no sir ronald hussein, Its punishment. first paragraph, only its funny that the innocent are punished. we have to vote every ass clown in congress out, Replace everyone of them, lets punish them, theyll never get it any other way.

While I also support cuts to "entitlements", I think the first place to start on deficit reducing cuts is the Pentagon. Also, are these actual cuts or just lower increases in spending than they want?

The Republicans accepted this deal under the terms of the budget agreement - now they want to go back a re-write the rules to make their supporters happy. This is clear posturing and playing to their base and clearly against what Americans have been asking for over and over.

Programs, both foreign and domestic, military and social need to be cut until the deficit is controlled. Additionally, money spent on foreign occupation should be brought home to defend the Mexican border. Ron Paul 2012!

They will be replaced by more of the same who will be looking for golden parachutes earlier than if you left the current ones there. I hear this argument for term limits too. The problem is not the people inhabiting the offices. They are behaving just like you would if they were in their place. The problem is the fascist partnership between govt and business where politicians know if they do the bidding of business they will be taken care of when they leave. More turnover in politicians means more golden parachutes. Examples Bill Clinton, the LA politician (Billy Tosan sp?) who was in the bag for healthcare and gave us Bush's medicare plan being rewarded with great job worth billions in that industry and the next one to go this path will be Obama.

"we have to vote every ass clown in congress out,"

There's a million more just like them (and worst) ready to take their place because this system demands that clowns be in charge.

Guns not food ? what a great society we have made when there's the super rich and there is and always has been through out time .... super poor. (nothing has changed)

TZM

Welcome one and all to the L.B.J. Great Society ( bombs - bullets & bull @!$%#

Once again we see the repubs looking to cut and gut the middle class , only to feed their super rich handlers. The defense dept. takes up the largest part of the budget . Problem is that most of it is off limits to cuts . Secret projects hidden wars and the list goes on . The military / industrial complex will be the death of us yet.

bob

By that I guess you mean voting the tea party bums out. The facts are we outspend our nearest compeititor 6 times and our budget is equal to 49% of what the rest of the world spends on defense. There is no justification for this, it shows that our wars are initiated for corporate objectives and that the republican party is a bunch of traitors.

Cut Pentagon spending and use the monies to fight hunger, sickness and proverty in America!

What else would you expect from the lackeys of the military industrial complex? This is just one more excuse to impose their social agenda of helping the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

Roy that is the only thing that makes your blood boil? First of all that should be a separate issue all together and secondly, you need a valid SS number to file your tax return. Yes, some people know how to work the system, but that is an IRS issue. The GOP and the Demsall voted on this poison pill, so they all should see to it that every program get cut, if they do not reach a compromise. This one sided crap from the GOP is just bullsh!t. The GOP would rather crap on the poor and middle class as long as they can still blew sh!t up and send our young men and women to fight some silly wars.

Subnormal,

Very off topic, but I wonder if you always believe that "he said she said" stuff. Besides, I'll bet some military contractors have made 29,000 off a hammer and box of nails.

Ah, yes....the conservatives, t-partiers, right wing. Maintaining your national security, getting you born, but after that you're on your own for: medical care, food, a roof over your head, and god help you if you can find work to support all the kids you're gonna have because they won't support your getting and taking birth control. And, if you're kids are born with disabilities...too damn bad. At least they've fulfilled their own mandate by making sure you're born.

Is it the "Contract on America" or the death panels for grandma and grandpa that the Republicans want to continue? Or is it both? It appears controlling women's bodies is no longer enough.

Tm,

$57 bucks a month...family of 4 means two kids. Each kid could cut one yard, or each wash a car once a month and make more than 60 bucks.

Sure, I just know some lady with a one year old and a four year old is going to send them out on the streets to hustle up that money.

If the kids are teens, sure, no prob. A good idea.

What amazing timing. Just when people are loosing their homes, their jobs and their dignity the GOP comes up with this? Apparently congress hasn't gotten the message and continues to live in some paranoid fantasyland where it makes more sense to build a few $22,000,000 planes, squander billions being the worlds police and totally ignoring the problems along our borders. Like Ike said.....beware the military complex.

Isn't congress, the ones, who voted for, and passed these automatic spending cuts? I also believe, that there was some automatic spending cuts for social programs included in these cuts. Now they want all of the cuts to be on social programs. I wonder if Boehner is still bragging about the republicans getting 98% of what they wanted in this deal? Maybe the GOP isn't really serious about cutting spending.

Why are ILLEGAL ALIENSgetting tax credits in the first place? People should be thrilled that we are cutting that BS out. I'm sick an tired of my hard earned money being taken from me and redistributed to Illegal aliens and lazy ass Americans who think they are entitled to other people's money. Our country doesn't need to "raise revenue (ie: raise taxes)". Our country needs to lower taxes, cut the pentagon budget, end all foreign aid, and reduce/ eliminate Welfare. It's not the government's job to take care of people!

The republicans made their point that our security is important. The democrats made their point that the wealthy should be the ones to fund it. So the republican insistence that the poor take the hit is the real issue. I wish more of the Fox news regurgiitators would open their eyes and see this.

Cut it all, we do not need the military waste and handouts to our people is criminal. Bring our soldiers home and stop ruining our people. We are not the worlds police and our poor are obese and suffering.

The Republicans are desperately trying to RENEGE on an agreement of evenly divided across-the-board spending cuts, including military and social programs. This agreement was signed into law (Budget Control Act signed in August, 2011) after the "Supercommittee", composed of six Dems and six Republicans failed to agree on budget cuts prior to Thanksgiving 2011. Now that these automatic cuts are looming (January 2013) the Republicans are crying foul, and desperately trying to 'back-out' of a lawful and binding agreement. If they can't be trusted in public how can they be trusted behind closed doors? Below I have a citation from none other than FOX NEWS! Yes the same conservative news outlet the Republicans and Tea Partiers adore. Take a close look!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/21/clock-ticks-down-to-super-committee-failure/

Once AGAIN we are treated to the "fear factor" by the Republican Congressional Hawks. That is, they say we will be less safe and the threat of terror will be compounded! How is it that we spend more than ALL other nations COMBINED, on defense, and we are the ones who should shudder in fear over a cut on defense spending amounting to less than 10% per year? The below Forbes Magazine article, another conservative publication, tells the story much better than I. Take a peek.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2012/04/02/defense-industry-facing-biggest-funding-cut-in-60-years-next-january/

Who, and why, do these Republican Hawks think they are kidding? Ask yourselves, do we actually need more weapons of mass destruction and more wars? Are the GOP hawks protecting their pockets by 'cow-towing' to huge defense special interest groups and, at the same time, trying to renege on a law which they signed and dumping the budget cuts on the poor and middle class American Citizens?

maddog,

The same could be said about democrats. When people are losing their homes, American citizens that is, they are concerned about not being able to give $1,000 to illegal immigrants for their children, and Obama is focusing on approving gay marriage rather than improving the job market and/or helping Americans keep a roof over their head. Is gay marriage and funding illegals more important than the economy, our national security, and helping Americans obtain shelter?

Softdude,

Very clear astute observation you made. As I have been seeing it, anytime they face up to needed cuts they always take them from the bottom where there is a need and let slide or even boost the top where there is greed. Damn, I'm beginning to sound like Jesse Jackson here. LMAO

Cuts alone won't restore an economy. Economists explain this repeatedly but politicians think they know better. If you have a monthly income of $100 and basic expenses of $200 (food, shelter, car, phone, utilities, etc.), you can't cut your way to income growth. You're going to need more income for growth, period. And typically you'll need to spend a little more at the outset to get there. These are basic economic principles that austerity cheerleaders fail to grasp. It's their lack of intellect combined with political self-interest that damages the people they are supposed to be serving.

There is nothing wrong with the U.S.'s entitlement programs. If more people were working and drawing at least a living wage, more people would be paying taxes and paying into those programs. And if Major Corporations like Apple and GE paid anyy taxes at all, there'd be more money in the coffers. But we actually get angry at the middle class and working poor for the country's predicament instead of those who've been given the huge tax breaks. Best your kid learn in an overcrowded classroom at a public school rather than ask some billionaire to pay a proportionately fair share tax wise.

This entire economic mess is just a political fiasco.

FAMILIAR SCENARIO

When the stock market collapsed on Wall Street on Tuesday, October 29, 1929, it sent financial markets worldwide into a tailspin with disastrous effects.

The German economy was especially vulnerable since it was built upon foreign capital, mostly loans from America and was very dependent on foreign trade. When those loans suddenly came due and when the world market for German exports dried up, the well oiled German industrial machine quickly ground to a halt.

As production levels fell, German workers were laid off. Along with this, banks failed throughout Germany. Savings accounts, the result of years of hard work, were instantly wiped out. Inflation soon followed making it hard for families to purchase expensive necessities with devalued money.

Overnight, the middle class standard of living so many German families enjoyed was ruined by events outside of Germany, beyond their control.

The Great Depression began and they were cast into poverty and deep misery and began looking for a solution, any solution.

-my mom

That has been "the plan" as described by Rockefeller. But we have consistently beaten them back since the installation of Nazis in the US and Argentina post WWII. And now we have the internet to get info to the People. We wil lnever get it from the government, or a political solution, we will get it from building sustainable communities, while maintaining a government to facilitate......

How anyone who condones the denial of civil rights in this country can call themself a patriot is beyond me, they are traitors to the very foundation of the United States, as shaky as it is. We sacrificed many women and children and men to have a Nation of Freedom. Now, from within, the closed-hearted tyranny is rising again. This time the 1% have amassed a dumb flock through politics and religion. This time the dumb have armed themselves. Oh, just like every time in the last 10,000 years....duh! Real Americans do what the President did.

Y'all do realize that all we need to rout out the pinheads in an election is for women and black and Latino men to boycott the GOP? If we would stop voting against our own good, this misogynist, patriarchal tyranny would evaporate.....

me

These are austerity measures and is only the beginning. Congress will not touch the military because they are the means to bleed our economy into extinction.

Another provision opposed by most Democrats would deny illegal immigrants tax refunds from the $1,000-per-child tax credit.

To be honest, I didn't know that illegal immigrants could even file tax returns. I thought they wanted to keep their identities and locations secret. What social security number do they use? If you are here illegally, I'd think it pretty bold to file tax returns and demand credits.

Someone explain this to me.

Paul-2539759

If Obama is only interested in getting re-elected than why would he come out and support gay marriage if that alienates 60% of all Americans? That makes now sense. Of course, the 60% part is untrue. Polls show more Americans support allowing gay marriage than those that don't. But that's neither here nor there with your statement. Clearly someone pandering to get re-elected would err on the side of caution and not try to alienate 60% of his voters. Looks more to me like Obama took a stand for something her believes in, something very controversial. In my book, something to admire him over whether you agree with it or not.

and TM 689440

Really? The families of 4 on food stamps should put their kids to work to help support the family. Go mow a lawn. THAT'S your answer? And supposed those 2 children you assume are there in each family of 4 (because Lord knows it's never a single parent with 3 children on food stamps) are all too young to even be able to reach the handle of a mower? Then what. Shall we just send those little ones into the fields to pick vegetables like they do in the 3rd world countries? Give me a break. And as far as the duplicate programming cuts go...just because it duplicate help for the same programs doesn't mean it isn't vital. There are several charities that provide funding for breast cancer research. All monies going to the same end but through different programs. If we got rid of all but one of those charities then the end result would dramatically suffer. Just as it mightin this case. Don't assume that cutting those programs out is just that simple and would have no serious ramifications. As for the tax cut to illegals, you're right. No one should be on board with that idea. Although I'd need a little more info on that to understand if that is truly what is going on. As another poster said, you need a valid SS# to claim a tax refund and you can't get one of those legally if you are an illegal immigrant (to my knowledge anyway) so that seems more of a fraud issue and if that's the case, I know of no one (other than those committing fraud) that would take issue with that.

If the Repubs would support ALL cuts, I'd respect them more. But the Ryan budget doesn't touch the military at all.

Could it be because of the huge amounts of money Republicans make in war?

the Republican proposal to disallow any child credits for anyone using a tax id. number (meaning they do not have a social security number, and are a illegal alien), was killed at the beginning by the democratic committee, and caucus; it would have saved over 3 billion per year, most of the child credit checks, as much as 29 thousand per year , go to a Mexico address.

Your right TM-689440 :"The same could be said about democrats." That's the sad part. The whole system is out of balance and it can't be blamed on one party or the other. It almost seems that congress has lost touch with reality. This country needs leaders, real leaders who are really concerned about our country as a whole and not so concerned with their own interests. But good luck with that as we enter into another election phase. I'm not hearing any real solutions that aren't "FUBAR".

The credit for children goes to the parents of US Citizens and LEGAL immigrants, all of whom have social security numbers. I know... blah, blah, blah... anchor babies, blah, blah, blah.... if you don't like the way the US Constitution is written, change it, until then, these children deserve the same rights and protections as anyone else.

Nothing like the Republicans to literally be taking food out of the mouths of the poor and giving the money to the wealthy. Republicans say they are against wealth redistribution, yet this proves they are actually in favor of it. The GOP wants to take money from the poor and middle class and give it to the rich.

Republicans claim to be Christians, yet by their actions, they demonstrate that what they really worship is money and Satan. They truly are evil.

Anyone who votes for a Republican to take office in November deserves to burn in the lake of fire for all eternity.

Until our military budget is cut by 50% (which would still leave us with more military spending than any other nation in the world), we the people should not accept any cuts to education, healthcare, or social security.

America needs to invest in educating our citizens, in keeping those educated citizens healthy, and ensuring that people can grow old with health and dignity. America does not need to occupy foreign nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to end these wars and use our money to prepare our citizens for the next century. Cuts must be made, and the military-industrial complex should be first in line for the cuts, not last.

Ron Paul 2012!

Why is it that some people only see "waste" when they look at social programs and only see "necessary spending" when it's military?

Yeah, sure - we need a new aircraft carrier much more than fed children in this country.

pjam09 - The Democrats went along with some cuts to social services in order to get the budget compromise passed. Now the Republicans want to make ALL the cuts to social services and NONE to the military.

Weasels. Rabid weasels.

I just love the FALSE liberal talking points, built on class warfare. The big lie "the largest portion of the federal budget is spent on the military". Obviously these people are either lying to promote their partisan agenda or just plain stupidly following their party leaders like the good little sheeple they are and paroting this LIE.

The issue is there is two parts to the federal budget, discretionary and mandatory. Mandatory spending is entitlements like medicare, medicaid, SSI, and interest we own on borrowed money i.e. the FED and China. Military spending falls under the discretionary spending.

What most people fail to understand is these entitlements are set on automatic budgetary increase EVERY year, without ANY Congressional debate. These entitlements have grown six (6) times faster than discretionary spending, which includes defense spending.

Here is the actual breakdown of the Federal Budget TODAY.

Medicare, medicaid, Welfare, Social Security and other entitlement programs - 62%

National Defense (military spending as well as home land security) - 19%

Net Interest (interest paid to the Federal Reserve and other lenders such as China) - 6%

Education - 4%

Foreign Affairs - 1%

Since the so called "War on Poverty" initiated by LBJ in the 60's welfare and other dependence programs have grown 17 fold. Under the Marxist Obama's plan that would continue to grow at an even more rapid pace with the enactment of Obamacare.

This rate of Federal spending is unsustainable. Even if we tax those nasty ol' rich people 90% of their income and remove all the tax loop holes for corporations we would still fall short. In fact if corporations lost their "loop holes", which is really incentives for them to invest, revenues would actually be reduced. But why bother with the facts when the Democrats and Obama sheeple can count on hope and change and "moving forward" - right into economic disaster.

I live in a small town that used to have a large army base. It was the main economic driver. When WWII ended the local people pushed to get the camp shut down. The town shrank to one half its former size, it survived with a lot of smiling people.

I have to wonder if the republicans are really protecting the military or the many large businesses that supply goods and services to the military..which would of course be the very folks who donate millions to the republican party right now for their election campains.

The republicans seem to have little problem cutting services and aid to everyone except the wealthy elite in this country. I was always under the immpression that this was a country for all its people not the wealthy few..that however today is not the case. AS it is now...all politicans in washington accept bribes/money from lobbyist..while also getting paid by the voters and tax payers of this country.

Politicians mostly say whatever they think will get them votes, Ron Paul says what he thinks.

Republicans only vote with their middle finger.

A deal is a deal. Our economy took a hit so we could get the measly little sequester. If this measly little sequester cannot be honored - then why should we believe that a Balanced Budget Amendment would be upheld and honored.

A worker with an average income of $50k a year for 40 years - will have earned $2 million. That lifetime of work and earnings will buy and deploy one cruise missile.

It is very clear that the 'fiscally responsible' Republicans are simply liars - using bogeyman politics to achieve social engineering. Defense has no value if there is nothing left to defend.

What a disgrace the Republicans have become.

Just Shaking My Head....what part of a congress that is not capable of doing its job are you missing ? Is this nation to follow the Bush republican plan again with more tax cuts for the wealthy and an even heaver loss of jobs ? It is hard for our treasury to have proper funding when we have had such a huge loss of jobs that funded our government. Will even more tax cuts help or make things worse ? So far the republicans have offered nothing in the way of job creation....trickle down economics has never worked...except for helping this country loose more jobs . Are we as a nation now going to tell those elderly ...just to die off...you get nothing for all you contributed to this country ? If that is the case, why do any of us have to pay any kind of taxes..our politicans are surely not worthy of what they get..and so far I have not heard any of them talking about taking cuts as they want to hand out to all middle class and the poor. It appears our elected do more for the lobbyist than for the nation as a whole. So, why do we middle class tax payers have to give them anything ? They are not working for the general public...only the wealthy elite. If we are not to get social security then why deduct it for our pay checks ?

If we had real honesty in our government it might not be too bad, that however is not the case. All funds congress accepts from lobbyist goes against the general public. Consider, if any of the general public accepts funds to get something done that is not included in our regular role then it becomes a bribe..but for congress that is not so. Now why is that ? Do they consider themselves above us ? The answer appears to be yes.

MORE BOMBS! LESS FOOD! MORE BOMBS! LESS FOOD!

W. T. F. Our military is already 14 times bigger, then the next biggest, yet cutting the relatively miniscule amount we spend on feeding hungry children right here at home, is what you people call "fiscal responsibility"???

You have NO problem when your taxes go towards blowing kids up, it's when you have to feed them that you really get your panties in a collective wad.

And really...

Protecting America from enimies both foreign and domestic

Well good news. In a couple of years you will be able to cut defense, because our population will be considerably smaller. You know, after we let a bunch of children starve to death.

TO: Bart Conner who wrote:

"If the Repubs would support ALL cuts, I'd respect them more. But the Ryan budget doesn't touch the military at all.

Could it be because of the huge amounts of money Republicans make in war?"

Bingo!

drip; I was only talking about, TXIDNUMBERS, those people who are illegal aliens working in the United States, and claiming all the dependants in Mexico, where the checks are mailed to, not persons working in the Country who have a valis social security number, tx id num., are only given out to illegal aliens that register for them with the IRS, it is on the W-2, the employers give out and forward to the IRS>

TO: Sarah-3043284 who wrote:

MORE BOMBS! LESS FOOD! MORE BOMBS! LESS FOOD!

W. T. F. Our military is already 14 times bigger, then the next biggest, yet cutting the relatively miniscule amount we spend on feeding hungry children right here at home, is what you people call "fiscal responsibility"???

You have NO problem when your taxes go towards blowing kids up, it's when you have to feed them that you really get your panties in a collective wad..."

Sarah, great post! You've got a roll going today! Stay on it!

Obama/Biden 2012

@Just Shaking my head

Care to cite the source for your 19% military expenditures? Didn't think so.

Why is it even the Cato and Heartland institutes peg it at near 50% and you don't? Ahh, I know. You get to 62% by lumping all Veteran's Affairs costs into Entitlements. You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

Question, why do you lump Welfare into "Entitlements"? Entitlements are things we are entitled to because we paid into them. Taking my entitlements from me has a word for it. It's called stealing. It's the same as nationalizing a pension fund (remember those-pension funds? the ones raided for CEO bonuses after bankruptcy?) The only "economic disaster" looming is for the 1%. No mention of the fact that the Reagan - Tip O'Niell engineered entitlement program cash for higher taxes on the weathy is now 35 years overdue. "Economic Disaster" doesn't happen when CEO pay is slashed, economic disaster happens when the 15% chronically hungry come to your house looking for food.

@BitterHawk

What makes you think you have the ability to "vote the Tea Party bums out"?

Uhhh, Wisconsin?

ROY WILSON-336103 "Another provision opposed by most Democrats would deny illegal immigrants tax refunds from the $1,000-per-child tax credit."

Nice bait and switch, again. Or in the words of Reagan, “There you go again.” As in there you go again, distorting truth.

What is truth? In order to file a tax return you have to have a valid Social Security number.

Hmm, how did that “illegal immigrant” get a valid social security number again?

Hmm, how did that “illegal immigrant” get work with either a valid or “invalid” social security number?

Maybe instead of spending the money on a tank, we should be spending a little more on IRS, DOL and INS auditors to ferret out those bad employers? Of course, you ARE against further governmental enforcement of even existing regulations and statutes.

After all, if you’re an illegal immigrant and you can’t find work, would you be here?

Oh, by the way, how is it again you would know if the tax return is an illegal immigrant?

If they’re working, paying taxes (including local sales, property, state income taxes, not to mention the federal income and social security taxes), that’s a “bad thing” again, how?

As I said, nice bait and switch from the real issue of stagnant wages and benefits by wealthy employers, probably hiring those very illegal immigrants.

No, illegals DON'T need a SS# to file taxes. They use an ID number. Maybe more citizens should be po'd that the illegals are getting all sorts of credits. Same citizens also might be very po'd to know that many illegals are working and also drawing full welfare benefits. Might have something to do with all their fake ID. Ya think?

Ivan, you are right on one count and that is Congress has NOT been doing their job - BOTH parties. First of all I am NOT a Republican nor was I defending the Republicans especially liberal lite G.W. Bush.

Here is the simple truth Ivan, both parties have been playing a dangerous game of partisan posturing. The Republicans with a few exceptions have gone along with most tax increases and have refused to do any real adjustment to our broken welfare system. There have been only two instances since 1970 that there has been some form of welfare reform and that was minuscule to say the least. One was during Ronald Reagan's administration and the other during Clinton's administration. Neither of the Bush's did anything to reform "entitlements" and neither has the current administration. Those entitlements are growing at such a rapid pace that even if we did tax the so-called 1% in the manner that has been suggested by the Democrats we would NEVER make up the deficit between spending and revenue. Honestly that whole tax the rich cry from the Democrats is a political ruse.

Which brings me to the "talking points" you parroted things like, letting the elderly and poor starve or die. NOBODY wants that. Do you really think that Republican's or anyone for that matter would be so callous. Remeber that just about all Republican's have family, young, elderly, sick and in some cases not exactly rich. In fact whenI first heard some partisan Democrat talk about the rich Republicans I decided to research which party members in Congress were the richest - guess who it was? Eight of the top ten richest men in Congress are Democrats. Does that mean anything, not really, but the truth is there are many republican and democrat representatives in the house that are not only not rich but in some cases would be considered lower middle class.

If we all stopped letting our emotions get the best of us with these false argument about starving the poor and letting the elderly die and REALLY look at the facts, we would realize that both sides of the isle although well meaning have been taking us all for a ride.

The bottom line is the entitlement programs have grow from being a safety net to dependency programs. In other words instead of helping people up many of the welfare programs have grown so big and bureaucratic that there are in many cases generations of families that live off the taxes of the rest of us. IN ither words these programs have created little economic ghettos totally dependant on the government. Additionallu there are cases of illegal immigrants that have usurped the system and stolen thousands of dollars of our taxes. I'm not talking about feeding children of illegal immigrants born here, but about illegals that have stolen identities through fake social security cards and similar scams. I could go on and on with the abuses in the system, but I think you get my point. The system is broken and needs to be fixed - throwing more money at the problem will not fix it.

I agree that military spending is also too much, my point was that the left side of the aisle is lying to promote their agenda - military spending is NOT the biggest part of the budget and reforming welfare and other entitlement programs will NOT make babies and the elderly starve.

@ Sarah-3043284 : I think you are being a little dramatic claiming that children here will be starving to death. If you want to see children starving to death please check Africa. Even the poorest of the poor have it better here than just about everybody else in the world.

We have been hearing for decades that Washington was going to weed out waste fraud and abuse. But then you hear about the GSA and now the TSA, then Medicare and the list goes on. Washington couldn't find waste fraud or abuse if their lives depended on it.

We have been hearing for decades that Washington needed to reform the tax code. Get rid of loopholes and simplify the tax code. But here we are still just talking about it while members of congress and the White House use the tax code for political and personal gains. Whenever you hear the terms targeted tax cuts, it is going to be aimed at something politically expedient and not palatable to the members across the isle.

No one in Washington is truly working for the people, they work for themselves and pretend to work for us. They make promises and assign blame, but in the end nothing positive ever gets done. Washington is poorly managed with virtually no oversight, and they quite frankly have no ability or desire to see it fixed. Politicians live far too well off taxpayers, and they see no need for that to change.

Just remember this. No matter which way the gubmint goes with anything the average American, be they civilian or soldier, and America itself as a nation, will be the ones that takes the hit. Hide and watch.

Spin baby Spin ..... disco infeeeernnooooo, spin baby spin !

Don't you just love how the geniuses here at MSDNC can spin "causality" without focusing on the bigger financial picture ?

Our country is about $16 trillion debt, Obama's administration has yet to produce a mandated budget and federal agencies like GSA and TSA continue to waste our country's money like drunken sailors (my apologies to drunken sailors everywhere). There has been absolutely no attempt by the Obama administration to reign in spending like Obama promised when he said he would review the budget "line by line". Then you can stir in "government green giveaways" (called "loans" for political purposes) to Obama's friends who just happen to be campaign contributors.

Bankrupt America ? "YES, WE CAN !!!"

There are lies, damned lies, and Republican truth.

Why are Republicans focused on failure instead of success? Why do Republicans focus on illegal aliens gaming the system and ignore defense contractors gaming the system?

All those evil 'entitlements' are paid for with taxes on working people - FICA taxes. Defense is paid for with income taxes. The Republicans CANNOT use FICA taxes to pay for defense. Cutting 'entitlements' does not solve the deficit spending for defense.

The Republicans are using the bogeyman of 'entitlements' to hide that there is not enough income taxes to pay for defense. We are defending our country on money borrowed from China.

The truth is - Republicans are lying so they can continue to 'borrow and spend' on defense lobbyist. The only job a Republican creates is one that is bought with tax payer money.

Fed up -

Absolutely the kids can do something to help make up the difference. It doesn't matter if it's 2 or 3 kids out of 4 in a family; what is wrong with the kids doing a small amount of work to help keep their family afloat? Cutting a yard, washing a car, setting up a lemonade stand, whatever, isn't hard manual labor. I got a kick out of you blowing my statement out of proportion, acting as if I meant send them to the field to sweat all day.

I think having the kids do work to help provide for the family is a good life lesson, it teaches them that they have to work to live. If you don't have something you need, you find a way to work and earn what you need. Having the government "give" you something isn't the answer, it's the problem. My parents made me work for things when I was a kid, and I turned out just fine...have a nice job and family and don't require government assistance to live.

That's the problem with today's society, the mentality is, if one doesn't have something, just keep doing what you're doing and try to qualify for government assistance; the rich have too much and they can pay for it. People need to realize if they don't have their needs fulfilled, they need to work harder, or change professions, cut back on unnecessary items, etc. until they can manage their household. I understand there are people who are truly stricken with bad luck and get caught in a hole, but government aid is not meant to be life sustaining. It's supposed to be temporary until one can turn their life in another direction and be able to support themselves. Too many people think they can just live off the government for their entire lives and it has to stop. Some sort of independance needs to happen, or else we'll ALL be living in that 3rd world country you think I was suggesting for those who will be decimated by losing 60 bucks a month.

maddog -

I totally agree corruption is on both sides of the isle. One party cannot be blamed for the mess we are in today. It has been decades of BS brewing to bring us to this point. We need to clean house and elect representatives that will not cave to special interests and legislate only what benefits everyone, not just a certain group.

jaycfo...: you do not have to have a social security number to file a tax return and claim child/dependant status; the IRS will issue a TIN number(tax id number), to any person who does not have social security number.

Why don't they just vote to reduce their own lavish retirement and health benifits? They do one term, and they are set for life. There's not even much punishment in voting these people out of office.

Nerm L said....."The Republicans CANNOT use FICA taxes to pay for defense."

Sorry Nerm, but they (gubmint in general, they are all traitors) can do anything they dang well please. As if they haven't done enough over the last few yrs. to prove it, like for instance stealing away our liberties left and right, totally giving our country away to the rest of the world with unbalanced free trade and allowing our manufacturing base to be off shored, and then allowing illegals to come in here and take over by the millions. Yes they can damn sure do ANYTHING they want to because the American peoples complacency allows them to. However, it doesn't seem to matter how loud we yell anymore, they still do whatever the hell they want.

I don't really have a problem with "illegals" "gaming" the system. There's a reason for the tax laws, and the tax laws state that if you have children then you get a credit. If we are going to tax them, then they have a right to claim exemptions. Mexican children don't feel less hungry than American children.

Our national debt stands at $15.7 trillion. $14.8 trillion of that debt has been created since 1980. $0.94 of every dollar of debt has been created since Reagan's election - 30 years ago.

Republicans controlled the White House for 20 of those years.
Republicans controlled one or both houses of Congress for 17 of those years.

During those 30 years - welfare benefits were overhauled and cut - education was cut - infrastructure spending was cut.

During those 30 years - more subsidies were enacted - defense spending was increased - more wars were fought - more tax cuts were enacted.

What did the government buy with that $14.8 trillion? Social Security was running surpluses and buying national debt - it was not spent on Social Security. Medicare and Medicaid were completely paying for themselves until 10 years ago and FICA taxes and beneficiary contributions still pay for the majority of the outlays.

The $14.8 trillion debt was not spent on 'entitlements' - it was spent on tax cuts, subsidies, earmarks, nation building, defense spending.

Some claim that repeating mistakes is a form of insanity. Doubling down on plain stupid is something quite different.

ModerateDem: in #1.69 you write, "They do one term, and they are set for life." This is inaccurate. One must serve five years in Congress to be vested in the retirement/health care system. That's the reason why Gabby Giffords waited over a year after her injury to resign--so she'd have her five years in.

This is what really gets to me. The Republicans argue that defense cuts would lead to "troop cuts and gains made against terrorism" and would be a national security threat.

They exploit our worries. They use alarmist tactics like the threat of our troops suffering by not having enough troops to keep each other safe, or their pay or benefits being cut, or that our national security will be in grave danger, to try to convince us that defense cuts would be a mistake of epic proportions.

This is just insulting. There are a multitude of bloated expenses in our defense budget that could be cut without risk to our troops or any decline in the benefits they deserve for their service. This is exploitation of our patriotism, intended to make us feel guilty and un-American by acting as though we would be showing a lack of appropriate appreciation for their sacrifices.

Did you know the US "leases" missiles from defense contractors, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for those missiles to sit around until if and when we need them? Then if we do deploy a missile, we then purchase it for a few million bucks?

The Republicans also like to talk about how government should be more efficient. They point to how we have numerous agencies that perform the same function (the Oklahoma governor appeared on the Daily Show; and he pointed out that sometimes a politician's ego leads them to create "their own" agency rather than cleaning up existing ones. But even he pointed to teaching programs, and failed to look at Republican favorites). Apparently it's ok to point the finger at programs the Democrats are in favor of, but not at programs the Republicans favor. But consolidation would be useful pretty much across the board.

Does anyone really think the Pentagon is as efficient as it could be? How about the fact that we have a multitude of initials protecting us - there's the NSA, CIA, DIA, FBI, DHS, to name a few (ATF, DEA...). Their directives overlap and their functions are very similar - hell, the FBI was our Dept. of Homeland Security, but instead of either broadening their scope or budget, GW needed to make his mark and created a separate agency that is more bloated and high-budget than the rest of them. Instead of being an efficient defense for our country, they try to one-up each other, don't want to share intel like they should to effectively protect us as best they can, and fight over jurisdiction and their slice of the budget pie.

So are we to believe our troops have to suffer? When there is an entire bloated defense budget with a multitude of things in it that could be cut? Or should we maybe believe that we are being played and manipulated? Because if we're honest, the only risk to our soldiers' lives or benefits would be the Republicans choosing to make cuts in those places instead of more logical areas (which...gasp...would go against their lobbyists' desires!).

The Democrats play the game too, with their "they want to let seniors die" tactics. The fact is, there could be cuts in a lot of places, and more efficiency pretty much EVERYWHERE. But before cutting programs that so many Americans really need - especially now with the economy still limping along through recovery, let's try to prioritize.

Is it really that outrageous, to consider, in this order: (1) cutting some fat from the defense budget where it really can and should be cut, (2) raising taxes on the highest earners - not to an unreasonable rate or even necessarily where it has been in the past, but higher than the ridiculously low rates they have been enjoying (since this period of time with the lowest tax rates for "job creators" has also been the era of the most outsourcing ever), and (3) consolidating and cutting other programs that could be made more efficient, like "entitlement" programs?

That is both reasonable and achievable, and would make everyone and nobody (in Washington at least) happy because both sides are both getting what they want and giving in to what they don't want. It's called compromise and working for the country's interest.

Yeah JLS, the same tactics Democrats use when they claim Republicans want to take food from the mouths of children, or that they want dirty air and water for our children. Both sides do it, but I happen to think Democrats do it better.

@ dslca.......I do realize she was almost killed on the job, but she's just a typical politico. She didn't hesitate for one second to scarf up all the freebies she could on the tax payers dime. FIRE EM ALL!

My wife and I qualify for the Child Tax Credit - and our kids are long gone (from the home), it's called "being poor". We will gladly trade you jobs and paychecks so we no longer qualify for this break - any takers? BTY; my wife has a government job - she has been frozen at (she starting wage) $10.00 an hour, for 5 plus years. Sorry - I got sucked into to Roy's hi-jack, back to the topic.

The Republican war profiteers and the carnage they leave behind make Fast and Furiouslook like nothing, zip, nadda, zilch, one American dies from F&F and the GOP throws it out at every opportunity - one "smart bomb" in Iraq takes out 50 innocent civilians and it's "the cost of freedom" to the GOP... that is messed up. You talk about God judging you in the end - then defend this crap - somebody pimp slap these lost souls back into reality.

They need to cut back on food stamps. Hell I work a full time white collar job, and I see people all the time buying groceries I can't afford, and they use their Oregon Trails card. I see junk food, energy drinks, pre-made food, steaks, etc, etc. So yea, cut back on the food stamps. A lot of people on welfare live better than those that work for a living. The people I know on welfare just disgust me with the way they waste money, play all day, etc on my dime. The worst part is the high majority that I know are all work able.

I have no problem helping the poor, but let's find the truely poor people in this country and help them, and kick the rest of the these free loading scum off the system.

Republicans are howling about welfare. The government's outlays for 'welfare' programs have increased over the last 30 years. That is not because the benefit checks are bigger - that is not because individuals get more 'free' money.

Welfare spending has increased - because - more people need welfare.

The government could have avoided that - by growing the economy - by increasing wages - by providing incentives to work.

But that is not what has happened over the last 30 years.

Right to Work - 'free trade' - incentives to offshore jobs - easy credit and easy debt - deregulation - tax cuts for capital gains - favoring investing instead of work - favoring profits instead of people.

Republicans plowed that field. Republicans planted that crop. It's too late to complain about the harvest.

Rick; that is the argument of a 4yo; your side is worse than my side... good gawd, does that fly in your real life?

GiveitaRest,

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm

http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/hunger-and-poverty-statistics.aspx

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/fooddesert/documentation.html

You must realize that the Military\Industrial Complex is starving and must be fed. It doesn't matter if everyone else, (Including Military Personnel) are drastically hurt. Their "Dream" machines are in dire needs.

Maybe the Radical Republicans who gain so much from this complex, are trying to bring down the rest of the world like Reagan did with the USSR. Maybe they want to create the final version of "One World Government, One World Finance" with them at the helm. Merely by outspending every other Nation in Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Alex is posting from work, stealing from his employer, and has the nerve to claim others are thieves... lmao. Name one person you know who is on Welfare and has it better than those with jobs? These unfounded generalizations would embarrass any logically thinking person.

The sad part Sarah is I know people that abuse the food banks. A lady I know works a full time job, has two kids, married, husband works full time also. She lied to the state saying he left her, so she gets WIC, foodstamps, energy assistance. She hits food banks multiple times a month, hits the all at xmas for presents, etc. Yet she eats out breakfast and lunch, and has a mininum of three large Human Bean coffees a day (and yes she weighs about 300 lbs!).

My sympathy for those on welfare dissapates more and more the older I get and more abuse I see. I do want to help those in need, but 99% of what I see is those that are lazy and irresponsible taking advantage of the system and others that are trying to help out of the goodness of their hearts.

The extreme high majority of the 'poor' people in this nation have it better than the poor in any other part of the world.

Hey old people, keep voting Republican to help get rid of social security and medicare.

It could be worse. Our 'poor' have it better than the 'poor' in other countries.

That is true.

That is not the point.

For 30 years, we chose to NOT make it better.

TO: Give it a rest! who wrote:

"@ Sarah-3043284 : I think you are being a little dramatic claiming that children here will be starving to death. If you want to see children starving to death please check Africa. Even the poorest of the poor have it better here than just about everybody else in the world."

I disagree. I think Sarah's close.

What Republicans refuse to face is, we have a growing population. People who were forced on to the welfare roll due to Republicans' economic policies under the Republican Bush Administration do not receive enough money to pay for housing, they ONLY receive food and I think some clothing.

I, for one, do not understand how these unfortunate Americans obtain housing.

But what I do know is, when Republicans talk about cutting welfare, they're talking about cutting the amount of food these poor families are able to receive.

Obama/Biden 2012

Maybe the GOP isn't really serious about cutting spending.

Of course they're not! If they were they wouldn't have started 2 wars, provide tax cuts to the wealthy and created Medicare Part D funding all of it on a Chinese credit card.

"GOP plan cuts social programs to protect Pentagon"

Not exactly man bites dog, is it?

Tomorrow's headline: "Sun comes up in the East...AGAIN!"

@ Sarah & American Girl : Hunger is not starvation. If the household is "food insecure" then go to the food pantry and get some groceries for free. Yes, food pantries still exist. We have one in our tiny little city and it is very busy. It is not the Federal Governments role to feed people. It's not the Federal Government's role to house people. These specific problems are for the States to deal with. I'd prefer to see these dealt with at the local level. That is what churches and charities are for.

Nerm_L - and what is going to make it better? We already GIVE so much to the poor, you can't tell they are poor, and as another poster had said, they eat way better than those of us who work! This has been going on for decades. I remember standing in the grocery store in the late 1980's with $5 to spend on groceries for the week. The cart in front of me was full of food, including steak and shrimp. All paid for with food stamps. The couple lived in the same apartment complex as I did, their rent was paid too. I had to pay for all of my needs as I was employed, not well employed, just employed.

It is time to stop giving away prosperity. People are becoming so lazy and entitlement hungry, it is disgusting.

Republicans claim -

- illegal aliens are too greedy
- welfare recipients are too greedy
- mortgage borrowers are too greedy
- the retired are too greedy
- unions are too greedy
- teachers are too greedy
- government workers are too greedy
- workers are too greedy

Exactly who was it that claimed 'greed is good'?

Do the Republicans really believe that 99 pct of us are the problem?

GiveItARest: We have a food pantry in my little city too. It routinely runs out of food about ten days into each month. The only people I personally know on Food Stamps (a married couple in their early 40s who lost the jobs they'd had in a factory for almost 20 years when the company offshored their jobs) eats one meal a day as that's all the Food Stamps will pay for. There is not even one single working, open, running factory in the whole county I live in. They can't move: they have a home/mortgage here and she says right now they have total $27 in cash. Their natural gas has been cut off. They cut the cable immediately when they got laid off. When their car tax is due next month, they'll have to surrender their plates as they can't pay it. But a food pantry, according to you, will solve all their problems.

@willowbrook -- We make it better

- by growing the economy for ALL Americans instead of a favored few
- by rewarding WORK instead of risk
- by rewarding SAVING instead of debt
- by favoring WAGES instead of capital gains
- by providing incentives for JOBS instead of profits
- by supporting FAMILIES instead of cheap labor

by creating a future for everyone instead of holding us in the past for a favored few.

I'm not sure what tax credit they are talking about, and the article didn't attempt to explain it. An illegal can't get a valid social security number, but the law requires those who need a number for tax purposes to get an ITIN number. But the IRS specifically says an ITIN does not entitle illegals to the Earned Income Credit. Source: IRS Publication 1915 (Rev. 1-2012), page 10.

So I'm confused what $1000 child credit they are talking about, because the standard deduction is like $3700 per dependant.

Militaristic...

dslsca: I'm pretty sure that's a load of BS that they "only eat one meal per day". I have a cousin on food stamps and she gets $500 + per month. She also gets free milk and ceral from WIC to go along with her unemployment benefits. She gets so much stuff that she needs to give it away so it doesn't spoil.

You know the really sad part of all of this ,The Nit Wits from the Nit Wit party will vote for these anti Americans knowing full well they are inflicting pain and suffering on their family's friends, and fellow Americans and never even think twice about it

One of the surprising little factoids from the Republican primaries was that Michele Bachmann provided foster care for 23 children. The Bachmann family received quite a bit of government money for doing that.

Is that wrong?

Someone needed to care for those children - even if only for a couple of weeks. Obviously the Bachmann family provided better care than simply warehousing the children in an orphanage.

Did Michele Bachmann 'profit' from providing that foster care? Does it really matter?

The important thing is caring for the children - not the spending.

We need to get our priorities straight - or - we fail as a nation.

Actually when the middle class is pushed into poverty, and no services provided, Pentagon can easily recruit them into the military, send them off to die a Patriot....

TO: Give it a rest! who wrote:

"@ Sarah & American Girl : Hunger is not starvation..."

AND the United States already has enough weapons to destroy this planet 10 times or more.

Obama / Biden 2012

Yes we do have enough weapons. That's why I posted earlier that we need to cut the Pentagon budget, end the wars and close the 800 bases around the world.

Ron Paul 2012

GiveItAR: I know these people personally and have known them for years. Are you calling me a liar when I describe the desperation the current economic situation has driven them to??

@American Girl,

You really don't have a clue what the welfare system gives. That's fine, my older sister didn't, I educated her a few weekends ago and she was shocked:

1. HUD housing (some are new, or like new housing)

2. Food stamps (per dependent)

3. Cash assistance (per dependent)

4. Gas vouchers (free gas)

5. Energy assistance (electrical, gas, water)

6. Free cell phones

7. Medicaid (free medical)

8. Child care

9. WIC (if applicable)

Not only that, they can claim income tax per dependent, so whatever taxes were taken for their cash assistance, they get above and beyond that per dependent.

Like I said before, I'm not against helping the poor. I've been poor and lived out of cars in my life, but never took a dime from the government during that time. I managed to drag myself out of the gutter, get a degree and get out of debt.

The majority of the 'poor' in this country are living better than the average middle class due to the government tit, and there is no incentive for them to get off it.

Trim the welfare to the basic needs, and then if they want to live better, they can work for it.

I didn't get where I'm at having it handed to me, I'll be damned if you'll convince me other people should.

@AlexM-3929653 -- All the services you list vary state to state. Welfare programs are administered by individual states. The Federal government reimburses each state - and - each state pays a portion of the tab.

You obviously live in a state with a generous welfare program. Not all states are so generous.

@Nerm

True, my state wouldn't be blue if it weren't for the northern I-5 corridor (I live in Oregon). Our governor is in bed with Obama so is in the process of extending out Medicaid by the millions, while at the same time cutting the amount payed to the companies that deal with it. So the ladies that do all the paperwork are having their work more than doubled while going without any raises and getting benefits cut.

It's sickening.

@BitterHawk

What makes you think you have the ability to "vote the Tea Party bums out"?

Uhhh, Wisconsin?

Arsenic,

What are you talking about? If you are talking about the state legislature, the Tea Party is still in power there and held off the Democratic challenge. If you are referring to the recall election, I wouldn't be counting my chickens just yet if I were you. In case, like many Democrats, you are under the mistaken impression that the Tea Party has lost their relevence, all I have to say to you is:

Uhhh, Indiana?

@AlexM-3929653 -- Oregon also receives a fair portion of defense contracts, too. Those aircraft engines ARE expensive - when they are built with $500 hammers.

Spending cuts - instead of growing the economy - simply means your state will get whacked at both ends.

Ron Paul is no more a republican than I am, they are as afraid of him as the democrats.

Way to go Grand Ole Plutocrats!!!!!!!! For a political party that constantly states how important religion is in all life decisions (gay marriage, abortion, contraception, etc.) they certainly don't practice the values that both the bible and Jesus espouse. Would Jesus have provided his followers armor, swords, spears and helms bought with money stolen from the poor? In the GOP bizarro world Jesus would have done EXACTLY that. To the Grand Ole Plutocrats, religion only matters when it comes to getting votes, depriving people of a equality and forcing unneeded and dangerous procedures upon women seeking to make a CHOICE about THEIR bodies.

Why was post 1.38 collapsed? Anyone have an idea?

willowbrook:

RE: your post #1.35

Sorry my friend! Your post is nothing short of a post of fiction. Your first paragraph shows you DO NOT even recognize that the cuts have ALREADY been agreed upon. They were agreed upon and signed into law in August of 2011. The Budget Control Act was passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Obama in August, 2011, so there is nothing to negotiate. The cuts are, by law, automatic and hit every part of the budget including social programs and defense. Second, even the Republicans will admit they are the obstructionist and have been since Obama was elected president. In the immortal words of Steven Tyler: "Dream on, Dream on, Dream on.....!" If you want FACTS, check my citations in my post #1.28. The citations should be to your liking since they are FOX NEWS and FORBES MAGAZINE, not exactly two stanch liberal publications, don't you agree?

It's the way good republicans think. Feed someone now and later they get killed in a war, you have just wasted the cost of the feeding. Best to spend it on bullets to fire back at the one who killed you. A hungry person who becomes dead is without account anyway. I'm sure some repuiblican wrote that at some time, or thought about it, and wished He/She knew how to write well enough to record it.

Alex: just fyi in regards to your frankly incredible list of benefits that you seem to think people don't deserve: in my state no able bodied adult is eligible for Medicaid. Period.

Another provision opposed by most Democrats would deny illegal immigrants tax refunds from the $1,000-per-child tax credit.

So you mean to tell me Libs are just fine with giving money to people that are here by breaking a US law. It is freaking amazing to me the mentality of you Libs.

What happens when this country all falls apart because of your spending? You want to give everyone welfare so they will depend on the government, It is going to fall apart this year is the first year that the tax money brought in will not even cover our current obligations this was not supposed to happen until 50 years from now.

I read an article that said the DHS (department of homeland security) sees another civil war happening in the very near future; I wonder why they would think that? Could it possible have to do with our rights being stripped away from us on a daily bases, or maybe it is they are realizing how pissed off people are about the government spending, or is it that Obama keeps funding and increasing the numbers of all those on entitlements, or is it Obama giving 3/4 of a trillion dollars to three green companies that went bankrupt after getting the tax dollars.

Many of the entitlements we give out go to people that don't want to work at all, they just want to sit at their house sell drugs and collect government money, for life sometimes, while taxing the SH*T out of those of us that do work for a living. If you actually DRUG TESTED all of those that received government assistance money and cut off their payment if they tested positive for any drugs than the welfare system could actually benefit those it was meant to help. I will tell you welfare was designed to help those in dire need for a few years, they were not designed to be a life time of government payment. ALL OF YOU ON WELFARE THAT ARE AMBLED BODY GET OFF YOUR A**ES AND GO TO WORK, QUIT LETTING ME AND THE OTHER 47% OF THE TAX PAYERS TAKE CARE OF YOUR TIRED A88ES WE ARE TIRED OF IT.. The 47% pay taxes while 53% don't pay any taxes but the 53% still get a tax refund, how does that work? If you don't pay any taxes, I don't care what type of credit they call it, you should not get a tax refund. A tax refund should be for the people that tax actually pay taxes and those are the only ones that should get a tax refund.

In the first place the federal government over step its boundaries, the government was not supposed to be able to tax your labor only the states were permitted to do that. Since the government/Obama can't control their spending so much they should all be thrown out. All you Libs are ruining America by your actions to make a few of you happy you are willing to trample the rights of the majority now that is just wrong, I guess when you have an agenda like socialism than no price is too high if you are able to achieve your goal.

Obama instead of trying to turn America around, as he said he would on the campaign trail, has only created a bigger divide within Congress, he rushes to judgment on issues trying to make them into racial ones, NO GOOD LEADER DOES THIS. Obama said and I quote "If I can’t get the economy turned around in three years that I don't think I would deserve another term". I am here to tell you the economy has not turned around. Unemployment is still at 8.2%, that is not progress especially since Obama said if we passed the stimulus unemployment would not go above 8% but in fact it has been above 8% since Feb 2009 and it was up over 9% since May 2009 and didn't come back to under 9% until Oct 2011 so as you can see the economy was the furthest thing for Obama's mind. Two years of unemployment above 9% under Bush the unemployment was at around 5.3%, right now if you include the unemployment for 2009 to Bush's unemployment totals it is 5.8%, Obama's is 9.2% this for 2010 to present.

.http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57358484/tax-dollars-backing-some-risky-energy-projects/

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt

.http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/obamas-magic-number-150000-jobs-per-month/

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/06/the-true-origins-of-this-finan

http://realetybytes.com/?tag=unemployment

Norm L,

@AlexM-3929653 -- All the services you list vary state to state. Welfare programs are administered by individual states. The Federal government reimburses each state - and - each state pays a portion of the tab.

You obviously live in a state with a generous welfare program. Not all states are so generous.

You are wrong for the most part in every state they receive

1. HUD housing (some are new, or like new housing I knew someone that was on welfare and hud works like this were I lived I was paying $1200 dollars the lady on hud was paying $300)

2. Food stamps (per dependent plus the mother or the father)

3. Cash assistance (per dependent plus the mother or the father)

4. Energy assistance (electrical, gas, water a discount on services)

5. Life Line Telephone (landline at a discounted cost 3/4 less than normal a bill)

6. Medicaid (free medical)

7. Child care (this is so they can look for work but most sell drugs while the state pays for daycare)

8. WIC (if applicable for all children up to 5 years old)

So yes Alex was right, look it up for your own state. Abled body people get services all the time it is called lying. Just as most on welfare say that one of the parents are not living in the house so that the mother or father get the same benefits as the child(even though both parents live in the home). I also know this because I grew up in a low income area and I watched people game the system every day. So you cannot convince me that they have all of a sudden seen the error of their ways and don't game the system anymore.

Wow, what a fine view into the Conservative world of FYIGM. First of all:

Hunger is not starvation. If the household is "food insecure" then go to the food pantry and get some groceries for free. Yes, food pantries still exist

I know about the food bank...I'm a representative to the organization that runs our local nonprofit food bank. If donations and need continue at the current rate they'll eat through their entire cash reserves by the end of the year. Food pantries are overstressed and underfunded...everywhere.

Now for this pile of nonsense;

"1. HUD housing (some are new, or like new housing I knew someone that was on welfare and hud works like this were I lived I was paying $1200 dollars the lady on hud was paying $300)"

The wait for HUD housing here is about 2 1/2 years...but that's OK, misrepresent it as cheap and plentiful.

"2. Food stamps (per dependent plus the mother or the father)"

Needs tested and cuts off at $24,000 for a family of 2. Ever try to support a family on $24,000/yr? I wouldn't like to...but it exceeds the income of a minimum wage earner by almost $9,000/yr.

"3. Cash assistance (per dependent plus the mother or the father)" Does this imaginary program have a name? What are the enrollment criteria? What's the amount of benefit. John D Rockefeller used to give "cash assistance" to the poor by handing out dimes...the wealthy elites represented by the Conservative Movement haven't gotten any more generous over time.

"4. Energy assistance (electrical, gas, water a discount on services)" 10 qualified applicants for every grant available before the money runs out here year in and year out...and it doesn't cover water.

"5. Life Line Telephone (landline at a discounted cost 3/4 less than normal a bill)" Doesn't exist here

"6. Medicaid (free medical)" As another poster pointed out, unavailable to most working poor.

"7. Child care (this is so they can look for work but most sell drugs while the state pays for daycare)" There are some subsidies here for those paid very little, but I can't help but make note of your "blame the victim" mentality...again, typical Conservative trash talk.

"8. WIC (if applicable for all children up to 5 years old)" God forbid we keep children from getting rickets or scurvy...how could we?

If you think life on the dole is such a treat why don't you try it? Bet it won't last. Anyone who hasn't seen Morgan Spurlocks film "30 days Living on Minimum Wage" isn't even qualified to criticize if they haven't lived it...and anyone who's lived it knows better.

JohnB: Amen, Brother!

@Dslsca : I'm not calling you a liar in any way. I'm guessing that you don't live in New York State, the Welfare capital of America. I thought Alex was from NY at first... If your friends are only eating one meal a day I pray that you are having them over to your house everyday to help them in their time of need. If you aren't helping them who will??? And don't expect J.C. to beam down from the sky to help if he hasn't shown up yet. It is up to our communities to help each-other.

GiveItAR: I'll certainly share with them from my garden when it starts to come in (and I have friends who generously shared with me from their successful deer hunting season in the fall). I'd offer to pay their car tax and fill up the tank if I could afford it (I used to donate what seemed to me like a lot to the "Share the Warmth" fund every year and I helped out a local kid down on his luck who had two children before age twenty until he was killed by a drive-by shooter and the women and the kids moved away). My own finances now--while not in the "one meal a day" category--don't allow me to do the things I used to either for myself or for others. I did just last month give $600 to a young man in a very dire situation, but that was more than I could afford and I'm now behind on my little budget for at least several months.

Moving to protect the Pentagon, Republicans controlling the House are pressing cuts to food stamps, health care and pensions for federal workers as an alternative to an automatic 10 percent cut to the military come January.

Hahahaha. Typical Republicans. Refuse to compromise, and then skip out on bail. You guys set up this damn sword of Damocles by rejecting Obama's deficit proposal, and until you set up one that has some tax increases, you can go @!$%# each other. Stupid neocons.

Bill1488

Another provision opposed by most Democrats would deny illegal immigrants tax refunds from the $1,000-per-child tax credit.

So you mean to tell me Libs are just fine with giving money to people that are here by breaking a US law. It is freaking amazing to me the mentality of you Libs.

You do realize that 6 million unauthorized immigrant households file income returns, right??? You also realize that illegal immigrants essentially subsidize Social Security because they pay the taxes but don't get the benefits, right??? Whether they deserve tax credits is debatable, but at least remember that they pay taxes.

What happens when this country all falls apart because of your spending? You want to give everyone welfare so they will depend on the government, It is going to fall apart this year is the first year that the tax money brought in will not even cover our current obligations this was not supposed to happen until 50 years from now.

First of all, our country isn't falling apart, and definitely not because of spending. Domestic spending (excluding defense) is roughly half of the budget; within revenues. And since when do liberals want to give everyone welfare??? If welfare constitutes equal opportunity for all Americans, than yes, we do. Many people do manipulate welfare, but they are the minority. And there are ways to fix entitlements; raise revenues and trim outlays.

ALL OF YOU ON WELFARE THAT ARE AMBLED BODY GET OFF YOUR A**ES AND GO TO WORK, QUIT LETTING ME AND THE OTHER 47% OF THE TAX PAYERS TAKE CARE OF YOUR TIRED A88ES WE ARE TIRED OF IT.. The 47% pay taxes while 53% don't pay any taxes but the 53% still get a tax refund, how does that work?

It's reversed. 53% pay taxes, and 47% don't. If you want to prove a point, at least get the numbers right...

In the first place the federal government over step its boundaries, the government was not supposed to be able to tax your labor only the states were permitted to do that. Since the government/Obama can't control their spending so much they should all be thrown out. All you Libs are ruining America by your actions to make a few of you happy you are willing to trample the rights of the majority now that is just wrong, I guess when you have an agenda like socialism than no price is too high if you are able to achieve your goal.

Tell me where it is stated, in law, that the federal government cannot tax labor. And frankly, I don't care. You want to abolish the income tax??? Go ahead. But also say goodbye to most of our military and our social safety net. In addition, we are spending so much because of the RECESSION. The recession lowered revenues while increasing spending for safety nets. And if you really cared about the deficit, why don't you make up a proposal that is balanced and fair, and that includes tax increases and stimulus packages to offset the negative economic effects of austerity.

Obama instead of trying to turn America around, as he said he would on the campaign trail, has only created a bigger divide within Congress, he rushes to judgment on issues trying to make them into racial ones,

You do realize that it was the GOP that started this divide, right??? It wasn't Obama who stated that his number-one goal was to unseat the GOP; Republican Senator McConnell did. It wasn't Obama who colluded with his fellow party members to start a whole war of obstructionism on the day of the 112th Congress' inauguration; the GOP did that on his inauguration. He tried to smooth relations with compromises, tax cuts in the stimulus, large spending cuts in his deficit proposal, and a CONSERVATIVE healthcare plan. Yet all you damn right-wingers did was insult him and play the American people for fools. So all of you so-called "patriots" (yep, that includes you, Tea Party) can go @!$%# yourselves. And name me one time when Obama tried to instigate a racial incident.

NO GOOD LEADER DOES THIS. Obama said and I quote "If I can’t get the economy turned around in three years that I don't think I would deserve another term". I am here to tell you the economy has not turned around. Unemployment is still at 8.2%, that is not progress especially since Obama said if we passed the stimulus unemployment would not go above 8% but in fact it has been above 8% since Feb 2009 and it was up over 9% since May 2009 and didn't come back to under 9% until Oct 2011 so as you can see the economy was the furthest thing for Obama's mind.

Correction; unemployment is at 8.1%. And he NEVER promised that the stimulus would reduce it to below 8%, check Politifact. And in case you haven't noticed, THIS WAS THE BIGGEST DAMN RECESSION SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION!!!!!! Unemployment back then was 25%. Consider yourself damn lucky that all this "progressive entitlement" stuff kept the economy somewhat upright after this downturn hit us. And how the hell could you say that the economy is farthest from his mind??? For God's sake, the election is BASED on the economy.

Two years of unemployment above 9% under Bush the unemployment was at around 5.3%, right now if you include the unemployment for 2009 to Bush's unemployment totals it is 5.8%, Obama's is 9.2% this for 2010 to present.

You cannot accurately compare the Bush economic record and Obama's. I mean, Bush had an okay economy; Obama entered office when there was chaos on Wall Street. I mean, it's been only three years; and recoveries are slow nowadays thanks to income inequality and stagnant wages. You ought to be cutting Obama some slack, but like all right-wingers, you've been denouncing him at every turn. Seek the truth, my misguided friend, for the truth shall set you free...

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

@Dslsca Venison is delicious. Who can actually afford to fill a gas tank these days? I put in $20 in gas twice a week to get back and forth to work and don't drive anywhere else unless my kids need to. I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks and I know how people do what they have to do, whether it is gaming the system or taking down a few deer without tags. Our country needs to get it's priorities in order.

GIAR: I have always loved venison. I wish they could bag some wild boar or wild turkey for me. I like rabbit too! [Never ate possum or squirrel--my mother said they ate that when she was a kid in the 1920s and she hated both.] I'm lucky in that I hardly drive at all: I can walk to the bank and the local library and I drive to the grocery store once a week and the drug store once every three months. It's a very "local" life, but I have a slew of books and CDs and I have a piano, so I'm good to go staying home mostly. Luckily I traveled really excessively when I was working and got to see and do plenty; I wish I could travel a little now, but it's too expensive and the world's not really trustworthy/safe enough to do that now (though I am SOOOOOO tempted to try to go to Chicago to see the Roy Lichtenstein retrospective that's up at the Art Institute through Labor Day).

It's funny that you mentioned Possum. The owner/boss of the company I work for is now 88 years old. Two years ago he brought a possum (pre-skinned, stored in a bucket) in to work. He showed it to us and said that he was going to have it for dinner. He told me that he remembers the Depression and what they had to do to get by. He is saddened by what is happening these days. He and his wife voted for Ron Paul in the NY Primary... Yes he ate the Possum. He says it tastes good if it is seasoned right.

President Harry Truman in 1948: "The Republicans … will try
to make people believe that
everything the Government has done for the country
is socialism. They will
go to the people and say: "Did you see that social
security check you
received the other day—you thought that was good for you,
didn't you? That's just too bad! That's nothing in the world but socialism. Did
you see that
new flood control dam the Government is building over there for the

protection of your property? Sorry—that's awful socialism! That new hospital

that they are building is socialism. Price supports, more socialism for the

farmers! Minimum wage laws? Socialism for labor! Socialism is bad for you,
my
friend. Everybody knows that. And here you are, with your new car, and
your
home, and better opportunities for the kids, and a television set—you
are just
surrounded by socialism! Now the Republicans say, 'That's a
terrible thing, my
friend, and the only way out of this sinkhole of
socialism is to
vote for the
Republican ticket." And that was 64 Years
Ago!!!, the republicanCrimeCartel is still doing the same exploitation of people
THEY ARE NOTORIUS FOR. Now, according to KingGeorgeTheVacuumBrained, it is
called "free market" capitalism; with families in the streets and 21%
Unemployment.......

Remember Fellow and Sister Americans: A vote for ANY
republicanCrimeCartelSoldier, Rommel, is a vote Against Yours and Your Family's
WellBeing

Who'd av ever thunk it..... the Republicians supporting the Military Industrial Complex over the American People, what did they think we weren't going to find out.

And the words to the song go like this...."they're in it for the money, they don't care who gets killed".

Can you say bye bye Mittens?

@ give it a rest and the rest of you heartless conservatives.

"It is up to our communities to help each-other." Ya, I do that. Through the socialist program of representative taxation that this country was founded on. Taxes buy civilization. Civilization includes feeding the poor kids, even if their parents game the system. Buy in or get out. Civilization has no use for you. Go Galt. Get out.

Ask Europe how socialism is going. In fact, start with Greece... Socialism is an EPIC FAIL.

When all else fails stamp your feet and whine about Greece.

GiveItAR: Ask Iceland and Argentina how well defaulting worked for them and then ask Greece and Ireland how well austerity is working for them.

Ask Greece about how exempting the rich from paying taxes is working for them...

Give it a rest!

Ask Europe how socialism is going. In fact, start with Greece... Socialism is an EPIC FAIL.

Alright, that's it. I've had enough of you right-wingers badmouthing Europe. You wanna know what I think??? I think America should look to Europe for guidance, mostly for economic, health, education, and tax policies. In Europe they are healthier (thanks in part to "socialized medicine") than us, better educated than us (thanks to centralized education), have a greater focus on manufacturing than us (look at "socialist" Germany, which is actually booming compared to us), and have less inequality than us (check the stats). So shut up and mind your own damn business, dude. We looked to Europe for help when we were struggling for independence; we looked to Europe to form our democracy; we looked to Europe to help grow our economy; and we owe them a huge thanks for making us the superpower that we are. And instead of thanking this great land for their help, you @!$%#ing right-wingers keep attacking them as if they bombed the Twin Towers in New York and caused our recession. I am proud to be a liberal and look to Europe for guidance; look at Germany and Scandinavia. They are "socialist welfare states," and they are literally booming. So shut the hell up and mind your own @!$%#ing business. Europe is nowhere near socialism; and neither are we.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Yes, please go on about German Socialism... I remember a German political party that had "social" in it's name a few years back. What was the name of that group??? I think they made the trains run on time but ended up being the scourge of the Earth.

Please get your head out of the sand.

Ron Paul:2012 I'm voting for peace, I'm voting for Freedom

GiveItAR: comparisons to the Nazis insults and dismisses the tens of millions of people who died directly or indirectly as a result of their insanity and has no place in a political discussion.

No big surprise to see Giar trigger a Godwin's Law moment. He's been losing the argument steadily, starting WAY up the thread.

Ron Paul:2012 I'm voting for peace, I'm voting for Freedom

You're voting for catastrophe and destruction.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

ANALOGY is sometimes the clearest way to understanding ..

AMERICA is a home that houses 360 million people

we elect "parents" to responsibly oversee the operations of our

There is NO REASON AMERICA should function any different than YOUR HOME...

all the occupants fed, clothed, educated, employed and healthy with secure openings to the home

and security within it.

What we have is Repub's wanting to spend the food & health money at the GUN STORE,

they would rather we go hungry & have a stockpile of weapons (just in case) than full bellies

they would rather have a standing Army of sick people with weapons that a healthy one

they would rather have guns than a roof over their head....because without guns THEY ARE AFRAID,

the gun is their only source of security, not intelligence, not health, not strength .

The exact same can be said of GHETTO THUGS, their power & SECURITY is 100% THE GUNS .

The exact same can be said of the TALIBAN, their power & SECURITY is 100% THE GUNS .

See the pattern ?

There are 2 kinds of people in this world, those who live in fear out of ignorance & NEED WEAPONS

and those who have the abilities of reason, forethought & intelligence...

the dummies call these people ELITES.....

Nerm said:

@willowbrook -- We make it better

- by growing the economy for ALL Americans instead of a favored few

You mean those favored few like Union companies, Union public sector jobs, and Green energy? (Repaying those who supported his campaign) Too bad about those "Shovel ready jobs" guess they weren't so shovel ready. Let alone the rest of the Private sector jobs.... can't seem to help them at all. Let alone, we need that money we gave to the GM back. Get back to me when they pay that back. We already know the money for all those Green companies that went under will never come back.

- by rewarding WORK instead of risk

Rewarding those who do nothing. 99 weeks unemployment, food stamps and free medical, where's the incentive to get a job? I can't tell you how many calls I received where the caller expected as much as this unemployment before they would even consider applying for a job.

- by rewarding SAVING instead of debt

Oh like "Cash for Clunkers" and tax credit for buying a house? And let's not forget "giving more credit to small businesses so they spend it. "Both require going into credit debt, not savings.

- by favoring WAGES instead of capital gains

And how? My income has been decreasing. The roll back on the payroll taxes is hurting my future. Re-taxing already taxed money will not spur job growth, in contrast, that money is going to leave the country.

- by providing incentives for JOBS instead of profits

When and where? There has been absolutely no incentives in the private sector. If there is not work for the employee to perform, there is no reason to hire. Repeatedly, "incentives" are offered that are empty words. Until the govt regulations that have encouraged jobs to leave the country stops, nothing will change.

- by supporting FAMILIES instead of cheap labor

"Free health care" and all those other entitlements are not free. Making families dependent on the govt is stupid. Let alone, that "cheap" labor the Illegals are going. The vast majority of it is at $10.00 and hour and higher. Sure isn't minimum wage. And all the entitlements the Illegals are receiving, should stop. All they should be shown is the quickest way back to their country.

by creating a future for everyone instead of holding us in the past for a favored few.

Our current President and Democrats are rewarding only those who will keep them in power, not everyone. Fortunately, most are starting to see the light and are angry at the damage these folks are causing. It is time for a change. We can't afford 4 more years of this insanity. You, my friend need to get your head out of the sand and see what is really going on. The funny thing, I find it astonishing that people like you are willing to accept the pretty words as truth, when, if you actually looked past the pretty words, you would wonder "how in the world are they going to pay for this?" Because it can't be paid for, no way shape or form. 1+1 still =2, not 34. When people like you re-discover this, we will all be better off.

Bitterhawk,

You are so wrong. Americans in 2010 did not elect many tea party idiots...MANY, MANY times....Try Sharon Engle, Try Christine O'Donnell, Try Linda Mc Mahon, Try Carly Fiorina, Try Ken Buck....all of these were tea party supported candidates that many Americans felt were too extreme! America's opinion of the tea party is very low!

Romney the Anti-Obama??? really??? In a dark room you couldn't tell them apart, on their record you couldn't tell them apart

You are totally off base. The contract couldn't be more striking. One is for the wealthy and large corporations and the other for the people. The real facts speak for themselves.

A bloated out of control defense budget that needs to be examined for waste and graft-not increased. The thought of cutting social programs to increase defense spending is mission defying. Penalize the people to protect them? The waste and graft needs to be cut out of the social programs along with the military programs. The Ryan budget is obscene and does nothing to address the graft and corruption in the military budget. What programs can be cut in the military? What weapons are obsolete?

Disagree, they both are in it for the power. They both want what is best for themselves and will tell you whatever you want to hear. All of the politician's are lairs and thieves dem or repub and they are bought and paid for, and I do include romney even if he is rich he is still being controlled. They both will destroy America.

We want small governemt, we want small government! That's why we want to take all your money and give it to the largest most wasteful government program known to man...The military industrial complex.

What's hypocritical about that?

You do realize all of what you mentioned was due to the crash of 2008, which was caused by the very policies that Romney favors...don't you?

realist pondering

A bloated out of control defense budget that needs to be examined for waste and graft-not increased. The thought of cutting social programs to increase defense spending is mission defying. Penalize the people to protect them? The waste and graft needs to be cut out of the social programs along with the military programs. The Ryan budget is obscene and does nothing to address the graft and corruption in the military budget. What programs can be cut in the military? What weapons are obsolete?

I agree with significant cuts to defense - I'd like to see defense spending reduced by 50% over the next 10 years.

However, even if we do this, we are still not close to addressing our deficit problems. Using Obama's 10 year projections, medicare alone will run a deficit of around $6 trillion over the next 10 years, and it gets worse after that. I'm fine with not using Ryan's approach to get entitlement spending under control - if someone proposes a viable alternative. As of now, I haven't seen another alternative that's gotten any support. There were some recommendations in the presidents debt commission and from the "gang of 6", but even the administration doesn't seem to care about those recommendations.

Jimm-3229351

You do realize all of what you mentioned was due to the crash of 2008, which was caused by the very policies that Romney favors...don't you?

I think exactly what caused the crash is debatable. My opinion is, it was largely the result of the federal government tinkering with the housing market to try and make everyone a homeowner. This lead to regulatory changes that not only allowed for risky lending practices, it also added insurance against losses for financial institutions using those risky practices. Yes, the financial markets lobbied for those law changes (although the starter was Fannie/Freddie lobbying in the early 90's)...but I don't think those lobbying efforts would have succeeded without the federal government's home ownership goals.

Yeah, dahly, that great job creater romney, who in FOUR YEARS, during the HEIGHT of the real estate bubble, presided over the creation of a grand total of 24,000 jobs in a state of 6.5 million.

Meanwhile, THIS year, in MY home state of Minnesota with 5.5 million, about 20,000 have been created since January, about three MONTHS.

Hmm.

23 million unemployed, 19% underemployed and CNN reports 86 million no longer looking for gainful employment.

If you do the simple math on this, 109 million are out of work ~ over one-third of the population. Methinks someone is trying to blow smoke up my ass. Statistics are as plastic as a picnic spoon ~ they can be spun to support any argument. Unemployment is high ~ too high ~ but a little honesty would be helpful in painting an actual picture whether that honesty comes from statisticians, the administration, Fox, CNN, or the impassioned Obamaphobes with their very fertile imaginations.

well, we may not be able to afford to feed our poor, elderly, or children, but thanks God we can still afford a big army and new billion dollar tanks and planes.

@Dahly-1755482

While Obama may not have repaired all the damage yet, the fact of the matter is that the very policies espoused by Mr. Romney are what caused the problems in the first place. Electing Romney would be like discontinuing your cancer meds because it didn't cure it after a week.

Ron -

The federal government has no goals on its own. The crash was caused by banks and housing industry lobby pushing for the repeal of glass steagal so that investment banks and commercial banks could combine their operations, while also lobbying to put any risk to pseudo government entities (fannie and freddie). Once they could pool their money they pushed for limited lending restrictions. On the commercial side they wrote every loan they could (using fractionalized dollars - basically 'ledger' dollars...money that doesn't exist but is created on the ledger against a portion of assets held in customer accounts) and then on the investment side, they bet against the housing industry and loans through credit default swaps. So - they set up the system to write loans that would fail on one side of the business while betting they would fail on the other, all with the government guaranteeing portions of the loans through its programs. And it worked. The public responded with a run on the banks and the banks then went to the government and got more money through bail outs.

This all comes down to what you think 'business,' is or should be. My opinion - if you make a product or service, market it and compete to dominate the market for that product or service, you are in a healthy business. If you buy politicians to set up the system and then intentionally wreck the market to benefit through clever financial instruments and then take money from the people through bailouts, you are a domestic terrorist, no different than Bin Laden selling airlines short before blowing them up.

That's our problem. We are a nation full of domestic terrorists that is unable to recognize this (I guess it is the suits and ties and money that is throwing us off of it).

I agree with significant cuts to defense - I'd like to see defense spending reduced by 50% over the next 10 years.

I would like to see the defense budget and authorized strength cut by two thirds in the near future. We need to close all military bases overseas and bring our troops home. There is no valid reason why this country spends as much on defense as the rest of the nations in the world combined.

whoknow,

I agree with your definition for a healthy business. I also don't like the other business practices you listed, but I won't go so far as equating them with Bin Laden. Just curious...do you also equate the politicians that take the bribes with Bin Laden? My impression is, the majority of politicians take these bribes (especially the leadership in both parties).

I disagree with your comment about the federal government not having goals of it's own. This may be a semantic issue, but I think the federal government has all kinds of goals and is constantly engaged in various forms of social and economic engineering (although, really, I think it's all just forms of social engineering). Every tax break and every law is due to some goal of the federal government. I think we can all find federal government goals we agree and disagree with.

Ron-1861300

I think exactly what caused the crash is debatable. My opinion is, it was largely the result of the federal government tinkering with the housing market to try and make everyone a homeowner. This lead to regulatory changes that not only allowed for risky lending practices, it also added insurance against losses for financial institutions using those risky practices.

So are you saying the fair housing act caused the entire housing market to crash? Bull$&%#. Banks increasing leverage limits and betting against a home owners ability to make payments with credit default swaps was the reason the housing market crashed.

Mike,

No, I don't think it's as simple as saying the fair housing act cause the housing market to crash. I think there were a lot of contributing factors and there is plenty of blame to go around. I do think the governments attempt at manipulating the housing market was one of the root causes of the crash because it facilitated all of the other things that led to it (such as the regulatory changes that encouraged bad loan decisions).

I didn't mention it before, but I also think the debt based society we have created the last few decades was a big factor because we now have a population that wants to have everything immediately - without having to pay for it. I also think this debt approach will lead to future bubbles/crashes that will be worse than the housing bubble - most likely in the form of a loss of confidence by international bond holders in a couple decades - similar to what we're seeing in Europe today. But, that's a larger topic...

THomas Blue - the cancer meds reference struck home. I live in a state of mild anxiety that the medication I receive for my cancer willl no longer be paid for should the Republicans have their way. I am a one isssue voter this election cycle.

Ron-1861300

Mike,

No, I don't think it's as simple as saying the fair housing act cause the housing market to crash. I think there were a lot of contributing factors and there is plenty of blame to go around. I do think the governments attempt at manipulating the housing market was one of the root causes of the crash because it facilitated all of the other things that led to it (such as the regulatory changes that encouraged bad loan decisions).

Can you clarify or define what you mean by the governments attempt to manipulate the market? Can you give specific examples of what the government did?

The housing market crash occurred because the banks and the Realtors took us for a ride. They told us a lot of hogwash about the value of our properties and greed did the rest. As for Obama and Romney, they are the sides of the same coin and Ron Paul represents the rim. They are corrupt politicians who are working for the people that have bled our economy to death.

Dahly,

So all those people you claim are unnemployed or underemployed will all magically get jobs if we simply elect Romney? Wow...that's amazing. Whose behind will Romeny pull those jobs out of? Oh right, he has all sorts of business connections that could simply take all those tax cuts that Romney will give them and they can use it to hire ALL those people. And if that doesn't pan out, then no worries because all those people that you seem to be feeling so very sorry for in your post are the very same people that these GOP cuts will effect negatively so eventually they'll all just starve to death and the problem will be solved that way. So everyone make sure to vote in Romney in November because according to Dahly that will solve all the jobless problems and then there will be no need for the food stamp programs int he first place.

Or else the unemployed and poor might just all become so desperate and hungry and, considering they'll truly have nothing to lose, they may just rise up and riot against the wealthy. That might be very interesting.

Mike,

I realize you are looking for a number of specifics, and it's a great question, but I don't have time right now to do the research, so here is a quick answer...

One very specific item was increasing the % of subprime loans that Fannie/Freddie had to own. I don't remember the details off the top of my head, but I believe it was continually increased until it was close to 50% around the time of the crash.

This one is anecdotal, but when we refinanced our house around 2004 we used the mortgage broker we'd used for a few changes over the last 10 years. My mother was in real estate and she had been sending people to him for over 20 years because he was good at what he did and he was honest with people. When we refinanced he talked about the pressure he had been getting the last several years to make loans to people he thought could not afford them. Basically, he felt he was being forced to put people in bad financial positions (i.e.; they met the regulatory requirements and so the government people he dealt with said he would lose his license if he didn't approve the loans). By the way, since he was an honest person, he closed shop in 2005/6 and retired rather than continuing to give out, what he considered, bad loans...even though the government was backing the loans and he was at no personal financial risk.

The stated policy by many presidents (at least as far back as Carter) has been to increase the home ownership % in America. Just having that as a stated goal is an example since it puts pressure on lawmakers to advance that policy (at least when "their party" in in power).

Most of the housing bubble was caused by FIs making loans to people who should not have been getting a loan, unscrupulous mortgage brokers who faked docs and people leveraging their houses to take the money out when they should have been building equity. Other than those with some other issue like job loss, divorce and medical bills, the others are not victims.

Ron-1861300

Maybe you forget that when Clinton left office in 2000, we were enjoying budget surpluses. The debt was going down. Further based on CBO estimates, if his economic policies would have been followed, the the debt would have been eliminated at around 2016. But Bush brought us another round of trickle-down economic policies that have resulted in the debt growing by almost 5 billion. What is so terrifying to me is that some believe we need another round of trickle-down. I don't think that we will survive another round of trickle-down. It will destroy the US.

If what is wanted is CUTS, CUTS, CUTS, CUTS, CUTS, CUTS, CUTS, then the best alternative is the sequesture. It makes the cuts. Then let the Bush tax cuts expire, increasing revenues. What happens (at least on paper) is you have BIG cuts to spending and increases in tax rates supposedly resulting in a reduction in the deficit.

What the real result will be, no one can tell for certain. Just as the same type of austerity measures did not work in Europe, but rather often resulted in increased unemployment, double dip recession and less government revenue, it would be difficult (at best) to assume they will work here.

But hey, if you hate America, go ahead, vote Republican this November. The grave you dig is your own.

Why isn't your HAIR ON FIRE over this? $4.2 BILLION A YEAR!

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/10/11635973-gop-plan-cuts-social-programs-to-protect-pentagon?lite

Many undocumented workers see the issue very differently.

"It's not taking advantage. I'm very thankful to this country for the help it gives me," said an illegal immigrant in central Indiana, who decided to talk with 13 Investigates as long as we agreed not to reveal his identity.

The worker has lived in the United States for 14 years. He owns a home in Indiana, pays taxes(?) and is raising three children who are all honor roll students. This year, he received a $9,000 tax refund that includes additional child tax credits – not only for his children who live in Indiana, but also for four nieces and nephews in Mexico.

The tax credits help him care for his young family members south of the border, and he says attempts by Congress to revoke the credits could have dire consequences.

"Who's going to help them if they're not eligible ... to avoid them ending up in the drug mafia, begging in the street, being raped? What happens when they get sick?" he asked. "There's a lot of things that could happen to them if you don't help … When you come here [to the United States], to your family down there, you are their hope."

Taking additional child tax credits away from undocumented workers would also have an impact on millions of children legally living in this country. Children of illegal immigrants who are born in the US are legal US citizens and, in many cases, those children would no longer be eligible to receive the tax credits under proposals like HR 1956.

By all means, who is going to support them? Hell, let's just steal it from the Citizens of the USA! Four people using the same address and claiming 20 KIDS and they don't even live there? What is wrong with this picture?

I guess we know where part of the $50+ BILLION a year they send out of our economy every year is coming from! Not just ILLEGAL JOBS but OUTRIGHT stealing our TAX DOLLARS! AND they don't see anything wrong with it!

Just the kind of people we want to invite into our country and give AMNESTY to!

Children of illegal immigrants who are born in the US are legal US citizens and, in many cases, those children would no longer be eligible to receive the tax credits under proposals like HR 1956.

Nobody put a gun to the parent's heads and forced them to steal their way into the USA! Nobody forced them to have ANCHOR BABIES! Let THEM deal with the problems THEY CREATED!

PappaDave: finding one person who is committing tax fraud does not mean we should eliminate the entire credit. Since the "job creators" are continuously failing to provide jobs which pay enough for a family to live, the child credit provides a much needed method for poor and middle income families to survive (the income limit is $110,000 for a married family.)

By the way, the PEOPLE are UNITED STATES CITIZENS, not some useless piece of metal thrown off a ship. Do you think that by calling them a hateful name, you can somehow remove the fact that they are human beings and therefore do not have to be treated the same as every other US Citizen ? Is that your first step toward rounding up illegal immigrants, putting them into concentration camps, and finding a "final solution" to the immigration situtation ?

Indianabill,

Actually, we haven't had a budget surplus in over 50 years. We came close a couple times with Clinton and the Republican congress, but they didn't quite get there. They reported a surplus, but that was only because they took money from SS...the overall debt was not going down

As to the reasons for why the deficit was drastically reduced in the 90's, I think both parties did some good things - before and during Clinton's presidency. Bush 1 started the defense cuts, and Clinton continued. We were also going through an economic boom from the end of the Cold War, and the birth of the internet. Unfortunately, the boom was partially due to a bubble (dot.com), and that burst shortly after Bush 2 took office.

I'm not going to defend any economic policies of the last 12 years - I think both parties have gone brain dead economically. I think GWB was horrible, but unfortunately, I think Obama is just as bad - they have different policies, but I think they are both equally clueless on how to get the US economy back online. I also think if we had Clinton or Reagan in office, we'd be past this recession and have at least another point of GDP growth with unemployment well below 7%.

Ron: they didn't "take" money from Social Security. They bought interest paying US Treasury Bonds (you know, they were called Savings Bonds when I was a kid) with them.

@ Mr. Phineaques.........You are exactly right sir. And let me tell everyone what makes you right. If your statement wasn't true then Goldman Sachs, just one of many many good examples, wouldn't be the largest contributor to both parties campaigns. They (corporate America) doesn't give a hoot in hell who wins the election because the know that whoever does will do as they are told because they are ALL bought and paid for.

Who gets the job in 2012? Romney, the anti-Obama American

Yep...everything needs to be on the table for cuts.

Once government shows it can actually cut spending, then we also need to talk about tax increases.

Cut cut cut cut...everything except what our supporters (read: defense contractors) get. After all...we need to subsidize and provide welfare for the likes of Halliburton, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing.....

We need to replenish the treasury by eliminating wasteful tax cuts to the wealthy and big business! Screw the pentagon...

agreed - cut it all, pay off the debt, start over.

No matter how much we put into our defense budget we will never feel safe. The corrupt politicians will make sure of that. If the terrorist run out of talent they will make sure that the terrorist have the weapons to make us sh-t in our pants. Terrorism is a means of controlling a people and is doing just fine in the US.

HaHa, dumb Democrat sheep... will you ever learn how to read facts instead of being manipulated by the blatant political slant?

"The automatic cuts(to the military), known as a sequester, would strike domestic programs as well, including a 2 percentage point cut from Medicare payments to health care providers and $16 billion from farm subsidies over a decade. The GOP measure would leave those cuts in place."

The cuts to social programs are already going to happen ALONG WITH the military cuts, Republicans are just trying to stop some of them from happening, it is not a case of trading one for the other as the author has attempted to spin it.

Isn't it the Dems who are always whining for more spending and "stimulus"? and now that Repubs are trying to prevent a spending cut they are crying?

Tea Bangers and Repugs Love America...but HATE Americans.

How can a Christian be so obsessed with money & playing games with the lives of the poor, and not be on the wide & sparkly road to Hell????

Jesus had nothing & he died refusing to play the game!

pjam...you are a good republican. Us Dems are OK with decreasing spending on SS and other ALONG with tax increase, getting rid of corporate welfare, cut to defense...in other words cut to all things!!!!! Now republicans only want cuts to domestic things that only affect the poor and middle class...So how are the sheep now? Sheep are the ones that say they will make sure we never have any tax increases even though it is the ONLY way out of the mess we're in ALONG with cuts to defense and SS/medicade/care.

Right now 3/5ths of our federal budget is entitlement spending. Everything from social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps and such. We can eliminate the entire defense budget and we will not even cut in half the annual deficits being amassed by Obama. For those that might argue my point, remember cutting the entire defense budget would put millions of tax payers out of work. Washington has never proven capable of cutting any spending and never will. Especially when someone like Harry Ried can with a straight face argue in favor of federal funding for a cowboy poetry festival.

Ron-1861300

Yep...everything needs to be on the table for cuts.

Once government shows it can actually cut spending, then we also need to talk about tax increases.

Oh bull@!$%#. We passed $2.1 trillion in freaking spending cuts. @!$%# spending cuts. We can't keep gutting social security nets while letting the rich (and frankly every tax payer) pocketing expensive and useless tax cuts that won't help them in any way possible. TO hell with right-wing austerity. I ain't buying this "cut now and will raise taxes later" @!$%#. Why??? Because there WON'T be any tax increases. Look at the state of the GOP. Every year they move farther and farther to the right. Look at how those boneheads signed Norquist's anti-tax pledge. THEY WILL NEVER VOTE FOR HIGHER TAXES. They wiggled out of the summer debt deal with 98% of what they wanted, and now with Mourdock beating Lugar they will soon think that compromise is "Democrats voting for Republican initiatives." So raise taxes now and cut spending now. I don't @!$%#ing care if you and your fellow right-wingers don't trust the government. The way things are going now, pretty soon we won't even have a government. So man up and pay some more in taxes unless you all want to go back to the Dark Ages.

Rick-3416939

Right now 3/5ths of our federal budget is entitlement spending. Everything from social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps and such.

Oh don't give me that @!$%#. Food stamps and Medicaid are part of a safety net designed to help the poor and those who have fallen prey to economic downturns. Without them, recessions (and our standard of living) would be much worse.

We can eliminate the entire defense budget and we will not even cut in half the annual deficits being amassed by Obama. For those that might argue my point, remember cutting the entire defense budget would put millions of tax payers out of work.

So would eliminating social programs and education. And technically, repealing the defense budget would almost eliminate the budget deficit, as the budget is $1 trillion and the deficit is roughly $1.2 trillion.

Washington has never proven capable of cutting any spending and never will. Especially when someone like Harry Ried can with a straight face argue in favor of federal funding for a cowboy poetry festival.

Well, I guess the whole Budget Control Act and the sequester are a bunch of crap, aren't they??? What a prank!!! Just wait until the credit agencies realize it....

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

i just dont get it... here we just stuck 1 billion in a bill for israel, we give money to china, who holds all our debt, we give money to every country to be our friends, egypt thinks the money we give them is a bad idea, but we continue to give to everyone while we spend less and less on our own.

time to stop the crap, protect our own first, hell where did the money come from to begin with? how about we develop our own natural resources and stop the disproportionate imports?

While I disagree with the Republican stance on defense spending, I think the reason they are for it is to try and help everyone by keeping them safe from foreign threats. (not to serve the rich or take advantage of the ignorant)

What historic tax rates are you referring to? My understanding is, the current upper end tax rates are only slightly below the effective tax rates 50ish years ago (the stated tax rates then were up to 90%, but the effective tax rates were close to current rates after considering the tax loopholes). The tax reality is, there are just not that many "1%ers", and the bulk of the money will always come from the middle class. So, if you want to maintain current spending levels, you also have to increase taxes on the middle class...

Spending more than the entire world combined on defense only serves the corporate defense complex...

Using issues like gay rights and abortion to get people to vote against their own interest out of fear is taking advantage of the ignorant...

Our normal rates today are slightly lower than yesteryear's effective rates...? Nice semantic trick there. Old school effective tax rates for the top were much different and served to punish, yes PUNISH, removing profit from the market and hoarding it as profit. Today's tax code inspires just that, hoarding of cash, just look at the capital gains.

Raising taxes is the only way to pay for our debt, the people who achieved success in this country should pay it back when they get there, anything less is truly unpatriotic.

Ron-1861300

While I disagree with the Republican stance on defense spending, I think the reason they are for it is to try and help everyone by keeping them safe from foreign threats. (not to serve the rich or take advantage of the ignorant)

------------------

Most of the defense budget goes to defense contractors, not to the troops or to keep us safe. If keeping us safe was the issue, who wouldn't mind paying an extra 1 or 2% in taxes to do that? Instead, they are taking needed programs away from the poor and middle class.

Jimm,

I agree with your comments. That's why you'll see me advocating very large reductions in the defense department (like 50% over 10 years). The point of my post wasn't to defend defense spending...it was just to say I think people that advocate defense spending often due so with the best of intentions (even though I personally think they are wrong).

I worked in the defense industry for nearly a decade - It is all to feed the rich. A few figures to help put it in perspective:

4% of the people in the defense industry (soldiers and the businesses that support them), actually live and fight in a combat environment.

That 4% earns less than 1% of the money spent on defense (did you ever wonder why those military commercials are so cool? They're selling you something alright).

In a 1 trillion + a year industry (don't believe that 600 billion crap, plenty of money off of the books), where 1% of the money goes to the people who do the work, it's impossible to argue that this is a straight game. Cut it all you like and keep the soldiers. We'll be just as safe as we ever were.

" Cutting spending doesn't pay for our debt, it only stops adding to it. "

Isn't that the point?? You that have fallen into the trap of believing in the 1% is bringing down the country fail to understand simple economics, if fewer people are employed, adding trillions of dollars in universal healthcare costs and asking the smaller population that is employed to pick up the slack while there is a lax immigration policy in place is poor timing. The so called Obama Millionaire tax affects families that make a quarter of a million dollars a year. In the tri-state area where I live, that is enough to enjoy with your family but when your tax rate is suddenly doubled, your damn rate I'll be pissed!

Tough cuts have to be made by our fearless leader. He should not kick and stomp his feet like a petulant child when Congress doesn't agree with adding spending or more social programs. Punishing those that strive to do better for themselves is not the answer, or at least it wasn't pre-2008. Stop believing in the 1% versus the 99% fight, it is veiled Socialism at it's finest.

Ron, when you are talking about where tax money should/does come from, to be fair, you need to look at where the money is. You cannot get blood from a stone. The question should not be how many people are in the 1%, but rather what percentage of this nation's capital is held by the 1%, vs the other 99%. You have to go where the money is to get money. If we had 100 marbles and 100 people wanting to play, but 95 marbles were held by one person and 5 were held by the other 99 and the game master needed 5 marbles to run the game, how much sense does it make to take 3 from the 5 held by the 99 (the bulk of what is needed) and 2 from the one with 95. The game cannot last long that way and everybody (including the one with 93 marbles left) loses out in the end. I know this is extremely over-simplified, but I think it succeeds in illustrating the point.

Saddened,

Unless you are going to tax wealth (ex: what I have in my retirement account), then we are left with taxing income. Traditionally, we have taxed income. If it's income we're talking about, then a large majority (80% ish) of the income is earned by the "99%". So, if we want to significantly increase tax revenues, we have to look beyond the upper 1%.

Here is one site with some income breakdown information to consider:

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/american_income_taxation.htm

Ron: actually, 85% of the income is earned by 20% of the people. That 20% also own 87% of the wealth of the country. You can google facts about income inequality and who pays what in taxes, you will find that while earning more and having more of the wealth, those who are rich are not paying a proportionate share of the taxes.

The accumulated wealth which is passed from generation to generation needs to be taxed as well. The tax need not be conficatory, but it should be sufficient to prevent a small aristocracy from having more power than the rest of the nation, combined. As the tax laws are written right now, wealth is able to be transferred from generation to generation with no tax being paid. It may be legal, but it is wrong.

dirp,

You made some good points to think about...I'll do some more research when I get some. For now, I'd like to get your opinion on this quote (see the source article reference below):

The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI equal to or greater than $154,643), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.

Here is the article this came from (and feel free to tell me if you think this source is crap - I won't get offended :-): http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

To be fair, the linked article does talk about the income disparity trending the wrong way (i.e.; more to the top), so you could say it looks like I cherry picked this line...the truth is, I did a quick scan and it jumped out at me...I haven't read the entire article yet.

Forgot to add...I agree with you on generation to generation taxation. The concern I have is I don't want to penalize the relatively small holdings (ex: the family farm land that is worth $10 million and the owner wants to spread it out to 20 survivors). Also, I haven't seen a plan that effectively goes after the existing aristocracies (ex: Kennedy's)...they just seem to hire armies of tax lawyers and are harder to tax than large companies like GE or Exxon.

TM- 689- In other words your advice to the pooor is "Eat lesss cake?"

Mattt - thre is a smple answer to everything; unfortunately it is almost always wrong. You provide a simple explanation. Unfortunately ..... wlll that's your story and you seeem to be stuck with it.

Ron, dirp is right; income inequality is reaching a high not seen since, wait for it, The Great Depression.

Here is MY deficit proposal, with some economic measures to balance the effect of austerity.

I. Reduce the debt by $8 trillion over 10 years.

• $750 billion in defense cuts: cut waste in private contracting; reduce investments in new military projects to more sustainable levels; reduce active military personnel by about 8%; demolish 200 bases, mostly overseas, to save over $55 billion a year; prioritize investments for drones, efficient weapon systems, and cyber-defense systems.
• $1.25 trillion in entitlement savings: Raise payroll cap to 90% of income; reinstate COLA; reinstate estate taxes; raise premiums for beneficiaries who make over $250,000; progressive indexing.
• Cut $1.5 trillion from discretionary spending except from NASA and Department of Education. Find ways to remove waste, trim costs, etc.
• Save $2.7 trillion by repealing Bush tax cuts but retaining about $1.1 trillion for the middle class.
• Raise top income tax rate to 45% and the second to 39%.
• Increase capital gains tax to 24%.
• Reform tax code: decrease about 70% of all tax expenditures unless they are PROVEN to promote a significant amount of growth. Close loopholes, lower corporate tax rate to between 20-25%. Eliminate all corporate welfare. Broaden tax base. Convert most other expenditures to tax credit. Approximate savings=$ 737.1 billion a year.
• Reduce subsidies to oil companies, farmers, and ethanol producers by $100 billion.
• Total savings=~$13 trillion plus perhaps trillions more in interest.

I am not joking. Check (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=vie…

II. Economic Recovery Package

• Education reform. Increase funding for Department of Education, adopt RAND education policy and further Head Start programs.
• Create Department of Tourism with $36 billion budget to support 150,000 employees to speed up process for foreign tourists to apply for visas to US and make system more efficient.
• $90 billion in infrastructure bank to leverage capital for infrastructure repairs to employ millions of Americans.
• Incorporate policies of Obama's Jobs Bill.
• Offer incentives for businesses to buy US-made equipment and to employ people in America to the tune of perhaps $2,000-$3,000 per head; includes only people earning the median salary that the companies provides for its workers.
• Increase duties and tariffs for Chinese goods by 50% until China appreciates its currency and lowers subsidies; place more cases on Chinese fraud and stealing,
• $60 billion in incentives and federal loans and grants to green technology every year for 4 years.
• Regulatory overview to decrease unnecessary regulations for economy and add regulations were needed.
• Reinstate Glass-Steagall.
• Lift moratorium on offshore oil drilling and open up certain areas for energy exploration WITH safety and environmental precautions and insure safety.
• Invest $40 billion in new R&D projects every year for 4 years.
• Offer more scholarships and Pell grants; prioritize scholarships to promote getting degrees in engineering, technology, etc.
• Negotiate lower tuition deals with private institutions in return for aid and invest more money public higher education. Negotiate with states for a state education surtax to pay for public universities.
• Help housing market: tighten regulations on housing and financial markets, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; create partnership programs between the government and the private sector to buy houses and rent it out to former owners; persuade banks to write off parts of underwater mortgages; quicken time for foreclosures; demolish old buildings to open up to construction projects.
• Increase federal gasoline tax to $.225/gallon and use extra revenues to revamp infrastructure.
• Extend payroll tax cut.
• Reform Post Office. Eliminate 60,000 payrolls through early retirement, increase stamp costs to $.51, cut administrative salaries and budgets, pay freeze, adopt methods that FedEx and UPS do, transition to an energy-efficient postal fleet and turn postal buildings "green," and find more ways to trim costs.
• Increase minimum wage to $8.25 and institute living wage. Index minimum wage to inflation and mandate that all employers increase their employee's salary by inflation.
• Institute living wage.
• Regulate the derivatives market.
• OBAMA BIDEN 2012

If we only had a president who would force his employees to do their jobs and weed out the trillions of dollars of waste and thievery and send those who did it to prison we would not be in this shape. There can be no more candy prison for the rich and powerful, they must be treated the same as all criminals. I am so sick and tired of continuously hearing about the people whose salary's are paid by the tax payer either wasting or stealing money, and our leaders in government do nothing. We cannot continue to give money to the big weapons manufacturer's without making them stick to the contract and produce the product according to the plans. We as a nation are in great peril, we cannot take away from the poor and the elderly to build up a defense, the rich corporations an the rich people must be made to pay for all health care for the less fortunate, after all they stole their money from these very people by not paying them a livable wage.

Jerry,

Stole the money from the poor? What the heck is a livable wage?

The less skilled have to compete on the world labor market. Compared the world labor market they are very well paid. That is what has caused the salaries to be flat for the last 10-15 years. We can not live in a vacuum. We cannot apply high tariffs to imported goods. That would start a trade war. We all would suffer.

It does take money to make money. That is just the way it is. There is no law that can be written that is going to change that. Instead of blaming the Rich for being succesful, we need to work on helping the poor earn more money. The poor also have to work for that themselves. We cannot keep on taking from the people who work and give it to the people that do not. If you think that trading stocks is easy, well how come you are not Rich?

What exactly are the poor missing out on compared to the rest of the world?

80 years ago, most houses did not have running water, indoor plumbing, central heating and electricity. Most kids never even went to high school. You worked 10 hours a day 7 days a week.

Talk to someone who was alive then, talk to your parents about how their parents and grandparents lived.

Then get back to me about how tough the poor have it today.

Jerrry wee you bothered when the Bush Regime was strewing BILLLIONS of dolllars of unacccounted funds in Iraq? I would hope so.

Why?

We haven't changed the qualifying standards for food stamps, just more people are eligible after Bush Recession.

So we have a societal safety net that is obviously working, and you want to cut it because people are using it?

Cut defense, raise taxes (even reagan did)....problem solved

Even if we cut defense by a large amount (say, 30%) and raised taxes on the 1% by another 5-10%, we would still not be close to balancing the budget. If we don't want to cut non-defense spending, then we have to raise taxes on the middle class - otherwise the numbers just don't add up.

So...are you in favor of raising taxes on the middle class to avoid having to cut non-defense spending?

Ron

Why do we need to increase defense spending at all?

Eventually yes.

But first we need to start with the people who can afford it, and have reaped the largest reward for the debt we incurred...i.e. people who made money of investments and corporations. As the economy continues to turn around, all the temporary tax cuts enacted by Bush should be phased out...

Ron-1861300

Even if we cut defense by a large amount (say, 30%) and raised taxes on the 1% by another 5-10%, we would still not be close to balancing the budget. If we don't want to cut non-defense spending, then we have to raise taxes on the middle class - otherwise the numbers just don't add up.

So...are you in favor of raising taxes on the middle class to avoid having to cut non-defense spending?

Nice way to twist words. They want to cut social programs to offset the cuts to defense dollar for dollar.

The unions have reaped the largest reward for the debt we incurred. Are you okay with Obama going against the spoon that feeds him?

Jimm - actually, I don't want to increase defense spending...I want to cut it by 50% over 10 years. I'd really prefer to cut immediately, but to reach the 50% goal we'll need to rework some treaties to allow us to reduce troops in foreign bases (namely, Europe and Japan). However, there may actually be enough waste to allow immediate cuts...I'm not sure about that, but I would be in favor of a truly independent review to see if it's realistic.

We the corporations - I was always against the Bush tax cuts - I think it was an incredibly stupid economic move, and I'd like to see them repealed for all tax brackets. I don't want to throw the country back into a recession, so I'm somewhat ok with a phased repeal that's based on economic growth targets (ex: unemployment below 6% or GDP growth of at least 3%), but I want to see them repealed in the end. I can even go along with these changes before implementing non-defense cuts (I see no reason to wait on defense cuts). The point I don't agree with is tax increases without at least a 2 or 3 to 1 decrease in spending. The reason I want to tie tax increases to spending cuts is, I don't think the cuts will ever happen since cutting is much more politically difficult than increasing taxes.

Right. We are in insane debt due to workers wages. It wasnt the wars - it wasnt cutting taxes and increasing spending - it wasnt anything other than the secretary's fault at the local government building. LOL!

Mike,

We are in insane debt because we spend more than we collect in taxes - and we've done so for many decades. If we want to continue on the projected spending levels for non-defense spending and we want to tackle the deficit, then that means we need to increase revenues. Even if we taxed the upper 1% at 100% (assuming they'd pay for it), we'd still be running deficits of hundreds of billions each year. To me, this means we would also have to look at increasing the taxes on the 99%.

By the way, per my earlier threads, I do advocate significant defense cuts (50% implemented over 10 years).

Ron: actually, when virtually the entire Republican party has pledge their soul to Grover Norquist in writing to never raise taxes (do they sign in blood btw ?) it actually is more difficult to raise taxes than it is to cut spending. The difficult part of spending cuts is that you remove the ability of members of Congress to reward those who support them. Whether you are talking about the farmers, oil producers, defense contractors, road builders, whoever, they all get something from the federal budget.

When budget cuts start taking place, the GOP really does like to target the poor and disadvantaged first. While they are in the most need of assistance, they usually have the least ability to give monetary support to the GOP. Since the GOP "really doesn't care about the very poor" making cuts to programs which help the poor is very easy for Republicans to do.

This November you have a choice. You can sell your soul to Satan, vote for the corporate controlled Republicans and see the continued demise of the United States begun under Ronald Reagan and accelerated by George W. Bush or you can choose to support the growth and progress of the United States toward a prosperous future for all Americans by voting for Barack Obama and a Democratic controlled Congress.

I agree on pledge's being bad in general. I want my elected officials to make the best decision based on the current circumstances - and pledges hinder needed flexibility.

I agree the GOP prefers to start cut discussions with social programs, and those programs are generally focused on the poor and disadvantaged, but I don't think they do this to cause any harm to those individuals. I think their belief is those programs are filled with fraud, and also encourage dependency on government handouts. So, I think the GOP belief is cutting there reduces fraud and helps push people to better themselves. At least that's what most of my Republican friends say when I ask that question...

Personally, I think the entire federal budget is loaded with waste and fraud. I also think that is normal with any large entity (public or private)...but it's worse with the federal government since it's the largest entity out there. I don't want anyone to be hungry or homeless (unless they choose to be), so I'm fine with my tax dollars going to those causes, but I do think we are building a dependent society and I would like to scale back portions of the welfare system. So, I lean towards the GOP on social spending, but unlike the GOP I think the same problems exist in defense and homeland security spending.

Ron-1861300

Even if we cut defense by a large amount (say, 30%) and raised taxes on the 1% by another 5-10%, we would still not be close to balancing the budget. If we don't want to cut non-defense spending, then we have to raise taxes on the middle class - otherwise the numbers just don't add up.

False. As the total defense budget totals to around $1 trillion, 30% would remove $300 billion, while increasing taxes on the wealthy by 5-10% (or simply repealing the Bush tax cuts for them and increasing taxes by the same amount) would garner another $170 billion, which would eliminate a third of the shortfall. It wouldn't balance the budget, but it would go a long way....And frankly, I wouldn't mind paying extra taxes, as long as it ends this trickle-down spiral.

So...are you in favor of raising taxes on the middle class to avoid having to cut non-defense spending?

Frankly, I'd do both, just more of the raising taxes.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

The US accounts for 41% of the worlds military spending.

We HAVE to protect all the corporations and ensure their wealthy owners make a profit............

Why do you think we are in Afghanistan and not Korea?

---JP Morgan is involved in gold mines and removing precious minerals from the Afghanis and our military is there to protect them. Are you REALLY afraid of an Afghani hurting YOU....LOL!!!!

Our govt wants to ensure that the 1%'ers interests are protected. They don't care about YOUR safety or they would stop the flood of illegals that kill and behead people.

Have you considered that owners are for example a pension fund for teachers? Everyone is acting like large corps are only owned by the top 1%. Just is not true. Some of you have 401k. Invested in some mutual fund who owns part of a corp. tax it all to death and you will not make anything for you.

Easy, because most all of the other nations want to see America destroyed. We cannot count on our so called friends. However I believe we should consentrate on the most advanced military rather than more people on the ground. I still believe that 1000 nuclear bombs is the only reason we have not been invaded. AS lond as they enemies know that we will use them that will do the trick. We also need to stop being the world police and take care of America first.

"Easy, because most all of the other nations want to see America destroyed."

Could that be because America seems to want to tell the rest of the world what to do? Perhaps if we tried to solve our own problems rather than everybody else's, the rest of the world might not look at us so unfavorably. Think about it -- is anyone out to get Switzerland or Norway or other nation who minds their own business?

"The US accounts for 41% of the worlds military spending."

78.034% of all statistics are made up.

Actually the Pentagon brass is advocating spending cuts. It's the GOP that wants to increase the Military budget. You see Ryan thinks he knows more about the Military than the Military itself. Just Saying!

Idiot - the cuts were already going to happen as "punishment" for the supercomittee's action not the GOP.

"The automatic cuts(to the military), known as a sequester, would strike domestic programs as well, including a 2 percentage point cut from Medicare payments to health care providers and $16 billion from farm subsidies over a decade. The GOP measure would leave those cuts in place."

Now you are saying that government spending is bad? Obama and the Dems have been looking for any way possible to spend money and now you are mad that the GOP is trying to prevent a cut in spending?

PJ to take away from the people who need the help right now to continue the insane spending for the Military( which Pentagon Brass believes should be cut) is draconian in the very least. You argue with a fallacy, but that seems to be the GOP MO. Just Saying!

You mean dick and dubya.

TO: realist pondering who wrote:

"Target cutting the waste and fraud in the defense budget. That will amount to billions of dollars. The people responsible need to be prosecuted and publicly exposed. Then the department of agriculture..."

I agree that the United States has so many weapons that there's no safe way to dispose of the old out-dated ones, but the Department of Agriculture?

So you'd consider taking away Federal Protection of our food supply at a time when terrorists are still trying to find a way to get at us? I think it's important to protect our food, our clean air, and our clean drinking water, very important.

Obama/Biden 2012

American girl-The department of agriculture is the largest government agency and is full of redundant and non-agricultural programs. It is a political job machine full of fraud and graft.