average for 2008 (Bush's last year).
The Deficits for his first 3 years are twice as much as Bush's Deficits for all of his 8 years.
The economy (Gross Domestic Product) has increased only about 3% under Obama, vs over 44% under Bush.
He was elected to make things better, but it has gotten far worse.
How can ANYONE think he deserves another 4 years?
The problem is Republican ideology. Their ideology is what got us in this mess...not Democrat or Obama spending. Bush tax cuts add over 400 billion a year to the deficit alone. It's insanity to defend this kind of Republican policy. Social spending is not going away no matter what someone tells you. What we can do is the right thing in the first place, which is make the tax system fair and universal healthcare. Then we won't need to spend so much money on the poor, because there will be less poor. There will be less sick people without health insurance using your tax money to pay for it.
ItsAboutTime-3704531 "Hasn't congress controlled the house of representatives for over two years?"
Did you sleep during your Civics Class?
The House of Representatives is one of two houses of Congress - the other being the Senate. Democrats controlled both over the previous 4 years, including the two years before the financial meltdown at the end of 2008.
Eric-913730 "Here are the graphs: Bush increased spending 88% and Obama just 7.2%."
Same old biased charts. It conveniently tries to 'Blame Bush' for the $600 Billion of increased spending for 2009, when Bush only authorized spending for 2009 at the same level as in 2008.
ALL of the increased spending for 2009 was because of Obama and his $860 Billion 'Stimulus Bill' and 'Porhulus Bill', which Bush had nothing to do with.
On September 30, 2008, Bush authorized a continuing resolution AT 2008 SPENDING LEVELS ONLY for 2009, which carried the government until after Obama took office, at which time Obama dramatically increased spending.
Your 'chart' tries to blame Bush for spending he had no control over and was authorized by Obama.
Try doing some 'Fact Checking' before you blindly use biased sources.
Chop that bloated ass defense budget and let the tax cuts expire. Put a little extra tax bill in the top earners stockings for the Holidays--a mere 78% of Americans believe that should happen--listen to the people!
Heya folks.....Did you notice ?
GREECE RECEIVED ANOTHER BAIL-OUT (installment of $ 10,500,000,000 of a promised $ 150,000,000,000) by the Eurozone PIIgs and the IMF (the United States is the largest contributor to the IMF in the way of REQUIRED SHARES).
I wonder how much taxpayer dollars Mr. TurboTax Geithner gave to the IMF this time, and if the funding will appear as a NEGATIVE on the U.S. debt chart.
Further, I wonder if Prince Reid, and his cohorts in crime, is aware of this bailout since the report was embedded in never never land on Yahoo AND NOT ON MSNBC:
ROY WILSON-336103: said:
Obama has been in charge for about 35 months now, and what do we have to show for it?
Unemployment is about 20% higher than when he took office, and there are now about 6 million fewer people working than the average for 2008 (Bush's last year).
The Deficits for his first 3 years are twice as much as Bush's Deficits for all of his 8 years.
The economy (Gross Domestic Product) has increased only about 3% under Obama, vs over 44% under Bush.
He was elected to make things better, but it has gotten far worse.
How can ANYONE think he deserves another 4 years?
Let's see... The banking industry ran rapid with HIGH risk loans that went un-regulated and un-checked during BUSH's years... and it collapsed after bush left office. Hmm.,,
Bush borrowed over 1 TRILLION dollars to fight a war in Iraq all under a LIE for the pretense of weapons of mass destruction. Where were they?? That's right, they didn't exist. What does America have to show for it? Can you show us with your vast knowledge what gain the United States has from this? Oh wait, that's right, the big defense contracts that kick back $$ to the Republican Party.
Bush failed to help the victims of Katrina. He sat in the oval office and had more than enough time to react to the crisis before it even hit.
Oh and didn't BUSH send all American's a TAX rebate during his first four years in office? Shouldn't he have USED that money to pay the deficit? NO he postured for the american people and tried to be the good guy.
What did bush do to help STOP the high cost of medical care? Oh that's right, he made it so you could NOT negotiate the price of drugs with companies... No wonder Americans have to go to other countries to buy their medication
Where are you finding these facts about unemployment and deficits? Did you just copy this from Faux news and paste it here? Please show us from your extensive knowledge just where these facts came from. According to the NEW YORK TIMES: Your Messiah BUSH: increase the national debt 27.8%!!! Obama has only increased it 15%.
Oh, and I have a BA in political science. I am quite aware of their being TWO houses in Congress. The Republicans controlled CONGRESS during bush's 4 years in the white house. We are still trying to undo the damage they put in place.
Once again, what have the Republicans done to CREATE Jobs in the last 2 years?? Absolutely NOTHING. They are more interested in making pizza a vegetable....
The dems may not do everything right, but they are the right party to turn this country around.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Ah yes, another self-imposed crisis by our incompetent useless Congress.
So, just WHAT have the rest of the 523 useless idiots in Congress been doing for the last 3 months since the Dirty Dozen on the “Stupid
SuperCommittee" was wasting everyone’s time and money deciding not to decide on anything? Did they all just sit around for the past 3 months and wring their hands HOPING anything associated with a "committee" would CHANGE? Everyone on the planet knew another committee was never going to fix anything.Why hasn't the desperation we will be exposed to for the next 32 days been dealt with in September or October? I'll tell you why. The typical manipulation of the illiterate American public will be thrown down on us again as they wait until the last minute to address these simple issues. Of course, the posturing on both sides will be fierce. The Right vs. the Left. The deficit hawks vs. the spenders. The Conservatives vs. the Liberals. Of course the TEA Party will be blamed in typical delusional fashion. Maybe the useful idiots in the OWS mob can be blamed this time too. Their weak little gnarled fingers will be pointing in all directions but not at themselves. The polls will determine their structured announcements as times ticks down. In the end some fictitious solution will be agreed on with fresh promises of savings at some undetermined time in the future.
Just like always.
In the meantime $15, 063,148,007,673,,,$15,063,149,941,740,,,$15,063,150,870,532,,,
Read it and weep my fellow Americans, the Debt has, is and will continue to grow.
Further downgrades?
You betchya.
And of course they will be everyone but our elected criminals in the House and Senate's fault.
America, meet Greece. Greece, meet America.
It's science.
As said by several others, the back and forth finger pointing that our Congress members are doing in this article, and indeed that numerous posters are doing in these comments, only illustrates one of the main problems: the Republicans and Democrats have been in power far too long, have become far too entrenched in our governmental system, and have become far too controlling of individual members of our government. Our government was never intended to be a two party system! Further, because of the constant need for reelection and the manner in which election campaigns are financed, our elected representatives have become far too focused on the desires of their "team" (i.e., party) and on the desires of a few large organizations that contribute to their campaigns as opposed to the constituents who they are supposed to be representing. The American Overhaul Act sets forth a comprehensive, and non-partisan, package of proposed Constitutional amendments that are designed to correct these governmental defects. I urge everyone to check it out at www.americanoverhaulact.org, and, if you agree with the proposals, show your support and spread the word!
ldo
It doesn't matter.
The real news, that was also hidden nicely from everyone today, is that Bank of America, its Merrill Lynch unit, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup Inc., and Morgan Stanley had their long-term credit grades cut to A- from A at S&P. JPMorgan Chase & Co. was reduced to A from A+. The ratings company also downgraded UBS AG and Barclays Plc to A from A+ and cut HSBC Holdings Plc to A+ from AA-.
The futures markets are already collapsing after our little Black Friday spend-a-thon hiccup.
More ominously, S&P upgraded Bank of China Ltd. and China Construction Bank Corp. to A from A-.
The EU will collapse, it has to. This token infusion was just more political posturing to get the economies through the holidays and maybe through the 2012 elections. There is no economic engine left anywhere to resurrect the global economies. When you have the two biggest economies, the EU and the USA, collapsing under their massive debts there is no amount of capital infusion on the planet to fix this Armageddon.
Hopefully everyone enjoyed their little spending burst this past weekend, the chances of that happening again over the next few years seems dubious at best.
Overhaul America
I read the overhaul act last month. The six amendments they propose are gallant attempts at fixing some of our problems, unfortunately there is one big problem.
They're amendments.
Considering our current rabble of 535 criminals in Congress the chances of this happening are non-existant.
Besides, if our elected officials actually were Constitutional Originalists none of these amendments would be necessary. Our great Constitution has been so bastardized over the past 100 years the only solution is to replace our government with people who understand it, the Declaration and Federalist Papers and are willing to return our government to its Enumerated Powers.
Good luck with that wet-dream.
So hold on, you admit that you have higher expectations for Obama than other presidents?
On topic, I honestly don't think the deficits should be handled until after the economy is under control. Let's look at the Great Depression. No matter how you view things, it was spending that got us out (whether in the New Deal or WWII mass production). In 1945 the dept was at the highest it has ever been, at 120% of the GDP. This was dealt with over time, and by Reagan it was back to its pre-Depression height, at about 30%. After unemployment is under control, we can create plans to handle the debt over time, but for now, this turbulence between budget cutting and spending increases has caused the economy to stay static.
Remember, a $15 trillion debt is meaningless; a 101% of the GDP debt is not. Also remember much of Obama's debt is a result of interest from Reagan/Bush's debt and the Bush Tax Cuts/ War Spending. The remainder is because of the recession.
Dems had total control of all 3 branches of govt for 2 full years. What did they do with it?? Passed a healthcare bill that no one who voted actually knew what was in it thus spending trillions on a bloated entitlement. No budget passed for both years, just think if they were serious about taxing the rich by golly they could have done it in 2 years. By not passing a budget they didn't have to add up the cost of the party they were having for the entire 2 years then after they lose the House they have the gall to say the republicans are protecting the "rich". I call BS on the whole thing.
Such a statement is misleading. The Republicans had the power to block congress, since the Democrats never had 60 votes.
ItsAboutTime-3704531 "Where are you finding these facts about unemployment and deficits?"
I typically use only reliable GOVERNMENT sites.
For Employment figures, the average employment for Bush's last year (2008) was 145,362,000.
For 2010, the average employment was 139,064,000, for a LOSS of 6,298,000 under Obama. Here's the link to the government's Bureau of Labor Statistics - just look under Employed - Total for 2008 and 2010;
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf
For Deficits, the total Deficits for Bush's 8 years were $2.006 Trillion, and for Obama's first 3 years, it is $3.986 Trillion (2011 est = $1.280 Trillion, not Obama's projection of $1.645 Trillion). The link to Obama's own White House site to verify this is;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals See Table 1.3
I trust that this answers your question.
lol
Mr. Anon. I do not care about anyone else. I want what the President has promised the American people.
I think that our real problem is a matter of balance of payments. Both Democrat and Republican administrations have been trying to inject more money into the economy but it has not been working. The more money is suppose to create more demand for goods and services which in turn creates more jobs which in turn increases money flow in the economy. But because so much of the goods and services are produced in foriegn countries, the money is flowing out of the economy. The balance of payments problem needs to be solved before the economy will be able to recover.
During WWII we became the industrial hub of the free world. We were not buying products that were being produced by countries being devastated by war.
I do not see a lot of economic analysis being performed. Our government leaders seem to be guessing solutions which are not working and just making the situation worse. It has been the case under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
i dont suppose there are any super rich americans willing to give congress stock options/bribes to do whats best for america.anyone?
FreedomRingsLoud,
Fantastic post! Pretty much sums it up.
The truly sad part is that nothing is going to change. The blame game will continue while the politicians continue to enrich themselves and their cronies.
America, this is the government you wanted and voted for, both parties and all citizens are to blame.
When you really look at the waste in government, the arrogance of the elected officials and their appointees, the wealth accumulated by many of the elected officials and their friends, we the people are busy picking sides, blaming the other party, or the rich or the poor, but the real problem is with society as a whole. It's a lack of responsibility, a lack of morals and a general laziness.
Good bye America, it was nice knowing you.
If tax cuts haven't created any jobs, why are the republicans dead set on giving tax cuts to the rich? I thought that was their talking point.
The GOP Tea-Retards in Congress are embracing the Koch cult for the Holidays !!!!!!!
If they want to stimulate job creation Congress should pass a budget, do away with all the temporary crap and then get out of town and back to their families for the holiday. Employers will not hire if they don’t know what the rules are day to day so Congress should stay out of town until next Thanksgiving and then go back and pass another budget. You can even get too much of a good thing and Congress is not a good thing.
@Roy, gee my charts sure piss you off, did you know they were from reliable government sites.
The truth hurts doesn't it. Obama has made things better not worse.
If I understand this right, if Congress does absolutely NOTHING for the next month, the deficit gets cut by billions of dollars, right ?
The question becomes, why would anyone want Congress to do anything. They have not helped, they have hurt the economy. The entire economic mess is because the modern Congress bought into the "tax cuts equal jobs," trickle down, voodoo economics begun by the Reagan administration. Its time to reign in the power of big business and get the economy moving again. Since the TeaThugLican party won't do anything to help, they should not do anything. We're better off if they just stay home.
Let's see Eric ...... "Obama has made things better not worse"
Unemployment is still hovering around 9.1 to 9.2% ... after Obama pushed his failed "Stimulus" telling us that its passage would keep unemployment below 8%. FAIL
The national debt has risen trillions more after Obama promised he would cut the deficit in half. FAIL
Obama once declared that no President should get the United States into a war, where our national security was not at risk, without Congressional approval. Then he decided on his own to attack Libya. FAIL
Then there was the promise of transparency in government ... the health care would be openly televised on C-Span. The truth was "negotiations" (bribes, kickbacks and arm-twisting) were all done behind locked, closed doors .... no Republicans allowed to participate. FAIL
Then there is the basic concept of leadership, or the absence thereof. Obama has sought and continues to seek to divide this country on economic lines, party lines and, to some degree with the border issue, along ethnic lines. He has failed as a leader and the Democratic Party suffered in the 2010 elections as a result. FAIL.
Eric, your "opinion" is not magically elevated to the status of "truth". Obama's poll numbers are now historically low. That "truth" hurts..... doesn't it Eric ?
@ 1.29 (Tom) & @ 1.35 (It's about time)
It's about Time - Tom is partially correct. The unemployment rate right now is higher then it was the day that President Obama took office. Two things he is not mentioning though; 1.) The recession was announced in December of 2008, and it didn't bottom out until 6 months after the president took office. Since then we have had jobs growth every month. The day that President Bush left office 7.7%, as of the most recent unemployment stats it is at 9.1%. So, if you want to ignore that the recession was announced as almost "Oh...by the way" on the former presidents way out, and the fact that we've had jobs growth after the current presidents economic policies had time to take effect, then he is correct. If you like to have all the facts though, it becomes a little skewed.
@ 1.26 (Tes) - Bush's presidency blamed Clinton every year for issues, for all 8 years, and even blamed him for having a part in the oil spill. They even mentioned that things that Carter did led to the current downfall. Now call me crazy...but if you take simple math...8 years (plus June 9, 2009...so 9 years) is greater then 3 years. I'm not saying that everyone is right to pass the blame on, but don't act indignant about it.
@ Roy Wilson (1.29 & 1.43) - First off, Bush didn't raise the GDP by 44% as you claim. He raised it on average 2.09% over the course of his entire presidency. So, that number is completely wrong. Secondly, if your going to compare the numbers of Bush out of office employment to just 2010 information, your going to get a bad number for the reasons I stated earlier. If you look at it as a progression of events, like people normally do, then it shows a recovery. When you read a book you can't just read the first chapter and then the last chapter. You have to read every page.
@ Everyone else who thinks that its all the presidents fault - The two wars were not on the budget until after the 2009 fiscal year ended (October 2009). So, the deficit shot up at that point because we suddenly had that on there. A lot of the spending since then has been interest and the two wars. You can't ignore that fact. Like I said earlier, read the whole book, and not just the chapters that apply to your point.
Also, the unemployment number not going above 8% was stated previous to President Obama taking office, and I believe before the official recession announcement. Not 100% sure of the timing of the latter part of that statement. Also, to Jim above me, Obama's numbers have been slowly climbing...so for it to be at the "historically low" levels you claim they would have to keep falling.
All reference points made contrary to your opinions are available upon request.
Eric-913730 "@Roy, gee my charts sure piss you off, did you know they were from reliable government sites."
Sorry, but government sites have '.gov' at the end, not 'three-charts-email-your-right-wing-brother-in-law'.
Trying to 'Blame Bush' for Obama's huge 18% increase in spending in 2009 defies all reality.
All incoming Presidents for the last 40 years have modified the Budgets of their predecessor to reflect their priorities. In the case of 2009, it was not necessary for Obama to modify Bush's Budget, because the Democratic Congress never gave Bush one to sign in the first place. A Budget for 2009 was not passed until March of 2009, and signed by Obama.
Try reading a little history before you reflexively 'Blame Bush' for all of Obama's failures.
Goose289 " Roy Wilson (1.29 & 1.43) - First off, Bush didn't raise the GDP by 44% as you claim. He raised it on average 2.09% over the course of his entire presidency. So, that number is completely wrong."
Oh really? Let's look at official records.
The Gross Domestic Product for 2000 (Clinton's last year in office) was $9.952 Trillion.
The Gross Domestic Product for 2008 (Bush's last year in office) was $14.369 Trillion.
My calculator says that's an increase of 44.4%.
You can find the figures to verify this in numerous government sites on-line.
As for the wars being 'Off-Budget', you obviously don't understand the difference between an original Budget and modifications to the Budget. Budgets are modified frequently modified for a variety of reasons. All of the war costs WERE included in the final Budgets under Bush, as were the final costs.
@Roy - Once again, first chapter and last chapter reading. Try this one:
National Debt by U.S. Presidential Terms
(Here's hoping it actually links this time) - Anyway...under federal spending, federal debt, and GDP section you can look at the 8 Bush years and see that his high number would be 3.4% and his low would be 0%. So on average, he had a 2.125% gain every year. He also had on average 3.8125% increase of spending, and a 4.825% increase of the national debt.
Now looking at Obama's numbers...a 2.4% DECREASE of spending, a 12.5% increase in debt (bassed on adding the two wars and interest payments onto the books), and a 2% decrease in GDP (based on the recession being announced on years end of 2008).
End result: Your calculator doesn't adjust for inflation. if you looked at the raw numbers you would be correct. If you looked at the adjusted number, which is what most economists would use, then the change would be a 17% increase. Based on not using that inflation, Obama has actually increased the GDP from when Bush was in office since 14,508 is greater then 14,097.
All references to this number is off of the same government sites that you didn't post but mentioned. Also, please while looking at that page notice the % of Democratic increase vs. Republican increases in spending (2.4% vs 3.0%), Federal Debt increases (1.0% vs 7.3%), and finally GDP increases (3.0% vs 2.5%)
Stupid links...
Go to Wikipedia. Look up National Debt by U.S. Presidential Terms. All of the references are linked to government sites at the bottom of the page...
@Jim, look at the GDP graph. That's proof that the stimulus worked. Obama never promised 8% employment, go to politifact and get the truth.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm
Pretty awesome, huh Jim?
@Roy, look at the info on the charts. It tells you what government sites they are from.
Goose289
Please try to use reliable Government links, not 'adjusted' links. We could spend all day quoting from left-wing and right-wing sources, but it would prove nothing.
As for your 'Adjusted' numbers, most people understand that when the government prints numbers, they are current numbers, not 'adjusted' numbers. Massive confusion would reign if one person used 'adjusted' numbers using 1980 as a 'base', while another used 1981, or 1982, or 1990, or 2000, or 2008, or 201, or 2011 as a base. In each case, you would get different 'adjusted figures', which economists might use, but few other people would bother with.
Just using the numbers reported by the government is both more practical and easily verified, and they do indeed show that the Gross Domestic Product increased by 44% under Bush. Wikipedia makes the common mistake of attributing Obama's huge increase in spending for 2009 to Bush, when Bush only authorized spending in 2009 AT THE SAME LEVEL AS IN 2008 (see his 'Continuing Resolution signed on September 30, 2008). Obama is the only person to sign a 2009 Budget, since Bush was never given one to sign, or veto.
Eric-913730 "@Roy, look at the info on the charts. It tells you what government sites they are from."
Interesting chart - It appears the recovery was well under way before any of the 'Stimulus' money was spent.
Goose289 "Obama has actually increased the GDP from when Bush was in office since 14,508 is greater then 14,097."
I think most people would prefer the $4.4 Trillion increase in GDP under Bush to the paltry $0.4 Trillion (your figure) increase under Obama.
Gotta go now, I have other, more productive things to do, but as a parting 'gift', the following Post is even more interesting (notice I use reliable 'Government' links).
Who's better at running Congress?
Since it's Congress that sets the spending Budgets, sets the Deficits, and passes legislation affecting jobs and the economy (The President cannot spend one penny that has not been authorized by Congress), let's look at the record of Congresses over the last 30 years (Through 2010);
JOBS (39,761,000 Net New Jobs)
Jobs created when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = 8,100,000 net new jobs.
Jobs created when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = 21,773,000 net new jobs.
Jobs created when Congress was split (8 years) = 9,888,000 net new jobs.
DEFICITS (a) ($7.304 Trillion)
Total Deficits when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $5.022 Trillion.
Total Deficits when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $1.219 Trillion.
Total Deficits when Congress was split (8 years) = $1.063 Trillion.
NATIONAL DEBT ($12.878 Trillion = 93.4% of all the Debt in our History)
Total New Debt when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $7.859 Trillion.
Total New Debt when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $3.238 Trillion.
Total New Debt when Congress was split (8 years) = $1.781 Trillion.
ECONOMIC GROWTH ($11.873 Trillion of GDP growth)
Total Growth (GDP) when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $3.887 Trillion.
Total Growth (GDP) when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $5.623 Trillion.
Total Growth (GDP) when Congress was split (8 years) = $2.363 Trillion.
Draw your own conclusions, but these are undisputed facts from government sources.
(a) Deficits do not equal the increase in the Debt because of the government's 'funny accounting'.
Sources - Democrats controlled Congress from 1987 – 1994, and from 2007 – 2010. Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 – 2000, and from 2003 – 2006. There was a split Congress from 1980 – 1986 and for 2001 & 2002. Links to government data sites are as follows;
Jobs - http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf
Deficits - http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals See Table 1.3
National Debt - http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
Bye for now.
@Roy - So by your logic that you just pointed out that the raw numbers are easier to use and verify, Obama has raised the GDP and has been good for the economy.
Secondly, Yes...Bush signed the same spending costs for 2008 for the 2009 fiscal calander. Well, the fiscal calander for the government for 2009 runs from October 1, 2008 - September 30, 2009. Our calander year runs from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009. When did all this spending become a huge issue? Late 2009. There are charts elsewhere that shows that the spending jumped at the end of the 3Q of the calander year of 2009. When does the majority of the war costs, bush tax cuts loan interest, and everything else that is mentioned appear? Late 2009. Obama only authorized spending, and the inclusion of what I previously mentioned for 2010, on September 30, 2009. Please note the similarities between my bolded statement to yours. I'm not saying that the stimulus cost isn't also a part, but the fact that the Bush tax cuts and both wars has been well documented on many occassions.
As for the recovery being underway, the chart does not display the loss that occured after the recession was announced, which caused consumer confidence to drop. There is no doubt that the unemployment rate jumped from 7.7% to (I think) 10.2% in six months after that announcement. After the stimulus took effect the unemployment rate has steadily been rising, with a slow down during the summer, and now its at 9.1%. Most economists, on either side of the aisle, agree that the stimulus has had a positive effect on the economy (courtesy of Politifact). It just wasn't as good as advertised based on incorrect numbers given when the stimulus was made (3.8% drop was given, a year later turned out to be 7.5%).
It may be easier to use the raw numbers, but that doesn't make it correct. There was an undeniable drop in employment after the holiday season 2008 and the announcement of the recession, that caused the stimulus to become necessary, and the stimulus amount was based on a number that was about half the actual issue. I think that covered all the points you made. Please let me know if I missed something.
As a side note, I mentioned that Obama's numbers had been climbing, so it couldn't be at a historic low. I had not seen the poll numbers that were released today yet. I was wrong on that statement, and I'm correcting myself now. I'm sure that has something to do with the failure of the Super Committee and the fact that he was asked to stay out of the debates by the Republican party (that is now criticizing him for having a hands off approach), but regardless, I was wrong.
@Roy, yep the recovery started with TARP.
@Rob - THANK YOU. I am so glad someone gave me something else to read that wasn't horribly skewed by partisan rhetoric.
I am not going to discount your numbers until I've had ample time to research your sources and information, but I am concerned about the time frames. 30 years is a good time frame, I'm just wondering how much of this is affected by the funding of the Taliban against the Soviets under Reagan, Gulf War under Bush Sr., economic policy changes under Clinton, and the Bush tax cuts (both Bush Jr and Obama) and the two wars.
I'm not saying your wrong, I'm not saying that your just reading the beginning and end chapters again. I am going to look this up, and I will get back to it after I have had time to research. I believe that what I've mentioned is applicable to the discussion, however, and I urge you to consider those contributing factors.
Goose289
The total spending for FY 2008 was $2.983 Trillion.
On September 30, 2008 (1 day before FY 2009 started), Bush authorized spending at the same rate through early March of 2009.
In February of 2009 (a few weeks after Obama took office), Obama signed the 'Stimulus' Bill, and in early March of 2009, Obama finally signed a Budget for 2009, and spending increased to $3.518 Trillion, an increase in spending of $535 Billion (18%) - attributable to Obama. Contrary to Eric-913730's contention, this increase is by Obama, not Bush.
The total Deficit projected by Bush for 2009 was $410 Billion (his proposed Budget was ignored by the Democratic Congress), and the actual Deficit for 2009 was $1.413 Trillion, an increase of $1.003 Trillion over Bush's projection. $535 Billion of that $1.003 Trillion increase was from increased spending, and $468 Billion was from less revenues because of the 'recession'.
There is no doubt that Obama took over at a bad time, but his actions, IN MY OPINION, have made things worse, not better because of the huge increase in the Debt.
Eric-913730 "@Roy, yep the recovery started with TARP."
One of those few occasions when something passed with 'bipartisan' support. It was also apparently highly successful, with the money loaned to banks paid back in full - with interest.
Time to go pick up my 6 year old daughter at the school bus stop - Bye.
@Roy - Pretty sure your gone by now...but the links contained at the end of the Wikipedia article do go to "reliable 'Government' sites." Just because someone went onto the reliable site and put the information in line or bar graph form does not mean its any less true on another site. If your insinuation that Wikipedia is liberal leaning and thus paints a fairer picture to the current administration, I'll remind you that when Sarah Palin had made the flub about Paul Revere's ride, several followers of hers went to the Wikipedia page and tried to change the information to agree with what she had said.
Regardless though, based on your statement that he set the same amount of spending for ALL of 2008 to be the same for THE FIRST THREE MONTHS of 2009...well I don't believe that is accurate. I looked into it, and Obama unveiled his first budget in February 2009...he didn't pass it, he just unveiled it, and then a week later in March, he put forth a different budget bill. That budget bill was made, because the budget was insufficient to keep up with the inflation (that wasn't factored into Bush's Continuing Resolution), and the increase in interest payments (for some, not all, of the loans we were taking out to fight the war, as well as other loans we had taken out for other things). Even Katrina relief wasn't included in the budget until October 2009...
This has all been well documented over a variety of websites...that my work computer hates to link. Anyway, 0.4% increase is great...if you consider: The first six months took place right after the recession announcement, the next three were stagnant as the stimulus kicked in, and then the last three started growing. With 3/4 of the year gone before the nose dive we were sent on stopped, and we show an increase...that's great. I am by no means saying that Obama is perfect, but seriously, this information I've been giving you is factual, based on written documentation. (Check politifact...they have a lot on this one.)
Roy Wilson: Your comments are well thought out, backed up with links as to where you got your information, and you keep a civil tone.
Not many posting can say the same.
Nice job.
How about if congress and this overspending fool of a demlib president actually pass a budget FOR THE WHOLE YEAR? How about THAT? Like EVERY OTHER president has had to do.
Again, saying Bush had lower rise of debt than Obama is meaningless. Numbers mean NOTHING. As a percentage of the GDP, Bush raised the debt much more per year than Obama.
I don't think you understand how our government works. I shouldn't have to explain this to you, but I am. The President does not create a budget, he only passes it. Congress creates the budgets, but the Republicans have blocked any budget from passing since 2009.
Goose289 "@Roy - Pretty sure your gone by now...but the links contained at the end of the Wikipedia article do go to "reliable 'Government' sites." "
My problem with Wikipedia is not the information presented or the sources, it's the ease with which information can be 'skewed' by people with an agenda. A perfect example is the idea that a new incoming President is bound by the outgoing President's Budget. This has never been the case, and every new President has been able to change the previous President's Budget to their liking - In the case of Bush/Obama, that was a huge change, made much easier because Bush never got a Budget from the Democratic Congress to sign - or veto.
I do not have a problem with Wikipedia. In fact, I use it often (even though my university professors frown on it), but some of the 'assumptions' that agenda driven people sneak in can be misleading. I suspect that most people do not realize that they, or you, or I can change what appears in Wikipedia - so you just have to be a bit careful about accepting it at face value.
Mr. Anon "Again, saying Bush had lower rise of debt than Obama is meaningless. Numbers mean NOTHING. As a percentage of the GDP, Bush raised the debt much more per year than Obama."
Let's look at the facts to see if this is true.
For FY 2000 (Clinton's last year), the Debt as a % of GDP was 56.45%.
For FY 2008 (Bush's last year), the Debt as a % of GDP was 69.77%, an increase of 13.32% in 8 years.
As of now (Under Obama), the Debt as a % of GDP is approximately 101.8%, an increase of 32.0% in 3 years.
I'd have to say the facts don't back up your assertion. Here's the link to the government's official Treasury Department to verify;
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
Curiously, the 8 year average Debt as a % of GDP for Bush was 62.67% of GDP, which was actually LOWER than Clinton's 8 year average of 63.53% of GDP, but then Clinton's % was going down, while Bush's % was going up.
As a sidelight issue, who gets the credit for the Budget 'Surpluses' in Clinton's last few years (and the declining Debt ratio) - Clinton, or the Republican Congress that set the spending and Deficit limits? Spending is controlled by Congress, not the President. The President cannot spend one penny that has not been authorized by Congress. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
life.is.hard "Roy Wilson: Your comments are well thought out, backed up with links as to where you got your information, and you keep a civil tone. Not many posting can say the same. Nice job."
Thanks, but I can be abrupt at times, although I usually try to find common ground so the discourse is kept civil.
That's true, if you look at Bush's presidency as an average, he raised the debt slower than Obama has, though the question remains why he raised it at all, considering he promised otherwise, and that Clinton lowered the debt.
But what I am really looking at is the last year, as well as 2009, which ran on a modified version of Bush's budget. As you can see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_1901-2010_.jpg), Bush raised the debt quite a bit more in his last year than Obama did in his first year.
That is actually a fair point that people have raised, but closer examinations of the figures show otherwise. If you look at the graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_1901-2010_.jpg), you'll see that in the first two years, even with a Democratic congress, Clinton was able to lower the debt, quite a bit different from his predecessor's congress. In addition, Clinton's compromises with his congress were quite a bit more in his favor than Obama's congress - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton#The_economy) taxes were raised on wealthy Americans, and spending was increased. As you probably see, however, Obama is either much poorer than Clinton at compromising, or the Republicans these days are much less willing to give up what they want. Either way, taxes have been lowered quite a bit during these two years.
But enough empirical data. I have already pointed out Reagan's gigantic reversal of the debt, and how even if what you say about the Clinton era is true, your theory worked only 6 our of 20 years. This (http://www.lcurve.org/) is how the income is distributed in the United States. If we are going to lower the debt, it makes logical sense to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent, or at least it makes sense not to cut taxes for them. And that is just income. As for total wealth,
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#In_the_United_States)
Why then, do you wish to construct the tax system so that the upper 1% does not pay a respective share of wealth? Most of all, why are there conservatives and independents who ask taxes to be raised on the bottom 40%, who own a very small percentage of the wealth?
I am interested in hearing what Mr. Reid and the spending Democrats will attempt to do to pay for tax cuts they want to pass.
Cuts, isn't that an oxymoron for the Democratic Party? Oh well, blame it on the Republicans again.
A cut in spending for a Democrat is proposing a 15% increase in spending next year and then cutting it back by 5%. That way they can say, "I cut my spending by 5%."
Yes, you figured out their definition of "cuts". Obama will not approve of cuts, he wants to GROW GOVERNMENT at every opportunity.
Seems to me that paying for tax cuts by taxing the rich is the right thing to do, funny that 70% of Americans feel that way.
Oh don't forget Republicans, you don't cut taxes and go to war twice and not pay for that.
Oh and don't forget to leave behind the "starving the beast" policies that got us here in the first place.
Aaahh, the liberal mantra rears its head again .... tell us Eric, by what percentage do the Democrats plan to raise taxes on the rich ?
Furthermore, will that increase actually cover the cuts you propose ?? My guess is that it won't.... just more CLASS WARFARE trying to pit the "middle class" versus the rich. Of course, Obama previously defined the "rich" as those making over $200k (single) and $250k (married) per year !
@Jim, same old Republican mantra from you.
Raise the taxes on millionaires, not those making $250,000 or more, enough to pay for the payroll tax cut extension.
Class warfare is the Republicans waging war against the middle class and the poor to benefit corporations and the wealthy.
I repeat Eric, Barack Obama previously considered the "RICH" to be those making over $200k/$250k per year. That is what he was talking about as recent as ayear ago. Tax and spend ... redistribute the wealth !
The Republicans redistributed the wealth with "trickle down" economics, Obama is just putting it back where it belongs.
So, Obama and YOU get to "decide where it belongs" ...... well isn't that conveeeeenient ! What if they worked their ass off for it, took major risks ..... you and Obama still get to decide, huh ?
Obama didn't consider that, the Federal Government when it wrote the tax codes and set the top bracket at those rates.
The oxymoron is on the part of Republicans who do not support tax cuts unless they are for the wealthy.
Maybe Obama should pay for the Tax cuts for the middle class the same way the republicans paid for the Tax cuts to the wealthiest americans, and the way they paid for the 500 Million dollar prescription Drug Benefit .. or the way the republicans paid for the last decade of two wars that were only supposed to last about 6 months according to Donald Rumsfeld... oh thats; rite.. they didn't pay for ANY OF IT.. just put it on a big fat Credit Card to China .. But I guess when you're nothing but a dilerious and delusional peice of crap like the Mad Russian.. you just sort of wallow in your Amnesia that got us into this 14 TRillion Dollar Mess .. you are a real Duplicitous Piece of Crap and should be banned from this site for your sheer ignorance of the facts ..
They need to keep congress in session with no days off till this is resolved and the budget for 2012 is finished.
The previously passed "Bush Tax Cuts" lowered taxes on ALL LEVELS OF TAXATION many years ago ! Furthermore, certain exemptions were "phased out" for certain taxpayers as their income levels rose ... meaning they got less benefit and paid more.
Reality sucks doesn't it Ray ? Go back and read the original legislation, because your remark tells me you have not, or just prefer to distort the truth for your political purposes.
Democrat member of congress want to apply the same socialist measures that is taking the EU to collapse, spend , spend, spend , welfare, welfare, welfare with the assumptions that rising taxes to the rich will pay for all , guess what, not even increasing 10% to the rich people will do. All this is lie and class warfare.
Tax cuts won't work. Tax cuts won't fix the economy. Tax cuts won't create jobs. The stimulus package was 36% tax cuts and failed miserably.
This pretty much makes the point:
"
Since 1980, roughly 5 percent of annual national income has shifted from the middle class to the nation's richest households, according to the Census Bureau.
While the average U.S income last year was $39,959, the mean income - the figure where half earn more and half earn less - was much lower, $26,364."
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/10/21/20111021us-rich-poor-gap-widens.html#ixzz1f8veCHz5
Oskar:
In the short term you are very wrong. The US is unlike Europe in many important ways. First and foremost, our population is growing. If we could find ways to put people back to work you would find that our tax income would increase without making any adjustments. We could literally grow our way out of the national debt, which is something that cannot happen in Europe as the population of virtually all countries is stagnant or shriking. Beyond that, if we keep up our educational standards we can continue to be the world's innovator; this brings additional growth to our economy. But, if we let our educational system go to hell, we will no longer be the world's innovator. There are other important differences, but we need not go into them here.
The bottom line is that the real solution is to get the economy working again. So far the Republicans have done nothing to make this happen, and the Democrats little more. We need both sides to put the American people and the country first. The policies that each side pursues work marginally, at best. And the rich must pay more in taxes to make it fair. Look at wage and income growth since 1980 and you will see that income for the "middle class" has been stagnant at best, while income for the rich has grown tremendously. This is a simple fact and cannot be denied. One thing is for sure; tax cuts have not led to job growth, and there is no evidence that they will. So we need to look elsewhere for ideas.
Hate to tell you this oskar
Private Property created Crime.
Mankind survived many 1000's of years on socialism.
And check you history....saviors of world last on average 250 years, 400 max....time is limited for the US.
The extension of at least some of the 53 tax credits and preferences which Congress created or preserved last December. The platter of tax breaks includes something for almost all tastes: the deduction of state and local sales taxes, which is worth about $2.8 billion to taxpayers who itemize, the economic development credit for American Samoa, worth about $15 million, a tax break for mine safety equipment, worth about $20 million, and many others
From History
Lawmakers couldn't stop themselves from adding billions of dollars in tax breaks that have little to do with restoring confidence in late September and early October of 2008, after a financial crisis in the home lending industry the United States Senate met and passed HR 1424, the 2008 Economic Stabilization Bill to bail out the industry at a cost of $700,000,000,000. When news of the bill was released it was found to have several controversial earmarks.
Earmarks include an economic development credit for American Samoa, tax exemptions for makers of wooden bows and arrows for children, funding for wool research, and amendments to the Internal Revenue Code provisions relating to the tax deduction for domestic film and television productions. These were written into the bill before it was presented to the house in March of 2008.
On October 3, 2008 the San Francisco Chronicle reported. "While crafting a bill intended to rescue the U.S. economy this week, lawmakers couldn't stop themselves from adding billions of dollars in tax breaks that have little to do with restoring confidence in financial markets."
On January 12, 2007 the Washington Times wrote an article about Pelosi and the minimum wage law saying," House Republicans yesterday declared something fishy about the major tuna company in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats approved this week."
financial markets."
On January 12, 2007 the Washington Times wrote an article about Pelosi and the minimum wage law saying," House Republicans yesterday declared something fishy about the major tuna company in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats approved this week."
The 2007 bill raised the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour and extended for the first time the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands but exempted American Samoa. Starkist, a division of Del Monte Foods, has facilities in American Samoa with an employee base of about 5,000, roughly 75% of the work force on that island. The company is headquartered in Nancy Pelosi's district was and was very much against the raise in wages. A spokesperson for the Speaker of the House said that neither StarKist nor Del Monte had lobbied Pelosi in any way.
The facts about Pelosi's husbands Starkist/Del Monte stock investments have not been listed in her earnings disclosure
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, neither Starkist nor Del Monte were found on the contributor list for Pelosi in donations amounting $10,000 or more.
The Bill was passed in the House Mar 5, 2008, passed by the Senate Oct 1, 2008 and signed by President Oct 3, 2008.
This is how Democrats help the .poor. They are part of the 1%
I'm just as interested to hear how the republicans will pay for the extension of the Bush tax cuts on the well to do? It was never paid for when it was written, and it isn't paid for now. Let's address that issue, going back ten years, and get it paid for, taking the money out of intelligence spending or the military budget, that is overtly bloated and exceeds the spending of all other nations in relation to their GDP's, combined.
I'd also like to remind you of the economy and the budget surplus left by President Clinton, a Democrat. And if the 'conservatives' will quit blocking the Democrat's 3 TRILLION DOLLAR deficit reduction plan, we'll get our house back in fiscal order.
You say "blame it on the Republicans again." At least you got something right.
The President promised that the 2012 Federal deficit will not exceed 229.27 billion dollars and the President always keeps his promises. Congress needs to help our President keep his promise.
Eric, why would not 98% agree with raising taxes on the top 2% (ie someone else)??!! Because it isn't fair!!
TES, I'm not sure about your statement. It isn't fair for the economic recovery to be on the backs of the middle class while there are tax cuts for the wealthy, or its not fair to raise taxes on the wealthy (that don't pay their fair share)?
Who says what is my fair share!!?? Ask the other 98%!!?? Yes, raise taxes but on someone else! You are for shared sacrifice if someone else is doing the sacrificing!!! And the "tax cuts for the wealthy", if you are referring to the Bush tax cuts, were not tax cuts only for the wealthy. Only 22% of the total went to the top 2% (the group that pays over 50% of individual federal income taxes)!! I say let ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire, then everyone will have some skin in the game!
@Eric
Why not just let the entire bush tax cuts expire, so everyone has shared sacrifice? Why put the burden on one portion of society when the right thing to do is let everyone pitch in?
Remeber eric, 85% of the bush tax cuts were to low to middle income earners, would you be willing to let those expire or continue on with rhetoric and class warfare?
I'd say its time to go back to the tax rules as they were the last time the tax code was re-written - under President Reagan: maximum rate on individual income 60%, capital gains rate 25%...
Time to go back to the days of "trickle down" economics..... maybe the deficit could be eliminated if the government takes more from those who have the most.
dirp101 Spoken by someone I am sure has no skin in the game!! Just imagine having government confiscate 60% of your hard earned money! Add to that the fact that your government will spend it without considering what is costs the taxpayer and will not protect against waste and fraud.. As noted above, you are all for shared sacrifice as long as someone else is doing the sacrificing or raising taxes is good as long as they are raised on someone else!! I already pay over $100000/yr in federal income taxes and you want to raise taxes on me while 47% pay no federal income taxes (and some even get back money they didn't pay in as "refundable tax credits")!!
Spend Away!! Pay later.......or don't. Seems like a sane policy to me. But what do I know?
Are you a Democrat ?
With a name like Koch, he's got to be a Republican.
It's okay that Bush tax cuts added about 600 billion to the deficit, good fiscal responsibility Republicans (rolls eyes).
Eric,
We are all sooooooo glad you are rolling your eyes once again ! Perhaps, you will find your significant other this way. The real issue here, however, is that Democrats have increased spending by about 30% during Obama's reign. No wonder we are up to our butt in debt !
Ah, wrong again Jim.
Bush raised spending by 88% during his administration, and Obama just 7.2%. Look at the other graphs below, and you'll find the stimulus worked.
http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011083428/three-charts-email-your-right-wing-brother-law
Percentages can be very misleading Eric .... that's what you libbies count on.
Under 3 years of Obama, our national debt has risen faster than under 8 years of George Bush .... and most of that was the last 2 years with a Democratic Congress.
Percentages can be very misleading Eric .... that's what you libbies count on.
Under 3 years of Obama, our national debt has risen faster than under 8 years of George Bush .... and most of that was the last 2 years with a Democratic Congress.
Ah but Jim, much of the deficit raising has to do with tax cuts and lesser revenues from the financial crisis, wouldn't you agree?
I like percentages, makes more sense to people than the fuzzy math of the Republicans.
We have seen Democratic "MATH" with Obamacare .... double-counting Medicare savings. What a joke ! The CBO later caught this Democratic FRAUD !
Jim, that is a lie and you know it. The debt increased $8 Trillion under Bush and only about $4 trillion under Obama. and who cares if it was a democratic congress, the President is the one that submits the budget request to whatever congress is in session. And, if he thinks too much was added to it, he has the power of the veto pen. Bush submitted those requests and got what he wanted.
Jim, it may be a Democratic Senate, but it is a Republican House. At least that's what Republicans keep reminding us of.
Eric-913730 ......."Ah, Bush raised spending by 88% during his administration, and Obama just 7.2%. Look at the other graphs below, and you'll find the stimulus worked."
Erico....you are still FULL OF TURKEY:
Time for you to LINE UP with Mr. Obama and Mr. Wishy Washy Biden.
In 2007-2008, who controlled the House fielden ?
jim-1455434.....
Liberals have a short memory and keep repeating stuff over and over until they think you believe them. Just look at Poor Erico and his continued postings that Mr. Obama's Stimulus #1 worked.
Nobama 2012. Vote for Obama if you want more of the same. To be part of the history voting for Obama was a mistake one time was enough.
Ido, you just keep posting the same overblown figures from the heritage foundation.
The stimulus created jobs: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/jun/20/national-republican-senatorial-committee/gop-senate-group-says-tim-kaines-stimulus-failed-c/
The stimulus got the economy (GDP) growing again: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm
ldo:
Your fist link is a fraud. Did you read this heritage foundation report? It says explicitly that the cost of the stimulus IF THE CUTS ARE MADE PERMANENT, will be $2.527 trillion over 10 YEARS. There are a lot of assumptions here. Believe it if you want, but until it has actually come to pass you cannot say that this is the true cost.
Eric
How about the Bureau of Labor Statics numbers for you?? How about comparing the number of EMPLOYED PEOPLE from Mar. 2009 to the number of EMPLOYED PEOPLE today??
Will those numbers work for you??
Here they are--
Mar. 2009---140822000 PEOPLE EMPLOYED
Oct. 20011--140302000 PEOPLE EMPLOYED
GEE!!! That's 520000 LESS PEOPLE EMPLOYED in Oct. 2011 than Mar. 2009.
How can that be???
The Stimulus was a success!!! And it only cost us 800 Billion to lose those 520000 jobs!!!
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
Click on Civilian Employment (Seasonally Adjusted) - LNS12000000
Scroll to bottom and click Retrieve Data for the Chart
And you don't know why? When Obama came into office, he immediately banned accounting gimmicks used by the Bush/Rove team that were used to deflate the actual costs of doing business and misleading the public as well. Bush never included war time spending in his budgets. He also never included the cost of the expanding Medicare payments to providers. He signed the auto bailout plan for 17 billion dollars, and put that on the next administration's tab. He did the very same thing with TARP, not in his budgets.
Obama took on the accounting of all of those gimmicks and they became part of his administration's spending. Pretty clever of the 'conservatives' to add gimmicks to accounting for the nation's spending. They now use that spending and point the finger at their political enemy, President Obama, and accuse him of being a spender, when actual CBO reviews indicate the exact opposite.
If the Tea Party freshmen would open their eyes to this truth, you would have a Democratic majority in the House in no time, via party affiliation declarations.....
Conservatives are anything but....
slodon
520000 LESS PEOPLE EMPLOYED because the republicans laid that many off when they took over the house and states with republican control.
Ray -
What about the 'accounting gimmick' that was used to make Obamacare look deficit neutral?
Forgot about that one, didn't you?
And after he 'banned' the accounting gimmicks, too.
I guess you only count it as an 'accounting gimmick' when the republicans do it, huh?
The Stimulus was a success!!! And it only cost us 800 Billion to lose those 520000 jobs!!!
Image where we'd be without it.....fighting over loaves of bread maybe? NOBODY actually knows; all studies I've seen are influenced by the political ideology that they study supports. The rate of job loss in Mar 2009 (jobs / year) was certainly curbed by the stimulus such that we ONLY lost 520000 jobs by Oct 2011.
You do not need to worry. With only 15 trillion dollars of current debt I estimate that any more money that the federal government borrows will cost the tax payers only 9 times the amount borrowed to repay in 170 years. What a great deal for the tax payers. With such a negative balance of payments any additional money that the federal government tries to inject into the economy will just leak out and we will be left with the debt. The additional money will create more demand for goods and services but just not here. Congress needs to first solve our balance of payments problem.
Bosslimo and Newstart2012
Your math is fuzzy at best. Now if the Stimulus CREATED BETWEEN 1.4 and 3.6 Million Jobs as Politifact.com says. The Republicans had to have laid off or fired BETWEEN 1.9 and 4.1 MILLION.
I don't seem to have seen ANYTHING like that PUBLISHED BY ANY NEWS ORGANIZATION.
So I say unless you can show SOME SOURCE FOR YOUR VIEWS---BS
The majority of the lost jobs over the past 2 years are public sector jobs, primarily from state and local positions. Private sector jobs have actually gone up.
vwterry
How can that be?? The BLS didn't say Employed Gov't or Employed Private just EMPLOYED PEOPLE.
But if the 520000 jobs lost since Mar. 2009 is Gov't Jobs,HEY THAT'S GOOD!!! Smaller Gov't!!
And look at how many Unemployment Checks there are to stimulate the economy as per Pelosi.
Slodon said, Your math is fuzzy at best
What math? A made a qualitative argument, not a quantitative one because NOBODY actually knows where we would have been without the stimulus. NOBODY.
Here's how it goes, under Clinton and a Rep. controlled congress in his 2nd half of his first term, they take the national average most upper income of welfare recipients millions of single women or men with children and increase that number income $2,000 more per year per year, basically call these individual/faimilies "off welfare" and so these people do not get welfare benefits anymore, so the Republicans and even Clinton went around in the second presidential campaign bragging how each party were able to get 14% more Americans off welfare. These Americans rec'd basically $166 per month and had to struggle along without govt assistance, that's what they bragged about, yes, how many millions of people not supported by welfare, which basically were the very people, working, with children, that should have been receiving some assistance, the debt ratio was lowered, oh that's real good, you made 14% of Americans lives a real hell barely squeezing by with no help, and God help them if any of them got sick, or a child got sick. The real American dream thanks to Republicanism & Clintonianism
How about a budget? I guess that would only confuse them more. Sad
A budget ? A budget you say ! Why in the world would the Democrats dare be confined by such !! It's so .... "tacky" being confined to a budget. It does not allow us to pay back our Democratic cronies.
Where is that budget Mr. Reid ? Are you sitting on it like you have done with previously-passed House legislation ??
The house passed the budget and it awaits approval in the Senate, funny how Republicans are blocking it there to make it look like the Dems don't have a budget.
Oh, but don't forget that Obama did submit his budget.
Wasn't the budget Obama submitted voted down ... like 98 to 0 ??
Furthermore, if Obama's lap dog Harry Reid is ANY KIND OF LEADER at all, why can't he get it done ? Could it be that that Harry is following orders ??
It doesn't matter Jim, so people didn't like Obama's budget, he at least submitted one.
When is McConnell going to show up with some cooperation, oh yeah, after the 2012 elections. After all, those Republicans main goal isn't improving the economy or jobs, its making Obama a one term President.
How's that blocking, stall, and obstructing coming along?
Percentages can be very misleading Eric .... that's what you libbies count on.
Under 3 years of Obama, our national debt has risen faster than under 8 years of George Bush .... and most of that was the last 2 years with a Democratic Congress.
Ah, but Jim, Bush had a veto pen and he didn't use it. So that makes the Republican party complicit in all of it don't you think?
@Eric #4.4,
"It doesn't matter " ? Is that what you disingenuosly say ?? Voted down 98 to zip, zilch, zero, nada ..... not even ONE vote from his own party ...... and you say it doesn't matter ??? ROTFLMAO at you !!! That vote was a MAJOR EMBARASSMENT to the entire Democratic Party and demonstrated quite clearly just how far Obama is removed from reality !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jim, the budget that was passed by the House was voted down in the Senate. The Senate can't come up with a budget, only the HOR can, IAW the Constitution. And since the HOR didn't pass the budget request that Obama submitted the Senate could not, constitutuionally pass that either. That vote was meaningless, it was a political stunt by McConnell.
Jim, I see that political stunt worked on your simple brain.
Jim, you keep spreading the lie.
The truth is, the measure was voted down because the Republicans refused to let it be debated. They wanted to push through their budget without any compromise. It was, as raddave points out, a political stunt, masterminded by the Republicans. But, don't believe me, look it up for yourself.
And stop spreading lies. Or Fox-isms.
Clever, radical dave ! Did you think that "inflammatory comment" up ALL BY YOURSELF .... or did you have help ?
The simple truth of the matter is that the Obama administration FAILED miserably during its first two years in office to produce a budget .... Democratic House, Senate and White House !!!
What's your excuse, are you blaming that on Bush as well ?
The TRUTH fielden, is that Obama's budget proposal was not WORTHY of debate.... and his own party recognized it !
President Obama did submit a budget - http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
It actually invests in our future and reduces our deficit and stimulates the economy... Why has the GOP led House have yet to bring up and vote on 9 out of 12 appropriations bills? I suspect they want some more last minute drama....
Concerning the budget, remember that the President promised the American people that the 2012 federal deficit will not exceed 229.27 billion dollars so the federal government will have to spend more than 1 trillion dollars less in 2012 than it did in 2011. The President always keeps his promises but he needs the help of congress.
A budget ? A budget you say ! Why in the world would the Democrats dare be confined by such !! It's so .... "tacky" being confined to a budget. It does not allow us to pay back our Democratic cronies.
Or maybe...
A budget ? A budget you say ! Why in the world would the Republican dare be confined by such !! It's so .... "tacky" being confined to a budget. It does not allow us to pay back our Republican cronies.
It's interesting how when you watch a FOX news program, you get these people who claim no budget was produced, that no legislation to create jobs was ever initiated by the Obama Administraion, how he just sits there and waits for the house to submit proposals only to get the Senate to turn down everything, at least when you listen to Rep. Paul Ryan blab on O'Reilly or Hannity. How all these jobs could be created by domestic energy if only this big Obama roadblock would get out of the way. Then I find out that a Rep. Ryan's budgets proposal includes this:
The congressman stands to make money from his stakes in four businesses that lease land to energy companies which would benefit from $45 billion in tax breaks and subsidies in his proposed budget. Daniel Stone reports. Oh yesssssssss, it's not as simple as creating jobs and lowering debt by slashing entitlements is it, Nooooooooo, there's always something that comes with it. There's always a catch in American Politics no matter how sincere they claim to be.
This should be entertaining ! Expecting much in the way of compromises would be like throwing 3 cats and 2 dogs in a large box and expecting them to cooperate !!
While the payroll tax cuts have helped with a little more "take home pay", they are NOT WISE in the long run. Social Security is running weak and short-changing it's funding only hastens its demise. I wonder if anything will be left when I retire ... after kicking it in all these years !!!
Social security is solvent until 2037. We can fix it later.
Get the economy back on track and jobs and the rest will take care of itself as long as people don't keep cutting taxes/revenue.
Kicking the can down the road I see ... the Democratic tradition continues !
Furthermore, I seriously doubt that it will be solvent until 2037 ..... not unless the Democrats are double-counting their "SAVINGS" once again ! LOL !! You guys are so good at cooking the books !
Yeah, let's "privatize it".
Republicans have wanted to get rid of social security since it was devised.
More disingenuos, vague generalizations from Eric that he could not prove ... even if his life depended on it !
Enough of the Jim and Eric Show or "Trolls for You and Me". Hang it up for a while guys, the patter is getting really old!
It's not kicking the can down the road.... it's called prioritizing issues and dealing with the critical ones first...
I call it triage....
We could support the republican agenda... milk it dry for Defense and corporate welfare then privatize it so more healthcare tyrants can steal it.
Argh! What is wrong with these people! We need to tax more and spend less, not cut taxes and spend anyway.
Remove the cap on income subject to payroll taxes. Let the Bush tax cuts expire. Fully fund SS. Enough with the endless unemployment benefits extensions. No more tax credits. Close the loopholes.
More money, less spending. Why is that so difficult? Never mind, I know why it's so difficult. We've elected cowardly children instead of adults to run this country.
Maybe a default on our national debt is order?
Debt default - for a cleaner America
AG99, totally agree with you!
But the President said that taxes should not be raised during a recession. We all believe in our President, don't we?
Will Haas, is everything static in your world? Nothing changes and everything is on a set course and ALWAYS makes it to their supposed outcome? You cannot be that dense sir, really you can't...
Easy: The outcome will be increase taxes on the middle class & poor and cut spending on social welfare programs and anything else that would create jobs in this country; while voting themselves a pay increase to boot. Business as usual.
All this tax cut and increase mumbo jumbo is just a distraction from the real issue - the government can't pay it's bills! Instead we should try not paying our debt back because we are broke as a country. The government is bankrupt and everyone knows it.
Default - for a new America.
These guys all leave congress way wealthier than when they got there and we keeping getting deeper and deeper in debt...hmmmmm....their doing great aren't they ???
We need to get rid of the idiots in Congress. They are a waste of money. They do nothing but give the rich tax breaks.
I dislike the AMT work around. Isn't there a minimum tax rich people should pay, or is it right to let them zero out their tax liabilities? I think they should allow the AMT to do the work it was intended to do.
James, the AMT is a strange tax animal indeed. But there is a bottom line fix instead of a yearly patch. Simply index the darn thing to inflation, as it should have been done when it was created. As it stands now, the so-called upper middle class incomes begin to be affected by the AMT if they itemize and have multiple deductions between 50k and 60k annual income. The AMT's reach is deeper each year because the tax law isn't indexed to inflation. Inflation indexing is the smart, final, and fair solution but Congress keeps dithering about making this permanent fix.
I dislike the AMT work around. Isn't there a minimum tax rich people should pay, or is it right to let them zero out their tax liabilities? I think they should allow the AMT to do the work it was intended to do.
Perhaps if they'd pass a budget and adhere to it we might possibly avoid the on-going theatrics of these short-term Continuing Resolutions and last minute and hastily crafted bills. It's a little like bleeding from multiple and serious leg wounds by constantly placing and replacing small band-aids over each one rather than applying a tourniquet and then getting the entire leg fixed.
Honest to god, if any business operated the way our federal government operates it would remain in business for 60 days max.
Perhaps if they'd pass a budget and adhere to it we might possibly avoid the on-going theatrics of these short-term Continuing Resolutions and last minute and hastily crafted bills. It's a little like bleeding from multiple and serious leg wounds by constantly placing and replacing small band-aids over each one rather than applying a tourniquet and then getting the entire leg fixed.
Honest to god, if any business operated the way our federal government operates it would remain in business for 60 days max.
Some problems with "posting" here today ... did some double posts for my comments as well.
I dislike the AMT work around. Isn't there a minimum tax rich people should pay, or is it right to let them zero out their tax liabilities? I think they should allow the AMT to do the work it was intended to do.
You miss the main purpose of the AMT fix. As written, the Alternative Minimum Tax unfortunately bites many, many middle-class incomes in the butt ... which was NOT the original intention. As a result, the "annual patch" has been used to negate the unintended consequences. Your presumption that it only affects "the rich" is erroneous.
Overall, AMT law is tricky and not well thought out. Annual indexing for inflation may have helped to some degree.
Just get out of Afganistan and this stuff goes away!
Congress prepares to be voted OUT in the next elections!
Not that they care in the slightest. Most of 'em are multimillionaires.
They have served their corporate masters well. Particularly the republicans.
Now they'll ride off into the sunset of pensions, lobbying, lifetime healthcare and benefits, etc. while the rest of us are stuck with the bills.
Good job, consumers.
The one and only thing "The Congressional Criminal Club" could do for this country to "Save It" is follow Barney Frank...and Leave Congress for the good of the Nation...I don't care what party, they are destroying the Country and laughing all the way to the bank! If you throw up a defense for this party or that one you are in severe denial and blind on top! It's time to get it into everyone's thick skull...D.C. is "Polluted With Criminals"....and guess what? that's both of these to "Stink to High Heaven"political parties!
gBoom you hit the nail on the head. We need to eliminate "Career" politicians all together. You have Senators who have held they're seat for how many years? Lets look at oh I don't know a Senator by the name of Robert Byrd. The guy was elected into the house of representatives in 1953 served 3 terms then became a senator in 1959 and finally stepped down in 2010. What in the 51 years did he achieve that was worth anything. BTW the guy was a member of the KKK for a brief period of time just to give you an idea how whishy washy Dems can be lol.
i havent seen any proposals to reduce 17 or 18 federal security agencies with their bloated triple size budgets since the year 2000, into a manageable 2 or 3. the Security agencies have gone from 25 bil to 75 bil / yr. The military is at almost 3 times the 2000 budget plus add the cost of useless wars, yet these white elephants are sacrosant. we have one of the most ineffective security apparatus historically and it doesnt look loke it will change any time soon
Sen. Kyl claims that the payroll tax cut has not stimulated the economy and therefore should not be extended. This is after it has been in effect only 11 months.
The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy have been in effect for OVER 10 YEARS - and have not stimulated the economy. During the Bush presidency, we had the slowest rate of job growth since WWII. We have had two recessions - and lingering high unemployment. Why are Sen. Kyl and his fellow Republicans not calling for an end to these tax cuts and they have very clearly not worked.
Yea, yea, yea, Bush this, Bush that. How has that job growth been working under Obama.
OR Boehner?????
Rence,your post is absolutely correct. You have to remember that you can always count on the Republicans to do the right thing-but only after the've tried everything else.
I'm glad you asked.... How many corporations have trillions in cash overseas? Why do large corporations like GE get away without paying any taxes?
President's have little to do with actually creating jobs. Politicians can give incentives, but this is a capitalistic society, not a socialistic one. Asking the government where the jobs are at is useless. Repatriate the funds from corporation accounts to America and start investing in businesses that create demand and therefor, jobs...
Are there any pools on this? Guessing there will be much more spending than there will be cuts. Also, any cuts will probably go into affect somewhere close to 2050.
I just want to know why the Democrats are accused of not paying for tax cuts (which by the way they do) and the Republicans get away with not paying for: Iraq War, Afghanistan War, Medicare Part D, excessive growth of the government through Homeland Security spending and The Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy...I could go on but my fingers get tired from all that typing. Now it seems the GOP has found deficit religion and embraces PAYGO like some jailhouse conversion.
I share the exact same observations that you do.... They passed Part D in the middle of the night, without paying for it. That's 1.3 trillion in spending in a single act! DHS has added how many new government jobs? Where is the offsetting revenue? Two wars that Obama put on his books weren't even his doing, yet the accounting is going under his administration.
Conservatives aren't bright, most of them anyways. Have you seen how many are blaming Obama for killing the shuttle program and for wasting 2.5 bil for the Mars rover? lol... they are good for entertainment purposes however...
And they seem to be sudden converts indeed. They have been Tea Bagged....
Well we do not need to worry. Our President is against deficit spending and promised the American people that the 2012 federal deficit will not exceed 229.27 billion dollars. Congress needs to back up the president and pass a 2012 federal budget that makes the President's promise a reality.
That rhetoric has been going on for 40 years, Mr. Hollywood Reagan, using his great debate and speaking skills used terminology like "tax cuts" "deregulation" which means let the private sector do whatever the hell they want without the eye of the government making sure quality assurance is followed. Like the EPA, for the 100 procedures they do to enhance our lives, the FOX media will pick out 1 or 2 activities that are keeping a company from starting an activity(Alaska and drilling as an example) so they demonize an entire agency. Oh, "welfare" get those lazy people off their ass and working, of course its the democrats fault for any entitlement problem, not that the Republicans have come up with a reasonable alternative. "Debt reduction" you can't put any responsibility on corporations,don't tax them,oh my god, no jobs will be created, like they would anyhow since they conveniently outsource to slave labor markets. The same old terminology, the current GOP debators use it.
Boy-----the teatards are out in force tonight!!
Boy-----so are the Dumbocrats!!
Something like 930 days without a budget. Who are these inept elitists trying to fool?
Rave on you folks - Jobs = payroll income = tax revenue = less debt. Why does Congress keep spending and cutting taxes and creating unfunded programs and wars. I have to pay as I go - Where is the term limit law - if it's good enough for the President - it's good enough for the Congress.
'Maybe we'll have deficit reduction in 2012, when's lunch?' - C. Schumer
Schumer you are completely useless. You are a consumer 'advocate' and Wall Street panderer shill.
I live in New York - last I heard Schumer had about 90 million in his re-election fund-and more available from the Wall Street Bankers whenever he needed it. One more time - Term Limits.