westbury- tax breaks for the top two brackets that were supposed to help the economy, but didn't, are expiring. still won't have any effect on the economy, but we can stop handing out money that we've borrowed and are paying interest on.

Trip,

So you're sure that we'll be able to stop borrowing as soon as we "reach that point". Sounds like the alcoholic who says "I know when I've had too much".

So you're sure that we'll be able to stop borrowing as soon as we "reach that point". Sounds like the alcoholic who says "I know when I've had too much".

Like I said, throughout U.S. history--even back to the days of good ol' George Washington--we have been net borrowers. Would you have screamed at Alexander Hamilton and President Washington for borrowing?

Also if you read my post, you'll see that I said we need a compromise of tax hikes and spending cuts that keep our borrowing at manageable levels. So what is your issue with my position?

trip,

My position is stop the wasteful spending BEFORE we ask the taxpayers to pay another dime!!

Even if one believes in the purported virtues of Keynesian economics, one cannot deny the fact that it is impossible for an economy be indefinitely propped up by the government. Borrowing and printing $0.43 of every dollar spent, cannot go on forever. We need to start having a serious discussion about how to balance the budget, the "fiscal cliff" is a start, but not nearly enough. It will be painful, people will lose jobs, but the consequences of inaction are much worse.

I partly disagree, Alex. We got the downgrade because congress and senate couldn't agree on a way to manage the debt. That problem still exists, and the expectation that the president has to negotiate with house members of the other party is ridiculous when the speaker of the house can't work out a deal with the house minority.

Regarding raising taxes. I agree with you perfectly, but before you drastically cut spending, just consider how much the unemployment rate will go up and how many more ppl will be on assistance programs as a result of the federal downsize. We may be spending too much and wasting some there, but much of those federal dollars are going back into the communities where the fed employees work. Cut that too much and you risk triggering a new recession just by the act of saving money.

The only thing meant by "compromise" is we don't want to do the things necessary to fix this country.

This is why the GOP lost on Tuesday. If you want to fix the nation, you need to compromise.

Actually, I have no problem with the fiscal cliff if Dems insist on tax increases.

Well when the nation falls back into recession, possibly a depression, let's check back to see how happy you are. Sorry but that's a lot of bluster. No one wants to fall of the fiscal cliff. Only fools do. Are you a fool?

My wife and I paid $50,000 dollars in taxes last year. Is that not enough???? Should I pay more? Am I using more services than other people??

Name me one country in the world today with lower taxation that you would consider living in. Can't say the U.S. 100 years ago. Has to be a nation in the world today.

The Congressional Research Service has issued a report (temporarily withdrawn under GOP Senate pressure) which proves that increasing the top tax rates will have NO EFFECT on the economy.

Let the tax rates go up !!!!!

your references to George Washington and Alexander Hamilton are ridiculous and show how unserious you are. We have serious debt and spending prioblems in this country and you cannot keep asking a smaller portion of the population to foot an ever increasing share of the cost.

1) How are my references ridiculous? Please explain how pointing out to you that we have almost always been borrowers is immaterial to this current discussion?

2) As for your insistence that I just want rich people to pay for things, I think you are willfully misstating my actual position. In multiple posts here I have said the solution should be a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. Yes we must cut. But we can't just cut. Rich people will have to pay slightly more--I think Clinton-era tax levels are reasonable.

So at least get my position right before you critique it.

We received a credit downgrade last year because people are beginning to doubt our ability to repay debt

That is not entirely correct. We received a credit downgrade because the ratng agency was doubting the ability of our political parties to compromise on a solution.

I see several posts claiming 'why raise taxes on the wealthy, it is only a drop in the bucket'. That may be true, but their rates were cut due to a budget surplus. The surplus is gone, and it is past time to return the rates to their Clinton levels.

I would argue for a gradual return to the Clinton-era rates on all tax brackets, starting with the highest bracket and working our way down as the economy improves and revenues increase.

I would also argue for real tax reform, especially the elimination of the 'carried interest' rule for hedge fund managers and a slightly higher capital gains tax rate.

Capital investments are rarely used anymore to 'create jobs' or 'spur economic growth'. The capital markets are used mainly as 'legalized casinos' where bets on complex financial instruments lead to the only winners being the bettors and the house.

If we are willing to cut spending on domestic programs then we ought to be able to ask everyone to share the burden, including the wealthy who have had little 'skin in the game' for several years now.

America will not fail ....... it just won't .... have faith ..... this is america ! we have what it takes to make a better tomorrow .... keep the faith ... tighten our boot straps ... who doesnt like wieners and beans ? lol ... we can't fail ... impossible ... keep the faith ... we are america ...

inmissouri and others confused about the bush/obama tax cuts...

These cuts have long been normalized into everyones spending habits regardless of income bracket. THEY NO LONGER PROVIDE ANY ECONOMIC STIMULAS.

Letting the cuts expire will only provide a NEGATIVE STIMULAS. Personally I think they should be allowed to expire across the board, if not jan 1st, then half in 2013 and the other half in 2014.

Based on doing internet research on what the bush tax cuts and obamas 2010 assessment of what the top 2% reductions meant in lost revenue over 10 years we see lost revenue of about $800 billion over 10 years. Then look at what the projections were for the 98%. An additional estimate of increased revenues from the 98% vary from $2.6 TRILLION to $3.2 trillion.

Obama and politicians in general would like to make everyone think that they are saving the poor and middle class, but the painful truth is that increasing taxes across the board as well as meaningful spending reductions is what it will take to reduce the national debt. Even then the national debt will not go away quickly.

I just listed to obama say that he wants to extend only the middle class tax cuts, so we're in for a game of chicken with we the people as the losers because that is not a compromise. That is more chicago politics where one side winks and says "yeah, sure you'll get the rest later."

But to this topic, Y'all are so funny. How many of you know that jobs are already being shed? The tax increases and obamacare are already having an impact and it will increase. Beginning next year, social security taxes go up for all of us (those that have a job that is) and those who sell their house will be paying a 3.+% tax on the proceeds, most will lose the health insurance policy that obama said wouldn't be impacted because PPOs and HMOs, etc. are now considered "top" of the line and will be subject to the 40% tax on employers, who, to one degree or another, pass that on to their employees. So you will be offered a high-deductible health plan in its place. Some will find themselves downgraded from a full time job to a part time job because employers can't afford to pay all of this but they can afford to hire 2 people to job share. This isn't just about a "fiscal cliff." It is so much more than that.

Every year we spend $360 billion on interest payments alone. Our national debt is one of our highest expenditures, behind only national defense and Medicaid/Medicare.

The problem with the raising taxes/increasing revenue solution is that it inevitably leads to an increase in the size of government spending. Raise taxes and you raise spending.

trip*toe*fan:

Short term debt and longer term are NOT the same item. The only thing that is really saving the USA is the current extremely low interest rates. If the rates double, which is very possible, then the USA National Debt load goes up at a horrible amount. The Housing Market will tank again, as well the construction sector. It will make the Y2009 Recession look minor and much longer. Obummer..........

Obama indicated he will meet with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner next week

I'd recommend including the house and senate minority leaders as well. I can see McConnell working himself into a snit about being excluded and filibustering any compromise deal. His nose is already out of joint about not taking control of the senate and becoming its majority leader, and he is more than capable of sending the country into recession out of spite.

westbury64-inmissouri,So letting people keep more of the money they've earned is "handing out money"??? It's THEIR money...it doesn't belong to the government. God help us with people like you voting.

westbury- we live in a country where everyone pays taxes (even if not income taxes), to improve everyones lives. We pave roads, fund police and fire departments, schools, various agencies that make sure your food and water is safe and that the car in front of you isn't spewing lead-filled exhaust in your face.

Feel free to move somewhere that doesn't have any taxes so you can keep every penny, but don't complain when you're robbed or your house is on fire and there's no one to call for help.

I for one am actually quite in-favor of dumping the Bush tax cuts, and doing so was one of the President's promises during his re-election campaign too, so I don't expect this item to be negotiable myself. Higher tax rates on high-earners and on capital gains held less than 2 years will encourage productive investment at home and discourage overseas investment somewhat too.

I might like to see a separate fix on the estate tax, as I would consider a return to the rates in-effect in 2001 onerous, and yet, rates below 25-35% on estates of over $2-$3 million are not right for the vast majority of Americans either. I would also like to see a permanent fix on the AMT so that the issue does not tie-up Congress every year too.

I could see extending unemployment benefits in areas still above the national unemployment average but the payroll tax holiday has to end in-order for Social Security to regain some of its financial footing, and I am also quite in-favor of substantially raising the income ceiling subject to Social Security taxation too. There is no good reason that high-earners should be exempt from Social Security taxation. I could also see extending the R & D credit, on the theory that it might help boost the economy too.

On the subject of the automatic spending cuts, remember that we have already lost a couple of rungs on the credit rating ladder, and any attempt to substantially reduce the impact of these cuts could backfire if we lose additional rating steps thereby triggering higher interest rates. Cuts made from defense would have a much-greater impact on civilian economic growth too, say at 2.5 to 1, so lost defense jobs would be replaced by 250% greater civilian employment. Since the ACA is the "law of the land", it makes sense for those taxes to go into-effect too, as the full provisions of the ACA will be enacted in just another 416 days and with a divided Congress substantial changes are unlikely too.

I'm afraid that America is at that point where spending must be cut and our deficits reduced or we are going to lose what credit standing that we have, which would be ruinous for all of us except banks as adjustable interest rates spike, which would make the cost of financing our national debt much more-expensive thereby automatically forcing even greater spending cuts, as credit card and ARM defaults also spike, and bankruptcies too, and then we are right back into recession, one that could end-up much worse than the last one too.

PS: Roy Wilson: The figure that you are quoting for our national debt at the end of FY 2008 is wrong. That figure was $10.4 Trillion before all of GW's trust fund borrowing was included in the October, 2009 Treasury revision, which drove the debt another nearly $2 Trillion higher.

We have to remember that the national debt stood at $1.2 Trillion when Jimmy Carter left office, and that Clinton's entire contribution to the national debt was only $1.54 Trillion, which means that between Reagan, Bush Sr, and GW, with trust fund borrowing included, just these three Republicans increased America's total debt burden by $10 Trillion by themselves, so whining about Obama's record is in pretty bad taste.

Every year the result of that $10 Trillion of Republican runaway debt growth, mainly building-up our military, enriching friends, cronies, supporters, and fighting wars, while neglecting our civilian economy, is a $100 billion entry on every annual budget for every 1% it costs us to service our continuing debt, as opposed to $27.4 billion per 1% in additional in annual debt service cost for Presidents Carter, Clinton, and all previous Presidents combined.

Given the above numbers, it is imperative that revenue be increased, or cuts be made, or both, so that America's credit rating is not downgraded further, which would then raise our interest rates, both on ARM's and credit cards, as well as on further refinancing of our national debt, eating an ever-larger chunk on Federal revenue.

It is almost hard to believe that President Clinton had America on the right track to eventually greatly reduce our national debt and that GW and his cronies felt it necessary to so destroy that progress that America could fall as a world economic power as a result.

westbury:

The false choice of "what other nation would you live in" is another straw man argument. Why should I have to leave? Why can't our governments...local, state and federal... learn to stop wasting our money.

I'm not saying you should leave, if you don't like it. My point is you complain about your level of taxation in the U.S. but look around the globe: Where is taxation lower? I was trying to make the point that if you want to live in a developed, modern society, you need to pay more in taxes than someone did 100 years ago. Find me a modern, developed nation that has a decent-sized military that taxes its people significantly less than the U.S. does. That is my point. Please don't read your own straw men into my arguments.

How does raising taxes on "other people" so we don't have to make tough decisions going to solve anything?

Once again you are misrepresenting my position. I think we should make cuts. Can you read that sentence? Maybe your computer is cutting off my posts for you, because you seem to think I only want to raise taxes. I have repeatedly said taxes plus spending cuts. Can you acknowledge that? Or will you continue to willfully ignore that?

American Girl,

Every month of Obama's presidency has had a higher unemployment rate than any one month during Bush's eight years.

I am a staunch, conervative Republican, and I disagree with BO on almost everything. In the current situation, however, I would be willing to support a return to the Clinton rates for everyone IF , and only IF, serious, credible and enforceable agreements to cutting spending were reached ala Simpson/Bowles. I also believe that the wing of my party that refuses to even discuss revenue is acting unreasoiably.

inmissouri,

My complaint was not with paying taxes in general it was with you equating tax cuts with spending. They are not the same thing. The more people like you blur that difference the easier for the Dems to keep increasing taxes AND spending while you say "thank you ma'am may I have another".

Guess what's going to happen. The French are going to tax the wealthy at a higher rate as well. What are the French wealthy doing? Their moving out of the country. That, believe or not, is NOT a good thing.

And those that are using the government entitlements will wonder why the wealthy are using tax shelters outside of the United States, or moving out of the country all together. What will happen when the wealthy are no longer supporting these programs?

1) So you think the debt problems during the Washington and Hamilton eras were the same as now?

No. We have significantly more debt than we did then. My point in referring to Hamilton and Washington is to quash any "we have to stop borrowing" arguments. There is nothing wrong with a nation borrowing. What we have to face now is can we ensure that the level of borrowing is sustainable. See the subtle difference there?

Why not tax increases for EVERYONE so everyone contributes. The rich already pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country but you wan't more.

Why tax the rich more? Two reasons: 1) They have more money and can afford to pay more. Very simply, we can get more money out of the rich than the middle class/poor and doing so doesn't significantly hurt the rich's well-being.

2) It is quite clear when you look at the health of the economy and the wealth of different segments of the population that when the middle class and poor retain more wealth, the economy thrives. The wealth of the upper class doesn't affect the economy nearly as much as that of the middle class/poor. So taking more money from the middle class in a vulnerable economy is a sure fire way to weaken the economy further. Taking more money from the rich will not have that effect.

trip,

Why can't you understand my position of control spending FIRST...before taking more taxes from people. If you are so sure the government can do both let's see them cut spending. Sort of a good faith example of how they will cut spending. We already know they are very good at raising taxes...let's see them cut spending first. Geez...why are you so anxious to pay more taxes. I'm guessing it's because it won't be your taxes going up.

My advice to Republicans -- stand down. Do not obstruct. Let taxes rise, let the debt ceiling rise, and whatever else the Democrats want. No filibusters. Don't vote NO, just don't vote anything other than "present." Then you won't be labeled as obstructionists and you won't have a record of being in favor of policies that are doomed to bring this country into the most dismal financial years we have ever seen. It won't be the Republicans fault and it won't be Bush's fault. Every inch down the abyss will have to be documented but at least it won't be the Republicans fault.

It is time to step back and let fate run its course as we regroup. It is time for a structured planned retreat. It is time in the game to "sacrifice the Queen."

TO: westbury64 who wrote:

"American Girl, Every month of Obama's presidency has had a higher unemployment rate than any one month during Bush's eight years."

Because Bush rode Bill Clinton's wave of success until Bush's stinking policies overcame all the good policies Bill Clinton put in place.

Of all those millions of jobs Bill Clinton created, you think that would just stop on a dime?

It took Bush almost all of his 8 lousy years in office, but he finally did us in, and now those wrong-headed Republicans he left behind are STILL stuck on stupid, or are too weak minded to do the right things to get this economy back on track.

TNSEVOL:

If we are willing to cut spending on domestic programs then we ought to be able to ask everyone to share the burden, including the wealthy who have had little 'skin in the game' for several years now.

Wow, are you poorly informed. 70% of all Federal Income Taxes collected by the IRS comes from the top 10% of wage earners. The top 1% pay 40% of the tax revenue by the IRS - 40%. It is NOT the higher income brackets that are the problem.

Why can't you understand my position of control spending FIRST...before taking more taxes from people.

Simple: 1) Spending cuts aren't consequence-free. They affect our economy. They affect people's well-being. Increasing taxes on the rich has fewer such effects.

2) The tax increase I'm proposing are not unreasonable. When taxes were at those levels in the 1990s, the economy thrived. Rich people didn't flee the country. They stayed and got richer! Also taxes were significantly higher on the rich in the 1950s and we saw the greatest economic expansion in our nation's history. So what I'm asking isn't unprecedented.

3) Going to echo previous points here: Because in the end if we want something to happen, both sides need to put something on the table and compromise. The right needs to OK tax hikes and the left needs to OK spending cuts. Ideology is silly. It's ivory tower thinking. Compromise is what we need in the real world.

American'

And what is the right thing.....hire 100,000 teachers and tax the rich? Great plan...we'll see how it works out.

Villum1, respectfully your comment lacks understanding the consequences of such a radical approach. Have you really thought through your logic? Cuts to so called entitlement programs would destabilize our nations core mechanism of support it's population. Our government depends on it's people entirely you cut deeply initially you'll push our nation into historical calamity. You miss the point that those who pay the most in taxes the middle-class and working poor expect something in return for their tax dollar investment. NO different than any wealthy individual who expects the same from their investments. These are not people who are not takers. They are people who paid and invested in their government. We need a balanced approach to improving our debt not a radical approach. Like all Americans we pay down debt gradually. We don't bite the hand that feeds us the Middle and working class Americans who create the demand for goods and services generating tax revenue. You further choke them you risk fully defunding our government. The wealthiest in this nation use every opportunity to pay the least amount in taxes. If you pull the floor out from the largest segment of our nation's population you make it vulunerable. We can and have in the past balanced our budget and by careful, well thought planning created a surplus in key programs. We first need to put a stop to the general fund. We need funds for programs to stay there not be available for other deemed reasons. When congress has limits to it's ability to access and spend then real reform will happen. Until they do they offer just a lot of lip service with hot empty air.

Job1, where are You from, just curious ? As You said Obama won, it's His way or the Highway ? Sorry, but there is only 1 percentage point between what put Him in office, and the people that wanted Romney. It is split right down the middle ! The republicans that control the house were elected to stop the reckless spending, and cut the size of government. With that being said, there will have to be some type of compromise, which Obama has proven over the last 4 years, He is a piss poor negotiator. I have a feeling it will be the same ole same ole, for the near future at least. I wish We could splirt the liberal states and conservative states into two different countries, and I believe We all would be much happier.

We definately need to cut spending, too, just not at the expense of the elderly, children, and those just struggling to survive. We need to resign as the world's unpaid police who blow up and rebuild other countries while we can't afford to fix our own infrastructure. Other things might need a bit of an investment but could save considerably in the long run- such as finding ways to cut fraud and waste in SS, medicare, welfare programs, etc. (maybe computer programs or just hiring people to randomly check recipients?) Other things might require even more up-front but could pay off big in the long run- the ACA, jobs bills (not just deregulation or tax credits), and, dare I say, free long-term birth control options.

I hope the country can regroup now that the election is over but, I really don't see that happening. The Democrats first order of business should be to work with Republicans to create policies that will create jobs and to cut spending in ALL areas of government.

Unfortunately, the first word uttered by Democrats after the election was "TAXES"

This will do nothing but push Republicans away from the bargaining table.

Why is it that Democrats first reaction is to raise taxes? Why not cut spending which produces a better result?

Just like our credit cards, when you pay down the principle the interest gets smaller. If they could just cut 1-2% from the budgets of all the various government departments instead of gutting a handful we would be much better off.

The 1986 Tax Compromise promised increased Tax Revenue with future spending cuts. Increased Tax Revenue occurred, future spending cuts never did. Liberals are liars and don't uphold their end of bargains, ever. (See the Amnesty Compromise as well, increased border security never happened).

How about this time Government PROVES it can actually cut spending by just a little bit, before asking for more revenue. The Federal Government has never been able to do so.

Obama has increased spending over 35% since 2009. Asking to decrease spending 5% this year would still allow for over a 28% increase over 4 years... that's over 6% spending growth a year! If a government can't grow at 6% or under, then it proves how wasteful they are.

Interest on Debt payments are expected to double by 2016, the end of Obama's 2nd term, at current estimates. This means to merely KEEP the current spending levels, taxes on EVERYONE, will have to increase by that amount, roughly 4% of GDP.

It is time liberals actually figured out how numbers work. Historical spending has always been around 21% of GDP. If you want to maintain the 24% of GDP spending under Obama, everybody is going to have to pay, not just the rich. The tax increases on the rich only increase revenue by 0.6% of current deficit dollars. 60 billion on 1.2 trillion, yet hearing from every liberal, this is the most important deficit reduction method?!?

Grow up people. Take 5 seconds to look at how government spending is now 40% of GDP.

Here, in nice graphical form.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

Look at the growth, then argue it's really just a "if we tax the rich a bit more" problem.

Post 1.79 oops! Correction should read..."These are not people who are takers."

National Debt as of the end of fiscal 2008 (Bush's last year) = $9.986 Trillion.

...

(Bush's last year)

WRONG!!

Seriously Roy, we've been over this 1000 times already. Learn 2 fiscal calendar...

Do away with the child tax credit. The teabaggers froth at the mouth, screaming how liberals are are all collecting money from the government and not paying taxes-look at yourselves.

and while we're at it, do away with this mariage combined income crap.

Villum1-3935507 -- The too many drops in the ocean will be the global warming wake-up call for the rightwing -- Among MANY others including Obamacare going into full effect in 2014 and finally folks will see what a wonderful improvement it is (and no going back).

Transcript excerpts from The Rachel Maddow:

“We are not going to have a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe versus Wade. There will be no more Antonin Scalias and Samuel Alitos added to this court.

We`re not going to repeal health reform.

Nobody is going to kill Medicare and make old people in this generation or any other generation fight it out on the open market to try to get themselves health insurance.

[BECAUSE]

We are not going to give a 20 percent tax cut to millionaires and
billionaires and expect programs like food stamps and kid`s insurance to
cover the cost of that tax cut.

We`re not make you clear it with your boss if you want to get birth
control under the insurance plan that you`re on.

We are not going to redefine rape.

We are not going to amend the United States Constitution to stop gay
people from getting married.

We are not going to double Guantanamo.

We are not eliminating the Department of Energy or the Department of
Education or housing at the federal level.

We are not going to spend $2 trillion on the military that the
military does not want. We are not scaling back on student loans, because
the country`s new plan is that you should borrow money from your parents.

We are not vetoing the DREAM Act. We are not self-deporting. We are
not letting Detroit go bankrupt.

We are not starting a trade war with China on Inauguration Day in
January. We are not going to have, as a president, a man who once led a
mob of friends to run down a scared, gay kid, to hold him down and forcibly
cut his hair off with a pair of scissors while that kid cried and screamed
for help and there was no apology, not ever.

We are not going to have a Secretary of State John Bolton. We are not
bringing Dick Cheney back. We are not going to have a foreign policy shop
stocked with architects of the Iraq war. We are not going to do it.

We had the chance to do that if we wanted to do that, as a country.
And we said no, last night, loudly.”

First off you guys spouting nonsense about what the POTUS can or can't do need to research how our government works. Regardless of what side he sits on the president just can't do as he wishes and he will have to have cooperation across the board if anything is to be done, which means getting the house to agree. The question is whether or not the children in DC are going to grow up and work together or go back to finger pointing and doing nothing.

With that said it needs to be a combo of spending cuts and revenue increases, no ifs ands or buts. Boehner said everything needs to be on the table, well see as defense spending, like or not, needs to be on there (we are winding down two wars makes perfect sense; though I would sure like to see more money go to the VA like it should and take care of those coming back from war not used as an excuse when defense cuts are mention when they know that is BS and those costs are not the ones that will make the big difference) but welfare and other areas like that need looked at and it would be a good time to start getting those in check too. He was correct in saying that tax code needs to be redesigned, that is putting it nicely. IMO maybe it is time to start looking at something like a Fair Tax?

It is time

God Almighty, we spent 6 billion dollars on this election and absolutely nothing has changed. That includes the pointless, redundant, partisan rhetoric on newsvine.

Boehner and Obama are saying the same things they have for the last 4 years and the comments here today show absolutely no hint of a change in the thinking of newsviners. Yea, another four years of stalemates, floundering economy and useless drivel from Washington.

64 Billion in spending cuts is a drop in the ocean. We need to cut 1.2 Trillion today. That will wake up the liberals to how bad things are.

Villum1-3935507

With the end of fiscal year 2012, the Congressional Budget Office announced the 2012 federal budget deficit: $1.1 trillion. Not only has the president cut the deficit by $312 billion during his first term (so far), but he’s cut the deficit by $200 billion in the past year alone.

Grover, are you arguing that Bush was responsible for FY 2009? He didn't design the spending, he didn't sign the spending. Reid/Pelosi utilized continuing budget resolutions UNTIL Obama was in office, where he signed FY 2009.

Omnibus spending was $400B, that is all you can blame Pelosi/Reid for.

Even ignoring that blame... Stimulus and TARP were supposed to be ONE YEAR spending measures.

wrong. The stimulus most certainly WAS NOT intended to be a one year measure, and lest you forget, it was Bush who inked TARP.

Current budgets are spending the equivalent of Stimulus and Tarp each year under Obama, there was no decrease back down to normalized spending rates

current budgets are also comprised of a large amount of legacy Bush policies, unless you think Iraq/Afghanistan are free now, along with Medicare Part D...

So stop with your misinformation. That talking point you are trying to push has been beaten down so badly by most people that it is humorous you even attempted it again.

"beaten down," by whom? Random posters on the Newsvine message board? LOL.

Here, see what Cato (you know, the LIBERTARIAN THINK TANK) thinks of my "beaten down talking points:"

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/whos-blame-massive-deficit

westbury64

WHY?????? Because we spend $1.2 trillion more than we take in. That's why!

Bush had 8 years out of 8 years with deficit (did you vote for him?)

Romney was going to add $7T to the debt since he had no desire to explain how he was going to pay for the Romney tax cuts + 2T in increased defense spending (and I'll bet you voted for him).

Do you know what the single biggest contributor to our debt is? Maybe you guessed it - Bush tax cuts which still remain UNPAID.

so why the holier-than-thou attitude?

Ken-848629

As stated by the president, I have taken a stand, but I expect compromise. What the hell was that? Leading or dictating? Just more of the same that has held us here.

Well, it not nearly as bad as "I'm the decider!" That comment sounds like a spoiled 5 year old with access to the most powerful military planet Earth has ever known.

I'm quite comfortable with what president Obama said and I hope he kicks the sh-it out of the republicans if they don't pony up with higher taxes. We've got the lowest taxes in decades. Not to mention that after our world wars the gov't was fine with raising taxes waaay up there on the wealthy to pay off the war debt.

STFU and get with the program, wealthy, greedy, un-patriots. Do something *for* your countrymen and women for a change.

@Chicagobabe

You really don't have a clue about Obama. He has spent MORE then the government took in though taxes by some 5 or 6 TRILLION dollars that YOUR great grand kids will get stuck paying. That is more than any president in past 20 years. before you make comments like that do your homework.

DrowningGrover:

Please explain what you meant?

Stimulus

is this the stimulus that Paul Ryan asked "can I have some, too, please" for? Which the Mega Hypocrite criticized President Obama for?

TO: Homer Adams who wrote:

"Four (4) days AFTER the election and B H Obama "was to spell out his second-term agenda." W M Romney had a written plan for over one (1) year..."

Yes, Romney had some kind of "plan" that he changed from hour-to-hour and depending on who he was talking to.

We took everything Romney said under consideration, and rejected it.

We chose our leader and are pleased with the choice.

Now, would you like some cheese with that whine?

Forward...

It is time all American's paid Federal Income Tax, not just the wealthy. Telling the wealthy to pay their fair share when just under 50% of the population doesn't pay any Federal Income Taxes is not right. Sure all of us do pay taxes in some way or another, but if we as a nation want to solve a national problem, we need to work together to solve it. We all must pitch in, not just a select few.

Next year when the waste hits the fan, and the economy goes down the drain, I'm sure Obama will blame the minority party. After all, how could the party in power get anything done when they couldn't even pass a budget when they had a super majority.

TruePatriot-445959:

How funny you are. The Democrats still have the Senate and White House, but the Republicans still control the House. What has changed?

The Bush era tax policy was in effect a 10 trillion dollar raid on the treasury. It better damn well be over with on January 1, and don't give me a pile of crap that the wealthy earned all that money. Like Romney they effectively stole it. $100,000,000 in Romney's IRA... How did that money get there? By firing workers and buying out their retirement funds for pennies on the dollar and taking over the remnants. I'm all for the fiscal cliff and impending wailing from Orville and his oath takers as their power evaporates.

just cut 1.2 trillion sounds great. but lets look at what you are saying. cut the military by 1/3, cut the pay of fbi, cia, and every goverment employee by 1/3

cut every goverment program by 1/3

then the next year you have to do it all over again because revenue goes down when you have a major recession which is exactly what you would have

Alex1145 I am not suggesting something radical, only what Clinton had during an era with surplus.

Clinton didn't achieve a booming economy because he increased taxes on “the rich,” but through tax and regulatory reform and a return to a rules based monetary policy that produces a strong and stable dollar.

Clinton raised taxes in 1993, so if these tax increases were good for the middle class, then they should have been popular. Yet, in the 1994 elections, the Dems suffered historic losses. And worst yet, there were no real gains for the middle class there.

In 1995 Clinton spoke at a fund raiser before his 1996 re-election, stating: ”Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too.” (nytimes.com/1995/10/19/us/clinton-angers-friend-and-foe-in-tax-remark.html)

In 1997, Clinton CUT taxes. And the economy accelerated a full 1 percent, there was growth in employment and real wages advanced higher to the point that the amount of advance had not been seen since the implementation of the Reagan tax rate reductions in the mid 1980s.

Some people need to overcome the envy feeding myth perpetrated by President Obama and some liberals in the Democratic Party that raising tax rates on high incomes will somehow lead to more job creation, more opportunity and increased prosperity and security for the middle-class.

Clinton's probably shaking his head about now, "Son, haven't you learned anything from me yet"!!

Lori W-2777522

Do away with the child tax credit. The teabaggers froth at the mouth, screaming how liberals are are all collecting money from the government and not paying taxes-look at yourselves.

and while we're at it, do away with this mariage combined income crap.

I agree with two main caveats: 1) tax breaks and loopholes need to end for the rich and corporations paying zero taxes FIRST; and 2) these tax breaks for the middle class and working poor were put into place by Republicans instead of indexing the minimum wage to inflation, which would make the minimum wage about $11/hour right now.

So get rid of the tax breaks, and pay people decent wages, from which we can collect even more revenue (win-win)! The best stimulus we could possibly pass would be equal pay for equal work. The increased incomes for women, that they have earned and deserve anyway, would go right back onto the economy thereby creating more jobs -- Immediately!

Enough with the white males who have had a monopoly on everything until now, and especially enough with Christian males who also want to dictate to women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies and lives. The rightwing buzz words of simple, or smart, or small government = getting the religious right out of politics!

TO: westbury64 who wrote:

"My guess is that the vast majority of people calling for "revenue increases" are not affected by them. Just like the CA leeches who voted to raise someone else's taxes..."

Right, and the top 2% wealthiest Americans won't feel one bit of pain by paying a little more to reduce the deficit.

As for California, obviously you don't live here. I personally didn't vote for either of the 2 tax increases, but enough people did vote for a 1/4 of penny increase on sales tax so that passed, but NOT the increase on State Income Tax, which failed.

Ken-848629

As stated by the president, I have taken a stand, but I expect compromise. What the hell was that? Leading or dictating? Just more of the same that has held us here.

No matter how cut the dice it's called leadersip. Don't be juvenile with word games. You obviously have no knowledge of the parlance in the English language!!!

FORWARD

Richard-1971294

It is time all American's paid Federal Income Tax, not just the wealthy. Telling the wealthy to pay their fair share when just under 50% of the population doesn't pay any Federal Income Taxes is not right.

47% of those who don't pay federal income taxes include:

soldiers in combat

retirees

disabled

college students

single moms

unemployed

underemployed

wealthy who do not pay enough or at all federal income taxes consist of:

Mitt Romney who had to manipulate his 2011 tax return to INCREASE his tax rate for propaganda purposes. Sad, really sad.

westbury64

How does raising taxes on the top two brackets help the economy???

Unless you are f@#king uber rich, tax cuts at the top and artificially low capital gains taxes at the top provides you ABSOLUTELY NO ADVANTAGE and in many cases, HURTS THE ECONOMY and in the majority of cases INCREASES DEBT.

Remember, we're talking PERSONAL INCOME tax rates... I will explain each claim, below:

ABSOLUTELY NO ADVANTAGE to anyone but the uber rich: Adelson wants the tax cuts. Top Republican donors want the tax cut. Why? Because it MAKES THEM RICHER! Does it make you richer? No. Does it put more money in your pocket? No. It puts more money into rich pckets that has seen fit to send the majority of it to off-shore accounts and OUT OF THIS ECONOMY.

HURTS THE ECONOMY: During this recession, the Fortune 500 companies made record profits. Did they "trickle it down" to us? During this recession, the Fortune 500 companies reinvested profits at record lows... So what happened to "trickle down"? During this recession, executives and owners of Fortune 500 Companies paid themselves RECORD PAYDAYS... we all saw them... they all qualify as obscene. THAT's where our "trickle down" went. Why? Well, number one, there is no such thing as trickle-down, and number 2, the is low demand and low consumer confidence (middle class), so why reinvest, and number 3, our PERSONAL TAX RATES ARE SO F@#KING LOW that they ENCOURAGE executives to take money out of their business as either personal income or stock... we have made it more profitable to take the money out of business and send it off-shore than to reinvest and/or to create jobs. Low taxes at the top KILLS JOBS.

INCREASES DEBT: This one's simple. Cuttting our tax income with no appreciable difference in revenue or jobs means we just gave the money away... we effectively just funded the Super PACs... and we just INCREASED OUR DEBT.

So, Republicans, I've given you three very specific reasons why your tax cuts at the top are the most asinine theory on earth. I've given you a succinct reason why "trickle-down" doesn't work with specific recent examples...

So give me a fight back. Tell me I'm wrong and explain to me why. You give me a valid argument and I will personally post it all over the Internet. I'll even shave my mostache off! But I know you can't.

S&P downgrade was clearly stated in the report. They made a big reference to republicans refusal to raise taxes

Just like the last one from the S&P that clearly pointed out that it was the republican­s refusal to raise tax revenue by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

here ya go bottom of page #4

http://tin­yurl.com/4­4xrv4f

----------­----------­----------­----------
Compared with previous projection­s, our revised base case scenario now
assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012,
remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority
of Republican­s in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key
macroecono­mic assumption­s in the base case scenario include trend real GDP
growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.

Our revised upside scenario--­which, other things being equal, we view as
consistent with the outlook on the 'AA+' long-term rating being revised to
stable--re­tains these same macroecono­mic assumption­s. In addition, it
incorporat­es $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administra­tion is advocating­. In this scenario, we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021.
---------------------------------------------------

The money pushed up top does our economy no good... A capitalistic society thrives on the ability of the working classes to consume goods and services.
If the wealth pushed upward is not pushed back into our economy down low to the workers..., then we have what we have today, a barley growing stagnant economy.

Let the Bush tax cuts expire, return capital gains tax rates to normal income rates for those making over $250K a year, close tax loopholes.
Reward corps that create good paying jobs domestically, increase taxes on corps that take their jobs overseas, or import mostly foreign products.
Use the increased tax revenue to start up some major infrastructure jobs and put lots of people back to work at good pay with solid benefits.

once more people down low are spending money, local businesses will pick up, suppliers will pick up and they both will hire more to handle increased demand...
This will progress to the next level of the economic pyramid which will start seeing increased demand and they will hire, all this hiring creates more demand..
Each step along the economic pyramid will see an increase in tax revenue generation, and by the time all that money pushed down low trickles all the way to the
top it will have an exponential effect our economy, tax revenues and our ability to pay down debts and further stimulate the economy with more infrastructure projects.

the very infrastructure by which all wealth is built upon and maintained.. Tax breaks to the uber wealthy starve this nations ability to function as a capitalistic country...

We are well on our way to being a plutocracy...

chris-2051162 Does anyone one know if OBAMA is done crying? I had to laugh..he crys for the scumbag voting base

And you wonder why the GOP got kicked to the curb this election?

It'll be EVERY election if that attitude persists.

Homer Adams -

Wow, are you poorly informed. 70% of all Federal Income Taxes collected by the IRS comes from the top 10% of wage earners. The top 1% pay 40% of the tax revenue by the IRS - 40%. It is NOT the higher income brackets that are the problem.

That is selective statistics. The top 10% also control over 90% of the wealth, so 70% of the taxes is understandable. Effective tax rates on the top earners are at historic lows, yet their share of the income and wealth is at heights not seen since the Great Depression.

I am not arguing for tax cuts in a vacuum, I simply do not understand why anyone would argue against a reasonable combination of tax reform, higher tax rates on the top brackets, and targeted spending cuts.

If spending cuts are what we need to reduce the deficit why not combine them with revenue increases?

grace -

I'm not defending the rich here but why try to move a mountain with a spoon

Two spoons will move the mountain faster than one spoon alone.

Here is a history of tax rates in the USA pay good attention to how drastically it has dropped for the upper classes, not including the amount of loopholes and tax write offs they get

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets

Fact is we've gone to far in the tax cut direction and lets face it this country was much better off when taxes were higher and unions labor was stronger

ProBusiness

Sorry, either tax increases for EVERYONE or tax increases for NOBODY!! You Democrats get to decide.

Not true. That type of stupid thinking was shut down on Tuesday. You dont get to demand anything when you get your rear handed to you like that. You lost senate seats, lost house seats and didnt get the presidency - what more proof do you need?

Notice how it is the rich 2% that have put their hands out since Reagan, and now that it is time to end the free ride, they cry the loudest. What will they do, how will they live? Instead of going to the Cayman Islands for 2 months this year, they will have to cut down 1 day of their stay..this year....OHHHHH the Humanity!!

Homer Adams

TruePatriot-445959:

How funny you are. The Democrats still have the Senate and White House, but the Republicans still control the House. What has changed?

Obviously not the rightwing mentality, or ability to live in a fact-based world. Aside from demographics changing, and women (52% of the population) breaking in HUGE numbers for the Dems, please re-read my post above about gerrymandering. If Pennsylvania had not be gerrymandered by the Republican douchebags, the Dems would have a majority in the House right now too.

This was yet another landslide (that proved 2008 was not a fluke). It is the rightwing who must change or go the way of the Whigs, because all these factors will be even more in favor of the Dems by 2016. Add to this the changes that ARE going to be made to prevent election shenanigans, and hopefully gerrymandering and other Republican anti-democracy "strategery" -- in advance of future elections. And it is the rightwing that better rethink their crappy platform and crappy candidates and crappy tactics.

As for the the next mid-terms, I for one will no longer be complacent, and I hope the Dems can keep our momentum going and prevent 2014 from being a low turn-out that favors Republicans. With Obamacare going into full force at that time, I think it will fire-up progressives and swing voters in favor of the Dems.

Prez always says tax the rich, but this increase will also affect 1 million businesses that employ 25% of our country. How will that help them when they are struggling now?

That might get 50 billion, and our deficit from 1.1 trillion to 1.05 trillion. A pitance compared to how much we spend. I haven't heard anything from him to deal with the deficit after that small amount.

bayllie, Most of the people in just about every one of the categories you mentioned pay federal income tax. It all depends on how much those people earn. The only group excluded based on their status are soldiers in designated combat zones. And then, only the money they earn while serving in the combat zone is excluded from federal income tax. Do better homework.

Bush rode Bill Clinton's wave of success

Wave of success! If that wasn't so sad I would LOL. Bill Clinton's "wave of success" came because he stole (yes STOLE) the money out of Social Security to balance the budget. He forced financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to give loans to families that could obviously not pay them back. That's not my idea of success.

The Democrats have already offered a compromise, they offered $10 cuts to every $1 revenue. The Republicans rejected it.

Now it is time for the Republicans to offer a compromise.

Over the last 20 years the wealth has been redistributed to the wealthy. Yet they still pay a smaller percentage than the middle class, while the middle class has a larger percentage impact on the economy.

Like Ben Stein (a hard-core Republican) said: It is time to raise taxes on the wealthy. They have benefited the most, and now they need to pay for that benefit.

The top rate is 36%. The proposed top rate is 39.6%, a 3.6% increase.

On a $100,000 project that provides a healthy 10% ROI, or a $10,000 profit, the 3.6% increase amounts to $360.

Yes, you read this correctly. On a $100,000 project, does anyone really think a $360 increase in tax is going to make one bit of difference bot in their "richness" or their decision making?

Does anyone relly believe that an additional $360 tax on $10,000 in income is going to force someone like Adelson to move somewhere else?

I say NO! And, again, I invite ANYONE to provide a rebuttal... tell me something different and give me facts to back it up.

You won't because you can't.

All Republicans that are not in the upper 1 or 2% that vote Republican because of this issue have been duped. This is an asinine issue. It is not supportable. It's nothing but yet another false talking point.

#1.47- They (Medicare and SS) should be called EARNED BENEFITS NOT ENTITLEMENTS. Please call and write your congresscritters to emphatically ask them to change the dialogue in Washington. The term entitlements, while appropriate in a "budgetary sense" are not appropriate in the social sense.

MOst working persons in America have paid into each of these programs for their entire working lives. To call them entitlements is an INSULT to us.

I have already called my congressperson and both Senators (all Ds) and suggested they start changing the dialogue by using the term Earned Benefits in their floor speeches. This is extremely IMPORTANT. when you blog, use the proper terminology, if folks ask you whay or what you mean, tell them.

As bernie sanders has been saying all week, " the Republican Party are now mounting a massive attack against Social Security and other programs. Using “deficit reduction” as their rationale, they are attempting to dismantle every major piece of legislation passed since the 1930s that provides support and security to working families."

http://www.politicususa.com/bernie-sanders-slams-gop-plan-reduce-deficit-cutting-veterans-benefits.html

American girl......several here have talked about raising taxes on the top two brackets, not just the top 2%. You do realize you are talking about two income families in higher priced states? Here in MD we already have a surcharge tax on above $100k people. There is the added ACA tax on earners above 200k. These people work every day. Their income is not the same as Buffet and Gates. And, no, they cannot afford it.

DrowningGrover:

Please explain what you meant?

if you're referring to my first post, it's that fiscal year 2009 WAS a Bush budget and carried a deficit of $1.4T.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_year

This country's economy has always done better when the top tax rates were higher.

Then we could afford to maintain our infrastructure, education system and military without taking basic living income away from the poor and middle class.

The top tax rate is now the lowest its been in 80 years, and investment class leeches like Romney don't even pay that - they count all their income as capital gains to get favorable tax treatment that working people can't qualify for.

Don't you ever wonder why Canada's economy has recovered so much more quickly than ours, despite their much higher tax rates?

Or do you just play the right-wing knee-jerk tune over and over? ("No new taxes, no new taxes")

Grover Norquist is not a genius - he's a traitor.

Job1 -

Thank you for summing up the left's mentality..."the top 1% has had a free ride". Really?!? They pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes and you think it's a free ride? Please post more often as it keeps us on the right from having to say anything. Wow, such insanity?!? You actually may be right though...lets go French revolution on 'em and get rid of 'em all...who are you going to work for again? Them dastardly evil millionaires, they should be taxed until they're not millionaires anymore. Then we should tax everyone making $250,000 or more 'til they're making what the average guy is making (it is fair you see!). And $250,000 is still alot more than the welfare recipient so we should tax EVERYONE until we all make the same! Sweet! I'm in! I'll quit work next week for this deal:)

From Marketplace.org:

Taxing the rich is good for the economy

One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going.

As we've seen in recent years, when disposable income is concentrated at the top, the middle class doesn't have enough money to boost the economy.

What we should have learned over the last half century is that growth doesn't trickle down from the top. It percolates upward from working people who are adequately educated, sufficiently rewarded, and who feel they have a fair chance to make it in America.

Alex...we received a credit downgrade because of republicans holding the nation hostage to keep taxes at Bush levels......FOR THE GREEDY RICH REPUBLICONS.....

HERE WE GO AGAIN! JUST LIKE BEFORE, REPUBS HOLDING THE NATION HOSTAGE FOR THE GREEDY 1% once more!

Republicons willing to take the nation over the cliff and destroy the credit rating once more......WHY DO YOU THINK REPUBS LOST THE ELECTION? DUH?

TO: Ken-848629 who wrote:

"As stated by the president, I have taken a stand, but I expect compromise. What the hell was that?..."

I take that to mean: "I'd like to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year, but I can "compromise" by raising that amount to people making over $1,500,000 a year".

Boehner is NOT compromising when he says: "Well I'm going to go to this meeting, but I'm going to take EVERYTHING Repubilcans want OFF the table."

That is NOT compromising.

TNSEVOL, when you say revenues i assume you mean tax increases but that doesn't always work.

Three times cap gains have been cut over the last 30 years and every time revenue went UP. The one time it was increased in 1987 (20 to 28%) revenues were lower for 10 years than 1986.

Three states increased taxes, Cali, oregon and Illionois to fix deficits. Their deficits are higher.

Rep govenors took over from dems in several states, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin and a few more and reduced taxes. They closed budget gaps.

The early 90's was the first time i heard "pay your fair share". A "luxury" tax was imposed on boats and they said they would get more revenues and the rich would "pay their fair share". Result .... revenues plummeted and many jobs were decimated in that industry. Tax was soon repealed on a bipartisan basis.

Same is happening with taxes in Obamacare. Tax on medical device industry caused Cook medical to cancel plans to build 5 plants, per the CEO. How many lost jobs in construction, permanent jobs and acillary support businesses did that cost? And where will the gap be filled... probably over seas.

BigATC - your statistics are wrong.

From FactCheck.org:

What is clear is that we’re not talking about all that many small businesses in the first place. The vast majority of individuals who report business income or losses are not making upwards of $200,000 a year. In fact, only 2 percent of all those reporting business income in 2009 will earn enough to fall in the top two brackets. As we explained back when Obama’s tax plan was attacked on the campaign trail, the overwhelming majority of these mom-and-pop shops we hear about would not see their taxes go up under Obama’s proposal.

Drowning 2009 was a Bush budget, but the stimulus was included in that number passed after Bush was gone. Only 3 1/2 months of the 2009 budget was under Bush. Dems took over for the majority of that FISCAL year.

To CHICAGOBABE who said "America finally has a great president"

Ummm... you've already had him for 4 years.. are you saying that he wasn't great for the past 4 years....he's the same president - same b/s and lies.

The right-wing nuts have decided to double-down on the Limbaugh idiotic talking points for the next four years.

Truly pitiful.

They have NO clue that they are being manipulated by Faux/Hannity/Limbaugh.

They will never learn.

The MAJORITY of Americans have just got on the Prosperity Train towards a better America and the right-wing nut jobs will be left on the platform in Loserville.

Hail and Farewell, nut jobs. You get exactly what you deserve.

Salud

AHAHAHAHAHA!! I love it...now not only do the biz owners get dinged but the movie stars, celebs and sports "characters" that supported, campaigned for and held benefits for your potus will get a big surprise at tax time! What, you thought because he's your buddy you would be exempt? Fooled again. Now you all get to see and live in the mess YOU created and voted for. Romney didn't deserve to be handed this mess to fix (which everyone knows he could have)! He will enjoy his life on a yacht and laugh at the libs uneducated failed plans yet again!!!

Boehner: "Extend current tax rates for one year,{{AGAIN}} allowing Congress time to entirely redesign the tax code, eliminating some tax deductions and preferences – and pass “entitlement reform.”

Soooo you have time to do in a year, what you didn't have "time" to do in 4?? Do you actually need a (whole year) for that NOW??

Idiot.

Ben-636050

My advice to Republicans -- stand down. Do not obstruct. Let taxes rise, let the debt ceiling rise, and whatever else the Democrats want. No filibusters. Don't vote NO, just don't vote anything other than "present."

Yes, go ahead, do exactly this and go the way of the Whigs. As it is, a third Party is in the making because the Teapublicans have self-destructed.

Those of you rightwingers who really think the president only won by a small amount instead of the landslide it really was, and continue your denial and inability to get the correct, real message from the election -- sadly this is no surprise. But it is to your detriment only.

BigATC

Prez always says tax the rich, but this increase will also affect 1 million businesses that employ 25% of our country. How will that help them when they are struggling now?

Yet ANOTHER false republican talking point. Let me explain, and you can come back and argue the technicalities... a warning, though, I'm a small business owner and know this one real well...

We're talking about increasing PERSONAL tax rates at the top. So let's say I'm a small business owner that makes MORE THAN $250,000 in PERSONAL INCOME in one year. First, please realize that I get the benefit of the TAX CUTS for the first $250,000 I make, so increasing the next $250,000 is roughly a break even for me (assumes equivalency). That means that there is no effective penalty for me until at least $500,000. That's $500,000 a year! And you're proposing to tax me an additional $360 on every $10,000 I make over $500,000 and you think I will even "blink" about it? You must be kidding... it's lost in the wash... it no more hurt my business than the man on the moon. It wouldn't cause me to remove ONE JOB, just like giving me MORE TAX CUTS would not cause me to ADD ONE JOB. I will add a job only if demand increases due to consumer confidence. Anyone that tells you they hire and fire based on tax rates is a fool.

And let's get real... if a SMALL BUSINESS is able to remove over $500,000 from their business as PERSONAL INCOME, they are not "struggling", as you put it.

The Republicans need to give up on this false drama.

Again, give me a fight. Tell me I'm wrong. You can't.

The new mantra for Super Patriotic Conservative Billionaires:

"Billions for Super Pacs, but not one cent to create jobs!"

(...or to help the poor, hungry, homeless and destitute because it's their fault anyway, and besides, they think they are victims and are entitled to handouts, blah, blah, blah....)

The conservative bubble may have been pricked, but apparently there isn't enough fresh air getting in.

If I were President Obama I would have a discussion behind closed doors with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and I would start by saying, neither one of you is in a position to demand anything.

President Obama said during his noon telecast, both sides agree that we should give tax cuts to the bottom 98%, so lets do that right away. Get it through the House and Senate and I will sign it. Looks like President Obama is going to take his agenda on the road and get the buy in of the American public.

Let's see how Boehner and McConnell react.

Obama do not want compromise, he want the fiscal cliff to blame Republicans, however do not forget , the Sequestration Bill that Obama signed was his idea , the blame is on him.

TO: piegan who wrote:

"I hope Obama and the Left do raise taxes, then I urge all businesses to start laying off people..."

That's exactly WHY the American People couldn't afford to let another Republican into the White House!

Just listen to the foolishness!

Republicans PRETEND to be "all about Jobs" but when it comes down to it, they "like firing people"!

Here's a better idea: Why don't move to another country and try to get THEM to lay off all their workers!

LOL want to end this crap let the fiscal go over the cliff the tax will go to where it was and next pres election will go to the Republicans. Neither party wants to do nothing to end the fiscal cliff and will blame each other for it happening. This is the easy way out, and they will look good in the eyes of their groupies, Neither party wants to do anything for US the tax payer but for the upper 1% which they are a part of.SS will dwindle down as you and I both know Obama has cut the amounts going into it, how long do you think it can last with that attitude?? What the upper 1% don't realize is they will have no one to protect them before to long.The austerity which is coming to the US will bring riots like no one has seen before.

realamerican, small business federation says 35 million businesses. 3% fall in the over 250k income which is roughly 1 million. Or say your 2% number,which is 3 years old is correct it is 700,000 businesses. They are the biggest of the bunch and employ quite a lot of people.

LMarc, the second 250 breaks even the first 250k? That in no way makes any sense. There is a tax after 250k, its is 5%. What are you smoking?

@True Patriot -- What do you care what happens to the Republicans. We lost and I for one am willing to accept it no matter how slim the margin. A loss is a loss. I will sit back and let the left govern. Does a complacent right bother you? Won't have any one to call names and you'll have to live and die by your rule. I for one hope that's the way it goes.

And where do you get that the first 250k is getting a tax cut LMarc, there is no proposal of that. He doesn't mention where he wants the 5% graduated rate to start. If its at 250k you will pay an extra $12,500 in taxes on a 500k net.

CHICAGOBABE Comment collapsed by the community

There is no Fiscal Cliff .

America has much more than the one I came from .

I don't understand. You came from a "Fiscal Cliff"?? I can't even find that on a map. Is that in the northern hemisphere?

America finally has a great president.

Chicagobabe - you don't understand how this works.

You can't just give the man a clean slate because it's a new term - you have to count the first one too.

I will say this in your favor however: I loved your role in the movie Idiocracy. I thought you did an excellent job as that guy on the president's cabinet!

“The members of our majority understand how important it is to avert the fiscal cliff,” Boehner said. He sketched out his opening bargaining position: Extend current tax rates for one year, allowing Congress time to entirely redesign the tax code, eliminating some tax deductions and preferences – and pass “entitlement reform

Boehner and his guys have sat on their hands and done nothing for 4 years, now it is time to step aside and let our president lead in the way that the American people want. Boehners' congress, and their wealthy owners, and their dictater, Grover Norquest, has an 8% approval, and does not need any more time to obstruct and say NO. Step aside and get out of the way. Obama and the dems can continue cleaning the mess, that repubs caused for 8 years

FR:

But Boehner said Tuesday that “The American people re-elected a Republican majority (in the House) and I’m proud of the fact that our team in a very difficult year was able to maintain our majority.”

But actually, a majority of the PEOPLE voted for Democrats to take over the House of Representatives. Barney Frank noted that had the congressional districts remained drawn as they were before 2010, Nancy Pelosi would once again be Speaker. The Republicans retained their majority only because of the gerrymandering that the Repubs did who took over state governments in 2010. To Boehner "compromise" means that President Obama agrees to obey what Grover Norquists dictates.

I am a liberal, middle class and proudly voted for our president. I believe that we should all be paying a bit more in taxes - not just the rich. And I hate to see capital gains taxes raised too much - maybe to 20% at the most. An increase there would also affect middle class families who choose to invest for their future. I definitely want to see an overhaul of the tax code, and I think that we should redefine "earned income". Many rich people work at regular jobs and pay high tax rates (granted, they do seem to have more deductions), but those like Romney earned their income by forming a company to buy companies (some were successful, others were loaded with debt and bankrupted so that the partners could walk away with millions, with the banks, therefore us, footing the bill). Romney and others like him are able to pay such low tax rates because their income is considered "investment income". That either needs to be redefined or tax capital gains over a certain dollar amount to earned income tax level. I'd also like to see corporations get tax breaks for keeping the majority of their work force in America and using mostly American produced parts in manufacturing. Companies that ship jobs out of the country should be penalized. If companies can agree to invest in America by hiring Americans and increasing wages, there would be no need to continue to raise taxes on their CEOs and top earners. More working Americans, earning above poverty level wages means higher revenues and less spending on social programs such as food stamps and welfare. It just seems like a win win for everyone.

• All President Obama has to do is allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. Then Crying Speaker Tan Man and the rest of the Republicans will come crawling to him for a deal. The President is a lame duck now so he holds the ultimate trump card.

TO: Aggie-345886 who wrote:

"Boehner called on Congress a couple days ago to work with both sides and he vowed to work with President to address this crisis. He's tried to sit down and engage Obama in addressing the crisis even before it came to this "cliff"..."

That's right, and I was encouraged by Boehner's willingness to "compromise" and work with the President to have a reasonable, balaned approach to solving America's problems. Very nice.

Then, when Boehner got back to his office in the House of Representatives, both Cantor and the Teagaggers were waiting for Boehner, cussed him out, kicked his butt, and sent Boehner BACK out to the press and THIS time told Boehner to say: "Oh, no we're not compromising on anything Republicans want, just whatever the Democrats want, and by the way, we still want all that Social Security money y'all been sending out to those lazy Seniors."

If I were President Obama I would have a discussion behind closed doors with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and I would start by saying, neither one of you is in a position to demand anything.

Bigdogg - Again, I don't understand. Here you have referred to President Obama, but you have described the actions of a king.

When in fact there's a little thing called the Constitution which says differently. If they weren't hired to maintain the checks and balances the Founding Fathers originally put into place then why are they there in the first place?

There are opposing parties for a reason. If you want a supreme ruler just make sure that you vote all opposing parties out of office and viola! Wish Granted.

(And judging from the state of our publick edujucashun system.. that's not very far off)

There ya go Barry. Tax our employers till they have to lay us all off. There aren't nearly enough people on government assistance.

Soon, we'll all be living on the government, and we'll achieve your socialist utopia.

This all sounds very nice but the problem with your idea is that if your employer hires you, the cash he pays you or for your benefits doesn't get taxed. If "Barry" (didn't realize you were so important that you were on a first-name basis with the President), but anyway, if President Obama raises taxes on your employers, that doesn't affect you.

If your employers are spoiled brats instead of responsible businessmen, and they lay you off out of spite, don't worry, their competitors will hire you - they will need to in order to take of the extra business they get due to your employer's immaturity.

Chicago Babe - Only three I'm impressed, of course you have a job right?

"I am a liberal, middle class and proudly voted for our president. I believe that we should all be paying a bit more in taxes - not just the rich."

I'm in the same boat. We're ALL going to have to chip in a little more. Nothing is free. Anyone believing we can keep cutting taxes and reduce the deficit at the same time may as well believe in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny and the Tooth Ferry while they're at it. As the President said -- it's NOT class warfare, it's math.

Time for a Rush Limbaugh type statement:

Rush Limbaugh is glad that Romney lost.

This way, he can continue to demand big bucks from advertisers because his audience of rwnj's will grow. He can continue to lie about Obama taking away your guns, Obama giving away free iPhones to welfare queens, student sex addicts wanting free birth control, Obama this and Obama that, etc etc.

Rush, Beck, Hannity, and the rest of Fox news are looking at huge paydays for the next 4 years by (mainly) lieing about what Obama actually does or doesn't do. They see dollar signs at the expense of rwnj high blood pressure and exploding heads.

But actually, a majority of the PEOPLE voted for Democrats to take over the House of Representatives.

It doesn't work that way. If Obama had won by an electoral margin but lost the popular vote, he would have been an illegitimate President because the majority of Americans didn't want him. However, if the current House of Representatives lost the popular vote, it is by the "will of the American people."

(Yes, I am being sarcastic.)

So letting people keep more of the money they've earned is "handing out money"??? It's THEIR money...it doesn't belong to the government.

We already went through this during the election. You already tried misquoting Obama with "you didn't build that." And he told you that it's not THEIR money. You already lost on this.

They didn't build the roads, the bridges, the infrastructure that allows them to make their money. That infrastructure doesn't come free. The nation is going into debt in order to support the infrastructure that THEY are using to make their money. It's time they paid for it. Nothing is free. Deal with it.

God help us with people like you voting.

Your self-righteousness is only exceeded by your immaturity. Again, nothing is free. You people really need to understand this.

You really are stupid huh inoitall? All those "celebrities" were if favor od raising taxes as well. There will be no surprise for any of them. You on the other hand, well I guess it doesn't take mych to surprise a dimwit. You believed the super secret Romeny in a landslide polls didn't you? LMAO Shell-shocked eh. Bwaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaa

How does raising taxes on the top two brackets help the economy???

Because we spend 1.2 trillion more then we take in. You answered your own question. Not including revenue in this discussion would be like passing up a raise at work, when you're hurting for money, because you're just going to buy less food.

Byron Raum

It doesn't work that way. If Obama had won by an electoral margin but lost the popular vote, he would have been an illegitimate President because the majority of Americans didn't want him

And you KNOW that Republicans would be claiming that his presidency wasn't legitimate if Obama had lost the popular vote. Some of them claimed Bill Clinton's presidency wasn't legitimate because he only got a plurality of the popular vote. Of course, the rules are different for Republican presidents. Bush lost the popular vote but he won the Supreme Court vote, but that was enough for him to act as if he had a mandate.

So, Who is worse for America, the Takers (Democrats) or the Earners(Republicans)? And how long can the takers succeed?

Well we see how the democratics want to work together except they forget HALF OF THIS NATION IS REPUBLICAN. You tell me I'm going to sit down and do what you say ???? First thing I'm gonna do is knock you on your arse

So, Who is worse for America, the Takers (Democrats) or the Earners(Republicans)? And how long can the takers succeed?

Really? The Democrats want to act responsibly, reduce the deficit and pay for the infrastructure that allows the economy and the country to function. And the Republicans want to destroy this infrastructure and reduce us to the state of a 3rd world country.

Somehow, in your twisted world, this makes Republicans virtuous and the Democrats immoral. Do you realize that the richest man in the country wants taxes raised?

Everyone knows that Romney beat Obama's backside as far as the white vote is concerned. What is less often mentioned is that the situation is reversed for the educated white vote. The higher earners realize that we cannot keep on giving out free handouts to the rich forever.

Not surprising, since many of them are the rich themselves: a crumbling infrastructure and an over-large deficit represents a threat to the prosperity of these people as well as for the rest of us.

They most definitely should have been paying more taxes for some time now rather than putting the extra burden on us. If they can pour so much money money into the campaigns rather than hiring for jobs, then it's about time to raise their taxes to a more fair share. Unless the GOP changes their extreme radical issues, they WILL LOSE more seats. That is not a threat, but is a promise.

If worse comes to worse I'm ready to go over the cliff. I don't think Americans making less then $250,000 should have their taxes increased. (Well that's a personal compromise, I really don't think American's making less then $75,000 should have their taxes increased.)

The way the cuts go, it cuts the Republican programs much worse than the Democratic programs. I don't want to see these programs cut but explain that to the people Republicans. You're taxes are going up no matter what but do you want to cut your programs and tax the middle class as well? I smell seats up for grabs in 2014, I don't think we'll be asleep for those elections like in 2010.

Obama keeps talking about how Bill Clinton did it, and that seems to be his reasoning for a tax hike. So why don't we go back to the Clinton era tax rates for everyone, and go back to the Clinton era spending as well. I think that would be a proposal everyone could get behind, especially since the Clinton era is the poster child for the economy, taxes, and spending.

But Obama keeps talking about the rich paying a little bit more, when the government actually needs a heck of a lot more, and they aren't going to get it just taxing the rich. Obama talks about cutting 4 trillion over the next 10 years. 400 billion a year for 10 years when we are running deficits over a trillion is simply not good enough.

Term limits for members of congress, an entirely new tax code, and a balanced budget amendment. Washington simply cannot be trusted, and there is no evidence they ever can be. Tough measures for sure, but restraints are the only option to force Washington to do the right thing for the country. We have been hearing about tax reform for decades, and Obama is no more interested in curtailing spending then his predecessor was. It is way past time to face reality, and force Washington to do what states all across the country do, they balance their budgets.

I don't see anyone that has asked one very important question: will Obama, Reid, Pelosi and all other politicians, mainly those under the Democrat wing (though I wouldn't be surprised to hear about an Issa or Bohener scandal), also be participating in these tax hikes?

Anyone with a half a brain knows the answer is no. So the taxes go up, the hard working people pay them and the politicians who have been sitting on their asses for the last four years pay some lower tax rate. This combined with no doubt "generous charitable donations" will mean not a single person sitting on either side of the aisle will effectively be paying taxes while we get the shaft.

It's true, the money needs to flow down so an economy can continue to grow, but employers (aka the rich) have to think of a bottom line. If profits are being obstructed by employee earnings there are two outcomes: everyone takes a hit to their paycheck or people get fired. Since taking hits to paychecks will piss everyone off and still generate hate for the rich, it's the lesser of two evils in the end.

Btw, has anyone considered exactly how much revenue will be earned by taxing the people who make $200K+ a year? Let's say an imposed effective tax rate of 100% comes into play on all earnings (and somehow we also get access to all foreign bank accounts) how much is that gonna be? A few hundred billion? Maybe a trillion? Still got a lot left to make up for there and where's the rest of the money gonna come from? Remember, the politicians aren't gonna pay even though they have what's left. So you still got an elite ruling class who has all the money now and we still have a nation wallowing in debt. Your great leaders that you foolishly elected on Tuesday are the people you should be hammering, not the "rich" (not yet at least).

geo-1957883

So, Who is worse for America, the Takers (Democrats) or the Earners(Republicans)? And how long can the takers succeed?

Another one of the right's talking points, but in reality it is the people living in red states that are the biggest takers. Liberals like me believe in personal responsiblity and paying taxes. We understand that sometimes life throws a curveball and not everyone is financially able a personal financial disaster without a little bit of help. I was just reading a story about a woman who had breast cancer and couldn't work. She had to rely on welfare and food stamps to pay the rent and feed her kids while she was going thru treatment and couldn't work. Should she and her kids have been forced to live on the streets because of an unforeseen financial crisis? Or could we as Americans help this woman (and others in equally unfortunate situations) in a small way to get her health back and get back on her feet? I don't want to see people taking advantage of the system and am for a fair overhaul of the system. Because good people should not be penalized for the actions of others. A little bit of compassion should be so much more valuable than a few more dollars on a paycheck.

64 Billion in spending cuts is a drop in the ocean. We need to cut 1.2 Trillion today. That will wake up the liberals to how bad things are.

The entire Government is living off a social program you ignorant whack job..

Boehner and his Norquist butt buddies need an awakening..

Anyone with a half a brain knows the answer is no.

If you have half a brain, why don't you actually bother to read Obama's plan instead of having a fantasy discussion with yourself?

tothetop777 - 50% of the voting population did not agree with this worthless f### in office.

Problems with math, tothetop?

Last time I checked (like 30 seconds ago), Mitt Romney had 48% of the vote.

That's less than 50%. At least in the math I learned.

Or, in the words of FOX News anchor Tuesday night, "Is this just math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?"

Why are we considering a gradual return to the tax rates that were in effect prior to Bush's Presidency? That tax cut should have been left to expire long ago. It was left in existence because the Republican House majority blackmailed the President into it by threatening to enforce the unemployment rules even as we had millions of unemployed running out of benefits. The Super rich and the wealthy had enjoyed their UN-necessary tax bonus for long enough and we could never afford it .It was a contributor to our downward spiral. Just because they were bribed into signing an un-patriotic act to a private citizen should not mean that we their employers should allow them to send us all down the toilet.

Really Byron Raum? Really? Give out to the wealthy? Be serious. Really? Are you that dumb? California alone gives out a free handout at the tune of 21.6 billion annually to illegals alone on welfare, education, food stamps, and other freebees. Just one state! Your going to sit her and tell us we need to take from the wealth, which by the way will reverse the favor to the general public and higher costs to you, or do we need to stop the growing entitlement in this country? Taxing the wealthy will not put a dent in the deficit, but allow Obama and his croneys to spend us more into oblivion. Time to stop promoting a free ride in this country. Lifetime freeloaders off the system can go get a damn job or starve!

Geo,

I would say that what's worse for America, are those who see the country in such partisan and divisive terms, that they can generalize about an entire political party regardless of facts, insight or personal knowledge of the members.

Is this any surprise when his ego is bigger than his leadership ability by miles? Just how do you think the President of the Party of No Ideas and No Budget is going to accomplish anything with his my way or the highway stance?

Just remember America you voted to have the status que and now you see why it didn't work the last four years?

This is why President Obama is the worst President in history...right behind Jimmy "lets return the Ayatollah to power in Iran" Carter. Under President Obama we have had an increase in racial division according to research reported here on MSN...why is that?

Onevoice,

I appreciate your post. Thank you for describing the downgrade in more detail. That is exactly what I meant but I didn't explain it clearly. Regarding spending cuts, I would focus centrally on defense spending. In addition to millions of dollars being UTTERLY wasted each year, billions of large scale warships, vehicles, equipment, etc are being purchased vastly greater than WW2 era production. We are building up an army when there is no clear identifiable enemy. While this is a huge waste of funds, it also sends messages to "frenemies" such as Russia. We need a clear definition of our stance to the rest of the world.

Cheers

Lusitania - The hypocrisy is stifling. These guys don't get it. In four years this country will be even more polarized against the ultra rich than they are now. They are on the way out.

Would it make everyone happier if, rather than saying he was increasing taxes on the wealthy, we would say he is LEVELING THE TAX PERCENTAGE so that the wealthy pay approximately the same percentage as the middle class? We need to eliminate the Capital Gains 15% tax rate, because MOST S Corporation income filters down to the owners who file income as CG and are able to use depreciation and other means to lower the actual income amount instead of regular income, which lowers the effective percentage they pay or the amount on which they pay taxes.

Let's be clear ... people who work and earn money, be it a lot or a little, should have the same percentage of tax burden. If a $50,000.00 per year wage earner (single, no children) has to pay 24% then someone with the same deductions making $950,000.00 per year needs to be paying 24%. It is about FAIRNESS and EQUALITY. We ALL need to be paying the same percentage, but the very wealthy have loopholes that substantially LOWERS the percentage they pay ... so someone earning $20 million gets to pay 13%. It is not fair. The bottom line simply does not matter in terms of fairness ... ONLY THE PERCENTAGE PAID counts.

Add to it that the wealthy get LOTS of perks that that they pay NO TAXES on ... vacation homes that their company writes off as a deduction ... cars, trips, meals ... ALL of that should be considered INCOME but, not only is it NOT shown as income, their company gets a tax deduction for the EXPENSE.

A flat tax would solve the problem. Everyone, no matter how much they make - even if they work under the table for cash or are working in an illegal trade - would pay a flat tax on purchases. There should be NO EXCLUSIONS from paying the tax. No "tax exempt" status for businesses, churches, not-for-profits ... EVERYONE would pay it. But that will NEVER happen because the very people who make the laws would be required to pay the same as those they govern.

I'm not asking for a hand-out, I have worked since I was 15 years old and I am nearly 60, but I AM asking for equity. I'll pay my fair share ... but I want EVERYONE ELSE to pay their fair share as well.

Renew the Bush tax cuts for ALL taxpayers, but raise the capital gains tax rate back to 20%, which would raise $71B a year in new revenues. Not exactly a solution to the deficit, but it would sure help.

If you think that would be a drag on economic growth, the data for the last 60 years says otherwise. The capital gains tax rate & GDP have both gone up and down many times over that 60 year period, and it turns out there is no correlation between the two.

Why should passive income from investment returns be more favored by the tax laws than income earned by going to a job and doing actual work?

The huge difference between capital gains tax rates and regular W-2 income tax rates only serves to encourage tax dodging strategies. Why should the CEO of a hedge fund, or of a private equity company like Bain Capital be allowed to declare most of his income as capital gains and pay a MUCH lower tax rate than I do? Doesn't he go to an office every Monday through Friday and do work, at an actual job, just like I do?

I would like to ask my CEO to change my compensation from all cash to all stock. Instead of direct depositing my paycheck every 2 weeks and me paying a very high income tax percentage on it, instead just give me company stock at below market value. I will sell it all every payday, deposit those capital gains in my account just like I would my paycheck, and come tax time I will only pay 15% on that income. Does that sound fair to all of you?

Yes you damn takers! For some reason Ryaner's thinks only Dems Are takers. Now we know you are a fox limballess. Holding the line on hate. You Ryaner's know that Americans at this time with still low employment and that people need help. Now any true Christian in here I mean a real Christian knows that Jesus feed and helped the poor and under class more than anyone else. Ayn Ryan did not win! This self absorbing of one's self is not natural or American, we have been blessed with having a over abundance, and remember that Jesus said it would be easier for a camel to go throw the eye of a needle, then rich man to go to heaven! Now why would he have said that? And if any of you stupids think people want hand outs, just look at your own! Charity to others is what Jesus preached. pure and simple. Oh by the way Ayn Ryan was on SS at the end of her life. And I just Shrugged!

And if any of you Christian voted for the mormon just remember his god lives on a planet. and if you voted for him you voted for a man who worships another god! think about that.

And yes I voted for Donelly!

House GOP Blocking Abortion Access for Raped Soldiers

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) wants to expand access to abortion for servicewomen who are raped. Only a few Republicans are willing to help.

—By Kate Sheppard

| Wed Jun. 13, 2012 2:00 AM PDT

226

VA Comm/Flickr

Republican Senators John McCain, Scott Brown, and Susan Collins all support an effort by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat from New Hampshire, to expand abortion access for military women who are raped. But despite bipartisan support in the Senate, Shaheen's proposal may not make it into the final version of the 2013 defense authorization bill—because House Republicans oppose it.

If Shaheen's measure passes, military families will finally have the same access to abortion that other federal employees already receive. Unlike the rest of the federal government, the Department of Defense currently only provides abortion coverage if the life of the mother is at stake. Under current law, if a State Department employee is raped, her government health insurance plan will pay for an abortion if she wants one. But if an Army medic serving in Afghanistan is raped and becomes pregnant, she can't use her military health plan to pay for an abortion. If she does decide to get an abortion, she will have to pay for it with her own money. And if she can't prove she was raped—which is difficult before an investigation is completed—she may have to look for services off base, which can be dangerous or impossible in many parts of the world.

"We have more than 200,000 women serving on active duty in our military," Shaheen tells Mother Jones. "They should have the same rights to affordable reproductive health services as all of the civilians who they protect."

In late May, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved Shaheen's amendment, attaching it to the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. McCain, the committee's top Republican, voted in favor, as did Brown and Collins. Shaheen is "hopeful" her proposal has enough support to be included in the final bill. The NDAA still needs a vote on the Senate floor. But for Shaheen's amendment, there's a bigger problem: the Republican-controlled House.

"We don't really understand why anybody would oppose [Shaheen's bill]," says Sharon Levin, the director of federal reproductive health policy at the National Women's Law Center. "The only reason it wouldn't go through is if the Republican leadership in the House tried to block it."

That appears likely. A GOP staffer "familiar with defense issues" told Army Times last week that the Shaheen amendment "stands little chance of surviving" when the House and Senate meet to work out their differences on the defense bill. "Historically, social provisions that are not reflected in both bills heading into conference don't survive," the staffer said—conceding that the House version of the defense bill will not include anything like Shaheen's proposal.

Shaheen says the story of a young woman stationed in Korea who was raped by a fellow soldier demonstrates why this law needs to be changed. The woman's military health insurance wouldn't cover an abortion, and she could not find a safe place to have one off base. In the end, she lost her job, and later had a miscarriage. "This is somebody who wanted to make the military her career, and she was ultimately forced out because of a situation that was not of her making," Shaheen says. "Most of the women affected here are enlisted women who are making about $18,000 a year. They're young, they don't have access to a lot of resources. Many of them are overseas."

Current Pentagon policy is more restrictive than the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funds from being used to provide abortion services except in the case of rape, incest, or if the woman's life is endangered. The DOD enacted its stricter, life-of-the-mother-only limit on abortions in 1979. In 1988, the law was tightened again—Congress now forbids women from using their own money to pay for abortions in military health centers unless they are a victim of rape or incest, or if their life is at risk.

The military reported 471 rapes of servicemembers in 2011 alone. The true number is likely far higher—the Pentagon's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office estimates that only about 13.5 percent of all rapes and sexual assaults in the military are actually reported. The Women's Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress estimates that several hundred women in the military become pregnant as a result of rape each year.

But despite numerous reform efforts over the past several decades, including failed proposals in 2010 and 2011, the Pentagon's strict anti-abortion policies endure today.

Shaheen hopes that this year will be different. The Stand with Servicewomen campaign, organized by retired military men and women in partnership with a coalition of civil and reproductive rights groups, is backing her effort. "When a woman comes in the military comes in the military, she's guaranteed health care," says Col. Elizabeth Fleming, a retired Army veteran who now practices law in Alaska, who was in DC recently to lobby senators on Shaheen's amendment. "If this is excluded, she's not getting it."

Another vocal vet is Joellen Oslund, who became the Navy's first woman helicopter pilot in 1974, and in 1993 was one of the first female aviators promoted to the rank of captain. Now retired, she says she hopes that granting access to abortion care for women in the military—at least for victims of rape—will be relatively non-controversial. "We lost these privileges and these rights a little bit at a time, we're going to have to get them back a little bit at a time," Oslund says. "This is the one piece that's probably the least controversial, and helps the most people."

Sally Lu - Poor pathetic Liberal, Republicans give more to charity than you bleeding hearts, you just feel worse about it so you think. Pathetic! Just ask VP Biden about how much he gives, again pathetic. Yes, people should recieve assistance. For every one person you name, how many take advantage 60, to 80%? The Democrats believe in constituency by dependency! Romney was 100% correct in the 47% of the takers, Obama is trying to make it 50% for obvious reasons.

SSPerfectChaos

I don't see anyone that has asked one very important question: will Obama, Reid, Pelosi and all other politicians, mainly those under the Democrat wing (though I wouldn't be surprised to hear about an Issa or Bohener scandal), also be participating in these tax hikes?

Actually, the answer is "yes". Obama paid a much higher tax rate than Mitt Romney last year on about 5% as much income as Romney had. (Obama: $789,674, tax rate 20.26%; Romney: $20.9 million, tax rate 13.9%)

And the argument that raising taxes on the rich won't bring in enough money?

Well, dude, your party lost that argument when they tried to cut Meals on Wheels. Ryan said then, "Everything is on the table, and we can't afford it."

If we can't afford Meals on Wheels, we sure can't afford the billions in revenue we're donating to the top 2% from the Bush tax cut (from 39.6% to 36%).

Before 1963, when Reagan rode his horse, every single dollar after $400,000 (in today's dollars) was taxed at more than 90 percent.

So this was his BIG post-election "plan". Wow, just wow. Fine. Raising taxes on the rich will bring in 50 to 60 billion at very best. We're running an annual deficit at 1.1 TRILLION. Our debt is $16 TRILLION. Say it all with me: DROP IN THE BUCKET !! How about we start collecting SOMETHING from the 47% and growing who pay no federal taxes and have absolutely no skin in this game.

Here's another suggestion Obama. First get a g-dmn BUDGET together. Oh I know, I know. BUDGET is a four-letter word to liberals.

Or could we as Americans help this woman in a small way to get her health back and get back on her feet? I don't want to see people taking advantage of the system and am for a fair overhaul of the system. Because good people should not be penalized for the actions of others. A little bit of compassion should be so much more valuable than a few more dollars on a paycheck.

It's not just compassion. It's also good financial sense. There are many cases of people who lived on public assistance while working on their idea or project or whatever, and were wildly successful. And of course, there are many who are not wildly successful, but still manage to get back on their feet after falling down, due to the social safety net. Both of these groups of people pay taxes into the system. Some pay a HUGE amount of taxes. For example, the author of the Harry Potter books, richer than the Queen of England, lived on public assistance when she was writing those books.

It's rather funny, ALL of Mr Romney's campaign's showcase companies who "Yes, we did built that" received government loans, contracts and handouts. It's funny, but there is a very serious underlying truth.

f the people who supported Mr Romney so avidly were able to actually think for themselves, they would realize that EVERYONE is both a Taker and a Giver at different times in their lives. The government is but a group savings account. When you need, you withdraw from it, when you can, you pay back into it.

@trip*toe*fan

Of course, the problem becomes when people don't trust we can repay our debt and stop buying it. Then you have a situation like that of Greece. We are nowhere near that point now, but we shouldn't consider such a situation impossible.

Wrong. The problem becomes when our debt drastically exceeds our GDP and, according to CBO projections, we are just 12 years away from reaching the point Greece is at today in that regard. I'd hardly say that 12 years is "nowhere near that point".

I'm also all for 1.2 trillion in spending cuts, but only so long as we start with the most expensive military in the world. OUR military.

Great we had to have a Terrible President named Bush for eight years and people were stupid enough to vote him into office for a second term... We get another Terrible President for eight years because people were stupid enough to vote him into office for a second term too.

Forest was right ... "stupid is as stupid does"

I didn't care if he is Demo or Rep ... he was and is a failure as a leader... he has brought together nothing, comprised nothing..

We still have millions unemployed, millions in poverty, trillions of new debt and our leaders go back to the same play book that got us into this mess. Stupid!

RealAmericaFirst, god you really are an idiot. You going to argue over 2%? 2%? Grow a f-ing brain. I can't tell now you are an entitlement individual. 'She worked 30 hours and got paid $500. I worked 40 hours and got paid $485. But you were less skilled laborer and she had a degree but you should get equal right? We all deal with your mentality and type. I got your RealAmericaFirst on my middle finger. I love liberals like you in the work force. Makes it pleasurable making your life miserable.

LMarcT,

No one has argued with you because you have yet to present a logical argument. Random numbers pulled from your ass and baseless assumptions do not entice people to have a logical debate with you.

I would be fine with a little more taxes, for everyone, if democrats could prove that they are capable of spending cuts. Every time that we get tax increases to help out during our financial cliff, they vow to cut spending, but never do. NEVER do. So we give them more and they spend more, then we run out of other people's money and we are in a real mess. Democrats need to prove that they are capable of spending cuts before Im cool with throwing them more money.

American leeches like American Girl are always cool with tax increases, as long as its not on them. Thats why Californians decided to pass 30, taxing the rich more but not themselves, but not 38 which taxed everyone and actually made it so the money had to go to the schools. The leeches of California showed just what type of people they really are with that.

The election was a referendum on Republican policies - Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell no matter what they spin will find less friendlier faces in their caucus next session-this is because of their previous decisions to not care that Americans were losing jobs and homes while only caring about how they will return claim to the Presidency as they stated-The voters have sent them the message that this attitude will not be tolerated-They both need to accept their failures of last term and work with the President on his terms.

@Sarah-3043284

Not including revenue in this discussion would be like passing up a raise at work, when you're hurting for money, because you're just going to buy less food.

Your analogy is incomplete and incorrect. It would be like passing on a 2 or 3 cent raise that will be paid for by several of your fellow employees being laid off because you feel you need that Ribeye steak every week and Top Sirloin just won't cut it. Would you really take a drop in the bucket raise if their was even the possibility that someone else might lose their job because of it?

Taking money OUT of the economy because we have 2 political parties that can't(won't) cut a red cent from the things they value most won't solve anything. Even Obama himself stated 2 years ago that raising taxes when the growth of GDP is so low would be a mistake. Now GDP growth is even less than it was then but he backed himself into a corner making promises to get re-elected and now we will all suffer the result.

Over the cliff! The Democrats have a pat hand and do not have to do a thing.

Agent Orange will not compromise because he will lose his speakership if he does. So over the cliff they go. When that happens and taxes go up for everyone the republicons will be the ones taking the heat because they did not compromise. Hello 2014 and a Democratic landslide!

Repubs pay into charites for one reason....lower tax bracket.......$$$$$$$$$$

geo-1957883

So, Who is worse for America, the Takers (Democrats) or the Earners(Republicans)? And how long can the takers succeed?

In follow-up to responses from Sally Lu, Sarah-3043284 in regard to this LIE by the rightwing -- and to

gordonw12

Well we see how the democratics want to work together except they forget HALF OF THIS NATION IS REPUBLICAN. You tell me I'm going to sit down and do what you say ???? First thing I'm gonna do is knock you on your arse

You can be angry and even stupidly violent -- But you're NOT half the nation NOT ANY MORE. This is the #1 point you rightwingers are missing. And you can lie to yourselves all you want, but the GOP platform has been soundly rejected -- Get a grip on reality.

Starsailing...And wealthy democrats don't? Hollywood? Althletes? Come on man, even though your a Lefty, I have read some of your comments. Your smarter than that aren't you?

"47% of those who don't pay federal income taxes include:"

soldiers in combat

BS! my son in law is a Major and he paid taxes while deployed in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

retirees

More BS. I'm retired and I pay income taxes --- probably more than you.

disabled

BS again. Many disabled people work and pay income taxes.

college students

You just keep spewing the BS. I paid income taxes when I was in college and so did my kids.

single moms

Even more BS. My daughter is a single mother. She's a sales rep for a pharmaceutical company and she pays income taxes

unemployed

The BS train rolls on. You pay taxes on unemployment.

underemployed

BS again -- depends on how much they make.

Bottom line bayllie --- you're wallowing in ignorance. Tune in something other than Fox and you may not make such a moron out of yourself.

Dido Jokerjo..

True Patriot, lmao, what is your point? If there are more Liberals, does that make your life better? Pay your Bills? Put food on the table? LOL Seriously do you keep score with your spouse too? Go play marbles on the freeway.

I wish all the Americans who whine about high taxes would move to Canada so they can learn the meaning of high taxes. Most Americans are completely ignorant of how low their taxes are compared to Canada and European countries.

westbury-My wife and I paid $50,000 dollars in taxes last year. Is that not enough???? Should I pay more? Am I using more services than other people??

That would depend on what your income was.And what deductions you take. The question is unanswerable without that information. As to the other question. Again,without knowing what services you get being an American citizen. How those are different,possibly,than what another American citizen receives. Then that question is also unanswerable.

@ tothetop777

RealAmericaFirst, AGAIN pull your head out of your @ss and learn why Romney paid less than Obama in percentage of his taxes. Romney clearly was taxed correctly! Leave out the key part to make your Fungus in Chief look good right? Idiot

Simply because it was legal doesn't make it fair or equitable. If Romney gets to pay 13% on his $20 million income then I want to pay 13% on my more modest income ... not the 24% I am currently doling out.

Seriously, if anyone on this site had a choice between making $50,000.00 per year and paying 24% and making $20 million per year and paying 24%, what would ANY OF US choose? You're the one, tothetop777, that needs to remove your head from your a$$ and take off the FAUX blinders.

There is NOTHING wrong with eliminating loopholes and making ALL AMERICANS paying the same percentage.

Watching Obama talk makes me proud to be Canadian.

geo-1957883 - poor pathetic repbulican! There are way more people who actually need assistance than who are taking advantage of the system. When Romney was talking about the 47% who were moochers, he was including those who don't pay income taxes, such as our service man and women, children, retired folks living off of social security, the unemployed, the underemployed (those living in poverty), to name a few in that group. So I guess you believe that kids should be paying tax? Or our service men and women? My parents worked their whole lives and when they retired, they lived a frugal existence on social security and a small amount from IRAs. For the last 10 years of their lives they owed no income taxes. Should they have been required to pay taxes even though their income was only about $20,000 a year? Would you rather our elderly survive without heat, food or medication so they pay their "fair share" of taxes? What about students who are working full time at minimum wage to put themselves through school so they can better themselves? What about those who want to work but can only find minimum wage jobs? If they make $20,000 a year and we tax them at 25% that is $5000 out of their pockets they could have used toward food and rent and not have to rely on food stamps or other social services. That is more money they can put back into the economy buy purchasing goods and services and paying sales tax.

Republicans want to continue pumping big money oil and coal subsidies and into corporate tax breaks with no promise of benefit or reward to the rest of us. Tax breaks for them means more money in their pockets, but no new employees, no trickle down. They ship jobs to and import products from China. I'd rather give tax breaks to corporations who will invest in America and put our citizens back to work.

For the Civic's challenged... The President is responsible for leading, which means motivating compromise..

That is why he is one person, and the House and Senate are multiple. Each member of Congress represents HIS or HER own area... NOT THE COUNTRY'S..

So if one's district does not agree with tax increases.. it's the representatives duties to speak for his district...

For those that think Democrats won the Election, because Obama won with 51% of the registered voters (still awaiting certification on numbers and validation)... get this, more Republican legislators won their respected elections, than Democrats!!

In fact, the House was already majority GOP, and now the Senate only have Democratic majority by a handful... that handful that can be seen as capable of jumping party lines for what ever reasoning.

What does that mean? It means Obama must now back up his touting capability to handle the job.

In fact, Clinton had the same situation (and flourished), so did Reagan...

But I am curious, do recall Obama talking about "closing loopholes" and saving billions... wonder why that wasn't the FIRST thing he did, or why tax reform IS NOT a jump off point for talks?

In other words, he isn't planning too much on fixing the tax code that helps the 1%, only raising taxes for the guys in the middle...

Sure can't wait for the impeachment talk.. President Biden, anyone?

O.K. I will say this now because by the time you on the left know it is true I don't think I will have the FREEDOM to say it or post it.

I TOLD YOU SO, NOW DO YOU BELIEVE ME?

Obama has already gone to the UN to sign us on to the global gun ban and you are all standing around arguing over other things while more of your rights are being removed so freedom of speech is right around the corner. Welcome to the new "lower" class America, sign up for your new government rights and work orders for the week and how much your share is.

If Jesus had a basket of apples would he spread his wealth around ?

Not in this life, republicans aren't interested..

In a way I am happy that the President remains in office. Now he can finish the spin cycle he started and wring the last drop of hope that remains, out of us. It’s always easier to spend, spend, spend and big-name yourself, then get someone else to clean up the rubble. Yes, increase the taxes on the rich, and while at it also get everyone, including those who currently don’t pay any, to pay their fair share and contribute to the recovery. Put the rhetoric into action and level the paying field. The “easy ride” on the back of the working few is over!

Only the neediest, sick and the ones who can’t help themselves should be looked after by the government.

Backcountry,

You would have a point, if YOUR analogy wasn't overly dramatic.

We're NOT talking about raising taxes on those who need to keep the money, in order to put it back into our economy, because they have to do things like grocery shop and pay bills with it. That would be the middle class.

The wealthiest among us, DON'T put that money back into the economy, they put it in off shore tax shelters, hedge funds, high risk investments in ambiguous economic tools like derivatives, yada, yada, yada, all of which keep the money circling around at the top, NOT trickling down.

They're NOT investing in companies that make goods or products of a concrete nature, which can than be made, bought and sold by small businesses or Joe Schmoes like us. After all, we've had these policies in place for at least ten years and corporations have pulled in record profits and the top 1% has seen their personal wealth go through the roof. Where are the damn jobs that grow our economy and fix our debt???

Yes, we need to cut spending. We need to reform entitlements. I have NO problem doing that, but when you only have two options for getting out of debt, spending cuts and revenue, you don't discount 50% of the possible solutions. Especially, when 30 years of evidence shows that doing so doesn't work.

D Appel, bottom line is Romney paid what the IRS laws required him to do under the current laws and his income! PERIOD! It will continue to be taxed that way until the laws on investment income change. Pull your head out of your @ss. We all would love to pay less, and I can guarantee almost every damn American that gets their taxes done looks for every f-ing loophole they can to increase that tax return check! Your a lying hypocrate if you say otherwise. Romney gave $4 million to charities. I like the money going to charity over a slithering politician and the IRS.

Progressive tax rates are needed not regressive as they currently are effectively. Romney did file his taxes legally, I have NO doubt. But as Appel said, does not make it fair. Capital Gains taxes need to be raised, probably higher than what Obama is proposing, 20%

Lusitania..1.221

I wonder, if your fortune had changed, how readily would you offer and share a slice of your wealth with others??

@ gmainco

Please provide verification of that claim.

Charlie,

Many retires do not pay income taxes. If they have a Roth retirement account they are not paying taxes. People making less than the lowest bracket ~$8750. Soldiers deployed in a warzone do not pay taxes. College students do not pay income taxes on scholarships (otherwise includible income)

So you see, you were the BS spreader

If the top tax rates were not dropped from 90% in the 60's the median household income would be over 100k instead of the pathetic 50k it is now. The middle class could afford to pay more in taxes IF THEY MADE MORE. The problem is we have had LOW top tax rates for over 50 years now. The rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer.

Low top tax rates also encourage people to lie, cheat, steal, etc. since they get rewarded for it and get to keep the money. If they had to pay it in taxes then people would be less likely to cut corners. We would not need millions of laws to regulate people when a high top tax rate takes the incentive out of harming/preying on society. Owners, CEOs, etc. get rewarded for paying their employees LESS when the top tax rates are low.

High top tax rates encourage people to pay their workers more since they cannot keep as much as they want. If there is a choice between paying the government and paying their employees, they will pay their workers more instead or they will invest that money back into the company WITHOUT needing to be rewarded for it. They already were rewarded in the first place. They have way more then 10 times what
others have.

Capital Gains is the biggest loophole there is and needs to be increased too. 80% or more of the top 1%'s income comes from investments that can only be taxed by capital gains. Capital gains need to be 35% or more.

It needs to be harder to make even more money, the more money you already possess. If it becomes easier and easier to make more and more money, a condition called "exponential runaway" occurs, which the system CANNOT ever supply for a duration of time. There is not enough money and more has to be printed to meet the exponential demand. There is no way for people to make exponentially more and more money. Each time we print MORE money what effect does that have on the money already in circulation? Why are you morons chasing something you will never catch? Why do you chase after your tails, wind, etc. like some stupid animal?

The universe will tax you up to 100% depending on how fast or how big you try to become. Each time you double your velocity the universe DEMANDS four times the power (tax) in order to do it. There is an exponential increase in the amount of power required. Why do you not complain to God or who ever designed the universe about friction? Maybe you are not as smart as you think you are, should STFU, and pay your taxes. If you cannot think about the "health" of the system like an engineer would STFU. Unless your system can handle exponential runaway I would STFU since the only way your system manages to stay working is due to the Federal Reserve printing out MORE money to meet your stupid unrealistic demands. I am sorry the vast majority of you are to stupid to understand a simple power supply or basic math. Maybe you should have paid more attention in school.

@MrBurns The numbers that LMacrT is talking about are called our HISTORY. Made you should STFU and look up some data. Like from 1940-1982 our top tax rate was 90%-70%. Worker's wages went stagnant back in the 60's when the top tax rate was dropped to 70% from 90%. Small businesses have been
on the decline ever since the top tax rate was reduced down from 70%. A 90% top tax rate limits income/wealth to a maximum of about 100 to 1 ratios. Real world conditions would be less
since that is with one person having the majority of the money in the system.

TO: geo-1957883 who wrote:

"Chicago Babe - Only three [children] I'm impressed, of course you have a job right?

Anybody wanna bet "geo" is a "pro-life Republican who advocates for non-stop child birth", but no caring for the children, who's checking to make sure this innocent mother of 3 isn't "mooching" in order to care for her children.

This type of "probing" into people's personal lives is yet another reason why Mitt Romney lost.

TO: othetop777 who wrote:

"D Appel, bottom line is Romney paid what the IRS laws required him to do under the current laws and his income! PERIOD! ..."

You don't know that, and you COULDN'T know that, and NONE of us know that because Romney never released his tax returns.

Larry Stauth Jr VIA FACEBOOK -- It's one thing to post drivel here, but mind-bending that you always advertise it on Facebook. I would never hire you. Just sayin'...you might want to rethink that.

At this point, I'd like to remind Boehner and the House Republicans that they do NOT work for Grover Norquist, nor do they work for the Pope. They work for the American people. The people voted and we selected President Obama and his plan for our economy.

Also, please note, we will be voting again in 2014. If you obstruct now, you will be gone.

American Girl-724855

Are you going to argue the issues or the facts, Days before being re-elected the Prez said Romney did not have a plan and he did. Now after the election he touts putting a plan together. Typical of the Prez and his policies. They are non existant and so is his leadership. Blames Bush, the rich, the Reupublicans other than that what has he done. Yup nothing, claimed a week ago to raise taxes on milionaires, this week $200,000 or more, next is $100,000. Per his own words you just cannot have what ever you want, big cars houses money. it does not fit his mold but it is what America was built on, remember that. This fiscal cliff is a product of his leadership he owns it if it goes over it is his fault.

More transcript excerpts from The Rachel Maddow Show:

MADDOW: Ohio really did go to President Obama last night. And he
really did win. And he really was born in Hawaii. And he really is
legitimately president of the United States, again.

And the Bureau of Labor Statistics did not make up a fake unemployment
rate last month. And the Congressional Research Service really can find no
evidence that cutting taxes on rich people grows the economy. And the
polls were not skewed to oversample Democrats. And Nate Silver was not
making up fake projections about the election to make conservatives feel
bad. Nate Silver was doing math.

And climate change is real. And rape really does cause pregnancy
sometimes. And evolution is a thing.

And Benghazi was an attack on us, it was not a scandal by us. And
nobody is taking away anyone`s guns. And taxes have not gone up. And the
deficit is dropping, actually.

And Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. And the
moon landing was real. And FEMA is not building concentration camps. And
U.N. election observers are not taking over Texas. And moderate reforms of
the regulations on the insurance industry and the financial services
industry in this country are not the same thing as communism.

Paraphrasing a bumper sticker, the Democrats may not be perfect, but the Republicans are nuts.

Irvmani -- We've had enough of rightwing Projection Politics. No one could be less transparent than Mitt Romney, more of a liar than Mitt Romney, more cynical and self-serving than Mitt Romney, blaming others or taking other's credit for himself than Mitt Romney, etc., etc., etc. -- But this is all moot now, he lost the election. Get over it.

I find it no accident that those who support destroying the "rich" have no actual data figures to speak of that are not over 100yrs old.

I believe strongly that this "rich" tax really means, were gonna starve off the Republicans...I truly believe that is Obama's loyal intention, and one party system where he will be the Ruler until he is too old to see straight.

By the time you have robbed all of America of it's wealth with lazy living and handouts....you will be eating your own.

Lets look at a couple of entitlements that really should be cut! One is called earned income! This is ware people get back thousands more then they pay in! It's called income redistribution and is meant to enable people who do not work hard enough a chance to go to Disney world every year or maybe play fifty dollars worth of lottery tickets every day! Either way it is not an entitlement and should be cut!

How about Tap and Pal? I am a working class whiter person and when my children applied for college the contribution from these two programs was a complete joke! In the other lines I heard numbers all the way from six thousand up to twelve thousand. Thanks much! It seems that the people who work the hardest are deliberately treated the worst ! Let's cut these two programs too!

I know! It's more popular as proven by this last election to cut programs that working people have paid into all their life, Social Security and Medicare. that is because the government has stolen all the money right back out! And, after all, it's just working class people! this facade about protecting the middle class is all horse puttuty!

Obama will use the lazy, Idealist, illegals and gays to bankrupt this country! then they will see what Obama really thinks of them! Check out what is happening in the rest of the Socialist world and see how much welfare on the scale of ours is going on. You have signed the death warrant on your way of life and you just don't realize it!

You bought it and now it belongs to you but I bet you will find someone else to blame it on!

You cant tax people who leave this country....what is stopping this 1% from dropping us on our heads...? Oh, there leaving....crap now who do we tax?

Obama acts like the 1% cant leave this country.....how funny.

Un-Earned Income Credit is theft from my working hands...good thing Im out of a job and dont have to pay a single dime to gigantic people popping out kids getting even more gigantic on food stamps...to those who just collect this and no other form of welfare, too bad..start popping out kids you can afford

"Obama has already gone to the UN to sign us on to the global gun ban"

Sure -- just like Elvis is alive, the moon landing was faked, the earth is flat, and Santa, The Easter Bunny and the Tooth Ferry are all real.

wonder if the price of possum hides will go up...the global impact of a possum hide shortage...i'm just getty thinking bout it...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RvnylyNwJc

Charlie,

Don't forget, and 9/11 was an inside job.

Americangirl, Really? Romney DID release his tax returns. Quit being a typical liberal finger pointer!

I wonder if all the tax cheats Obama appointed ever paid up? Geithner, Sebelius, Kirk, and several others.

If Romney's tax returns were incorrect, you can be assured the all mighty POS IRS would have it corrected.

Sarah-3043284

Backcountry,

Yo u would have a point, if YOUR analogy wasn't overly dramatic.

We're NOT talking about raising taxes on those who need to keep the money, in order to put it back into our economy, because they have to do things like grocery shop and pay bills with it. That would be the middle class.

I'll make 2 points- First there is this impression that only rich fat cats in the top 1% are going to be affected. That is patently FALSE. This will affect those people making 250k and up. Many of these people are small business owners and they aren't going to pull money from their retirement accounts and investments. They are going to decide to go without the landscaper or pool guy. They will reduce their nonessential spending long before they scale back on the things that actually make them money which will most definitely have an impact on the middle class.

Second is that the tax increase Obama is proposing will only raise 80 billion dollars. That seems like a lot of money but the reality is that it is only 6% of the deficit and 2% of the Budget. As I said, a drop in the bucket.

And could someone please explain why or how Obama thought this would be a bad idea when growth was only 2.5% but now that growth is even less it is suddenly a good idea? Either he was full of @!$%# then or he is now, which is it???

All I see in front of me is a battle between idiots and semi-reasonable people. That's it. The idiots seem to think that all we have to do to solve the deficit is cut every spending bill that doesn't happen to go to the Pentagon, and that none of that will have an effect on the economy. The semi-reasonable people seem to think that we can raise taxes on the rich and cut spending to balance the budget, yet they fail to admit that the tax hikes that we're talking about amount to a drop in the bucket of what this country needs to achieve in savings. $800 billion to $1 trillion is about 17% of the deficit, but not enough when it comes to what we need to do over the next 10 years. Yes, the wealthy should pay more. Their tax rates have declined substantially over the past 30 years while their incomes have increased by triple digits. When we were prospering in the 1950s and 60s, the top tax rate hit a peak at 94% and never went below 70%; I'm pretty sure an increase to 45% won't kill 'em. And the capital gains tax also ought to be raised back to around 30%. But the rest of America has to pay as well, and that includes both cuts to benefits AND tax increases. We have to face the fact that the Bush tax cuts are unsustainable, even if left for the middle class. Most of them go to the top 20% of Americans, and very few trickled down to the rest of us. Therefore, any reasonable deficit proposal has to include eliminating the Bush tax cuts FOR EVERYONE (either all at once or gradually, like in about a year), a gradual increase in tax rates for the top 20% of Americans, along with comprehensive tax reform, and a prioritization of our expenditures.

And by the way, I am ashamed of how American have seemed to become over these last few decades. Our parents and grandparents would never balk at paying their fair share when the country needed their sacrifice, whether it be higher taxes or military service. They greatly respected this nation and saw why millions fought and died to defend protect her; paying more in taxes is small potatoes compared to risking your life for friends and country. But today's generation seems to only look out for themselves. I know times are tough; median incomes have dropped in recent years thanks to the recession and have stagnated ever since the 80, unemployment and underemployment are major problems, and the American Dream seems to slipping away. But when our country calls us to sacrifice just a little so that we can continue to live in a nation as blessed as ours, we should jump at the opportunity. Instead, all I see in this generation is a desire to keep whatever tax cuts we have, even though doing that would screw them and my generation down the line. Look, I may not be experienced in the lives of managing a household budget. I haven't exactly "been there" when it comes to paying bills and seeing income seemingly disappear thanks to taxes and fees. But I do know that when your country is in trouble and asks you to jump, you should say "how high." Unless your willing to help your country after a lifetime of it helping you, you are not a true American, period.

Harbinger @ Jobs1 -- either you are now dependent on O'Bama's new entitlement programs (sitting on your butts when you are able to work or like getting paid to be deadbeats. If your employed think about this -- it is probably one of those 1% that gives you a pay check. If I was that 1% I would close my company, put my employees on the street and have O'Bama take of them. I would then move my operation to Mexico or Canada (like the Big 3 U.S. Auto Makers who have over 90% of their operations in those countries) and sell my product to the U.S. with a 300% mark-up. Most of you people think that money grows on trees and should be available for the picking with little or no work. I work hard for my money and I'll be darn if I will let O'Bama re-distribute any of mine to a group of illegals or deadbeats. O'Bama should focus on surviving the next 4 years because he can blame his gigantic failures on someone else. The U.S. will see Greece like demonstrations before his 4 years end. If history repeats itself, Socialist Leaders in history did not do well, look at Stalin & Mussolini.

Well we could start with Federal government entitlements like the lucrative retirement benefits the politicians get.. Boehner has no idea what the average baby boomers challenges are when they retire.. He gets free top shelf health care for life and will get somewhere in the neighborhood of a half million bucks a year {his salary} as a pension.. What the F is with that?? The average senior get $15k and they have to pay into medicare and get $hit for care.. Same goes for tons of other Federal employees who get very generous packages.. The state of Ohio enacted a lottery game many years ago and promised that it was all for the schools.. What it really supports is the pensions of thousands of state workers.. The people in state government praised all the good it would do for the children , when in actuality it was for their own benefit and gets deposited in the states general fund..

Lets just incourage them to spend till they drop and hurry the end along.. Once this country falls flat on its a$$ and we get through WW3 and rebuild we can get rid of the dead wood and start fresh.. Hyper inflation will let me pay off my house with a couple of cans of pork and beans..

D. AppelD. Appel

Less than a day after President Obama’s re-election, the administration breathed new
life into the United Nations’ previously comatose treaty regulating guns. Last
July, the U.N ... gun owners.
“We seek a treaty that contributes to ...Washington
Times · 23 hours ago

@Tired-2176559

...and the poor have gotten poorer.

No, they haven't. Everyone has gotten richer. Even after the disasterous last few years people today are still earning about 25% more, adjusted for inflation of course, than their parents did at the same age.

This whole "poor are getting poorer" thing is nothing but BS rhetoric.

You know folks yall need to stop arguing back and forth now, its over...I was against obama as much as anybody but the poeple voted and now they deserve what they get. let him have his way and the peoples way, they chose to take us down a path of no recovery, there is absolutely no way we can survive as a ntion on the path he is going to take us on and most everyone knows that for a fact and they still elected the guy. All I can say is yoou all need to store up some seeds and food and prepare too survive as a non-American Nation because he will collapse the economy and the dollar which will cause a world wide economic melt down and some sort of restructuring of the Nations. IT WILL HAPPEN! it has to, we cant pay our debt now and he is going to add another 6-8 trillion and he will regulate our musinesses bankrupt and our nation bankrupt, Greece will be ricj compared to us when he gets his job finished. This is not on here to be ugly I am trying to warn you all to stop the stupid arguing and start preparing to pproviide for your family because the government will NOT be here to help you anymore after next year so it will be your responsibility to provide food cloths home etc, there will not be any gas or wal marts etc when it collapses it will be over and yhe has made it very clear what his plan was if you took time to listen and research, and you people elected him again, so you deserve what yoou get. As for me and my family we are ready we saw it coming 3 years ago and have prepared his entire first term and knew he would be back because of other reasons but we were right, so get ready its coming soon.

Some data on how wealth in our country works.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33433.pdf

No one is going to be taxed so onerously that our economy will stop growing or collapse. We're talking about restoring, for only the wealthiest a rate that's only about 4 percentage points above where we are now.

Coupled with no longer engaging in simultaneous nation building, wars, this will put us on track to get back to where we were prior to W. Bush, and everyone can agree that we weren't socialists then, right?

Listen, I know we want to create jobs and grow the economy, however we ALSO want to fix the debt. That means we need a balancing act. Not a one sided slash job, as that would cease to grow the economy and NOT solve the debt. We also don't want a greedy cash grab, which would also cease to grow the economy and NOT solve the debt.

Modest revenue increases, modest spending cuts, funneling funds into productive programs, getting rid of waste...

It IS possible, but only if we stop playing "Help, help I'm being oppressed". Listen, rich people, you AREN'T being oppressed. Nor are you being hated or taxed to death.

Stop whining. This country's been good to you.

I say it's time just to go off the cliff f it,

The free ride is over china please just cut us off.

Some people on here must think the rich are actually paying anywhere near that 35% tax rate. Is their "fair share" really a lower tax rate than the working middle class?

Let's get rid of ALL loopholes and make people pay what they owe. Then we can figure out what the rates need to be. That and severe spending cuts, including military (not pay/benefits though).

To Rick @ comment 1.7.

What good is a rumor if people like yourself don't rumormonger? Thanks for your due diligence.

Sarah-3043284

Listen, I know we want to create jobs and grow the economy, however we ALSO want to fix the debt. That means we need a balancing act. Not a one sided slash job, as that would cease to grow the economy and NOT solve the debt. We also don't want a greedy cash grab, which would also cease to grow the economy and NOT solve the debt.

According to the CBO the Presidents plan NEVER balances the budget so if this is what we're going with you can just forget about solving the debt. Even the "draconian" Ryan plan didn't balance the budget for 30 years. It's pretty clear neither side is serious about our debt problems, they are just bickering over who gets to waste money on what.

Backcountry164

@Tired-2176559

...and the poor have gotten poorer.

No, they haven't. Everyone has gotten richer. Even after the disasterous last few years people today are still earning about 25% more, adjusted for inflation of course, than their parents did at the same age.

This whole "poor are getting poorer" thing is nothing but BS rhetoric.

Actually, according to a 2010 study of poverty in America, the per capita income of poor households has remained constant since 1987, while income relative to total household income, income of the poor, and relative to the household poverty threshold has "deteriorated" ever since. The poor ARE getting poor. For God's sake, the poverty rate in 15-16%, and in the so-called richest country in the world!!! Median income has STAGNATED since the mid 1980s, while that of the top 1% has increased by triple digits. This so-called "theory" of supply-side economics is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme used to concentrate resources in the hands of a few. Now I'm definitely not a communist; capitalism is my preferred economic system, at least in the broad sense. But there comes a time when the free market fails utterly, and when the government manipulates the free market to distribute wealth in the hands of the few. Enough of tax cuts, deregulation, and that idealistic free trade nonsense; it's time America start doing what the rest of the world is doing; investing in R&D, manufacturing, green energy, infrastructure, while focusing benefits on younger Americans & paying for this with reforms (not privatizations) of entitlement programs and tax increases, particularly on the top 10-15% of Americans.

To be fair and balanced. This time Obama did well. He said that he wanted Social Security off the table and not to be cut. Obama also promised to tax the richest people those who got the most out of America. Here I must praise Obama. Since I have criticized Obama when I believed he did wrong I believe to be fair to praise Obama when he does right. I hope here Obama digs his heals in and sticks to his guns because I would like just once for the rich to pay their fair share and just once for Social Security not to be threatened.

Charlie,

Do we have to all be victims of your BS. You think this and you think that! Me thinks thou does protest too much and your conclusions are the same as Romney's that led him to defeat as people wouldn't believe his or lying Ryan's lies anymore!

Here s a list of all the highly important things the government spends our money on (and by "our money" I mean those of us in the 53%)

Amtrak: 9,271,422

Agency for International Development(foreign aid): 10,891,845,120

Environmental Protection Agency: 4,391,370,115

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: 53,124,517

Foreign Agricultural Service: 225,484,148

Geological Survey: 349,814,946

Institute of Peace:23,000

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 14,719,633,358

National Endowment for the Arts: 115,343,171

National Endowment for the Humanities: 105,565,073

National Science Foundation: 3,916,092,101

Overseas Private Investment Corporation: 16,581,749

Peace Corps: 89,680,800

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation: 12,312,826

Planned Parenthood:26,000,000

Obviously, these are all vital programs that we cannot possibly live without.

See, when democrats say they believe in "compromise", what they basically mean is they are unwilling to agree to any major spending cuts or make any hard choices necessary to avoid the fiscal cliff. Compromise must be on their terms.

And by "obstructionism", they mean that the House is unwilling to comply with Obama's agenda that he decided on before he was elected. It's obstructionism" because it doesn't agree with their agenda. But the Senate refusing to even vote on House bills is not obstructionism, because it agrees with the president's agenda. Notice that every time someone brings this up, all liberals respond with is the fact that it would be a return to Bush era policies (as if they have actually read them all in detail) Which translates into "we cannot consider it because it agrees with the Republican agenda, and if it agrees with Republican ideas, it must be opposed to our ideas and our politics and Obama's agenda, and so we cannot consider it, because we can only consider bills that agree with our agenda, and Harry Reid will ensure that we stay loyal to our agenda by keeping us from considering anything that may be opposed to it"
You say the Republicans are holding this country hostage by refusing to comply with Obama's agenda, I say the Democrats are holding this country hostage by refusing to comply with the Republican agenda.

You say the Republicans are holding the middle class hostage by refusing to extend middle class tax cuts unless the tax cuts for the rich are preserved, I say the Democrats are holding this country hostage by refusing to extend middle class tax cuts unless taxes on the rich are raised.

You say the Republicans are holding this country hostage by refusing to kick the can further down the road, I say the Democrats are holding this country hostage by insisting that we continue to spend our way into oblivion.

(and unlike what the Republicans are doing, the Democratic plan will cost not only the current generations but generations to come after)

If liberalism is so good for America, why is it that every liberal stronghold is a mess (except maybe Canada, but just give them time). Why are Chicago, California, Greece, and Spain in so much trouble?

See the reason the Democrats always have the advantage is that they are good at telling people what they want to hear. The Republicans are at a disadvantage because they are willing to tell the American people what they don't want to hear but need to hear. But unfortunately, people tend to vote based on what they want to hear and disregard inconvenient truths.

You see people don't want to hear that Social Security might need some changes in order to survive. They want their cake and they want to eat it. Remember when Obama said during a debate that he doesn't believe Social Security needs any "fundamental changes" to survive. And Americans naively believed that. They are too simple to understand the concept that eventually the money will run out if some changes aren't made. They aren't willing to accept the possibility that maybe they will need to make healthier choices in order to be able to work longer (see healthy eating and excercise are hard work, and rewarding hard work is increasingly unpopular among Americans). It's kind of like when your kid wants some toy and you tell him no because you can't afford it. But since they don't understand the concept of money running out, they just keep begging.

Americans don't want to hear that maybe they might have to start contributing a little more if they want to keep the current levels of spending. You see Americans, especially liberals, have trouble understanding big numbers. They think that rich people will just take care of everything. Doing simple fourth grade arithmetic that would show that taxing the rich at 100% would still leave us with a deficit is to hard for their simple minds. And since taxing the rich is a simple idea, and Americans like simple and easy solutions that don't require any sacrifice on their part, they generally favor it.

Let's take it off the cliff to show the republicans we mean business. Then they will have to fall in line and work with President Obama. Taxes have to and will be raised for the top 1%. That is what the American people want.

Fair enough.

Let's do exactly that.

Please, how much shall we tax them? And after we tax then, how much of the national debt starts to slow down? Does this revenue pay off our debt?

You are correct; Obama won, both by the electoral college and by the popular vote.

Fair and square.

(I pause here for a moment to note that, since the election, there's been no 'spontaneous outbursts' or other violent events. No protests in the street. That's what makes this still America)

Anyway, you are correct, Obama won. What shall we do next? Slash the defense budget?

.

Slash the defense budget?

No, but since we spend $771 billion, compared to the next closest, China who spends $143 billion, I'm thinking we could start cutting back there.

No, revenue alone won't pay off of our debt. We can also do things like means test for entitlements and raise the retirement age. Raise the tax rates as Obama suggested, couple with ending corporate welfare and wasted subsidies bought by the fact that we have a system that considers money speech.

We can end the wars. Seriously, end them. Not kind of end them.

We can cut back on agencies that have concurrent jurisdictions.

AND, we can continue to spend in a a smart and stimulative way.

It's not rocket science. It's common sense coupled with letting go of the paranoia and propaganda.

Agreed

Liberals are an amazing bunch. Liberals will spend countless hours trying to twist and turn facts to make them fit their agenda. But let's be clear: Liberals hate capitalism. Liberals hate that some people have skills and abilities to earn more money than others. So Liberals believe it appropriate to redistribute income and wealth from those that "have" to those that "don't have".

But history is clear - those countries that lean more towards capitalism and freedom of choice have a larger economy. The United States built its economy by using its resources (land, labor, natural resources, etc.) to their best use. As Adam Smith said resources will move towards their best use as if an "invisible hand" is moving it in that direction. The United States allowed that from the late 1800's through the mid 1900's.

But now we have a president who limits use of natural resources, does not allow labor to be used efficiently, increased regulations and ObamaCare have added significant costs to businesses, and threatening additional increased costs in increased taxes and has halted and stalled this economy.

This president has convinced the unintelligent that 7.9% unemployment is acceptable. "2% GDP is good. 1 in 6 in Poverty is normal. And the president has convinced many that spending 25%+ of GDP by government is required. They are not.

So now the president is threatening increased taxes but, because he hates success, is going to penalize only those that have succeeded. Sorry, being a Chicago thug might look good on a resume but it is cowardly as a president.

Republicans have a clear option: let's not raise taxes on anybody. So now the Democrats have to decide: Raise taxes on everybody - or not. Those are your options. Republicans will not allow this administration to continue demonizing those that succeed. Argue all you want. Try to defend such irresponsibility all you want. Call me names all you want. Call Republican leaders names all you want. That's fine. Show your immaturity. But Democrats don't get the chance to change the options available.

Republicans don't want anybody, including all in this thread, to have to pay higher taxes. Democrats can EASILY make that happen. But if you feel it is appropriate to use the "common man" as pawns just to penalize those that succeed you just might want to think this through because if Democrats continue to push this notion that the wealthy MUST be penalized even if it means everybody in this thread must be penalized with more taxes then your Democrat leaders have made that decision. If YOUR taxes go up in January it is not the Republicans fault - we fought to make sure your taxes don't go up. But your Democrat party thought it was worth penalizing YOU with higher taxes just to have the opportunity to penalize those that succeed as well.

But that's fine. Democrats can throw us into a recession (or depression) if they want to. And they will try to blame Republicans (and some unintelligent lemmings will believe that too) but after all the smoke and mirrors and dog and pony shows what it boils down to is this: Republicans today are ready to make sure you don't pay higher taxes. Now it is up to your Democrat party to determine if THEY want YOU to pay higher taxes or not. How do you like your Democrat party playing chicken with YOUR family income? With YOUR family's wealth? Pretty pathetic that is for sure.

Westbury, you are not only a JERK, but a bigoted WRONG JERK!! I am a Californian who voted for Proposition 30 to raise taxes in that state. I did this, as did most of my upper middle class friends, knowing full well it would raise the taxes we personally pay. We voted for increased taxes because taxes are the price we pay for civilization; our schools need the money. We need an educated populace for the state to thrive. We are NOT selfish jerks like you who think only of ourselves (although when I am in the old folks' home, I would prefer my caregivers be able to read my prescriptions) and we are most certainly NOT "leeches". AND "pro-business" you are either unbelievably naïve or delusional. Taxes now are now (and were at the onset of the recession under Bush) at their lowest since the 30's. If we returned to the Eisenhower administration tax rates, we could balance the budget quickly. Democrats just want to return to a point where people pay their fair share; and, contrary to the Republican narrative, many of us will be paying more taxes under this scenario and do not think that is the end of the world!

Wants to Know

Thank you so much for being willing to pay taxes even though now have a higher rate. Thank you for being kind to those who can not pay taxes due to their poverty. I wish more Democrats would think like you. The FDR or Eisenhower tax rate would be fine by me. I hope you run for President because you will certainly get my vote. Your suggested tax rate would Save America and your kind attitude of caring for your fellow American. I hope other people soon adopt your idea of caring for other Americans.

Soak the rich, hang them high and squeeze them dry. And all you republican who crashed the economy quit whinning. Pay your taxes. Raise the darn minimum wage so people have money to pay taxes. Corporations need to pay their share and have NOT been. Audit Willard for a little extra money. Surely Grover Norquist has a bit of money he wouldn't mind paying some taxes along with Adelson and the Koch Bros. Soak them all, hang them high and squeeze them dry, they certainly deserve it.

Wants to know

We voted for increased taxes because taxes are the price we pay for civilization; our schools need the money.

Hey sucker...so how many time have YOU elected to have YOUR tax raised for 'schools'? LOL

@American Girl

Because Bush rode Bill Clinton's wave of success until Bush's stinking policies overcame all the good policies Bill Clinton put in place.

Of all those millions of jobs Bill Clinton created, you think that would just stop on a dime?

It took Bush almost all of his 8 lousy years in office, but he finally did us in, and now those wrong-headed Republicans he left behind are STILL stuck on stupid, or are too weak minded to do the right things to get this economy back on track.

In response to @westbury64

"American Girl, Every month of Obama's presidency has had a higher unemployment rate than any one month during Bush's eight years."

I do agree with only one thing you have posted AG and that being Clinton’s unemployment rate low when Bush took office. However, when riding one’s coat tails, one tends to fall rather quickly and fail. If you would have bothered to do any research you would have seen the error with your post.

When Bush took office the rate was at 4.2% and did not go up a full percentage point until 10 months later in October. The rate stayed between 5-6% (hitting 6.3 once) until the end of 2004 (end of first term) and remained that way until the end of 2005. In 2006 and 2007 the rate did not go above 4.9%. Not until 2008 (month of Aug) did the rate go above the 6.0%. When Obama took office the unemployment rate was at 7.8 and never, never has it going below that number; however it has gone up, up, and up
to an outstanding 10.0% and all within the first 10 months of his presidency. The unemployment rate has stayed between 9.0-10.0% from May 2009 to October of 2011 (except the month of March when it
was 8.9%). Only since September of 2012 has it been below 7.8%.

Coattail or not, mess up from Bush or not, the unemployment rate over the last four years is considerably worse than Bush’s eight.

@Wants to know: Right, because throwing money at our schools has always worked so well.

@Linda The democrats had control of both houses for two years before the economy crashed.

Congratulations Liberals!! You reelected a person who thinks 7.9% unemployment and 2% GDP is "on the right track". You also reelected a person who will implement a business damaging ObamaCare. You had a party and giggled and laughed after the results of the election pointing fingers at Republicans and calling us names. What you DIDN'T realize is us Republicans are intelligent enough to see what the negative affects will be to business and tried to save your jobs.

But you didn't listen. You couldn't comprehend. Liberals are nothing more than children selecting which divorced parent to live with based on how much candy you will get and how late you can stay up. So you picked the irresponsible parent. That might be fun - for a while. But the damage is in process. Check out this link with the massive number of companies that have ALREADY announced layoffs just two days after Obama winning:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/share-this-massive-list-of-post-election-firings-and-layoffs-with-everyone-you-can

So you think you have "won" but don't realize that you have lost. Unemployment will reach mid 8% to low 9% within 6 months. If Obama lets the "fiscal cliff" occur that will easily be 10%. So enjoy the party now. Have a Conga Line and laugh and drink it up. Because within 6 months many will go from the Conga Line to the Unemployment Line. One thing for sure when THAT happens Republicans will NOT laugh and point fingers - because it is sad. Very sad when people lose their jobs.

But when it could have been avoided by replacing this incompetent president it makes it more disheartening. Especially when Republicans tried to warn you. Tried to explain. Tried to convince. But, like a child, you took the candy route. You took the immediate pleasure without thinking what the affect will be. But you will see the affect soon enough. Businesses are already laying people off due to ObamaCare and January/February it will get much much worse. Enjoy the Conga Line now because unfortunately that will lead to the unemployment line.

argumentativebutfair..1.265

An excellent summary of the predicament we are faced with. No matter how we look at it, the country is in deep trouble. I feel sick every time I hear the debt number and the thought of what our children and their children will have to go through to repay it. No matter how much you milk the 1%, everyone will have to make major sacrifices to get us back on track.

Things are made worse by the fact that Europe’s economies are in trouble and the Middle East is a boiling caldron waiting to explode.

Put everything together and you have a perfect mix of circumstances for another conflict engulfing the whole world. God forbid!!!

The horrible USA education system is the reason why the country has just reelected B H Obama and his known associates. I am totally ashamed at the lack of knowledge of the USA, it's form of government, our free market system, and our history by it's citizens and most of the posters on this website.

The very best thing that can happen to the USA is that it goes "forward" over the fiscal cliff and lands into a deep and long recession. Perhaps it is best to have the USA hit rock bottom so people can wake up to the reality of the Santa Claus Mentality (SCM).

This effort of President Obama of pitting one group of citizens against the other is NOT leadership, it is dictatorship.

Financially, I have done extremely well. I can withstand anything that happens unlike the majority of you. Always be careful for what you wish for, you just might get it…

Linda Luke

The Republicans don't have to do anything to crash the economy. It's headed there. 1920 is a fine example of what raising taxes 16% for 5 years + government shrinking to 1/3 it's size at the same time.

Companies that have already laid off employees the last couple of days Total 152,000. some of these were teatering in the first place, but others are just trimming the Fat now to brace themselves for the deal or no deal for January 1.

The answer to the 'fiscal cliff' is rather simple:

1. Let the idiotic Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest few expire.

2. Charge Grover Norquist and any of his supporters with treason for plotting to overthrow our government by having politicians not doing their elected duties to safeguard the nation and uphold the Constitution by taking his oath which undermines the economic stability of country.

3. Restore tax rates for the wealthiest Americans to a pre-1980 level in order restore the economic stability of the country.

4. Provide for a set of Amendments to the Constitution to separate large corporate interests from influencing our political process.

This president has convinced the unintelligent that 7.9% unemployment is acceptable. "2% GDP is good. 1 in 6 in Poverty is normal. And the president has convinced many that spending 25%+ of GDP by government is required. They are not.

Probusiness: And yet which president started with a 4.2% unemployment rate, implemented all his pro business policies and ended with a 7.9% unemployment rate or over 9% if you count the remainder of the time we operated under his budget? Why do you accept the same statistics as unacceptable from Obama but ignore that they were the same or worse when Bush left office after 8 years as president? You talk about those who twist and turn facts yet do so with the best. Congratulations.

Lovetherain: When you become president and the unemployment rate is 4.2% and after 8 years it's 7.9% it's hard to spin that as a good thing. The country ran under Bush's budget until Oct. 2009 when the rate exceeded 9% and nothing Obama or congress did prior to that time had any bearing on unemployment it was all the Bush budget. You people like to pretend Obama was totally responsible on January 20th, 2009 but know that isn't true.

MrBurns

No one has argued with you because you have yet to present a logical argument. Random numbers pulled from your ass and baseless assumptions do not entice people to have a logical debate with you.

No, MrBurns, when presented with live examples and specifics, no one can argue against letting the tax cuts for the upper brackets go away. Even the CBO now says they are useless. Is it that you're incapable of analyzing the numbers or that you are just unwilling to?

Democrats need to prove that they are capable of spending cuts before Im cool with throwing them more money.

This is where you let the GOP false narrative get in the way of logic. Spending, in terms of a stimulus, is spending specifically to get people to work or to otherwise "seed" the economy with cash and low interest loans to get the economy going again... like a kick start. Cutting taxes is a stimulus. It attempts to put money into people's hands in order for them to SPEND more so they get this economy going. Cutting taxes is identical to spending money in that they are stimulus, they are a negative budget line-item, and they directly cause debt. Why do you think Democrats and Keynesians have gone along with the tax cuts?

But when you have facts in front of you that say tax cuts at the top levels do no good and are tantamount to burning a wheel barrell full of money... when you look at the reality of who is wreckless with the spending, Republicans or Democrats, when it has been the Republicans that were most recently wreckless... then your argument falls completely apart.

LMareT said... Spending, in terms of a stimulus, is spending specifically to get people to work or to otherwise "seed" the economy with cash and low interest loans to get the economy going again... like a kick start. Cutting taxes is a stimulus. It attempts to put money into people's hands in order for them to SPEND more so they get this economy going. Cutting taxes is identical to spending money in that they are stimulus, they are a negative budget line-item, and they directly cause debt

I don't want a loan, I don't want to run my household like the govt. Don't "attempt to give money to put money in people's hand", just put there. If they really want to help the middle class, channel that stimulus money directly to them. Have the stimulus money go to reducing the mortgages of the middle class. That is a direct help to them, the banks still end up with the money, then maybe I would have more to spend and may even consider a low interest low if necessary.

I like tax breaks because they go tot the people actually earning the money in the first place, and afterall who is more deserving of the money being earned?

Westbury, Trip,

Actually, the US did have a larger debt during the time of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. When Hamilton issued his Report on Public Credit, the United States owed $55 million. $55 million in 1789 is worth $22 trillion dollars today.

So yes, it was appropriate for Trip to reference Washington and Hamilton in talking about today's problem.

I have an idea for those of you that think you are fiscally conservative. We should not spend more than we take in. That should go for the country and states alike. So for those states like Mississippi, Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Oklahoma and so many other red states, maybe you should start paying the government more than you take from them. If you started paying more than you took in, maybe the federal government wouldnt have to borrow so much to help you out.

Give O'bama everything he wants. Why mitigate the results of liberalism? Dont give them anything to spin. Show liberalism in its naked entirety, and the Democratic party will evaporate within 4 years.

I bet when it comes down to the wire the republian'ts and bonehead Boehner will walkout and the heck with the country. Stubborn, arrogant, party first attitudes from the ignorant!

ProBusiness,

Conservatives are bunch. All your righty predictions on the outcome of the election shows how out of touch you are with reality. The "Let them eat cake!" mentality of the rich thrives in the republican party!

You are destroying your party!

Tax tax tax..... What is going to happen when 10% of small buisnesses go under from being taxed to death and another 10% from Obamacare regulations?? This is insane and our economy is going to break and crash.. Can't these idiots see this???

Politicians are all into tax and spend,sitting around dreaming of new taxes..

Tax is a feel good for all the liberals and it does nothing to fix the problem..

Since we have this why not a TV tax , a cell phone tax , a computer tax , a fast food tax and so on..

Wait, Obamacare has that provision.. They do or will have a board that defines things that are health risks and once defined they will impose a tax on them that goes toward Obamacare.. Everyone that pays a phone bill pays into the Obamaphone pool via tax and federal use fees..

Al Gore came up with the carbon tax idea which is a brilliant tax if you look at it.. We all in one way or another use or generate carbon emissions so the tax can be pinned on everyone.. Since it is based on the global warming theory that was bought and paid for by the government with taxpayers money "even better".. Sorry Al but global warming from man alone is busted so the tax won't fly..

"Tax and spend, tax and spend till their aint no money no more" "La La La La Hey Hey Hey Tax On".........

Let all the "W" Tax cuts expire and stick it to the GOP TeaBagHaters !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"The president was referring to $64 billion in automatic spending cuts that will take effect in January if a deal cannot be reached."

$64 Billion of a $3.6 Trillion spending budget is less than a 1.8% cut in spending.

I agree that we should get more revenues (a), but we need to get serious about cutting bloated spending.

(a) - The bipartisan Debt Commission said that we could raise revenues AND cut the tax RATES by reforming the tax code to eliminate tax loopholes that the 'wealthy' use to avoid taxes. This is what the Republicans are proposing, but Obama refuses to listen.

Stands Alone "I'll go out to the waiting area and try to find somebody who wants the work and it almost always takes me 10 tries before I find somebody willing to do the work. And 99 out of 100 times, it's the (so-called) "lazy, illegal, drug dealing" Mexican who is chomping at the bit for the work. @!$%#, they'll be in the back of my truck before I even finish the sentence. And tomorrow they'll be back knocking on my door with shovel in hand, hoping for more work. (Which I often give them.) They get the American way before our own people do and thats 100% real."

Very true. When I need a temporary 'day laborer' for a few hours, I go to the Home Depot and when I stop, I have about 10 Hispanics surround my truck - hoping to be hired. And they really DO work at what I give them to do - and no grumbling, and they always ask if I have any more work for them tomorrow. If I ask any of my young relatives (who get food stamps and cash aid) to do the job, they will take 3 hours to do what a 'day laborer' can do in 30 minutes (that's why I pay my relatives by the job - not the hour.

'Everyone' claims that the 'Clinton era tax rates' were FAIR and the Bush tax cuts 'favored the rich', so let's just let the Bush tax cuts expire as scheduled at the end of this year.

It will raise nearly $4 Trillion in taxes and solve the 'Debt crisis', and the 'rich' pay more in taxes. And the beauty is that it requires that Congress and the President do exactly what they are good at - NOTHING, since they automatically expire.

What could be simpler?

The experiment of Supply Side Economics started under the Reagan regime proved itself to be a complete failure. All it accomplished was a process of wealth transference from the majority of the American people to the wealthiest few. Which was further exasperated by the idea of the wealthiest few trying to marginalize the political power of the middle class.

It's high time to either correct this mistake by the Conservatives by either action by the government or to have the majority of the people protest through work stoppages.

It's bad enough that so much of the money that the wealthiest few generated went to support setting up modern industrial complexes in China; but when they try to disenfranchise the majority of American workers to go on a headlong race to the bottom to compete for low wages without any benefits then the idea of further compromising for anything but a full restoration of the living standard of the middle class isn't feasible.

Road,

Tax, tax tax! Right! Taxes are at the lowest rate since 1958 yet the greed expressed here by businesses and corporations is beyond belief.

illumination fascination-3070427 "The experiment of Supply Side Economics started under the Reagan regime proved itself to be a complete failure"

REALLY?

Perhaps you can explain how the economy (GDP) under Reagan grew by 83.85% in his 8 years in office (10.4% per year).

And perhaps you can explain how jobs increased by 14.8 million under Reagan, and the Unemployment Rate dropped from 7.2% when Carter left office to 5.3% when Reagan left office. In contrast, the average number of jobs under Obama have DECLINED by 5.6 million (thru 2011).

@clwyd-2621393

Tax, tax tax! Right! Taxes are at the lowest rate since 1958 yet the greed expressed here by businesses and corporations is beyond belief.

And what is the cost of regulation today compared to 1958???? You can see whatever you want when you only look at one tiny little piece of the big picture. I'd suggest you take off the blinders so you can see the whole picture instead of just what you want to see.

Debdem

So for those states like Mississippi, Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Oklahoma and so many other red states, maybe you should start paying the government more than you take from them.

So what are you suggesting? That the Federal government should not be allowed to pay it's military personnel in a given state unless that states population pays enough in taxes to cover that cost? The Federal government spends money on a whole host of things that the states have little control over, to suggest all that money is "given" to the state is beyond moronic. The whole "they get more than they pay" is BS rhetoric and the only people still parroting it are sheep.

Larry-367607 "Probusiness: And yet which president started with a 4.2% unemployment rate, implemented all his pro business policies and ended with a 7.9% unemployment rate or over 9% if you count the remainder of the time we operated under his budget?"

Cherry picking dates and pretending that the Democratic Congress gave Bush a 2009 Budget to sign shows your bias. And 'Blaming Bush' for the financial meltdown ignores the fact that the Democrats controlled the Congressional Wall Street Oversight Committees for 2 years before the meltdown.

If you look at the 8 year AVERAGE Unemployment Rate for Clinton, it was 5.2%, which is virtually identical to the 8 year AVERAGE Unemployment Rate under Bush of 5.33% (despite the rate hike from 9/11 and the end of 2008).

And as for the 'Budget' for fiscal 2009, since the Democratic Congress refused to give Bush a Budget to sign or veto, the only 'Budget' signed by Bush was a Continuing Resolution to fund the government AT THE SAME LEVEL AS IN 2008. For proof, you can google 'Bush 2009 Continuing Resolution' for plenty of links to prove my point, but here are several - The huge 18% increase in spending was from Obama and his Democratic Congress (including the 'stimulus' bill);

https://www.aamc.org/advocacy/washhigh/highlights2008/159056/president_signs_spending_bill.html

www.chieftain.com/news/local/bush-signs-budget/article_0d64329f-0c6f...

www.docstoc.com/docs/5109251/continuing-resolution

osr.rice.edu/forms/NIH/NIHAwardLimitsContinuingResolution.doc

ROY WILSON-336103 (#1.299):

Your 8.3 % GDP is just false. Real GDP grew an average 3.3 percent a year in the 25 years from 1982 to 2007. But guess what? It grew 3.4 percent a year in the previous 25 year period, from 1956 to 1981. Real GDP per capita grew 2.2 percent a year from 1982 to 2007, and it also grew 2.2 percent a year from 1956 to 1981.

And real GDP per capita grew 2.4 percent from 1947 to 1972. It’s just not true that Ferrara’s 1982-2007 time frame was the “greatest economic boom in world history.”

But that’s not all. The “Reagan boom” was goosed on a flood of debt, both from the financialization of the private sector and from deficit spending you might call Keynesian, even.

As most analysts predicted, Reagan's massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 quickly produced even more massive annual budget deficits. Combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan delivered not the balanced budgets he promised, but record-setting debt. Even his OMB alchemist David Stockman could not obscure the disaster with his famous "rosy scenarios."

Forced to raise taxes eleven times to avert financial catastrophe, the Gipper nonetheless presided over a tripling of the American national debt to nearly $3 trillion. By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan more than equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history. It's no wonder Stockman lamented two years ago:

"[The] debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."

In 2012 dollars, total private sector and government debt in the U.S. rose from $13.3 trillion in 1982 to $54.2 trillion in 2007, according to Federal Reserve flow of funds data. To put that $39 trillion increase in perspective, real GDP over that time totaled $243 trillion. The country leveraged up to the gills to finance economic growth during the “Reagan boom” and we’re paying the price now with a depressed and deleveraging economy.

When it comes to job creation, Reagan ranks as the third-worst among all post-war presidents, just ahead of the two Bushes. The number of jobs grew by 2.1% per year under Reagan; about half the job growth rate under Eisenhower, just over half the rate under Johnson and Clinton, and a full percentage point BELOW Jimmy Carter.

So we have historically high unemployment, moderate growth, job creation numbers that are only slightly better than both Bushes, and a record number of business failures, so much for the Gipper's legacy.

Not even mentioning that by the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever.

As I mentioned before the 'Fiscal Cliff' can be overcome very easily.

Members of Congress who have signed Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform pledge, at a minimum, should be expelled from Congress for un-American activities.

Signing the "pledge" is in clear violation of the Constitution, and the oath of office for members of Congress who have sworn to uphold the Constitution.

First of all, the pledge that every single member of Congress has taken upon accepting the job:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

What are these "duties of the office" mentioned in the oath? Article I of the Constitution spells them out in Section 8.

The very first one: "The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States..."

Article I, Section 8 then continues with a specific list of duties, all of which require funding. There is nothing in the Constitution or the oath of office that is consistent with allowing a pledge to a private partisan group to take precedence and over-ride the oath of office. On the contrary, such a pledge violates both the Constitution and the oath of office.

Perhaps the use of mass impeachment will break the gridlock and save democracy for Americans.

illumination fascination-3070427 "ROY WILSON-336103 (#1.299): Your 8.3 % GDP is just false."

I'm not sure where you got 8.3% GDP from, but let's break it down for you in very simple terms.

In 1980 (Carter's last year), GDP was $2,724.2 Billion.
In 1988 (Reagan's last year), GDP was $5,008.5 Billion.

That's an increase of 83.85% over 8 years, which is an average of 10.48% per year.

As for the Reagan years being 'goosed on a flood of debt', here is another tidbit of FACT;

The National Debt under Reagan increased by $1.692 Trillion over 8 years.
The National Debt under Bill Clinton increased by a nearly identical $1.627 Trillion over 8 years.

You obviously fall for the 'rhetoric' of the Democrats, but seem to have a problem with facts.

Bye - Football is much more fun than arguing with you.

ProBusiness

Liberals are an amazing bunch. Liberals will spend countless hours trying to twist and turn facts to make them fit their agenda. But let's be clear: Liberals hate capitalism. Liberals hate that some people have skills and abilities to earn more money than others. So Liberals believe it appropriate to redistribute income and wealth from those that "have" to those that "don't have".

Really, Probusiness??? Liberals hate capitalism?? Really?? Liberals SAVED capitalism. Franklin D. Roosevelt, probably the most liberal American to EVER hold the office of the Presidency SAVED capitalism in the United States via the New Deal. We all know that the New Deal wasn't enough to get the economy on a more sounder economic footing (much like the stimulus today), but it made investments in long-term growth and restored confidence in the free market. World War II did what that great statesman couldn't do; persuade the American people for massive deficit spending. And World War II led America into a strong recovery, pulling our economy out from the post-depression muck and propelled us forward economically, socially, and politically.

But history is clear - those countries that lean more towards capitalism and freedom of choice have a larger economy. The United States built its economy by using its resources (land, labor, natural resources, etc.) to their best use. As Adam Smith said resources will move towards their best use as if an "invisible hand" is moving it in that direction. The United States allowed that from the late 1800's through the mid 1900's.

That's obviously correct. However, America abandoned the concept of pure capitalism in the 1930s after pure capitalism (otherwise known as laissez faire) collapsed in the Great Depression. We adopted a hybrid version of capitalism, having a tremendous dependency on free markets yet used government regulatory and tax framework to bolster our economy. Unfortunately, we began to pick away at those pillars in the 1970s and 80s, when economists (and policymakers) began to focus on the supply-side of the economic equation and not the demand-side when concerning economic growth. Now some of that was warranted; no economy (particularly a capitalist one) can survive by focusing on only one side of the equation. But by the 1980s, we focused too much on supply-side conditions, embarking on a massive experiment that involved cutting for the wealthiest Americans and feeding the growth of our financial industry that eventually grew into a tumor onto the rest of the economy.

But now we have a president who limits use of natural resources, does not allow labor to be used efficiently, increased regulations and ObamaCare have added significant costs to businesses, and threatening additional increased costs in increased taxes and has halted and stalled this economy.

No, we have a president who realizes that we cannot keep using natural resources in a wasteful manner (and that will cause Mother Nature to come back with a vengeance), that labor cannot be exploited and must be a partner, not a subordinate, in economic ventures, that our healthcare system is in need of a drastic overhaul, whether business leaders like it or not, and that our fiscal troubles require tackling both the spending side and the revenue side.

This president has convinced the unintelligent that 7.9% unemployment is acceptable. "2% GDP is good. 1 in 6 in Poverty is normal. And the president has convinced many that spending 25%+ of GDP by government is required. They are not.

And so let me guess; electing the GOP and allowing them to do the same thing that has tried and failed for 30 years will magically solve all of these problems and return us to an era of low unemployment, rising wages, and balanced budgets??? I thought you were a professor of Economics, not a crazy right-wing ideologue.

So now the president is threatening increased taxes but, because he hates success, is going to penalize only those that have succeeded. Sorry, being a Chicago thug might look good on a resume but it is cowardly as a president.

The CBO recently released a report (along with the CRS) that states that raising marginal tax rates for the wealthiest Americans (i.e the top 2%) would do little harm to the economy. The rich have had it good for 30 years while everyone else has gone down a notch. Do you really think that they ought to be able to get away with such a Ponzi scheme as Reaganomics???

Republicans have a clear option: let's not raise taxes on anybody. So now the Democrats have to decide: Raise taxes on everybody - or not. Those are your options. Republicans will not allow this administration to continue demonizing those that succeed. Argue all you want. Try to defend such irresponsibility all you want. Call me names all you want. Call Republican leaders names all you want. That's fine. Show your immaturity. But Democrats don't get the chance to change the options available.

No, the Republican option is cut taxes for the wealthy, ax social spending, privatize entitlements, and then blame Democrats for the ensuing economic catastrophe. Do you really think that we can survive this fiscal mess without raising taxes and without damaging the economy??? If so, explain how you do so, since you appear to be well-versed in economics and "fiscal responsibility." I've already posted my plan, and Obama has posted his. Now do your part.

Republicans don't want anybody, including all in this thread, to have to pay higher taxes. Democrats can EASILY make that happen. But if you feel it is appropriate to use the "common man" as pawns just to penalize those that succeed you just might want to think this through because if Democrats continue to push this notion that the wealthy MUST be penalized even if it means everybody in this thread must be penalized with more taxes then your Democrat leaders have made that decision. If YOUR taxes go up in January it is not the Republicans fault - we fought to make sure your taxes don't go up. But your Democrat party thought it was worth penalizing YOU with higher taxes just to have the opportunity to penalize those that succeed as well.

You right-wingers are only holding up middle class tax cuts so that your wealthy overlords can keep their cuts. I don't think we ought to keep ANY tax cuts for ANYBODY, but we should at least eliminate the higher-end tax cuts now. And where the hell were you when Republicans held up the recovery during the debt ceiling debacle so they could score political points?? Didn't see you criticizing them back then. You can be for deficit reduction or tax cuts, but you can't be for both. I would rather let the fiscal cliff happen than deal with all this @!$%#, but you should be thankful that the Democrats are even THINKING about compromising with you bastards after the tricks you pulled in 2011.

But that's fine. Democrats can throw us into a recession (or depression) if they want to. And they will try to blame Republicans (and some unintelligent lemmings will believe that too) but after all the smoke and mirrors and dog and pony shows what it boils down to is this: Republicans today are ready to make sure you don't pay higher taxes. Now it is up to your Democrat party to determine if THEY want YOU to pay higher taxes or not. How do you like your Democrat party playing chicken with YOUR family income? With YOUR family's wealth? Pretty pathetic that is for sure.

Actually, Republicans played chicken with interest rates and corporate balance sheets during the debt ceiling debate, and they are playing chicken now so the rich don't have to pay their debt to society. But, why bother compromise with someone who won't negotiate on equal terms when you can get the biggest deficit reduction package possible. That's right, I say that Democrats ought to let the fiscal cliff happen and let you Republican bastards squirm as your beloved "Atlas" forks over their tax cuts and your precious defense establishment deals with cuts to its bloated budget.

ROY WILSON-336103

I agree that we should get more revenues (a), but we need to get serious about cutting bloated spending.

(a) - The bipartisan Debt Commission said that we could raise revenues AND cut the tax RATES by reforming the tax code to eliminate tax loopholes that the 'wealthy' use to avoid taxes. This is what the Republicans are proposing, but Obama refuses to listen.

And we would be agreeing on this one except for one thing... exactly which "loopholes" are they talking about? We talk a lot about cause and effect of the macro of overall taxes, but we also need to be damned careful with the elimination of tax breaks... you know as well as I that a slip on the wrong one could have a sizable unintentional consequence. And besides, we can't agree on a focused 3.6% tax differential, how are you going to get them to agree on specific tax breaks and the net result of each one?

wtw of KC

Lusitania..1.221

I wonder, if your fortune had changed, how readily would you offer and share a slice of your wealth with others??

Seriously ? By not having in any?

We will never,never fix a deficit without a vibrant economy.

Obama sticking to his GUNS.... Really MSNBC?..... tell you what we'll do..... for every $1 increase in tax on ANYONE is to be met with $2 in reduction in federal spending......

Now that's a deal everyone can agree to..................

My husband and I are in the top bracket that would and should incur a tax increase.............I have no problem paying my fair share.........

The largest amount of the government monies spent on these "takers" as the GOP calls them are in RED STATE............GOP STATES!..........states where people are poorer, less educated and in need.......

so if the GOP get their way their supporters are going to be on their own...no more food stamps, welfare checks, public assistance child care, public assistance educational programs, no more special public assistance medical/dental programs...........nope, just a poor, uneducated, needy person and their family members making it on their own....

and we ABSOLUTELY need to invest in more teachers.........so they can teach more people.....so more educated people can get better higher paying jobs..........so our economy can become stronger and once again be a driven innovative force in the world markets.......

it takes money to make money.....

investing in the future of our people and nation is not giving money away.........look up the definition of "investment".........

we have to look 30 or 40 or 50 years into the future...........this idea that we just put a bandaid on the wound instead of cleaning it, stitching it up, applying an antibiotic and a GOOD clean and secure bandage is ridiculous......the GOP seems to only be looking at the very near future..say 1 to 2 years or when ever the next election is...............the democrats are looking generations into the future and feel investing in people, education and nation building as well as strengthening our ties in the global community so the US is no longer the worlds police but a part of a coalition of countries who stand together and share the responsibilities and cost of actions taken as a whole...the democrats are not demonizing people in need, people who are retired or nearing retirement as "takers" but as earners..the democrats want ALL Americans to be healthy and prosperous and their platform does not drip with venomous hatred for immigrants, women, elderly, poor, those in need of medical care or uneducated seeking higher education...why the GOP continues to pit their followers against this list of Americans is beyond me...their unwillingness to work with the President (even voting down bills they themselves drafted only because the President endorsed them)..oh sure they repeated lured the President on saying how they willing to work with the dems and then they would stall and stall and stall and then finally hold Americans hostage (remember how the GOP were going to let the unemployment expire if the 1% uber rich did not get their $700 billion tax cuts) to get money for the uber rich...and we had to borrow that $700 billion from China.......how quickly all the crap the GOP did do and all the work they DID NOT DO has been forgotten....

Republicans are just gagging on the idea of having to welcome into their fold and cater to any persons of color....and poor and legal and illegal immigrants really get their dander up.......what did they think the US would remain an old rich white man run society forever?....

I am so happy for the "color" of America..........the archaic thinking that has engrossed the GOP is finally being made unsustainable simply by the wonderful kaleidoscope of color of our nations sea of people...........I feel sorry for the people who follow the GOP and don't know the joy and simple goodness of seeing all men/women as equals, of NOT hating another person because they are not like you......................I hope they can all bask in the light of acceptance and tolerance and respect someday---the air really is better up here.

Now maybe my arrogant neighbor (Millionaire) who loves to tell me he paid 9% in Income Taxes to my 20% may have to eat his words and pay his fair share of taxes? Obama, better be good on socking it to these fools who live in glass houses!

probunisess. WOnderful job crammming as many useless stereotypes as possible into the smalllest space. Doesn't reallly leave any rooom for thought buyt I doubt any of the people that agreee with you would notice.

Y'all lost! Now it's time to pay up mother@!$%#ers! Big money tried but, there just are not enough of them anymore. They bitch and moan about the "redistribution of wealth" but maybe if more Americans had some damn money they would vote in favor of those with money!

Most wingnuts crying about the tax increases don't make anywhere near 200,000$ a year anyway so, shut the @!$%# up and be happy, go shoot your guns or smoke some more bible, and y'all will be alright.

Render unto Caesar bitches!!!!

Your pain is my gain, the sound of your bellyaching is music to my ears!

A certain amount of jealousy by those on the very botttom for those at the very top is somewhat understandable. WHat confuses me is why someone on the top would be jealous that someone on the botttom would be able to acquire Health Care for him or her self and family.

Backcountry,

Frankly the cost of regulations is part of the job of running a business. Look at the state of Texas that has totally destroyed its environment. On a recent trip there I couldn't find one of the lakes in the state areas I visited that hasn't been polluted beyond use! If you are only in it for greed and profits, get out!

Backcountry,

Frankly the cost of regulations is part of the job of running a business. Look at the state of Texas that has totally destroyed its environment. On a recent trip there I couldn't find one of the lakes in the state areas I visited that hasn't been polluted beyond use! If you are only in it for greed and profits, get out!