E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSUpdated 10:04 am ET Emboldened by their victories in Senate races from Massachusetts to Montana, and encouraged by their pickup of eight House seats, newly elected and returning Democratic members of Congress said Tuesday they won by focusing on protecting and expanding entitlements and by calling for higher taxes on upper-income people.
On Wednesday morning, Senate Democrats got additional reinforcement when newly elected Maine independent Angus King said he was joining their caucus, which will enlarge their majority in the new Congress to 55, a net gain of two.
Many House Democrats who voted for the Affordable Care Act lost their seats in 2010, but some of them – like Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire – were back Tuesday as House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi welcomed new members at the Capitol.
The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd shares the latest in the uncalled House races.
Shea-Porter's district was represented by Republicans for more than 20 years until 2006 when Shea-Porter won; it then rejected her in the 2010 GOP sweep, and re-elected her last Tuesday.
The biggest difference between the 2010 election in which she lost her seat and last week's election, Shea-Porter said, was that "there was no fear about the health-care law. I think that was the big thing that was driving the 2010 election and the Tea Party coming in. You remember how they talked about the death panels and how you'd lose your physician. I think that's over. I think people recognize that this is a consumer-friendly bill. It has to be fixed in small ways and as we go down the road, we will."
More Politics coverage on NBCNews.com
Shea-Porter said her constituents "do want us to compromise but they're also asking us to protect the programs they rely on – to keep the social contract of Medicare and Social Security – and they want us to create jobs."
As for tax policy she said, "I heard loud and clear – and I think everybody did around the country – that we don't want to continue these tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. And that we simply need to have some revenue. But the middle class can't take another whack – they just cannot."
Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi holds a news conference to introduce 37 of the newly elected House Democratic Members at the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday in Washington, D.C.
For the victorious Democrats, it wasn't just a matter of what their Republican opponents did wrong, but what they did right.
In Connecticut, Democratic Senator-elect Chris Murphy survived a tough race against Republican Linda McMahon, former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO, in which he faced negative stories about a late tax payment.
Poll: If government careens off fiscal cliff, GOP to shoulder blame
"We just didn't let McMahon let the race be about personal attacks," Murphy said Tuesday as he entered a luncheon for new senators at the Capitol. "We knew that if we made the race about issues – even given her sort of sordid background – we'd win in Connecticut. There was a lot of pressure on us to make the race about the WWE but we knew in the end that if the race was about our positions on health care and Social Security, and women's health care and taxes, that we'd win."
Murphy, who was first elected to the House in the Democratic sweep of 2006, said, "I think we did a good job of staying disciplined and avoiding the temptation to make the race about personalities. Linda McMahon wanted a race about personalities; we wanted a race about issues. And that's what the race became about in the last 30 days."
Any deal to prevent massive tax hikes at the end of this year will need support from a majority in the House and must cross the 60 vote threshold in the Senate. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., explains whether there is enough common ground to get the right amount of the Republicans and Democrats to hit those needed numbers.
Murphy said Connecticut voters "sent me here to compromise. I think they sent me here to get a deal done and I understand whose shoes I'm filling – Sen. (Joe) Lieberman cut a unique path here, but Connecticut voters generally liked the fact that he was one of the people that had the courage to reach out across the aisle."
It was a rare and gracious bit of praise for Lieberman from one of his former fellow Democrats.
In the scrimmaging over taxes, Murphy said he opposed House Speaker John Boehner's sole focus on eliminating deductions and tax preferences as the way to raise more revenue. "Focusing on deductions only is a mistake, because ultimately if you remove the biggest and most costly deductions, you're taking money out of the pockets of middle-class residents of my state," he said.
According to the Tax Foundation, Murphy's state has the third heaviest state and local tax burden of any state, so the deductibility of state and local taxes is especially vital to Connecticut voters.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., talks about her optimism heading into this new Congressional session. Klobuchar says, "we can't go on the way we are" and that the president has extended an olive branch.
"We've got to have everything on the table but we can't let the Republicans lead us down a path that essentially gets tax reform at the expense of middle-class families in Connecticut," Murphy said.
Like Murphy, Steven Horsford, a new Democratic House member from Nevada, said Tuesday that he supported President Barack Obama's call to raise income tax rates on couples earning more than $250,000 a year.
As for tax incentives, Horsford said he wants to end tax incentives for firms to locate jobs outside the United States and supports "providing those incentives for reshoring those jobs back here in America."
Republicans hunt for election lessons as wounds heal
The man who led the Democrats' effort to regain the House majority, Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the meaning of his party's net gain of up to eight seats in the House meant that "the Tea Party starts to roll back and problem solving can move forward."
Even though he says he views last Tuesday's outcome as a defeat for the right, he also claimed that his new members "wake up every single morning not thinking about left or thinking about right" but about "how to move this country forward."
Pelosi added that she wanted to avoid spending cuts and across-the-board tax increases at the end of the year.
The Daily Rundown panel discusses the women's vote, and how many women got voted into Congress and the Senate and give their shameless plugs.
On tax policy, she said, "If we have growth, we can produce revenues. We make decisions about revenue and we make decisions about cuts to the extent they promote growth."
She said she's inclined to support the Obama idea of tax increases on couples making more than $250,000. But until she and other congressional leaders meet with Obama on Friday at the White House, she said, "I don't know what his current proposal will be. We will hopefully find that out on Friday when we go to the White House."
Leave a Comment:
"Compromise", has GOT to be the name of the game on Capitol Hill, the Republicans, in all reality, are going to have NO choice, but to learn the TRUE meaning of that word, the obstructionism HAS TO STOP. They did not succeed, in making Barack Obama a one term President, now it is time to roll up their sleeves, put the resentment away, and GET TO WORK!! The scare tactics, and lies did'nt work, and the American people are wise to their B.S., and obstruction tactics now, if they want to have JOBS in 2014, they had better start LISTENING to the people of this Country that THEY REPRESENT! In fact, if they ignore their constituents this time around, there will be ALOT more at stake than just getting re-elected in 2 years, there will be whole-sale protests in their home districts, count on it !
Everyone , except the president seems ready to compromise on how to increase taxes. As for the "fiscal cliff", we are over the cliff now. Four years of no action on budgets or cutting spending. A tax percentage increase on the top 2% or whatever is like grasping for a twig on the way down. The only thing that seems to be important now is where we can shed the blame. Pathetic.
Kenny,
What planet are you living on?! It sure ain't earth because the President has been willing to compromise for 4 years now....the GOP screwed the proverbial pooch and blocked every effort he made to improve the economy or pay down the debt.
There is a reason the GOP lost in such resounding fashion on November 6th.
The President as right all along, the only true solution is a BALANCED solution that includes both revenue increases and budget restraint. Republicans have stolen the term "balanced", but the GOP approach to continue assuming that trickle down works is pure fantasy. The people have spoken. Romney's doubling down on trickle down failed at the polls. With an electoral landslide, seats gained in the House and Senate, and good results throughout the statehouses there is no reason for Democrats to be shy. Hold your ground and insist on a true balanced approach. Reaganomics is dead.
It is hard to see how ANYONE would argue against a balanced approach. Plus, I'd sure like to think this ridiculous idea that giving millionaires tax cuts will stimulate the economy has died....but the conservoclowns will just rewrite history to match their mold. Heck, look at how they talk about Reagan...they completely make things up about him. The REAL Reagan wouldn't survive in today's tea party led GOP.
It's not increase tax for the rich, it is to get back to the tax rate before Bush's tax cut for the rich.
Trickle down didn't work during Reagan's years and sure as heck didn't work in the last 12 years. Trickle down is like the fat rich guy standing on the top of a ladder eating and food crumbles drop down for the people below. It didn't work before and it costs us over 1 trillions, so why continue to propose it?
This years theme should be "When in Doubt Vote them Out" Anyone with a Ego chip on their shoulder who makes the American people suffer need to go. We worked too hard to get back in recovery. Take notice in DC.
if its free its for me
Please, the Democrats had the majority (2006-2010) along with a Democratic President (2008-2010) and still couldn't get the job done...
Blue.....In order for their to be compromise, shouldn't both parties try to work together. The republicans and democrats have both been fouling things up and obstructing each other. Half the time, the republicans agreed to democrat bills and just asked the democrats to pay for them. The democrats refused. The GOP is listening to the will of the people that put them in power. You can't just blame one side on this.
As if "compromise" involved only one party making concessions...BOTH sides will have to learn to compromise if they want to get anything done.
Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans, if not more so. The Democrats couldn't even agree with each other when they had absolute control of Congress and didn't need Republicans--so all the bellyaching over the supposed "obstructionism" from the Republican side is just a distraction from the real problem: our elected officials are NOT doing what is best for the country, just what is best for their re-election chances in the short term, even when their actions do nothing but hurt the country in the long run.
Carl-404329
Please.. the republicans had the majority from 2000 to 2006? and voted 19 times to raise the debt ceiling.. but want us to "PRETEND" that didn't happen. They also have had the house since 2010 and what do they focus on:
"The numbers: Republicans have introduced 44 bills on abortion, 99 on religion, 71 on family relationships, 36 on marriage, 67 on firearms/gun control, 522 on taxation, 445 on ‘government investigations,’ and zero on job creation." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/25/facebook-posts/blog-post-says-gop-has-sponsored-zero-job-creation/
PutAmericaFirst
I agree with you, but shouldn't the GOP stop ignoring those who didn't support them?
We are all inter-dependent (whether we like it or not), and we should care about our opposition as much as we do ourselves. BOTH PARTIES need to work together and with the President. It's long overdue and our future is at stake.
Ever heard of the filibuster, Carl? Republicans in Congress sure have. Over 400 bills passed the House in the last session of Congress only to be filibustered and killed by Republicans in the Senate.
Cant wait to see Patrick Murphy sent packing back to FL after the voter fraud is revealed with DOUBLE COUNTING of votes! Democrats have NO scruples! SHAME on Gertrude Walker!!
Hey DEMS are you ever going to learn..... The president won because of who he ran against not because of his policies..... When you look at the overall election you all really just barely squeak by..... Get your heads out of your A--es already and get to work.....
Fedup, another conspiracy theory still alive and well. What a joke.
President Obama has stated over and over again that he is willing to compromise. In fact, he leans more toward bi-partisanship than is justified by the obstructionist element in Congress. Our country has been held hostage long enough by right wing lunatics.
Teabaggers: now it's the Democrats who hold the cards. Better learn how to play the game, or go home.
My fellow citizens: we need to keep up the pressure on congress. Call, write or email your representatives and let them know that you want them to get to work for the American people.
hey carl- 404329- remember this quote?Start packing Barry and Michelle!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You're OUTTA there!!! HaHaHAAHAHAHAAhahaHAHAHAHAHAHA. you guys aren't so emboldened anymore. what's the countdown to the 'stop obama express' down to, btw? \
and we have the biggest recession in american history started because of deregulation by your grand old party and all you can think is that everything isn't back to the status quo after four years? geeze
You make a valid point, OHGuy, even if you do it in a non-productive way (Hey DEMS are you ever going to learn..... The president won because of who he ran against not because of his policies.....).
The Democrats seem all to ready to let their very real, but in some ways gift-wrapped, victory go to their heads. But headstrong arrogance after such events is a bi-partisan quality. The Republicans certainly had it in 1994, when Clinton's somewhat fumbling agenda help them sweep to control of both houses, and again after 2010. The Democrats, too, have been here before, in 2008.
In both these off-year elections, people were not so much voting for the winning party, but against the party in power.
We'll see. If the Democrats overreach themselves, come 2014 the congressional elections will sweep them back into minority status once again.
Why cannot the party leadership realize that most of the electorate is not committed to either extremes, be it of the left or the right?
Human nature I guess.
OHGuy, is that ohio guy or obama hater guy? i seem to remember an election where the winner lost the popular vote in recent history. now that was a close race!
Anyone who stands in the way of compromise needs to be marked for deletion.
First let's clarify one thing. Obama took office in 2009.
Yes, the Democrats held a majority for the last two years of the Bush administration. Bush also used all of his vetoes during that time. Not to mention, the housing damage has been set in motion during Bush's re election platform of homes for 5.5 million minorities and leaning on Freddie and Fannie to back them.
You also have to factor in the record use of the filibuster by the GOP. As well as adding in person hood, anti abortion, education cuts, defunding meals on wheels, pushing through the Keystone Pipeline and nearly every bill they sent to the Senate had the repeal of the AHCA in it. The GOP in no way was serious about anything. They knew the bills would be shot down and were hoping that the American voters thought it was the Democrats that were to blame.
As for the time during the Obama administration, the Democrats held majority for only 72 days. With vacancies and deaths, this two year myth falls apart.
If the Republicans pull out the filibuster card again to obstruct, expect the Democrats to gain even more seats next election cycle.
Isn't that what you said when Obama won the first time? He gets the popular and electoral vote both times and this is your logic?
Shouldn't you be upset more at the GOP for, according to you, fielding poor candidates the last two presidential elections?
Remember -- it was a Republican controlled Congress and a Republican president who put a sunset date on these tax cuts. They did that because they knew the out years these tax cuts would explode the deficit. And -- that was before Bush decided to put 2 wars and a massive new entitlement on the credit card.
The Democrats won because they are approaching the elections from the point of view of science and common sense. It is time for the Republicans to review the agenda, and realize that our planet is not the same, that we must embrace science and stop trying to go back in time. There is not such thing.
These RATS will sell US Immigration for Latin America's exclusive use. The end of the American dream for the people of the world is here. The 92% non-LATINO is being cheated out of GOD's gifts to the WORLD!
Irespond...not sure what science had to do with it, unless you look at human nature from the sociobiology perspective. The Democrats are much better politicians than the Republicans. Pick a certain group, promise them what they want (even if it's not feasible or contradicts what you're telling another group) and you will get their vote. That's the common sense of using a human's nature to get what you want.
I've grown to like this class warfare idea, as I'm an individual of limited means. Everyone who has more than I do, you're in a different class, so get ready to fork over your FAIR share to me.
Fat chance of THAT happening. No, we'll have another crash course (Advanced Recession II) very soon, because spendthrift (I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today) Americans by and large are slow learners.
John b, Des Moines
Do you even know who controls the Senate? Obviously you don't. The DEMOCRATS do. You are making the Republicans case for them by proving it was the Democrats who control the Senate, and especially Harry Reid, who have been the obstructionists. The REPUBLICAN controlled House did send all those bills to the Senate only to be tabled by one man, Harry Reid, The DEMOCRAT leader of the Senate. He would not even let any of those bills come to the floor for discussion or vote. Thanks for helping by proving who are the real problem with congress.
1wizard...you just don't get it do you?
Democrats are well aware that the obstructionist Harry Reid threw House bills in the garbage. But he is a Democrat, so it's perfectly OK.
well, embolden to serve the poeple? good. But hopefully they are not emboldened to abuse power as the GOP did in the last 4 years - and then the result will be obvious.
How about if the Democrats learn what the term steam roller legislation is. That is what they have been doing with their legislation since Obama took office. It means to enact their laws and regulation no matter who wants it, or is against it, and no matter how much damage it can cause. You @sshole Democrats learn how to stop that Sh1t and the Republicans will stop blocking as much damaging legislation they can and work together.
Bipartisanship is a two way street!
Ken,
Get serious and get back in touch with reality! It was Bonehead Boehner and the repuclican'ts that walked out of the last meeting to deal with the fiscal cliff! It was the republican'ts who signed agreements not to compromise before even dealing with some of the nations problems and to do whatever was necessary to make Obama a one term president. They lost and now need to regaining the meaning of the word compromise! America first! Politics last!
I just watched Bill O'reilly this morning talking about some media outlets promoting ideology rather than the facts. Da! Did Bill ever listen to FOX. I figure he is talking about himself!
hs321,
Yes he did! there were some 30 Bills that had the Keystone Pipeline added to them that belonged in the trash. Put there by republicans unwilling to pass the legislation as is! Thank you Democrats and Harry Reid!
hs321,
Yes he did! there were some 30 Bills that had the Keystone Pipeline added to them that belonged in the trash. Put there by republicans unwilling to pass the legislation as is! Thank you Democrats and Harry Reid!
Where was this touchy, feely, compromise thing when Nancy Pelosi said We have to pass this Bill before we will know what's in it, ? There was no compromise for the 2 years the Democrats were in majority, with a Democrat in the White House, the Democrats were the party of NO COMPROMISE! Now the shoe is on the other foot, and I can't blame the Republican house one bit if they remember, It's payback time!
So they bought votes by promising hand outs this country can not afford. Brilliant!
So we run a $100 billion dollar a month deficit and we are going to offset that by raising taxes on the rich (let Bush tax cuts expire) that will bring in an extra $9 billion a month. Just $91 billion dollars a month short of being balanced. LOL
I've said it before and I will say it again, I hope Republicans don't put up much of a fight on this, the stock market is tanking and the budget is out of control, let the Democrats own it. Give in on the tax increases, it will not bring in much in revenue but will cost jobs, but it's time to let the country take responsibility for it's choices. Let the Democrats do whatever they want, we are going to end up like Greece anyway.
Andy Blackwood
and who suffers with this 'payback' time.... We all do. BOTH parties have to compromise or we are never going to succeed. Placing blame never really solves a problem, all it does is focus negative energy and time.
let see, The democrats won because of one reason, they promised free stuff to everyone. They promised to raise taxes on the rich, oh and by the way when you raise taxes on the rich it also means that some of them are the ones that pay your pay check, they used americans to get votes by waging a fake war on women, they demonized romney when he was the right choice for president, they used votor fraud in every state, oh if you think im lying how can you have more votes then registered voters? They did everything they could. Oh and Unions bought and paid for there next 4 years. Its okay because in 2 years you all that voted democrat will regret it when there are no jobs, taxes go up on everyone, the price of gas goes sky high, power bills go up, food prices go way up and you think that big govt will have the money to support you, were already in debt. you didnt listen to all the campiagn lies of what obama said in 2008, well he made some more, lie lie lie, thats all democrats can do to stay in power, how about telling the truth for awhile. Democrat the party of Lies
Ohguy,
You are partly right, the President won because he ran a race reflecting the mainstream of American opinion and not the extreme of the right. Romney lost because he tried to be something he is not, an extreme right-winger. If Romney had run as a moderate he would have had a better chance.
Question for all you Democrat liberals out there: how many budgets has Harry Reid's Democrat-led Senate passed in the last three years?
Answer: ZERO. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA. In fact, Obama submitted two of his own and not ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT voted for it in the Senate. ZERO. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA. Here's one of them:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/227857-senate-rejects-obama-budget-in-99-0-vote/
Now any of you petulant liberals out there attempting to blame what's going on in Washington and the failures on the GOP need to stop pointing fingers at the other side and start looking at your OWN party's FAILURES to get things done. Starting with over two dozen jobs bills that Republicans have passed in the House that Harry Reid's Senate won't even look at, and hence, don't get to Obama's desk.
Bullsqueeze. Romney lost for a number of reasons:
Democrats did a much better job of stirring the bases in the urban county areas of the battle ground states, especially VA, PA, and definitely OH and FL. We saw the latter two materialize county by county right before our eyes as the vote tally came in.
The media did a great job protecting Obama and trumping up war chants against Republicans and claims of having a war against women (and two idiot Republicans saying idiotic things about rape and abortion didn't help themselves there however in all fairness).
The Hispanic vote and the women vote came out in record droves for Obama. Romney only got 31% of the Hispanic vote and well below 50% of the women vote. Anyone will have a hard time winning without those.
Romney didn't run on a CONSERVATIVE platform. Over three million fewer Republicans turned out to vote for Romney than they did McCain in 2008. Nuff said on that. A lot of Ron Paul supporters stayed home.
But let's not forget that millions less voted for Obama this year as well, and the entire margin of victory in the popular vote Obama had over Romney only amounted to roughly the population around Miami's Dade county. That's IT! So when you have a 51% to 48% victory, it's HARDLY enough to warrant a mandate. And since Obama didn't run on his record, which everyone knew he couldn't, which is why he ran such a negative campaign focusing on Romney, it makes his victory even less impressive. Hell he should have run away with this election like Reagan smacked Mondale with in 1994, but he didn't.
Logic required,
We won't end up like Greece unless the republicans refuse to compromise. they would gladly throw America under the bus for politics. I wrote about O'Reilly this morning saying, 'Some media push ideology rather than report the news.! Da! Your darn right Bill. Just listen to FOX and yourself! always, "fair and Balanced!!!!" LOL!
Will the democrats now take any responsibility when something goes wrong??? or will they blame someone else????
Give them everything they want Republicans. Let liberalism bask in its own light. Do not mitigate it! This is how you defeat a ridiculous ideology! 4 years of pain and we can start to right the ship....
nickoleye,
"and we have the biggest recession in american history started because of deregulation by your grand old party and all you can think is that everything isn't back to the status quo after four years? geeze"
Are you sure about that? Republicans are responsible for this recession? Ever hear of a democrat named clinton? What did he do to help get this country out of the downward spiral? Seems he signed the North American Trade Agreement (NATA). His "considered" take on this bill was "it will create 200,000 jobs!" A decade later the reality of this democrats' thought process was not only a did the promised 200,000 jobs did not materialize but America lost 900,000 jobs.
And obama being the saviour of America? Just what has he done that will improve America? Nothing except: increase the cost of medical care by making healthcare available for everyone for one. Great idea except who and how the hell is this socialistic policy going to be funded? You think it will be free? If you do, then you are dumber then a rock. It's going to cost and not just a little. But don't take my word for it, just sit back on your collective asses and wait. This policy, in and of itself, will weaken our economy to no end.
Ever hear of a balanced budget? Obama hasn't. Where the hell is a federal budget? Hasn't been one for four, count them four years WITHOUT a budget (2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011). And where the hell is the national debt going but UP under this "saviour" of a "leader"?
Let me know what your free gift is when it arrives.
Let's remember that if we stay the course with President Obama, jobs and the economy will continue to get better, and in 4 years the troubles caused by the W. Bush years will be a great history lesson on the failures of the Republican Party.
NYMIKE
President Congress No. vetoes Over turned
Hoover 71st–72nd 37 3
F. D. Roosevelt 73rd–79th 635 9
Truman 79th–82nd 250 12
Eisenhower 83rd–86th 181 2
Kennedy 87th–88th 21
L. B. Johnson 88th–90th 30
Nixon 91st–93rd 43 7
Ford 93rd–94th 66 12
Carter 95th–96th 31 2
Reagan 97th–100th 78 9
G.H.W. Bush 101st–102nd 44 1
Clinton 103rd–106th 37 2
G. W. Bush 107th–110th 10 3
Yeah all 10 vetoes. Your arguement is at best weak if not a lie.
No in fact, it was during Clinton administration that the future home ownership/banking policies were established. Then head of HUD, Coumo set the rules which lead to the home ownership/banking failure.
Coumo said that he didn't care if Bank of America went bankrupt. He almost got his wish.
I'll let you verify that info.It is real simple google Coumo, HUD. Just too many articles to list.
Do some homework first then make an arguement.
If you are going to make a remark get some facts right.
When Obamacare kicks in next year, it's going to be a lot of free pink slips.
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/oct/27/shirley-medical-device-tax-will-impact-jobs-and/
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/grusbf5/good-morning-america-heres-those-layoffs-you-voted
Oh, and a big shoutout to Commonsense53 here for putting some facts in a liberal's cereal bowl to chew on...and chew....and chew...and chew...
pwned.
Vitriolic hate in just about every post here. Any nation divided against itself is doomed. Let's go off the fiscal cliff and finally bring about real reform. We need taxes to increase for the uber-rich; federal government to shrink by 20% and people to stop being so lazy and entitlement happy. But whatever you do... don't stop my welfare check. I don't want to have to work again.
ItsaboutTime, Wait! Wait! Doesn't that go both ways? Did you forget more than half of American's DID NOT want ObamaCare? As it stands right now, the ones that "did" vote, it is nearly 50/50 that disagree with Obama and Democrats. So now what? Screw your assumption that the Republicans should just cave in to what Democrats want. People are not going to agree with Democrats positions on abortion, taxes etc. etc. just because Obama is President. You may want to go check the stats of Democrats to Republicans across the board, from States to Federal on who has the most positions in Governmental offices. It is NOT the Democrats!
It sounds like Robert is living in that republican bubble in which the facts can't get in. Either get on board or get out of the way, because we are moving Forward and we don't need this GOP cult standing in the way.
The Republicans now call eliminating the basic tax breaks for the middle-class - medical expense deduction, charitable deductions, home mortgage interest deduction, etc., i.e. - itemized deductions, revenue! These are nothing more than taxes on the middle class as previously defined by the Republicans under the Grover Norquist pledge.
What happened to ending the breaks and loopholes that only the rich and wealthy can take advantage of as was previously espoused? Or getting rid of the subsidies to big oil? Or taxing companies on overseas off-shoring and income?
All I have to say is, keep your filthy GOP hands off SS and Medicare or we'll vote all the GOP out of office!
Correction to an earlier post: that election was obviously in 1984, not 1994. You know you are getting older when you start confusing decades, lol.
"All I have to say is, keep your filthy GOP hands off SS and Medicare or we'll vote all the GOP out of office!"
Hey Eistein lib...did you miss the part where Obamacare is partially funded by taking out HUNDREDS of BILLIONS from Medicare?
The fiscal cliff and O'bama care are going to combine to become a perfect storm of disaster. This one is going to send Chris Mathews into an orgasmic alternate plane!
I don't understand the fixation on increasing the tax rate on the rich. I've heard a number of high-profile Republicans say they are open to removing deductions to increase the amount of taxes the rich pay, but they oppose a tax rate increase.
Why do some Democrats care if the rich pay more taxes due to the removal of deductions instead of a tax rate increase? The net effect is still the same.
"....they won by focusing on protecting and expanding entitlements and by calling for higher taxes on upper-income people."
That is the scariest line I've read in a while. "Protecting and expanding" means increase spending, "upper-income people" means a lot more of us than just the "rich" previously described.
You have to face a few things folks- money is subjective. A person making $40,000 to support their family says things cost too much and they can't afford to pay more. A person making $60,000 says the same thing. A person making $100,000, living remotely near a large city says the same thing. A person making $125,000 living in a large city says the same thing. The biggest difference is the cost of living in their area. If houses cost $80,000 and municipal costs are low, that person making $40,000 can be doing "well" in comparison to the person living near a city making $100,000 who's paying much higher local taxes, pays federal income tax based on income, pays more for housing, electricity, food, etc. It's not just cut and dry about how much makes you "upper income" and I'd suggest being very careful about how you define that.
I'd also suggest concern when it comes to the incoming Congress and their "mandate" via votes. We are already overspending our means by $1 trillion/year, what makes you think that they'll be enlightened enough to level or cut spending while increasing spending on other things. I'm sure that someone will decree "Bush's Wars" are the cause of the problem, that's partially true but you can't avoid the reality that spending is spending regardless of where it goes. I'm with you, let's get the hell out of Afghanistan and stop pretending that we can foot the bill as the world's police and that it's our job to take over and rebuild nations. That's over. You have to also look locally though. We can't afford to provide everyone with government benefits, just look at nationalized healthcare as the example. The CBO has already tripled the cost estimates and it's yet to be implemented fully. That's not good nor supportable. We have to get realistic when it comes to our government and what their job is- no more free phones, no more free housing, no more unending unemployment benefits, no more unending welfare benefits/generational benefits, etc. Sorry, but that ship's passed too.
Let's all pray that Congress and the President can actually wake up beyone their illusions of grandeur and do the job required to save our country.
The Health Care Bill passed fairly and was not rammed down any ones throat. Also, any responsible adult who doesn't want to buy health insurance is not a responsible adult, but instead a leach who wants to have the tax payers pays for their medical bills. Let' remember the majority of Americans wanted a public option or single payer. However, the republicans blocked the efforts.
Go to any doctor's office now and see if they will accept Medicare..... unless you have already been seeing them, you are out of luck!
This is now a DEMOCRATS PRESIDENCY. Any failure on the part of the President is HIS FAULT NOW, NOT BUSH'S or the Republicans.
MAKE SURE YOU REALIZE THAT!
Job1: I doubt even the President has read that bill in its entirety. Second, let's remember that anyone who doesn't have health insurance probably has more pressing financial needs to attend to such as buying food. Stop thinking that this is a good thing. People being forced to buy insurance will mean more people on food stamps, that is if they are eligible( you practically have to be dirt poor to qualify).
Amazing. "Time for compromise, enough of GOP obstructionism", "Bipartisanship is a two way street, time for Democrats to talk and not push through legislation." Honestly, no matter how serious this is, I'm hearing the same rhetoric and posturing I've heard for the last 4 years.
I seriously don't care who's fault it was then. There's a Republican House, Democrat Senate and President. Is it really inconceivable to put forward a new proposal, iron out issues and deal with the deficit and growth?
How about this little chestnut: Extend tax breaks on the lower and middle and allow the tax on higher earners expire - discuss appropriate level and compromise based on bipartisan discussion. Reduce military spending in real terms, and ensure withdrawal from Afghanistan occurs. Allow some investment in structural projects (budgeted for) to get people into work. Democrats get something here, Republicans will have to compromise.
Present a real plan for entitlement cuts, reduce overall federal spending and redirect funds to tailored state discretion in where funds are allocated. No more federal handouts to their selected companies of choice, allow states to enable private investment as they see fit. Whilst deficit is being dealt with, suspend speculative investment in initiatives (such as green investment for private industry), and to enable growth, reduce small and medium sized business regulations. Again, speak about specifics. Republicans get something, yet compromise.
At the end, present a budget without a deficit in spending/expected revenue. Elements will be unpalatable to different people, but addresses the key issue, the economy and unsustainable deficit and debt still bloating out. No one side wins outright, it's why it's a compromise in keeping with the fact that roughly half the country falls on each side of these issues. For this period, no social/moral b.s. to be given the main spotlight, the economy now matters, FOR ALL.
My old chemistry teacher joked when discussing types of bonding that it was about compromise:
"You know, it's about compromise, like me and my wife. I want to watch football, she wants to watch the opera. So we compromise, we watch the opera!"
That is congress, compromise on our terms, i.e. don't compromise at all. That has to change.
Lets say you live in a family of 4. You all sit around the table to balance the family budget. Mom and Dad both have jobs, and are lucky to have them. The kids are dependants. The family has had a lawn service and a cleaning service for many years now, but are trying to make ends meet.
A) Would your solution be for the parents to give up the free time they have left, and do the mowing and cleaning of the house themselves.
B) Would your solution be to keep the cleaning and lawn service, and one of the parents get a part time job on the side.
C) Would your solution be to ditch the cleaning and lawn service, and give the kids these responsibilities as chores.
Look at all the Pukes in here chewing on sour grapes. Pukes go screw yourselves and let the true Americans right the wrongs of the Bush43 years.
Unhappy...sorry, but the Democrats made it perfectly clear, in no uncertain terms, that Bush is responsible for every negative thing that has or ever will happen in the entire universe.
Democrats are not responsible for anything unless it works out OK.
Someone above said "obstructionism has to stop"
Who says it has to be "my way or the highway" either?
richard, i think it was nafta, not nata. and i didn't agree with nafta. it was a bad deal, i think, and we are paying the price for it. but, hey, he left office with america in the black, didn't he? and i never said obama was our savior. why has the right gone so far to the extreme? the extreme right and left scare the hell out of me. when will being a moderate become fashionable again?
The Republicans are a dying party. They cannot win elections and continue to BE Republicans. Their policies and ideas have proven again and again not to work. It is a party of EXCLUSION and the Tea Party is a party of hate disguised as "real Americans." The country and the world will be a better place when the GOP is forced to change its policies. However, that said, the Democrats had total power in the House and the Senate in 2008 and wasted it at a time when a show of excellence was needed most. This time, I would like to think they've got it together and will use the power and get the jobs done. There's a lot to do, we've got a great leader who knows the Republicans don't have a choice but to cooperate. Call their bluff-- if they want to keep their jobs, they will cooperate. If not, then let them lose their jobs. The GOP is dying party, and there will be a period of attrition. The GOP moderates will survive because they HAVE to cooperate and compromise. And the rest -- who cares!
And -- all you conservatives out there. Would you be so hateful and disrepectful if this president was a white man? Why don't you just admit that you cannot stand the idea that a man of color will solve the problems created by the GOP's self-centered policies? You are racists. Get ready -- because the next president will most likely be a Hispanic Democrat.
Republicans already act meaner than stepped on pussy. So why not stomp on em this time? They deserve it! Have at it Democrats. Stomp on those Republican pussies!
Did Wasserman Schultz, Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee win their seats?
If so, then the list of Dems is not that impressive, because these women are complete morons. Destructive to our country.
So why did the Democrats win the Presidency?
There are now 47 million families that get free food and cash aid, and they think the Democrats are responsible for 'giving' them that largess. At $550 per month average, that's about $300 Billion per year in 'freebies'.
These families are typically the ones that get about $440 Billion per year in free health care (Medicaid - that figure comes from Obama's 2013 Budget projections).
That amounts to a total of about $740 Billion in 'free benefits' that these 47 million families get each year, which amount to about 70% of the $1.1 Trillion Deficit.
These people have become totally dependent upon the government, so they naturally will continue to vote for the Democrats. A cynic might suggest that the Democrats are 'buying votes with taxpayer funds', but of course that would be considered 'heartless towards those in need', or even 'racist'.
In addition, the Democrats keep promising 'Amnesty' for the 11 million illegal immigrants in this country, so the 12 million Hispanics that vote will naturally want to vote overwhelmingly in favor of the Democrats who promise to let their friends and relatives stay here and be eligible to work (competing with legal American workers).
Since Obama got about 62 million of the 120 million votes in this last election, but won by only about 3 million votes, this huge group that has become 'dependent' on the Democrats will form a formidable voting block that will ensure the Democrats maintain power well into the future. So how many of the roughly 50 million families that have become dependent on the Democrats voted for them for purely selfish reasons? If only 3 million of the 50 million voted for continued 'free benefits' from the Democrats, that was enough to ensure a Democratic victory.
Ironically, even though these policies by the Democrats will drag down future economic growth and make everyone 'poorer' (witness the 10% drop in average family income over the last 4 years), this actually helps the Democrats win votes because it creates even more people that will become 'dependent on the government'.
All of this comes at a great cost (witness the $740 Billion per year spent on welfare and Medicaid above) and the huge cost to taxpayers of the massively growing Debt (which Obama projects to increase to almost $26 TRILLION within less than 10 years - even if he gets his 'tax increase on the wealthy). But the 50 million families that get welfare and free medical care don't really care about that, because they know that 'someone else will have to pay for that' (those who actually pay income taxes).
And of course the Democrats will continue to 'play to their base' by claiming 'the rich don't pay their fair share', and the Republicans are 'heartless and racist'.
We are well on our way to the ruin that Greece brought upon itself.
Thoughts 4 U, you're obviously a liberal because you see everything by skin color.
Obsessed with race.
Only racists care what other people's race is.
Indeed, the libs are obviously the racists. They equate everything to skin color.
I have never read such out right lies and falsehoods in my life. The claim that Reagan's trickle down economics didn't work... You either are to young to remember or just plain STUPID. When Reagan came into office there was double digit inflation, interest rates were in the 20's and unemployment was in most areas in the U.S. also in double digits. Within 3 years (no, not four or six or eight as this clown Obama claims it would take), inflation was cut in half, interest rates as well, and unemployment was below 7% ALL due to trickle down ecnonmics. It would have happened even sooner, had not the Democrat controlled Congress not demanded concesions from the Reagan Administation.
And for you Democrats that now eat at the trough of liberal propaganda, you might also take a look at one of your gods, JFK. President Kennedy ALSO believed in trikle down economics and turned around the recession of that time by CUTTING TAXES, not increassing them. I don't know why I bother, I don't know one liberal that bothers to REALLY study history.
And one last warning for all you "entitlement" protectors. I have two woman that I work with that grew up in the Ukraine (i.e., the Soviet Union) and one of them came into my office after the election and in her broken english, asked me what was wrong with the American voters. She went on to say that she left her home country because of socialism and how it destroyed productivity and now the America she came to is going down the same road. But why bother relateing this to the lock step liberal democrats here, you will either just ignor these FACTS or make some more lies up to support your stupidity.
I think that is quite debatable. The Democrats twisted the process into pretzles by using the 51% reconciliation process - with a few added bribes and kickbacks to several recalcitrant Democrat seanators - passing the bill without 1 Republican vote. Is that bipartisan? Is that working across the aisle? Would you be pleased if some sweeping right wing fantasy was pushed through with such shenanigans? Is there any wonder why half the country is fed up?
And as this Obama care mess is unfolded we find that they either lied or were hopelessly uninformed and optimistic about the supposed main selling point: affordability. I think there's a lot more ugly to be revealed by this law and your bumbling bureaucratic masters. God help us all.
Jobs1, ObamaCare is not going to be the answer! Stay tuned! It is going to smack some Americans right where it counts. People are STILL going to have huge bills to pay. It is not going to stop people from filing bankruptcy on medical bills. You have a $100,000 bill, most are more than likely going to still owe $30,000. IT IS NOT FREE!!!
Obviously, Roy is doubling down on stupid.
Ah, but we know the right-wing ideologue GOP puppet masters in thrall to their dogma would never have allowed that. They have painted themselves into a corner. No one but the pure conservative can be allowed to run for president, and no pure conservative can win the presidency. It's quite a conundrum...and judging by many of the comments here, they still haven't figured it out.
It would be a lot more amusing if our country weren't at stake.
See whats happening on these boards? This is what we have to look forward to in dealing with this fiscal cliff. In the end, they will give us a short term, kick the can down the road solution. Each pointing the finger at the other. Isnt it lovely hahaha.
Are you freakin' kidding me? A "consumer-friendly bill"??? It certainly isn't a worker-friendly bill! This mandatory health insurance purchase law is absolutely horrible for the working poor and in particular minorities and the Dems have known this from day one. This law will financially devastate these constituencies as companies recover insurance and fine costs by lowering take-home wages. Not only will companies recover the cost by reducing wages, many companies will implement measures so they avoid the cost altogether and again these measures have a devastating effect on the finances of the working poor. We already see numerous examples of this with companies like Papa John's, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, etc. announcing their plans to lay people off and roll back hours for their employees by 10 and 20 percent to avoid the requirement to provide insurance. Funny that those who were cheering Papa John's when he boycotted Rush Limbaugh are now calling for a boycott of his business just because he had the audacity to be honest about the real-world down-stream affects of the law.
Again, Dems knew this financial devastation to the working poor and minorities would happen from day one yet happily led their most devoted constituencies to financial slaughter all the while grinning at them, slapping them on the back and calling it an "achievement". And somehow they paint conservatives as the heartless ones?
Jhawk,
Da! Read a little and get the facts before you sound like a fool. The "Ryan Plan to Ruin America" also takes that $716,000,000,000 out of Medicare and instead of using it to help with Obama care uses it to pay of the debt! Yes, the part of $4,000,000,000,000 spent on bush's lost wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!
So the presidents plan further helps needy Americans with their health care while the republicans flush it down the drain!
Can somebody tell me exactly what the Democrats are compromising on? What specifically were they fighting for and giving up?
kaybeetoys
Did O'bama fold up his ideology tent when libs got wiped out in the mid terms? No. Why should conservatives change theirs after a narrow Presidential victory? Stop with the silly games libs.
Robert D. Clarkson
Sadly, you and so many like you are wrong. The President didn't promise anybody "free stuff". What he promised to do was give us good, reasonable government from the MIDDLE, the right or the left.
I pay into my Social Security account with every paycheck and I've been working for 50 years. When I retire my Social Security benefit has been PAID FOR with my labors. Likewise Medicare, if I choose to accept my Medicare benefit and I will PAY a monthly premium for that coverage. It is not free.
You appear to subscribe to the FOX NEWS/ RUSH LIMBAUGH version of reality, which is inaccurate to say the least. Obamacare, or more accurately, the Affordable Health Care act does not provide for FREE healthcare. But it has one major benefit, it is causing a REDUCTION in insurance premiums across the board as well as requiring insurance companies to offer health care to individuals they previously deemed uninsurable and to offer health care to women at the same rate they provide coverage to men. NONE OF THAT IS FREE. All of it is a benefit to ALL Americans.
I am astounded by the gullibility and ignorance exhibited by you and others on this board. YOU don't KNOW or understand that you are being sold a bill of goods by FOX and hate radio. What they are telling you is not true. Yet you doggedly cling to their mantra.
We voted for President Obama because he and we represent the MAJORITY of Americans and American opinion. WE ARE THE MAINSTREAM! You, by virtue of the fact your candidate lost, ARE THE MINORITY! A sadly misguided and misinformed minority.
So, shut up, lean back and enjoy the fruits of OUR LABORS. We're building a better American for WE THE PEOPLE...and that includes YOU!
Doesn't the 'fiscal cliff' provide Obama's stated policy of a balanced approach?
Revenues go up from increased taxes, and spending goes down. Balanced.
Therefore why doesn't Obama just champion the fiscal cliff and let it occur?
Tax Cuts: The B.S. and the Facts
By Larry Beinhart, AlterNet.
That tax cuts stimulate the economy is taken as a matter of faith, but the brute facts suggest otherwise.
The Myth
Do tax cuts stimulate the economy?
Yes. Tax cuts allow people to keep more of their own money. Therefore, they have more to invest and spend into the economy, and they have more money to start business and create jobs, therefore also helping to stimulate the economy. -- Yahoo Answers
I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they'll r ecognize tax cuts work. They have made a difference. -- George W. Bush
The Realities
The brute facts are these:
The Three Great Tax Cuts: Boom, Bubble, Crash
1. Hoover
During World War I, the top marginal tax rate went up to 73 percent -- not the highest ever, but pretty high.
In 1922, a series of rate cuts began. Down to 56 percent, 46 percent, and finally, in 1925, it went down to 25 percent.
The stock market took off. There was a boom. But the boom was a bubble.
It was followed by the Great Crash of 1929.
There were bank failures and the Great Depression.
2. Reagan
From Franklin Roosevelt's second term all the way through to Jimmy Carter -- from 1936 until 1982 -- the top rate was in the 70 to 92 percent range.
Then along came Reagan in 1981. In 1982, he cut that down to 50 percent.
The economy went into "the worst recession since the Great Depression."
His supporters argued that it was all Carter's fault and that the new policies would take time to work. The tax cuts stayed in place. In 1987, there was another round of tax cuts. They took the top rate down to 38.5 percent. It would stimulate the economy!
There was a boom. But it was a bubble.
Then, in October 1987, there was a crash -- the worst since '29. It was called Black Monday.
Much of the bubble money had gone into -- ohmigod! -- real estate.
Suddenly there were bank failures! More than during the Great Depression. There was a Savings & Loan crisis! There had to be a bailout.
3. Bush II
George Bush came into office with the healthiest, post powerful economy in American history.
He immediately cut taxes. The top marginal rate went down from 39 percent to 35 percent. He also cut capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes. A recession immediately ensued. But he persisted.
Eventually, the economy began to grow.
Employment didn't grow very much. Median income went down. The stock market was pretty flat. But the financial sector -- and only the sector -- grew.
Which should have made it obvious to someone, that it was … a bubble.
There was a crash.
Bank failures. A bailout.
The three worst economic disasters in American history follow the exact same pattern: tax cuts, boom, bubble, crash.
High Taxes Correlate with Strong Economic Growth
The four periods of greatest economic growth in American history, by pretty much any measure, are:
A lot of ink, sweat and ranting have gone into proving that the New Deal did not end the Great Depression. Nonetheless, the economy grew 58 percent from the time Roosevelt came into office and when the United States entered the war.
Some of that anti-New Deal rhetoric also claims that the recovery began under Hoover. Perhaps, but to say so is also to say that it began with tax hikes.
Likewise, many right-wing critics insist that the Clinton boom actually started under Bush the First. It is necessary to remember that Bush the First also raised taxes (from 28 percent to 31 percent) and was soundly thrashed by the conservatives for doing so. Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute called it "The Crime of the Century" and explained at length how it had brought ruin to America.
Tax Increases Are Followed by Economic Growth
Three of the four high-growth periods cited above followed significant tax hikes.
The fourth, the Truman-Eisenhower years, began with a top tax rate of 91 percent -- it couldn't get much higher.
Moderate Tax Increases Are Followed by Flat Growth
John F. Kennedy is generally credited with starting the tax cut craze.
He proposed it, but, as with all his ideas, it was Lyndon Johnson who actually got it enacted. The top rate was cut from 91 percent to 77 percent, then to 70 percent, on all income over $200,000 for a single person and over $400,000 for a married couple.
That's where it stayed, through Nixon, Ford and Carter.
The Dow Jones average was pretty much the same when that period ended as when it began. Median personal income stayed roughly the same.
These are the brute facts.
I call them that because there doesn't appear to be any theory to explain them.
A noted conservative (a sane one, not William Kristol) recently wrote to me in a private e-mail exchange on this subject:
"I am unaware of any (or many) respectable economists (maybe I've missed some) who have suggested that higher taxes have proved to be a formula for better economic growth."
Actually, I am too.
Even now, in the midst of the Bush disaster, I constantly see and hear tax cuts, particularly at the top, described as "pro-growth." So I went and looked at the numbers -- tax rates, tax cuts and tax hikes -- and placed them alongside job growth, the Dow Jones, growth in the GDP and median income.
The brute facts say the opposite of the myth.
The belief in tax cuts is a subset of the belief in Free Markets, with a capital F & M, which is a theological belief.
How do we distinguish a theological idea from a scientific (or rational) one?
According to Karl Popper, the great thinkers in the philosophy of science, a scientific idea has to be capable of being refuted. There has to be some theoretical test that could come out the wrong way, which would then say the theory is wrong.
On that basis, Popper rejected Marxism and Freudianism, along with religious theology, because no matter how many times they didn't work, there was20always some explanation that said that the theory was right and if you just looked at the facts in some other way; you could make up some story that said your theory was still right.
The quintessence of theological thinking goes like this. The preacher says, "The world will end next Saturday night! The Bible says it must be so." Everyone in the congregation wakes up safe and sound on Sunday morning. They head off to church and believe whatever he says in that sermon, too.
In science, we come up with a hypothesis. Then we set up an experiment. We see what happens.
Economics is complex. It takes place in the real world where many factors are at play and we can't control for them all. Still, none of the major tax cuts since 1913 have led to significant, sustained growth. Two them were followed by instant recessions (Reagan and Bush), and three of them, when they were sustained, were followed by bubbles which were then followed by the three worst crashes and sets of bank failures in modern times.
It's time to throw out the theory, accept the facts, and come up with new ideas.
clwyd, it's called "unfunded liabilities". We have $120 TRILLION dollars of promises that can not be paid for, even if you tax the rich 100% you will still fall $100 trillion dollars short. Republican or Democrat it doesn't matter, we don't have the money to pay for the promises.
Will you admit that raising taxes on the rich will not cover even 20% of our deficits and debt?
JHawke
Not just pink slips, but hour reductions. The "full time" job could be the exception rather than the rule.
I think you are going to see a real mixed bag. Right now this is what I exect to see.
-Elimination of full-time Positions - the real issue here is not only will people have to pay for an increase in their health insurance, but they will have to pay the whole bill, and do it on reduced wages. I'm suspicious that the companies will forward a the part of the health insurance they were paying less the Federal fine.
-Layoffs to cut costs
-Companies not expanding.
-Companies eliminating marginal operations. It's hard to say if they will sell the parts or just shut them down.
-Companies that just close the doors. (1920)
I don't have a good feel for this because the business owners all have different opinions and different circumstances. All I have is a bad feel about the whole thing.
Your post is exactly the reason the GOP lost. What planet are you on? The House of Representatives works under Pay-Go. The Democrats have to pay for a bill, as do the Republicans...now that is. From 2000-2008 that was not the case. That's why the GOP was able to spend like drunken sailors.
clwyd
We will be Greece whether the republicans fight the democrats or not. Your blind devotion to the left wing is going to bring the whole thing to a collapse. The question is, how quick.
DB Akron
This is the new Republican mantra. So most of the employers in this country are going to reduce hours for workers...right? Who are they going to market their products to? Remember Henry Ford? Pay the work force enough to buy the products they produce. Otherwise demand dries up and the business owners commit economic suicide.
Why do you think Obama is smiling? He plays chess while the other side plays checkers. :)
DB, aka Chicken Little. You're always good for a laugh, thanks.
Greece? Oh goody! I love Greek food...and please tell me which part of the U.S. will be the new Santorini? I must book my trip right away. This could happen fast.
The Democrats talk up a good game, but in the end they use increased taxes as their personal piggy bank to squander. There wont be any reductions in spending or entitlements but higher taxes collected that they promptly promise and dole out to more freeloaders.
I've been watching this for quite some time, you can almost bet on it, it has been that way for every Democrat controlled congress I remember.
Compromise? Democrats don't compromise, they tax the 'rich', dole it out to freeloaders and anyone who has a job is 'rich'.
Let's see how the Socialist at NBC.CBS. ABC spin for Obama I'm sure they will tell the truth. Let's see how much is taken away from the 47% Obama is not going too he will give more. Lets see how long it si before the speaker of the house bends over and gives in don't worry Mr speaker it will be painless Obama care will cover that.
Super Majority Myth
One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats over that period of time.
The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans. The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details:
To define terms, a Filibuster-Proof Majority or Super Majority is the number of votes required to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. According to current Senate rules, 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster.
Here is a time-line of the events after the 2008 election:
1. BALANCE BEFORE THE ELECTION. In 2007 – 2008 the balance in the Senate was 51-49 in favor of the Democrats. On top of that, there was a Republican president who would likely veto any legislation the Republicans didn’t like. Not exactly a super majority.
2. BIG GAIN IN 2008, BUT STILL NO SUPER MAJORITY. Coming out the 2008 election, the Democrats made big gains, but they didn’t immediately get a Super Majority. The Minnesota Senate race required a recount and was not undecided for more than six months. During that time, Norm Coleman was still sitting in the Senate and the Balance 59-41, still not a Super Majority.
3. KENNEDY GRAVELY ILL. Teddy Kennedy casts his last vote in April and leaves Washington for good around the first of May. Technically he could come back to Washington vote on a pressing issue, but in actual fact, he never returns, even to vote on the Sotomayor confirmation. That leaves the balance in the Senate 58-41, two votes away from a super majority.
4. STILL NO SUPER MAJORITY. In July, Al Frankin was finally declared the winner and was sworn in on July 7th, 2009, so the Democrats finally had a Super Majority of 60-40 six and one-half months into the year. However, by this point, Kennedy was unable to return to Washington even to participate in the Health Care debate, so it was only a technical super majority because Kennedy could no longer vote and the Senate does not allow proxies. Now the actual actual balance of voting members is 59-40 not enough to overcome a Republican filibuster.
5. SENATE IS IN RECESS. Even if Kennedy were able to vote, the Senate went into summer recess three weeks later, from August 7th to September 8th.
6. KENNEDY DIES. Six weeks later, on Aug 26, 2009 Teddy Kennedy died, putting the balance at 59-40. Now the Democrats don’t even have technical super majority.
7. FINALLY, A SUPER MAJORITY! Kennedy’s replacement was sworn in on September 25, 2009, finally making the majority 60-40, just enough for a super majority.
8. SENATE ADJOURNS. However the Senate adjourned for the year on October 9th, only providing 11 working days of super majority, from September 25th to October 9th.
8. SCOTT BROWN ELECTED. Scott Brown was elected in November of 2009. The Senate was not in session during November and December of 2009. The Senate was in session for 10 days in January, but Scott Brown was sworn into office on February 4th, so the Democrats only had 13 days of super majority in 2010.
Summary: The Democrats only had 24 days of Super Majority between 2008 and 2010.
Discussion: The Democrats had a super majority for a total of 24 days. On top of that, the period of Super Majority was split into one 11-day period and one 13-day period. Given the glacial pace that business takes place in the Senate, this was way too little time for the Democrats pass any meaningful legislation, let alone get bills through committees and past all the obstructionistic tactics the Republicans were using to block legislation.
Further, these Super Majorities count Joe Lieberman as a Democrat even though he was by this time an Independent. Even though he was Liberal on some legislation, he was very conservative on other issues and opposed many of the key pieces of legislation the Democrats and Obama wanted to pass. For example, he was adamantly opposed to “Single Payer” health care and vowed to support a Republican Filibuster if it ever came to the floor.
Summary:
1. 1/07 – 12/08 – 51-49 – Ordinary Majority.
2. 1/09 – 7/14/09 – 59-41 – Ordinary Majority. (Coleman/Franklin Recount.)
3. 7/09 – 8/09 - 60-40 – Technical Super Majority, but since Kennedy is unable to vote, the Democrats can’t overcome a filibuster
4. 8/09 – 9/09 - 59-40 – Ordinary Majority. (Kennedy dies)
5. 9/09 – 10/09 - 60-40 – Super Majority for 11 working days.
6. 1/10 – 2/10 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 13 working days
Total Time of the Democratic Super Majority: 24 Working days.
Obstuctionism has to stop? You mean like the democrats do when they are in the minority?
Progressive Socialism here we come. Hope you liked your income while it lasted. 35% inflation on food and other commodities due to UNLIMITED MONEY PRINTING is just going to get worse. HIGHER TAXES to pay for the votes they got is right around the corner as well. Sure, the rich democrats will get taxed too but I am certain they will get their dole as well.
If going over the fiscal cliff gets rid of John Bonehead Boehner, and his evil twin, McConnell, in 2014 - it would be worth it to me to pay a few thousand more bucks. Really.
Korn fed and still koolaid drinkin'.
Obama is not an ideologue. He is a pragmatist and a realist.
Why should conservatives change? Simple: they shouldn't if they don't want to. They won't win elections though.
Did you miss the elections results, Korn? Ya gotta win to play.
I hope I'm wrong, but I agree with your assessment.
Thanks for your usual clear and concise comment, skip...right to the heart of the matter.
Sadly, some of these people have had their heads buried so deep in the sand for so long that they can't really see or hear anything right now. The GOP has been very successful at brainwashing and manipulating the gullible and the weak-minded. I hope they are happy with what they have accomplished.
One little African - American guy from Tahrir against one big country of Mubaraks...
Oppressed
Badmouthed
and
Mis - understood
And now shackled and suffering for all that he could but denied by agents of medieval times, who should not be allowed to wash his underwear. They did not even have democracy before he stepped up to the plate, but this is not for long. The change is here and there is no way to escape it.
The gentle giant of our times we fail to appreciate fully.
( Candy, can you say it louder, please? )
Now, given the unfolding tragedy and sufferage what is it Democratic party was trying to celebrate? While I am crying about our past and present I am optimiztic about our future... 4 years and would like to have at least a small reason to feel better, too.
Winning by 126 electoral votes is considered squeking by?
And its irionic you tell dems to get to work with 7 out of the top 10 welfare states being red. BzzT! try again hannity.
DOOM GLOOM!
You mean like Obama was going to take your guns? or how he was going to raise taxes on the middle class? News flash - neither happened.
In case you missed it - people arent listening to you anymore. They see through your garbage.
Logic (what a name...) no one who can count to ten on his fingers is even remotely suggesting that raising taxes on the rich will pay off the national debt.
In simple terms: putting more money in the hands of middle class consumers, via tax cuts, liveable-wage jobs and wage growth is what will stimulate our consumer-driven economy back into economic stability. In addition, there will be spending cuts where needed, like the military.
To continue to give the rich huge tax cuts, we'd have to raise taxes on the middle class. That would hurt the economy because middle class consumer spending falls when middle class disposable income falls. We create demand when we have disposable income. Demand creates production and increased production creates job growth. Once and for all: low taxes on the rich does not create jobs.
@ Comeon, Really?
Are you really trying to argue that the Democrats need a Supermajority in the House, majority in the Senate and the WH to govern?
come on, really?
Your name is very apropos here. I mean, come on, really? That's a whole lot of wasted words to make a statement that was rendered entirely inconsequential by the Dems in March of 2010 when the Senate Democrats easily navigated past the 60 vote rule to ram through Obamacare. That showed the 60 vote rule to be absolutely meaningless and showed that whoever has 51 Senate votes (or 50 if the party also holds the Presidency) can get whatever they want through to pass without 60 votes.
This demonstrated that in reality the actual Super Majority is merely holding the Presidency and a simple majority of both Houses of Congress. Obama and the Dems had this for the whole first two years of his Presidency and completely wasted it on agenda items rather than fixing the economy. Heck even their "stimulus" was nothing more than a near trillion dollar agenda-laden, political-thank-you-filled, ineffective boondoggle of wasted spending.
Just Shaking My Head "I have never read such out right lies and falsehoods in my life. The claim that Reagan's trickle down economics didn't work.."
Liberals like to repeat lies - it makes them pretend they might be true. Here's the reality - from official government sources (Obama's White House);
In the 8 years under Reagan;
The economy (GDP) grew by 83.9%, or 10.49% per year.
A total of 14.8 million net new jobs were added.
The National Debt increased by about the same as under Clinton ($1.692 Trillion for Reagan vs $1.627 for Clinton).
The Unemployment Rate dropped from 7.2% under Carter to 5.5% in Reagan's last year.
Per Capita Income increased by $8,554 per year, a 70% increase in 8 years.
Inflation was cut from 13.5% under Carter to only 4.1% when Reagan left office.
Now let's look at Obama's record (thru 2011);
The economy (GDP) has only grown by 4.86%, or about 1.6% per year.
An average of 6.4 million net new jobs were LOST (2011 vs 2008).
The National Debt increased by $5.8 Trillion.
The Unemployment Rate has increased to 7.9%, vs an average of only 5.33% under Bush.
Per Capita Income has dropped in real terms by about $5,000 per year (10%).
Prices for energy and food have skyrocketed under Obama, with gasoline prices more than doubling.
Gee, I wonder which system works best - Pro-business policies, or anti-business policies?
I'm pleased to see that Republicans didn't learn a thing from the election.
Wrong. Reconciliation is an entirely different tool to pass legislation. Get a clue - read a book - do something instead of fostering lies.
Charlie-1915998 "Tax Cuts: The B.S. and the Facts"
Your 'Brute Facts' are nothing but a Liberal spin.
For the 5 years before the Bush tax cuts took effect in 2003, the economy grew by 27%, but in the 5 years after the Bush tax cuts, the economy grew by 31%.
And for those who say the Bush tax cuts reduced government revenues and caused the deficits to soar;
For the 5 years before the Bush tax cuts, total Federal Revenues had increased by only 3.5%, but in the 5 years after the Bush tax cuts, total Federal Revenues had increased by 41.6%. In fact, total Federal Revenues were $2.1 Trillion higher in the 5 years after the Bush tax cuts than in the 5 years before those tax cuts. It appears that those tax cuts did indeed stimulate not only economic growth, but Federal Tax Revenues as well.
And let's also consider Employment;
For the 5 years before the Bush tax cuts, total Employment increased by 4.07 million workers, but in the 5 years after the Bush tax cuts, total Employment increased by 6.79 million workers, according to the official government Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS.gov).
Reagan never balanced a budget. In fact, Reagan never came close to balancing a budget. For all of his talk about hating big government, Reagan did a fair amount of solid work in creating a bigger federal government. Here's a graph of the Federal expenditures and receipts for 1981 to 1989. The end result of all of this spending splurge is a massive increase in government debt.
Reagan's tax cuts never even came close to paying for themselves. Let's compare the increase in Reagan's tax revenues to the periods immediately before and after his presidency.
March 1975 - January 1980
Tax Revenues increased from $158.0 billion to $284.2 billion. This is an overall increase of 79%. During this period, the capital gains rate increased from 45% to 50% in about 1977. Over this period the inflation level increased from 52.7 to 82.7 or an increase of 30%. This makes the overall increase in tax revenues from individuals 49%.
November 1982 to July 1990
Tax Revenues increased from $356.0 billion to $598. This is an overall increase of 67%. During this period, the capital gains rate increased from 50% to 18% in the early 1980s. The top marginal rate decreased from 70% to 50% in about 1983. Over this period the inflation level increased from 98.0 to 130.4 or an increase of 33%. This makes the overall increase in tax revenues from individuals 34%.
March 1991 -- March 2001
Tax Revenues increased from $578 billion to $1,296.6. This is an overall increase of 124%. During this period, the capital gains rate decreased from 30% to 20% in the early 1997. The top marginal rate increased from 30% to 40% in the early to mid 1990s. Over this period the inflation level increased from 135.0 to 176.2 or an increase of 31%. This makes the overall increase in tax revenues from individuals 93%.
Where's the Reagan miracle?
I have to laugh at your constant hypocrisy and the way you spin things Roy.
You failed to mentioned the 10+% of unemployment Reagan during his presidency.
You fail to take into account inflation by trivializing the debt Reagan gave to us - he actually did triple out debt and was the first president to preside over our debt as it eclipsed a trillion dollars.
You fail to mention the contra's or the "Guns-for-Lives" program as I call it.
You fail to mention that he raised taxes more than 5 times during his presidency.
LOL! Yes - quite the guy you idolize there.
What was the employment data in late 2008/2009 when he left office? I forget.
For those who think that Obama's victory was a 'mandate', consider this;
In 2008, there were 129 million voters, an increase of about 8 million over 2004.
In 2012, there were only about 121 million voters, a DECREASE of about 8 million from 2008. Of that decrease, Obama lost 7 million votes.
Unfortunately for Romney, it appears that fewer Republicans voted in 2012 that in 2008 - that was the REAL reason that Obama won - not because he has some so-called 'mandate'.
Obama's margin of victory came basically from 3 groups (Incomes under $30,000 per year, Hispanics and single women). The common thread for all of these groups is "They all get lots of free services (food stamps, free medical and cash aid)", for which they credit the Democrats.
It appears that Obama's strategy of "Class Envy" worked well for him, but it has caused our National Debt to skyrocket. About 70% of the Deficit' comes from funding these 'free services'.
Mike-416 "ROY WILSON-336103 What was the employment data in late 2008/2009 when he left office? I forget."
The Unemployment Rate for December 2008 (Bush's last full month in office) was 7.4% - it is currently 7.9% and likely to go up soon.
The total number of jobs in December 2008 was 134.4 million workers, and it is currently about 133.7 million, so fewer people are working today than under Bush.
Obama brags about '25 months of job growth', during which time 3.8 million jobs were added, but Bush had 46 months of job growth, during which time 7.9 million jobs were added.
The election was just more useless talk by the Democrats, we know that nothing good will happen, just worse. It is the Democrat way after all, to make something far far worse, and then try to brainwash people into thinking it is good for them.
I have history on my side, I've been watching the Dems do this for years and Dems don't change.
Properly applied and with cooperation of a same-party House, reconciliation can be used for any piece of legislation the majority of the Senate really wants to pass. Since nearly every bill has an outflow of money funding it and leads to greater debt, any bill can easily be crafted so that the rules for reconciliation apply. This is especially true when no budget resolutions are being passed -- restricting the reconciliation process -- as has been the case since Obama has become president. Even if a bill originally doesn't pass the reconciliation test, the ruling party -- being in control of the legislative process --can add measures to the original bill that allow it to pass the that test.
Time to look in the mirror to see who doesn't have a clue and who is fostering lies, buddy.
Ol_Doc
Quoting data from March 1975 - January 1980, November 1982 to July 1990, and March 1991 -- March 2001 is curious, since it doesn't match any particular President's tenure. Cherry picking dates hardly makes a convincing argument when talking about the performance of Presidents.
I do, however, admire the work that you put into collecting data for such obscure dates.
Logic (what a name...) no one who can count to ten on his fingers is even remotely suggesting that raising taxes on the rich will pay off the national debt. - I've said it before, "LogicReguired" is a joke name, spelled wrong to show that on these boards no logic is "REQUIRED" (with a "Q" not "g"). All that you need on these boards is a computer and email. Maybe we should make people show an I.D., that apparently is too difficult for democrats.
In simple terms: putting more money in the hands of middle class consumers, via tax cuts, liveable-wage jobs and wage growth is what will stimulate our consumer-driven economy back into economic stability. In addition, there will be spending cuts where needed, like the military. Obamacare has made cost to the middle class go up, wages on the middle class have gone down, and the military budget once 70% of the total GDP, is now under 20%, most spending goes to socialprograms that are going broke like social security and Medicare. The Unfunded liabilites I mentioned are promises to these social programs that can not be paid for and you won't find even close to 100 trillion dollars in the military budget.
To continue to give the rich huge tax cuts, we'd have to raise taxes on the middle class. That would hurt the economy because middle class consumer spending falls when middle class disposable income falls. We create demand when we have disposable income. Demand creates production and increased production creates job growth. Once and for all: low taxes on the rich does not create jobs. - Not agreeing to a compromise would also have the tax cuts for middle class income earners expire which I think democrats want but want to blame on Republicans for not working with them. I'm fine with higher taxes on the wealthy or letting the cuts expire, but if tax cuts on the wealthy don't help create jobs how is higher taxes going to help? You have already said the extra tax revenue amounts to very little compared to our deficit so where is the benefit?
I agree with Kornfed, sign your name on the paper in agreement with the bill before democrats even ask for anything and go home. Let them do whatever they want and own it for the first time in their life, and let the Americans deal with the consequences.
Both sides are more than willing to cut a deal as long as the other side compromises, PFFFFFT!!!!!
I would like to invite all of you right-wing ideologues who so despise we "libtards" to take your
vitriolopinions to another board to share them. I'm sure, if what you say is true then there should be numerous places for you to share your opinions with like-minded individuals who just voted for Obama because they didn't like the way Romney combed his hair.The Democrat party rode the Parasites into office by promising more access to the Host body! they did this by new regulations and taxes!
However, the Parasite continues to have a ravenous appetite and will need to eat an ever larger portion of the Host to survive!
The Host is now weakened to a point where it could die! This was the Democrats plan all along! When the Parasites take to the streets to demand more and more sustenance from the Host the democrats will administer the killing blow!
Now the Parasites will find their benefactor's true character! The new government will not be the host but instead will be the vaccine that kills the Parasite! Your usefulness is done and with it your way of life. thanks for killing mine along the way!
The only golden thread in this whole mess is that in the end we get to watch your way of life perish!
Logic,
I will admit that taxing the rich while making huge cuts in programs will help eliminate some of the deficit. Ending bush's wars will also help. A 50% cut in the military would solve the problem. ( Patreaus and other generals retiring on $250,000 a year could also be cut!) Getting rid of all the loopholes would only save us .5% on the deficit. People earning $5,000 a week should pay more than 14% as I paid 20% and yes I checked my figures. My income was a middle 5 figure number!
Not Greece?
Could be closer to France Lite.
Or would you be more like Great Britain - told to get it's financial house in order.
What about Italy? They have a similar system we are instituting. They are shaky too.
What about Ireland? Pretty much bankrupt too.
Spain might be close to us. also bailed out by Germany. Violent Protests over reduced benefits too.
Canada? They come here to get treatments that their system either doesn't offer or cannot provide in a reasonable time period.
We are definitely not Germany. They have been the best at holding the line on giveaways. It is by their reasonable decisions that they have the wealth to keep the EU going.
I know that most think we could be Switzerland. The only country that has a truely successful government Health Care System. There is one huge difference between Switzerland and the U.S.
They don't have a drive to get something for nothing. This country does. That is what Occupy Wall Street was about.
I heard a caller today who was 22 years old, graduated college this year, and worked for the Obama Campaign. Since his job was over he was now looking to find a job where his health insurance is paid for.
Asked why Obama, it was because his healthcare will be for "free" until he is 26. This isn't even close to the attitude needed for a government system to be successful. Instead, it is a prescription for disaster.
"but in the 5 years after the Bush tax cuts, the economy grew by 31%."
BS --- the Bush depression started in early 2006 -- 3 years after the Bush tax cuts. By the summer of 2008, the economy was shrinking y more than 6%. Stop relying on Fox entertainment for your information. They lie.
That was not what Occupy Wall Street was about. Granted, there are some people in this country who are looking for something for free. There are welfare cheats in the system. Reforms are needed. But OWS was about putting a stop to the rampant greed and ineptitude of our financial system, not about freebies. Those bozos on Wall Street with their credit default swaps have mostly gotten off scott free. Main Street paid while Wall Street played. YOU have been played, DB.
B.S., DB. Healthcare is not free! I don't buy that story for an instant. Obamacare allows a young adult to remain on his/her parent's policy until age 26. It's not free healthcare. The parents and/or their employers pay health insurance premiums and the insurance benefits only kick in after the deductible has been met, with specific limitations on coverage according to various plans. Any adult should know this.
Come on , DB.
Well I see the liberals raced to answer your question, not. So far Democrats have been willing to compromise on nothing except that they agree there needs to be some cuts and then they jump to the only thing they know how to cut and that is the military. What they want is tax increases, they will not give on tax increases on the "rich" (+$250,000) for a couples combined income.
Wants - Tax increases on the rich
What they will give up - ?????? See if you can get a liberal to answer this one
Compromise - Republicans can probably get them to not gut the military. Only because it cost jobs and makes them look weak, and mean to people who defend our country. But please realize if they had a chance our military would be cut in half, as proven by newsvine liberal clwyd who said....
Always willing to cut the military who defend us, but God forbid we touch one of their social hand out programs that help buy them votes. Don't worry too much, these programs will go broke and the people who depend on them will suffer the consquences of trusting Government.
Charlie-1915998 ""but in the 5 years after the Bush tax cuts, the economy grew by 31%."...BS --- the Bush depression started in early 2006"
Actually, the economists say the Recession began in December 2007 - about one year after the Democrats took over Congress and started bashing Bush and ridiculed Bush's attempts to control the loose lending practices of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.
And here are the official (Obama White House) figures in the economy (GDP).
In 2003, the total American GDP was $10.980 Trillion. In 2008 (5 years later), GDP was $14.394 Trillion, for a gain of 31.1% in 5 years, an average gain of 6.2% per year.
In contrast, GDP under Obama has only increased by about 1.8% per year.
I'm sorry the FACTS don't agree with your 'preconceived notions'.
Bye - Gotta go to work now - lots to do before we move to Costa Rica in January, but before you start celebrating, I will still have Internet to make comments - I just won't have to live with the consequences of Obama's reelection, and that of the 'supermajority' that the Democrats now have in California, where they are free to tax and spend without restraint.
You have probably logged off, but if you happen to check please tell me why Costa Rica?
Skip, you might want to look at how Social Security actually works. All that money that you've been paying in? It isn't an IRA or 401k, so you don't OWN any of the money that you've paid in. All you have is an IOU from the gov't for an undefined benefit--Congress can alter the system (and they have) at any time. No guaranteed amount, no individual account with your name on it, just a promise from the very same elected leaders who continue to lead the system into bankruptcy--how secure does that make you feel? It doesn't give ME a warm and fuzzy, I can tell you that.
The system cannot fulfill the promises that have been made. That's simply a mathematical fact. But any time someone tries to fix (or abolish) the system, people scream bloody murder because they've been paying into the system and want to get a return on their contributions. Well, at some point, the gov't won't be able to pay the bill and the fix will no longer be optional.
Maybe you'll be able to retire and get all your benefits for a while, but the clock is ticking.
You are correct that when people keep more of THEIR money, instead of giving it to the gov't, that the economy does better. You have a few flaws in the rest of your reasoning though.
1) Obama's plan IS NOT tax cuts for the middle class. His plan is to keep the tax code the same as it was under Bush for "everyone but the top 2%." Keeping the status quo is NOT a tax cut, except in fuzzy D.C. math.
2) The amount of taxes that people pay is going up in January for EVERYONE, even IF they keep the "Bush" tax rates--because Obamacare starts going into effect. The bill that nobody read is chock full of fees and taxes that WILL take more money out of the pockets of all of us. That is NOT a tax cut, that's a tax INCREASE.
3) Median income has FALLEN under Obama's watch. That is NOT putting more money into the pockets of the middle class. That is NOT increasing our disposable incomes.
4) Every time the minimum wage (a gov't imposed number, not market-driven) has increased, the unemployment rate for youths and minorities has INCREASED--and stays higher until the market prices inflate and adjust to reflect the new levels, which starts the cycle anew. Your "liveable wage job" statement, presumably meant for lower income jobs, therefore really is a pipe dream in most urban areas. If you are working for minimum wage, then you either figure out a way to live within your means (roommates, frugality, multiple jobs, savvy investing, etc.) or else you figure out a way to increase your income to support your desired lifestyle--just as our parents and grandparents did.
Higher taxes, lower incomes, more people likely to go uninsured, underemployed, or unemployed as hours get cut and positions get cut to absorb the higher tax burdens. That's what the future holds for us on the current path. We're already seeing it happen. The stock market is dropping, businesses are cutting hours and positions, and we haven't even hit January yet--that's when some of the Obamacare tax hikes start to kick in. Hang on for the ride! See you in 2014.
If they were to do that, then they can't vote for any of the bills. They'd have to simply vote "present"--otherwise, when things start going south (as we know they will, and already are) the Dems will simply continue to point the finger at them anyway, but with the added problem of being able to say "they voted for it!"
The problem with your proposal is that people are elected to represent their constituents, and they wouldn't be doing that if they simply sit on the sidelines. The people rightfully expect their elected officials to actually DO something on their behalf--even if all they can accomplish is trying to block unwanted legislation from passing.
Oh DO try to follow along, will you? 400 Republican filibusters during the 111th Congress, when Democrats were the majority in BOTH houses of Congress.
Who's filibustering in the 112th Congress? Not the Democrats...they have the majority in the Senate and therefore also in every committee and subcommittee. The majority doesn't filibuster, the minority does.
So just quit whining about "bills lying on Harry Reid's desk." It's a talking point, nothing more. Not only have FAR fewer bills met that fate in the 112th Congress than the 111th, but the nature of bills coming over from the House has been far more partisan and ridiculous. THREE DOZEN bills to "repeal Obamacare"? REALLY?? Bills to further deregulate the financial industry, furthering the root cause of the Great Recession? REALLY?? Restrictions on reproductive rights?? As if THAT does anything constructive for a nation struggling to recover from a serious economic downturn...
I predicted well above that Conservatives have learned nothing from their widespread electoral failure.
Nothing on this thread would dissuade one from that opinion.
For lefties living in denial like Charlie-1915998 in post #1.82, this paper from Stanford University on "Trickle Down" Theory and "Tax Cuts for the Rich" should be a very interesting and eye-opening read.
Are you serious? GOP doesn't seem to get the picture that was painted for them by the people. We want the Rich to pay their fair share. GOP is stopping the will of the people. Obstructionist to the max. Even poles show that the people blame GOP 56% to Obama 32%. Get real and wake up. Rush and Fox news has lied to yuo and by now you should have stopped drinking their juice. That is unless your a Fox/Rush addict. Of course you can blame one side, The GOP.
Oh, okay so, "compromise has to come from BOTH sides?" When exactly did the Republicans "compromise", the first 2 years of President Obama's administration? Try NEVER, every bill that the President supported, was either blocked or filibustered to death, you call that "compromise"??? And then, when they gained control of the House of Representatives, they made absolutley SURE, that nothing would get done, PERIOD. It was part of their plan, "to make Barack Obama a one term President." And what exactly was the platform they ran on in 2010? JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!, and what legislation did they introduce, defund Planned Parenthood, no federal funds for abortions ( which does'nt happen anyway. ), make it tougher for women to obtain contraception, especially if they are college students, and on and on and on!! NOT ONE PIECE of legislation about creating JOBS, which is what they ran on! So don't tell me that "compromise" comes from both sides, and that the Dems. took a "my way or the highway stance!", it was the Republican/Tea Party Congress, that took that tone. Because they wanted the President to FAIL. Well guess what, he got re-elected anyway! So now it is time, to pay attention to what the PEOPLE want, and stop the petty B.S. game playing!!!
jim, in the interest of full disclosure your liked paper is actually from the Hoover Institution, a Conservative/Libertarian think tank with major funding from the Scaife Foundation and Bradley Foundation. Their goals, as lifted from their own mission statement, include "Ours is a system where the Federal Government should undertake no governmental, social or economic action, except where local government, or the people, cannot undertake it for themselves"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Hoover_Institution
The writer is Thomas Sowell, Libertarian editorialist, not some unbiased academic doing earnest research to find out what actually happens.
You can't disagree with the real world result of trickle down economics...the Panic of 1895, Great Depression and Great Recession.
I suggest you read the 10th Amendment to the Constitution (part of the Bill of Rights)--"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The "goal" that you cited is in keeping with the intent of the founders, as reflected in their deliberations on the matter and in the Constitution itself. So if you have a problem with the stated goal, then perhaps your starting point of reference for contemplating the issue is itself off-base?
As if academics have no biases? Everyone has biases. The critical reader has to be able to identify them and account for them. Now, do you have problems with the facts that he cited? If so, then you didn't note any. Do you have problems with how those facts were interpreted? That much we can assume from your response, but you failed to provide anything but an unsupported assertion at the end of your post.
"Can't disagree"? Certainly we can. The paper I cited doesn't appear to agree with your assertions, so obviously there is room for discussion of the topic. Perhaps if you can provide some evidence to support your assertions, then you might be able to put forth a logical argument.
You keep referring to the election results, but deliberately ignore the fact that "the people" voted to keep a divided Congress. Yes, compromise comes from BOTH sides--"the people" voted for that.
Same goes for brenda1964 from post #1.131 - Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:31 AM EST.
Ah, you're a Tenther, dedicated to a discredited notion of how the Constitution works and convinced that you're correct because the Conservative echo chamber tells you so. Tenthers are working on a notion of Constitutional law that died in 1865.
http://yalelawandpolicy.org/29-2/worse-than-lochner
The Civil War is over.
The United States of America won.
Get over it.
I'm for ensuring that the federal government remains within the limits set by the Constitution, if that's what you mean. Nowhere in your post did you establish that the 10th Amendment no longer applies, although you seem to think it died in 1865. And your linked article is a steaming pile of biased garbage ridden with poor analysis. I make no claim as to whether the examples in the bit that you cited have merit, but I'd challenge you to show how they are not.
The Constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government, not the people.
Get over it.
No, your INTERPRETATION of the 10th Amendment died in 1865. As for your comment;
You've picked a very colorful way of saying you disagree, but in the process failed to demonstrate a factual basis for disagreement with the analysis. You've also failed to demonstrate by what standards you're a superior constitutional scholar to Ian Milhiser. Here's his bio;
http://www.americanprogress.org/about/staff/millhiser-ian/bio/
So unless you're better qualified than a Magna cum Laude graduate from Duke Law School and former editor of the Duke Law Journal maybe it's your analysis that is a steaming pile of biased garbage ridden with poor analysis.
I realise that we can expect this do little bunch of so called Representatives that we hire to do a job for us will take their time Commiserating with or congratulating each other but if We the people accomplished as little as they have over the last few catastrophic years then we would surely be among the unemployed like some of their do nothing former work mates.Who of our Representatives will take to heart our pleas to have them work to advance the needs of the majority of their employers should be our main searching for in the next two years . The elections are over. What the best interests of our country are should occupy all of us ,including those we have elected to look after our interest .If I pay someone to manage my economic welfare and they do a lousy job, do I continue to employ them or look elsewhere? That is what,not only they ,but we should consider over the next two then four years.It can be fun to re-hash the past but forward and onward as the saying goes. Hope everyone had a satisfactory Thanksgiving!
OBAMA'S NOT RUNNING AGAIN , WHY SHOULD HE WORRY ABOUT WHAT CROOKS THINK ABOUT HIS ACHIEVMENTS ??? !!! the corrupt Republican corporate MONARCHY, can NO LONGER CONTINUE STEALING from the 99% American People! THAT'S EXACTLY WHY YOU LOST THE ELECTION! Unfortunately, you have been corrupt for SO LONG YOU DON'T RECOGNIZE THAT YOU ARE CORRUPT!!!
It's over, GET OVER IT, and, even if it hurts your little pocketbook, DO SOMETHING GOOD FOR A CHANGE! It won't hurt, HONEST!!! Your UNCONTROLLED CAPITALISTIC GREED of which there is NO END IN SIGHT MUST CHANGE!
23% of "OUR" country's wealth for 99% of the American People while YOUR corrupt Republican corporate MONARCHY, YOUR INFILTRATED, "HAND-PICKED" political puppets, the ONE-PERCENTERS & their FOREVER VACATIONING CEO'S are LIVING A LIFE OF LUXURY on 77% of "OUR" country's wealth is NOT Democracy by any stretch of the imagination! It is NOTHING but BLATANT CRIMINAL CORRUPTION!
That's the ONLY REASON YOU LOST THIS ELECTION AND THE NEXT ONE! Your GREED is ONLY exceeded by your CORRUPTION! WHAT A DISGRACE TO SOCIETY!!!
Oh you laughable lib. Scream and squawk all you want (via your clever capitalization), the fact is even lefties like you know that Obama Claus promising to solve everything by taxing the rich is nothing more than a fairy tale he used to get re-elected (along with all those Obamaphones). We are 16 trillion in debt and taxing the rich is not going to solve that problem. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, are all going to have to be overhauled - but libbies like Chuckles the Clown Schumer say "if you even suggest touching those programs we'll vote no." Guess what Chuckles, when even the CBO says they have to be addressed, you just come across as the laughable clown you are. When you libs take over the House (god forbid), then you can say you've got a mandate; until then, shut up and compromise.
DrMan....
Why ARE we $16 trillion in debt? Hmmmmm......might have been because we signed two huge tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 without paying for it....or because we engaged in two wars and put it on the credit card....or we signed a Medicare Advantage bill that gives money to drug companies and didn't pay for it (in 2005)....or the Bush economy crashed in 2008 and we've been scratching and fighting our way out of the hole since.
To say that the $16 trillion in debt is an Obama or Democratic problem is abjectly stupid. To also say that we should buy down our debt without revenues is equally as stupid.
I agree that Medicare will have to be altered to a degree (not voucherized).....but Social Security does NOT add to our debt!
Funny when the right wins an election everyone should come to their side, but, when Dems do...its a sign everyone wants 'compromise'. To be fair, however, I DO think people want compromise....which is why the GOP got spanked so badly after winning so big in 2010. There wasn't one right winger calling for "compromise" after the 2010 election.
When you try to buy everything on credit and blame the next guy, this is what look like. GOPs are like children, making a big mess and ran away. When someone come a long to clean up that mess, they came back and put all the blame on the person who is cleaning up the mess.
Lots of GOP blame it on young people to vote for Obama, but they sure forgot that it was not the young people who created the mess we are in. It took more than 30 years in the making to do that and yet they blame people for being lazy and such for everything up until now.
Well, first of all, you mean Bush phones - George W. Bush implemented the cell phone program in 2008, expanding the pre-existing phone program Ronald Reagan had established in the 1980s.
Secondly, nobody says that taxing the rich will solve everything. But, while the majority of Americans have been suffering under the Bush Recession, the rich been getting richer. They benefited dispropotionately from the Bush tax cuts, which are in huge part responsible for our current national debt. It is more than time to roll that back!
Of that $16T, George w. Bush ran up 40%, yes, 40% of the total! And he did most of it by reducing taxes on the wealthiest so that they could "create jobs". We see how well that worked out! The fact of the matter is, those tax cuts were enacted to help the economy - Bush said so over and over again. They have not done so. Instead, they have driven up the national debt by decreasing government revenue and forcing government borrowing.
Oh, so these are the problem, eh? That's why we have run $16T in debt, eh? Let's look at the numbers:
From 2000 to 2012, entitlement spending went from $1.2T to $2.0T per year, an increase of $800B
From 2000 to 2012, total government spending went from $3.7T to $6T per year, an increase of $2.3T
The problem is NOT entitlement spending! In fact, I quibble with your definition of "entitlement" - American taxpayers pay for the SS and Medicare systems, they are not entitlements. The problem is that our government treats these as additional tax payments and routinely "borrow" them to pay for their outrageous spending! You do realize that out of that $16T in national debt $6.3T is owed to the SS and Medicare trust funds, don't you? That's enough to fund these programs for a long, long time!
I strongly advise you write your Republican Congress critters and give them that advice. They are the ones who have been unwilling to compromise!
DEPORT the Democrats to communist Latin America!
We DO have a mandate. We just won the presidential election! :) We elected Democratic Senators and congresspeople in key districts. Quit acting like your side can order us around.
Compromise is a dirty word in the GOP dictionary. Democrats have always been willing to compromise, but not at the expense of America.
Why should the struggling middle class be asked to pay more in taxes again so the rich can have another tax break? 'Trickle-down' is a trick. It was tried and it FAILED. Now we have re-elected a president who wants to try another way: focus attention on strengthening the middle class, the economic engine that powers America. Re-build the physical infrastructure in the U.S. so we can compete with other countries. Level the playing field and increase opportunity for growth and innovation here, not in China.
We middle class citizens are weary. It was OUR children who were sent to fight Bush's phony war in Iraq. It is OUR children who are struggling to pay for higher education, to find jobs, and to become full-fledged members of society. We believe in including everybody: young, old, rich, poor, every race, every religion, gay or straight. Your candidate Romney has never known our hardships. He comes from a culture that takes. We are the majority, we middle class citizens, and we rejected Romney's plan.
So now who is it that needs to compromise?
DrMan: michael savage may have a real doctorate, but rush, you shouldn't use dr. in your user name
40% of the deficit? Do you have any sources to back that wild claim up? The official government inquiry into the financial crisis showed that it had to do with 30 years of deregulation amongst other things and Bush's tax cuts are never even mentioned. In fact, if you look at the BLS gov website, you'll see that after Bush's tax cuts were fully implemented, unemployment started dropping and GDP started rising up until the financial meltdown, which again, according the the inquiry (endorsed by every Democrat) had absolutely nothing to do with Bush's tax cuts.
Personally I don't care if taxes go up or not, I'll pay them if they hit the middle class, I don't make over 200K, but in doing so you've actually accomplished zero effect for our country. Way to go Congress! We're still suffering and you're going to give us a nice panacea or symbolic political gesture. Whoopie!
kaybee...if you have a mandate because a Democrat won the presidential seat (by a small percentage of the popular vote), then using your logic, we have another mandate because the Republicans won and consequently maintained control of the House (by a small percentage).
Does anyone else remember when Obama and the Republicans voted together on the free trade act?
Remember the Democrats voted against Obama?
I like the Democrats concepts on taxes. Well, this Democrat anyway:
“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”
– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill
“The present tax codes … inhibit the mobility and formation of capital, add complexities and inequities which undermine the morale of the taxpayer, and make tax avoidance rather than market factors a prime consideration in too many economic decisions.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 23, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform
“The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform
But that's a bunch of silly Economics 101 stuff, so maybe not.
hs321, the way it works is this: politics and governance is an art, not a science.
When the GOP held the White House, they held the reins and had the power to implement their economic philosophy (trickle-down) that has been proven not to work. Oh, it worked just fine for those at the top of the economic ladder, those like Romney who used the system to full advantage to milk the rest of us. But it sure didn't help our country and our economy as a whole.
Now we have a Democrat in the White House, duly elected and re-elected by the people, and that gives Obama the right to implement a different economic philosophy. It is his turn to try it his way and he has earned that right. That's all I mean by a mandate. Obama deserves the chance to try it his way.
I'm a pragmatist. When one approach has been tried and failed, I'm willing to try a different approach. I don't believe in clinging to political or economic dogmas that have been tried and failed.
First..do no harm..then take over the House in 2014
second..continue to 'do no harm' in 2015..and stay in majority to correct the harm done by Bush and GOP-controlled House under Boner (2011-2015).
.
If Bob Dole and Newtered Grinch's prediction is correct, the Democrats will be majority for years to come..because Dole and Grinch predicted in 1990s that if Demcorats passed universal healthcare, then the Democrats will be congressional majority for years to come..that's why both of them did everything to stop Clinton from getting it. Finally, Obama did it...and the Democrats are ready for that majority predicted by Dole and Grinch. If you look at history, Dole and Grinch are right...in 1965 Democrats passed Medicare, after suffering a brief backlash in 1966 midterm election and losing some seats (2010?), the Democrats were been in majority until 1994. So Obamacare in 2010, Dem suffering brief backlash in 2010 midterm, then increasing Senate majority and chipping away GOP majority in House in 2012. So the DEM is getting ready for their majority in Congress soon.
Forward...
President Obama and the the Dems know nothing about "balance".. they have not balanced a budget in 4 years.... Spending... they do that real well:
"We want to eliminate the tax break for the wealthy... and protect much needed programs... They sent us here to compromise."
Really?.........(I smell bacon..)
kaybee..."I don't believe in clinging to political or economic dogmas that have been tried and failed."
Oh really? Well, I'll defer to an economist who put it this way:
“We have all heard the old saying that giving a man a fish feeds him only for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. Redistributionists give him a fish and leave him dependent on the government for more fish in the future.
If the redistributionists were serious, what they would want to distribute is the ability to fish, or to be productive in other ways. Knowledge is one of the few things that can be distributed to people without reducing the amount held by others.
That would better serve the interests of the poor, but it would not serve the interests of politicians who want to exercise power, and to get the votes of people who are dependent on them.
Barack Obama can endlessly proclaim his slogan of "Forward," but what he is proposing is going backwards to policies that have failed repeatedly in countries around the world.
Yet, to many people who cannot be bothered to stop and think, redistribution sounds good.” – Thomas Sowell
Oh yes, and regarding "trickle-down", you might find this interesting:
“Trickle Down” Theory and “Tax Cuts for the Rich”
http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf
Actually it doesn't, We have a President A Senate and a House for a reason and that is so that one branch is held to check by the other 2 branches
Actually it has not failed, Capitalism has been the one thing that has grown this country to where it is now, Johnsons war on poverty is what has failed, It has done nothing but create more people at the poverty level because it rewards people for not doing anything to improve their station in life,Clinton knew this and that is why he worked with congress to reform welfare Any one who has the ambition and drive to want to improve their economic status can do it here in this country, If that were not true then we would not have so many people trying to move here. Many Americans have become lazy and complacent thinking that it is their governments responsibility to insure they have a job and good pay,It is not, It is only the governments job to insure that those who are qualified have the same opportunity to compete, I have been self employed almost my whole life and I have always been able to go out and find some kind of work. If you can't find a job it is because you either are not trying hard enough or you are unwilling to take a job you feel is beneath you.
eengineer,
"Well, first of all, you mean Bush phones..." And are we going to hear "Bush did it, Bush did it, Bush did it for four more years? When the hell is your "leader" going to take ANY responsibility for anything done during HIS administration? When?
The bigger the Government the better we will all be. This talking point of smaller Government was a talking point that President Reagan started, and we all know how much expansion happened in the 1980s. So, don’t get in to the Republican argument of smaller Government. It’s a myth that will never happen.
So, let the Government grow and expand. Remember, BIG Government is Good.
"Achievements"? That's laughable. If you call driving up our national deficit to $16.25 trillion an achievement...
That is the most idiotic thing I ever heard, Government does not do anything to add to the economy, Government only drains from the economy, Government depends on the private sector to earn money so that government can tax that revenue, When government gets to the point that the private sector can no longer afford to support it then the government must be downsized. We have reached that point.
So, let the Government grow and expand, because that is how jobs and opportunities come about. Remember the expansion started by FDR that created GREATNESS!
Obama's policies promote excellence in public education, affordable and accessible higher education and training, liveable-wage jobs and self sufficiency.
The redistibution of wealth in America has benefitted the wealthy for decades. Does anyone really believe the poor and homeless are living high on the hog at the government feed trough?
Which party wants to do away with public education? Hint: it's not the Democrats.
The interests of the politicians? Yes, namely the GOP reality-spinners and master manipulators who use Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc. to dumb-down and rile up the already undereducated and bigoted low class voter. It didn't work this time, at least not to the degree they had hoped.
Redistribution of our country's wealth for the benefit of the wealthy is fine though, right? There are plenty of other economists, among them the Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, who would beg to differ with the second-rate musings of Thomas Sowell.
Da comrade! Instead of Apple and Android phones, we can build Obama phone factories and have our products designed and developed by bureaucrats, not with profit in mind, but fairness. Beautiful. Obama cars! Obama heavy machinery! Obama burgers!
That you and your ilk is the result after 236 years of the American Experiment either proves that it is a failed one or that a once great nation built upon the ideals of our founders has lost its way...
Compare the poor here to the poor in other nations. There will always be winners and losers. Ours have traditionally fared better. You cannot legislate away bad luck/bad choices. Rather than lifting everyone up (the rising tide lifts all boats), you desire to bring the acheivers down. Not what made this country great, not going to make your children and grandchildren any better off than you are - in fact for perhaps the first time, with creeping progressivism, they are destined to do much worse.
No one ever said taxing the rich will solve the problem. But its a good start.
Hmm. Not a resounding endorsement.
The Obama tax rates will bring in 8 cents on the dollar of deficit. So after Obama's big move towards "fairness", our deficit will fall from $1.2 Trillion to....1.12 Trillion! Problem solved! Is it no wonder he is the Messiah?
Can you read? RAISING TAXES WILL NOT COMPLETELY COVER THE DEFICIT. I can spell it out again if you need me too.
No wonder you people lost in the elections - you cant even read ffs.
Yes, we're all quite stupid. Might I suggest that I was emphasizing the point?
Now that we lowered the level of openly infinitely greedy wasted sperm from public office (republicrats), we can begin to lower the power and wealth of the likes of Demolican Zionazis like Nancy Pelosi who uses her office for insider trading and gaining personal wealth. Instead of honest public servants in office, we have elitist egotistic self centered slime. We need a one person one vote referendum style direct participatory democracy. We need to the the international banksters masquerading as the Federal Reserve the we owe them nothing in fact we have to take their houses and wealth because they have been guilty of insurrection and treason since 1913. Congress and the people are to control and own the monetary system as the US Constitution so states!
The point no one making? Are you arguing with yourself?
I can do that. I've lived in and visited numerous poor third world countries. I've seen kids eating garbage in Egypt, maimed street beggars in Bangladesh, people living in dirt-floor shacks in Mexico, child prostitutes in Cambodia...I could go on.
Our poor are fortunate in comparison, there is no doubt about that. Considering that we are the richest nation on Earth, would you prefer our poor live like animals? Our pets are better fed that many of the poor children on this planet. Are you O.K. with that? What if the shoe were on the other foot and you had suffered a financial disaster? Would you want your own children to live on the street?
How is it 'bringing the achievers down' to require them to pay the same income tax rate as the middle class has to pay? Would Romney have suffered one iota if he'd paid TWICE what he paid in federal income tax? The rich don't pay their fair share. They derive most of the benefits of our system while contributing the least as a percentage of their income.
It's not 'creeping progressivism' that is stealing our children's future. It's loss of opportunity. It's the ridiculously high cost of higher education, the lack of jobs (shipped overseas), low wages (while CEO's rake it in during good times or bad) and the crumbling infrastructure in this country that stiffles commerce. China has a high speed rail system. We have congested roads, falling-down bridges, snarled airports. We need to keep up with the rest of the world. I've seen the world and I know that what I say is true. America needs to get her house in order, and we need all hands on deck. The rich have been pampered long enough. Bye-bye to Romney and his cronies. Hello to opportunity for EVERYONE.
Do you have any idea what the top tax rate was when Kennedy was in office? Perhaps you might look that up before you continue to make a fool of yourself. Even with the reduction of his administration the top tax rate was still 70%.
Do you know what it is now?
For people like Mitt Romney it's 0 - 15% because they don't get paid with payroll like the the rest of us, they get paid by stocks and other types of low tax deferred compensation which the government considers investment income. The idea of those marginal tax rates is to get these people to reinvest and to take risks.
Well they've rigged the system. They reinvest very little. They stockpile cash and they ship your job off to China or India or some other low skill third world country.
Yup. Let's put more of these poor, poor people in office. They are so put upon. I can't imagine how they get by on their millions of nearly tax free dollars every year...
Dman/I don't understand why people such as you consider that the temporary tax gifts given to the very rich on a temporary,yes temporary time limit are to be untouchable. Even the former P.O.T.U.S. who gave them to those fortunate few did it for a limited time only.That payment,if you will ,was extended by the present P.O.T.U.S. to the Republican Reps. under the threat of starving the long time unemployed in the midst of a Depression. Of course he acceded to their blackmail ,he couldn't do much else. Now persons ,such as you want to continue those unpalatable gifts under the ridiculous guise that the rich can't pay our unmanageable debt down. They too are American citizens,enjoying the benefits thereof. Even if you are one of them which I doubt, or one of their payed or unpayed minions, You should realise that your pleas for theirb continued gifts are distasteful.
"Democratic members of Congress said Tuesday they won by focusing on protecting and expanding entitlements and by calling for higher taxes on upper-income people."
Surely a strategy that will win an election but doom our nation.
Blue, I agree with you that compromise must be the order of the day. Giving more and more entitlements to 10's of millions of people while thinking that taxing the rich will pay for it isn't compromise, its lunacy.
Very true Joemike404. The democratic members are already seeing that taxing 250k and up income people is not enough. They are already talking about lowering that to 200k... and you know what, that's not enough. Let them keep spending and see what that gets the middle class.
Joemike, what about the entitlement programs that the wealthy and corporations enjoy? Gotta love how conservatives bring the entire discourse so far to the extreme right and then scream for democrats to compromise 'in the middle.' Well, the middle is now skewed way right. Very successful tactic, that.
Tell me, what are the conditions under which the much-vaunted 'job creators' will start creating jobs? They presently enjoy the lowest marginal tax rates in US history, have amassed the most disproportionate share of wealth in history, and now extract MORE productivity out of the workforce than in 2008. How could the conditions be any more favorable for them? Where are the jobs, a$$holes? They deserved to be taxed because then maybe the money will actually go to creating jobs, not facilitating the further rigging of the financial system. Go dems!
spellchecker, Its interesting that while seeking reelection President Obama campaigned on the fact that over 5 million jobs were created in the last 30 months. Did we hire 5 million more people to work in the federal government? No, government employment actually fell during that time while private sector employment rose. Who the F##ck do you think "created" those jobs? Barack Obama??
joemike, that's a great pitch for Obama, I couldn't have said it better myself. My point was, though, they don't deserve any moral high ground and special coddling. They've certainly benefited disproportionately over the past 30 years.
spellchecker, Clearly your 5th grade reading teacher failed you based on your reading comprehension deficit.
excuse me, did someone say 'middle class'? what the hell is that?
nikoleye...how much do think the middle class will be built up by giving amnesty to ~12 million illegal aliens who are willing to work for very low wages?
joemike, or maybe it is your incomprehensibility. You seemed to be claiming that Obama cut the size of government while spurring private sector jobs, and using this point to refute my assertion that 'job creators' are a republican fantasy. If you were claiming something else, you need to be more specific and clear.
hs321- apples and oranges
Apples and oranges? We're moving toward a global economy. That means Americans will have to compete against 3rd world wage levels, all the while importing 3rd world label right into our own country.
Apples and oranges? How about apples and watermelons.
oh your true 'colors' are really showing. glad we got down to the marrow
joemike404, Clearly you skipped economics and math in school. Jobs are created by consumers spending money and not by giving huge tax cuts to the wealthy. If the majority of the consumers are middle-class and lower than it makes perfect sense to make sure they have enough disposable income to continue to buy things. Now that doesn't mean give poor people free stuff...it means stop letting rich people use their massive wealth to escape from paying their fair share in taxes. Having a few people hold onto such a huge amount of money is not good for the economy or for anybody but those few rich families.
Thats funny because Obama ran on (and won in case you missed it) the premise that thew wealthy pay a little more and we need to cut spending. That was his platform - he won it.
How'd your guy make out?
All wealth is from natural resources and the goods and services people provide to make those resources useful to us. Money in a true democracy is a means of fair exchange of goods and services but the den of thieves called the US government who genuflect to the international banksters has made it into a means of government sanctioned slavery. THEY HAVE ENTITLED THEMSELVES TO OWNERS OF US ALL! They love war, they love ending our jobs to China. ANY WASTED SPERM THAT CALLS SOCIAL SECURITY AND EVEN WELFARE "ENTITLEMENTS" WHILE LETTING THOSE GUILTY OF MONETARY SYSTEM MONOPOLIZING AND WAR PROFITEERING "entitlements" IS AN ACCOMPLICE TO THEIR CRIMES AGAINST NATION AND HUMANITY.
Yeah Jomike let's let the people starve and give more money to the job exporters, war profiteers and monetary system monopolizing international bankster thieves; talk about narcissistic sociopath sadistic mental illness...Bow to the slime who entitle themselves to billions and go after people whose jobs were sent to China, you are psychologically sick and don't even know it.
The real problem is that taxes will be created that families far below the $200k income level will be paying.. As a percentage of their actual income families earning $20k to $40k will be stomped on by the tax mans boot.. With the addition of new taxes on unhealthy thing by the Obama-care funding panel and forced premiums for a more expensive health insurance because employers will opt out, things look bleak.. Socialism/Communism thrive when people are dependant on a big government so do not be surprised when the US turns to the dark side.. I actually hope that Obama throws the trillions of dollars he printed into the economy as it will hurry along the crash.. Once all the free $hit the Democrats have been handing out off the backs of the working peoples backs to buy voter loyalty is gone the reality will set in.. We are ready and can subsistence farm to survive! are you ready??
The tons of system cheaters out there that milk their neighbors cow are the worst form of low life and should be put on work farms doing hard labor.. You know who you are!! We can't help but feal sick when we see someone buying $300 worh of food with a food stamp card that she whipped out of a $200 hand bag and loading them into an Escalade..
What kind of cheese do the majority of you want with your WHINE!!!!!????? Please, give me a break! Still crying about job creators and free stuff and Democrats being lazy and blah, blah, blah! Give it up already! Your guy made a fool of himself. Get over it and move on and accept the fact that Obama won a second term and if it benefits the poor, the middle class, the elderly, women, kids, and anyone elde the Republicants were willing to throw under the bus than so be it! How about those Republicants blow the dust off the American Jobs Act that has been collecting dust on their desks since Obama presented to them in 2011 and giving it a read. It doesn't matter who creates the damn jobs, private or public sector, as long as people go back to work. Jeez, I wish, just once we could all agree on just one thing!
Bull...... Check your paycheck, your grocery bills, your electric bills, your everything bills after the first of the year you idiot -- 20 new taxes are going into effect so far and they aren't just for the rich. Have you heard of the latest statistics on layoffs, is your job safe? You think because demo=rats have been re-elected everything is going to get rosy or are you one of them that think the freebies will go on forever because they come from the government. What a bunch of idiots.
The only idiots are the ones who buy this "tax" argument the right has been spinning. I always get a kick out of it when oil giants make billions in profits with CEO's raking in millions, but, a regulation (for example) saying they can't drill in a National Forest area is what is driving up prices....gimme a break.
Loretta, right now the ETR is the LOWEST it has been in over 60 years....despite being involved in one war and just finishing another. There hasn't been a time in our history as a country that we didn't raise taxes after wartime....how the **** are you supposed to pay for them?
Explain what are the "freebies" you are talking about? Is it the Social Security that people pay into their whole life? Are the servicepeople receiving those 'freebies'? Please explain.
Loretta-
YES, when are you repugnicant's going to face reality? Yes, we need to increase taxes on the rich, they've had too much of a fee ride on the backs of the middle class... When Bill Clinton handed the keys to the white house to Geoge Bush, we had higher taxes brackets for the rich, and the economy was humming along just fine, unemployment was low, we had a surplus, and even republican so called "job creators" were doing fine. Obviously you must not remeber it very well... must be Romnesia
After Bush raided the surplus to give his rich buddies a "Tax Break, funded on the backs of the working class, and then put 2 wars on a credit card, you see where that crap got us... Now get a dose of reality, wake the hell up and smell the coffe, ok? The majority of American have voiced their vote. Your side lost, your "cut taxes" mantra lost, Why?? because IT DOESN'T WORK!! Even daddy Bush had to raise taxes after he got elected and realized that Reagan's" trickle down" economics were flawed.
So get over it, quit your whining, we'll be just fine after we finish cleaning up the mess Bush left Obama.
"Fuggetabouit"
Ok, so you need to increase taxes... Think that the 42 bil the Dems are blabbering about raising taxes on anyone making over $250,000 a year will put a dent in the budget?
Why is anyone making over $250,000 a year labeled a millionaire?
Who received the benefit of the tax cut? If we need to raise taxes, shouldn't the Entire Bush era tax cuts be allowed to expire? Why does no one grasp the fact that everyone paid less under the Bush tax cuts?
Why underfund Social Security and call it a payroll tax? More smoke and mirrors? Will this help the country? Thought Social Security is heading to it's own fiscal cliff?
You think raising entitlements will solve the problem? That's what the Dems plan on doing?
Who will pay for this? The top ten percent earners, who already pay seventy percent of the federal tax? Isn't that a sufficient share?
Wilman...
You're actually correct on part of what you're saying.....the big problem is that the tax cuts are weighed heavily toward the top. This is exactly the same approach Romney was trying to peddle....it sounds great to say everyone gets an across the board 20% cut; except that means $200,000 to a millionaire and $1000 to someone making $50,000/year.
Our tax system is progressive...and the cuts are not. There's your 'smoke and mirrors'.
The other problem is the separation of wealth in this country. The wealthy have done much, much better during this recession than the normal joe's like myself. These cuts take a step (albeit a small one) to leveling the playing field. I would MUCH rather take the money wealthy folks would take and bank or shield from taxes and either buy down the debt or invest in education or infrastructure that we all benefit from.
While most millionaires have high incomes, whether one is a millionaire is not measured by one's income. It is a measure of net worth. In fact, many seniors on low, fixed incomes are actually millionaires because they own homes free of debt and have saved for their retirement.
Yes -- someone whose income is "only" $250,000 per year might actually be broke -- even bankrupt. This is because they live beyond their means. Is someone who earns $250,000 but spends $300,000 on living expenses going to save anything?
Of course the tax cuts are weighted towards the top... So are the taxes... The top ten percent of earners pay seventy percent of Federal Tax. You can't have it both ways... If you initially don't pay alot of tax, how do you expect to get a large tax break?
Want to level the playing field? Get a good job... How do you do that? Get a good education and work hard... Everyone has the ability to get ahead... Democrats expect the government to do that for them.
What a novel idea! You are sounding like Obama who was the only one talking about the importance of a good education.
This is the problem. To say everyone has the equal ability to get ahead is nonsense. Tell me how kids in a school without computers and have class sizes 40 to 1 are supposed to 'get ahead' while others have state of the art technology and are in class sizes 20 to 1? I'm all for what you're saying...but to blindly say opportunity is spread evenly across the board is ridiculous....especially after just saying the importance of education.
Wilman, social mobility in the US is at a low point given present income disparities. See the article in sciencedaily.com for Sept. 5, 2012. So much for your theory of 'get educated, get a good job, and get ahead.' Plus, ditto what doctorlogic said about educational ineqequality as another fly in that ointment.
Ironically, you are now more likely to realize the American dream by moving to a European (socialist!) country than by staying here. You can keep believing in the myth of American exceptionality if you like, but this only licenses the oligarchy you seem hellbent on creating. Sorry, the facts don't support what you're peddling!
@ both of you... It's not nonsense... It's the fact that no one wants to take individual responsibility. It's the parent's responsibility to make sure that their children do well in school. How much money is spent on education per student in New York State? $20,000? And what does that get us? Low graduation rates, children who can't read and spell. (Low at this site if you need examples...) And they bus students all over the city to give them better opportunity.
Social mobility? Please, it doesn't just happen by breathing.... You need to apply yourself.. But, that takes effort.
I immigrated legally with my parents from Germany in the early 60's. They came with nothing... I started learning English at the age of five. I went to public school, got both my Bachelor's and Master's degrees. With the help of my parents, paid for my Bachelor's and Master's degrees. And continually hear you Dems whining about income disparity and opportunity.
Yeah, the American Dream in Europe... Because it's so wonderful there, my parents decided to leave. Sure, they have cradle to grave medical benefits. (But under a two class system... If you have money, you get better care....) If you want to live in a small apartment, maybe have a small car, and get by, Europe's the place for you.... It's pretty much a class system, if you don't have money, you have very little chance to improve yourself... By the way, guess you haven't been following the news about the current economic conditions in Europe. (Or are those not the "facts")
Loretta, you apparently are the idiot. To tell how government controls commodity prices...
Still waiting....
you deomogods have forgotten what happened toward the end of bushs' 2nd term as president. which party had the majority in congress, senate and the house. it wasn't the repubs. it was the demoidiots. they "refused" to compromise with the repubs on anything. then comes muslim obozo. he promises the american people change. well he sure changed everything. i promise more jobs , where are they?. i promise the deficit will be cut in half, where is it now? why do we still not have a budget? why have there been so many cover-ups, fast and furious, americans murdered in lybia. how many more people are recieving "freebies" ( this includes the illegal aliens he let in our country and are living better than most honest hardworking americans) from our government? how could the people of the united states re-elect this socialist czar? he ran on the same platform as his first term. obozocare and higher taxes are going to bankrupt our own citizens. lots of people are losing their jobs and there will be more layoffs and firings , which means they will turn to the government for help just to survive. more people "depending" on the government and the goverment will tell them what they can and can't do. does this smell like socialism? you betcha'. after all the countries that comprise the u.n. vote yes in march on global gun control we'll have that to look forward to also. as of november 6, 2012 the people of the united states of america lost their freedom, their rights and the constitution our forefathers brought forth no longer exists.
People who work hard and are well educated have suffered too. Some have been unemployed for a long time. Some have lost their homes. Look at what Bain Capital did to the jobs of thousands of employees when they took over their companies. Look at all the jobs that have been shipped to China. Look at what the greedy SOBs on Wall Street did to our 401K's. We need to have policies in place that will protect us from the manipulations and machinations of the wealthy and powerful. We are tired of being milked like a cow by the greed and lies of the GOP.
That's a fallacy and a prejudicial attitude that you need to re-examine. Democrats are not all welfare recipients! We won the presidential election by over three million votes! Do you really think we're all looking for a free ride here? If so, you are simply wrong. Grow up and get over yourself.
freebie's I want my freebie's, the rest can pay for them or and feed the boarder hoppers too. If you look at the numbers if this is true 47% are taking and 53% are paying once we get to 51% its all over this will be a socialist country. We will be a 3rd rate country because if I had the money I would leave also why do you think this administration started an exit tax lot of the rich have left already several others have homes else where. if the taxes were fair 15%-20% and get rid of the deductions so you pay real money across the board rich to poor that would stop the finger pointing.
Interesting everyone wants to focus on the last two years when the Republicans controlled the House. They conveniently ignore the first two years when the Democrats owned DC as if they never happened.
So, what did the Democrats get done then? Did the Democrats make the rich pay their "fair share"? NO! Did the Democrats end oil subsidies? NO! Did the Democrats repeal the Bush tax cuts? NO! Did the Democrats balance the budget? NO! Did the Democrats get spending under control? NO! Did the Democrats end lobbyist in the White House? NO! Did the Democrats end earmarks? NO! Did the Democrats reform immigration. NO! Did the Democrats post bills on the internet for review before passing them? NO! Did the Democrats produce any 'shovel-ready jobs'. NO! ....ad infinitum....ad nauseum....
There is a really long list here, but I anyone who can think gets the point.
(Talking about party of NO!)
Those companies were failing when Bain invested in them, If Bain had not invested in them they would have gone belly up even sooner, Bains record at turning companies around is over 80%.
Wilman,good for you for coming to America and getting ahead. Tell me, were either of your degrees from state institutions and did you accept any loans or grants? I have a conservative friend who likes to trumpet the fact that he paid for his own education ... at a state school! It is like Craig T Nelsen saying "When I was on food stamps and welfare, did anybody help me? No!"
Also, be aware that arguing from personal experience is not the same as citing facts. Income disparity is a system-level effect of failed trickle down economics and can't be explained by personal indolence. The fact is that it is - statistically - much much harder to enter and stay in the middle class, and this is true across all educational levels.
So again, good for you for creating some success for yourself - you should be thankful that immigration policies were better in the 1960s than they are now.
craven-age, ask yourself this: why are so many working Americans on food stamps and living paycheck to paycheck while the CEO's of their companies are pocketing an average $10 million a year in salary and benefits, even when their failed management is driving the company into the ground?
It's simply not sustainable.
That is not the case with KB Toys. It was a well-managed company that had already undergone restructuring. Bain Capital bought KB with borrowed funds, transferred the debt to the company's books, closed half the stores, and forced KB into bankruptcy. The company's creditors sued Bain for milking KB Toys and leaving them holding the bag. That's the true story.
Lost...and how good were the Republicans at getting that information out? Well, they tried, but what we saw was the biased media focusing on the jobs lost, not jobs saved, and the average American is more prone to listen to someone of this mentality:
“I’m so glad we had that storm last week.” – Chris Matthews on Hurricane Sandy, which killed over 100 people, helping Obama get elected.
Lostinthepinebarrens,
Of course our conversation has little meaning now, but I have been saying this ever since the democrats war on Bain started. They insist on having a glass half empty view of what a firm like Bain does. They say "that evil Bain took over the company and fired half the people, that was mean!" instead of the reality which is "that company was on the verge of bankruptcy and 100% of the people were going to lose their job and all their benefits, but instead half the people got to keep their jobs." So in effect, Bain saved half of the jobs at the company, by making the hard decisions that clearly the previous ownership was unable or unwilling to make.
"Why is anyone making over $250,000 a year labeled a millionaire?"
Remember -- that $250,000 gross adjusted income --- AFTER all deductions. That's for a single person. It kicks up to $500,000 per family and again -- that's AFTER ALL DEDUCTIONS. And -- that's on earned income only. Capital gains are taxes at a much lower rate. Most families with a gross adjusted income above $500,000 likely have substantial capital gains.
And yes --- people in that income bracket for any length of time are millionaires.
hs321... Fillibuster, Fillibuster,Fillibuster,Fillibuster,Fillibuster is why nothing got done!
Charlie,
Everything I have read in terms of who Obama wants to raise taxes on is individuals making 200,000 per year or families making $250,000 per year. Not $500,000 per year. You are correct that is taxable income after all deductions though.
@jc... Why thank you.. But no, I did not go to a state school.. I attended a work study program where I actually worked every second term (and part time during my school semesters to get my degree) And paid for my MBA out of my own pocket...
wilman: 70% my arse, Romney says he payed 13.9% and Warren Buffet's is 11.6% so you are only lying to yourself fool.
Slim,
Hello, he is saying that what the top ten percent of income earners pay covers 70% of the total income taxes collected by the federal government; not that they each pay 70% of their income to the government.
hiap: even that is BS. Did you know that the true bankster bailout was over 16.1 Trillion? So Bernanke waved his Mystic Jew wand and gave his buddies all that money at a time when there are no laws against investment banking. The ZioNazis are buying up the world with FIAT money and sheeple goofs eat it up like candy manna.
How could Democrats NOT be emboldened? They not only won the Presdiency in convincing fashion...they picked up Senate seats...they picked up House seats...and they picked up Governorships across the country.
It is true that compromise still needs to be part of the agenda moving forward, but, it is clear whose ideas the majority of the country support. If the GOP continues to be obstructionist...they may be finished as a party.
[quote]DoctorLogic
How could Democrats NOT be emboldened? They not only won the Presdiency in convincing fashion...they picked up Senate seats...they picked up House seats...and they picked up Governorships across the country.
It is true that compromise still needs to be part of the agenda moving forward, but, it is clear whose ideas the majority of the country support. If the GOP continues to be obstructionist...they may be finished as a party.[/quote]
The Democrats won by voter fraud, lies and deceit. They knew they would win because of how gullible you Liberals are. You believe everything they tell you without question. One example is the terrorist attack in benghazi.
Thanks Matt....you prove yourself to be a genuine blabbering idiot.
You do of course have proof of this voter fraud that all these Democrats peformed to win, correct? You are such a sore loser that you would blindly lie about something?
Good job about going off the farm with your terrorist comment. When you can't defend your position, deflect, deflect, deflect, deflect, correct?
59 voting districts in Philly and Romney got not 1 vote; Obama won those districts 19,000 plus votes to zero for Romney. Are you serious? Even in Chicago, the capitol of voter fraud, the cheaters know to make it look at least plausible.
Wilman,
European austerity programs are stunting growth in Europe right now. The last of the stimulas programs end this year in the US and we are having much better growth than they are getting in Europe under their austerity programs. My company is having a boom right now because small businesses can write off $250,000.00 on their taxes this year. So government spending, tax breaks for small businesses, are resulting in growing our economy. That ends 12-31-12. As of your family moving from Europe in the 1960s for more opportuinty, that was then and this is now. Social mobility is now better than it is in the USA.
Philly is the bluest part of the state and more blue than many other blue states.
And also - you are full of crap.
http://www.phillyelectionresults.com/
Romney got 91953 votes or 14%.
Any other unsubstantiated claims I need to debunk by spending 30 seconds on google?
Demos your replies are just rhetoric of a campaign just ended, which wasn't won by much. However, it was won. So now WE all will reap the benefits of higher taxes, not only on the federal level, but on the state levels as well. I hope you are all ready. Of course, you with the biggest mouth piece probably aren't even working and receive that government check every month. You don't listen, you just believe everything you hear. That's a shame. Take a reality check -- this is not the Reagan era, this is not the Clinton era, this is not the Bush era -- this is 2012 and this country is in deep financial trouble. You continue to ask yourselves what happens when the money from the rich ends -- then what? Why are you so insane about the rich having so much -- Good Lord Man, they worked their butts off for it -- the American way -- work hard and reap the benefits. I've worked hard all my life and no I'm not rich, but at least I can die some day knowing that I didn't depend on someone else to get me by. Demos do not want to compromise, they just want to blame, blame, blame, accuse, accuse, accuse, whine, whine, whine. When are they going to think about the American people and what the majority wants. How the heck do you think the healthcare bill will work if states opt out. Demos go out and work a 40 hour week or more, save your money, have some self-pride in what you've accomplished. And accomplishment does not come from watching Chris Matthews all day and waiting for the mailman to show up with your government check. OPPORTUNITY IS USUALLY DISGUISED BY HARD WORK.
Doctor Logic talks logic. The Dems won big. The Teapubs better fall in line or they will go the way of the Dodo bird, which most of them are.
I think President Obama should appoint a committee to offer solutions for robust economic recovery. Oh that's right, he already did that. He then chose to ignore the recommendations from the BIPARTISAN Bowles-Simpson report.
Yep. He and the Democrats and the Republicans. In fact, pretty much anyone with any power to actively pursue enactment of the commission's recommendations rejected the findings. Pity, that, but please don't just lay the blame on President Obama--they are all at fault.
Wrong. Simpson Bowles never offered a report...partly because Tea Partiers like Paul Ryan voted against it.
It's known as the B-S report for a reason.
Yes, because Bowles and Simpson barnstormed for their own personal version of what they thought should be done...but the committee DIDN'T MOVE ANYTHING TO CONGRESS.
Oh, and that's the other part. CONGRESS. All taxing and spending authority originates in the House of Representatives. If the Simpson-Bowles plan was the right plan to put forward why didn't the Hourse do so?
Pretty hard not to ignore the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson report when half of the committee members who were reviewing it (including Mr. Ryan) refused to vote it through to the House. It never officially landed on the desk of the President because it never came out of committee. Sorry, but you have to blame the Republicans for that one. The President has limited powers by design. The office is ONE THIRD of our government.
Hey slappy,
Sorry to burst your bubble....but here is an article regarding WHO was actually responsible for the debt....
The following are POLICY CHANGES instituted GW Bush and by Obama and their respective effect on the national debt:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html
Information gathered from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
Bush: Total: $5.07T
Iraq/Afghanistan wars: $1.469T
Bush Tax Cuts: $1.812T
Non-defense discretionary spending: $608B
TARP/bailouts: $224B
Medicare Advantage/drug companies: $180B
2008 Stimulus and other changes: $773B
Obama: Total $1.44T
Stimulus/tax cuts: $711B
Non defense discretionary spending: $278B
Tax cuts: $425B
Health reforms/entitlement changes: $152B
Defense Savings: $126B
Plus, let us not forget Obama had to deal with an economy (left by Bush) that was in freefall.
To blame the debt on Obama is frankly, stupid.
your source is wrong, try cross referencing with other sources.
scottyyyy...
Actually, it is NOT wrong. Plus, the CBO is THE source congress goes to to score bills....sorry, gotta think they know a bit more about what they're talking about than some right wing hacks.
Doctor logic
The election is over and you people are still trying to deceive everyone. The facts are that when Obama took Office the national debt was $10.1 trillion. The national debt is now over $16.7 trillion.
Bush's economic adviser was Bernanke and Obama's economic adviser is the same Bernanke.
If you're to stupid to understand these facts, you need to stop posting on here because you are only demonstrating you are an ass hole by trying to deceive the readers.
what....
If you remember back to January, 2009 when Obama was sworn into office...we just lost 800,000 jobs that month and the 4th quarter of 2008 shrank at over 9%. Either you are too stupid to understand what government needs to do in economic collapse or......nevermind, I think that is the only choice.
By the way....Bernanke is NOT his 'economic advisor' for God's sake....you try to talk about me being stupid but you don't realize the difference between the head of the Fed (which is separate from the Executive Branch) and an "advisor"? Wow.
congress ultimately is the source of economic bills for the country. The congress has voted for these deficits, including the GOP-controlled house. And obama has signed them.
Its everyone's fault as it turns out.
Doc - stop the flim flam. You never responded to What's simple statement that there was a 6 trillion dollar increase in the deficit during Obama's first term rather than the 1.4 trillion you claim in your earlier post. Or were you only talking about 1 year before?
You simply changed the subject to job loss numbers. Smoke and mirrors.
DoctorLogic: You're completely wrong on so many levels. Bush only spent 4 trillion dollars, and it took him 8 years to do it. FACT
Obama spent 6 trillion in less than 4 years. FACT
joemike...
First off....my earlier post (if you look at it more closely) spoke of NEW LEGISLATION that added to the debt. You are absolutely right that the debt increased under Obama....but my point is that most of it is GWBush leftovers. Obama isn't the one who originally signed the tax cuts into place....Obama isn't the one who originally started the wars.....Obama isn't the one that signed the Medicare Advantage drug company giveaway program into place....yet they ALL remain on the books. Well, Iraq isn't now (thanks Obama).
Second, the GWBush final budget had a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit....Obama is now at 1.1 trillion. It is actually quite extraordinary that, despite the recession, spending hasn't increased. Actually, there is an argument that spending SHOULD have increased more to deal with the jobs crisis.
The smoke and mirrors come from those that think our debt problems originated when Obama took office.....the conservative clown show never made a peep during the Bush Administration.
Matt....
Bull****. Or, are you not including tax cuts as spending?
Plus....GWBush entered the WH with a $157billion dollar SURPLUS and a booming economy....Obama entered the WH with an economy shrinking at 9% per quarter and a $1.3 trillion deficit. FACT...you clown. To try and correlate the two is just plain stupid.
DocLogic...the CBO is only allowed to use data provided to it by Congress. That is why the PPACA was initially said to be economically viable. Then after it was passed, without knowing what was in it, the CBO was allowed to crunch the numbers with more accurate data and said it was not economically viable. Or, in other words, it will end up just like Medicare, which has over $25 TRILLION in UNFUNDED liabilities.
No one who knows anything about how government works cites CBO numbers. Unless of course, it happens to support their position at the moment.
i had just started a petition at white house. gov.... the petition is term limits of senate members, please go and sign it........ only way this country of our will get better is limit the term of the lifers in the senate.
And just how will having a constant turnover of newbies in the Senate be good for America?
remember obama's slogan of 2008?....CHANGE !!!.........its time to change, members in senate are among the richest people in the country. time to get those who have been in for more than 10 yrs out.
scottyyy....LOL dude! Change? Hope? Are you unaware of all of this:
5 pages of Obama’s broken promises:
Promise Broken rulings on the The Obameter
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/?page=1
And more of his flip-flops here:
President Flip Flop: Barack Obama’s Broken Promises, Policy Reversals and Continuous Flip Flops
http://www.therightsphere.com/2012/04/president-flip-flop-barack-obamas-broken-promises-policy-reversals-and-continuous-flip-flops/
It is politics as usual in DC. You can HOPE all you want, but nothing has changed.
Be afraid very AFRAID when a headline says "Democrats
emboldened"
then you see Pelosi!
As opposed to what? Boehner & McConnell? The obstructing twosome, who along with Cantor & Ryan put politics ahead of country and are responsible for the lowering of our credit rating?
Puh-leeze
"Fuggetabouit"
The democrats want to keep funding PBS because they love Big Bird. well let me tell you this, those fuzzy little creatures on sesame street are just a bunch of Gay Pedophiles, the elmo puppeteer has sexually abused a teen boy. this is what the obama administration and liberal democrats alike support, they want to keep funding the Gay Pedophiles on Sesame Street.
enough already, its time to investigate PBS & Sesame Street.
Scottyyyy I guess you didn't get the memo. The young man recanted his story. In other words, he lied. There was a sexual encounter but both were consenting adults.
Well; YOU win idiot of the day!!!!
thats what is being said, but i also said...its time to investigate, let find out the truth, lets see if PBS paid this guy to recant.
Well Scottyyyy its nice to see some of you are still in that alternate reality bubble brought to you by your friends at Fox Notnews. Why arent you over on their site yelling at them for blatently lieing to their viewers rather than over here spouting their lies.
deb
dont worry bout me, you go ahead and take your children on down to sesame street and let them get sexually abused by elmo and friends.
Debdem,,scotty isn't over on Fox because they shut down their comment section. I guess even Fox got tired of listening to all the right wing crybabies,gloom and doom the sky is falling attitude. Opinions are like a$$holes everybody has one but some people have two,they talk out of one. I guess Fox finally realized that.
Seasame street is the conditioning of fondeling the children for travel. You same people arguing about what Elmo did are the same people that subject your kids to being molested to get on a plane and you even stand there and watch as they molest your kids with your silent consent!
Hey Republicans -- take look at REALITY
At the end of the Carter administration, the national debt was 32% of GDP. After the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations 12 years later, the national debt had doubled to 65% of GDP. At the end of the Clinton administration, it had fallen to 56% of GDP. At the end of the Bush 43 administration it had climbed to 85% of GDP. It seems clear who the big spenders are
"The Sesame Street gang are glad that Obama and the democrats support for their cause"
Yep --- the government contribution to PBS and NPR cost the average tax payer about 1.2 cents per year. What a budget buster!!! That's one of the many problems you Fox viewers have --- simplistic ans worthless solutions for complex problems
In 2010, the Tea Party movement convinced voters the Affordable Care Act was a bad thing. Over the past two years, voters learned more about the Affordable Care Act. They found out they could keep their unemployed or underemployed adult children on their policy until age 26. They found refund checks in the mail if they paid excessive premiums. And they found out that in 2014, they could shop for coverage without having to worry about their pre-existing conditions. Today, "Obamacare" no longer is a negative term. It's even been embraced by the President. And it's been embraced by the American people.
We are all doomed now. Our grandchildren will pay the price. Sad.
Kathleen-2443896
We are all doomed now. Our grandchildren will pay the price. Sad
Jeez, shut up already!!
"We're doomed, WAAHH!!" No, you idiots, we raise taxes on the wealthy, who can afford it NOW, balance the buget, pay donw the debt, so our grandchildren WONT have to pay for it! Get a friggin' clue, stop believing the Fox News propaganda, will you?
"Fuggetabouit"
lmao, your too damn funny.....you really think obama will take the money raised from new taxes on the wealthy to pay down the debt. i bet not one dime will be used for that. my guess, once obamacare is fully implemented and the government starts getting medical bills then all that money raised on the new tax on the rich will be used to pay the medical bills of obamacare.
We've funded college education accounts for our grandchildren. They'll do just fine.
It's ironic, but I remember a time when the Republicans used to use the term "doom and gloom Democrats" as a slur. Now we have "doom and gloom" Republicans. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
"We are all doomed now. Our grandchildren will pay the price. Sad."
Give me a break!! I was born in 1946. At that time, the national debt was more than 125% of GDP. It no ways near that today. My parents generation passed that debt to my generation. Then from 1946 to 1975, we went on a spending spree building the interstate highway system, going to the moon, building schools and hospitals, building universities -- all kinds of government spending. We GREW our way out of debt with massive amounts of government spending supporting the private sector.
I paid the price for my parents spending and it's a good thing that happened. We are all better off for the government spending. This nation has been here before and we came out of it in much better shape. My advice to people like you Kathleen is stop your endless whining and get to work.
Anyone that "Believes" Obama's (Jive) is an idiot.
You're the type of moron who will ask "what happen..." like the idiot that you are when the country goes broke. Our credit will get down graded again and again while the President is in office and interest rates on the money we borrow are going to start to soar whether the fed keeps them low or not and then EVERYBODY is going to get punished. Expand entitlements! That is what the democrats got from this and tax the "rich" when only 53% of Americans pay federal income taxes to pay for everything already...you democrats are demomorons and I for one am glad Obama go re-elected because he is going to be the guy holding the bag when America goes broke and people take to the streets like in Greece. That will be his legacy and there will never be a word spoke about President Bush again. Pelosi. Reed and Obama, the three stooges of economic destruction will be all historians talk about!
Learn to spell. And don't use pejorative terms such as "moron" or "stupid." Your comments still would lack substance, but the packaging would be more attractive.
You DO realize you clowns lost this argument right?
Go to my post 8.1.....why is the debt solely Obama's problem?
You must be for allowing all the Bush tax cuts to expire on 1/1/13...correct? Or is it by some magic fairy dust that tax cuts don't count against the debt...but entitlement spending does?
Just like you were all so sure Romnuts was going to win, you are WRONG again. Stop being so pig-headed. cutting taxes further would definately have put us on the same footing as Greece. They started by cutting back too. Did we go broke when Clinton raised taxes and expanded entitlements??? Well?? That right, we didn't, did we, in fact, our economy got better...
Shut up, stop the fear mongering, you moron, take a Xanax, and chill out. Let us Dems fix the problems you idiots created, 'cause you guys are totally clueless...
I am going to write, email or phone one GOP senator/congressperson every day to ask that since we pay their salary that must get to work now and quit the obstruction. Otherwise, as several have noted, we who worked so hard to re-elect President Obama will not sit by in the 2014 midterms but will do everything in our power to get rid of all those that don't want to work for the betterment of this country. Elections do have consequences and the liberals/progressives have come to learn this. Mitch McConnell is the first one I am going to contact today. Eric Cantor next, Steve King, Batcrap crazy Bachmann, Speaker Boehner, Rand Paul and on and on.
Don't waste the stamps, email them... They won't read it anyway
seniors on S.S. struggle to make ends meet and yet they still have to purchase their own supplemental health insurance to coincide with medicare, meanwhile the obama administration seems to think this is ok and start a totally new government healthcare insurance. in my opinion, dont start something new until fix what you already have in place.
Perhaps the uninsured struggle to make ends meet and cannot afford medical care. So they wait until their condition nearly kills them, then show up at the emergency room. Who pays for that?
Hey Nancy! Your national debt is over $16.7 trillion and because of your debt crisis the government is unstable. Companies and individuals don't invest in unstable governments.
Have you ever thought about getting professional help as you certainly are out of touch with reality.
what.....
One of the big problems you have and why the right lost the election so badly is that you continue to talk in platitudes. You consistently say that things are so terrible.....but, your ilk will say we have to have jobs....but we have to buy down the debt. Romney's stupid $5 trillion tax cut as a way to cut the deficit/debt was resoundingly spanked (because it was really, really stupid).
If there is anyone needing to come to grips with 'reality', it is you my friend.
Doctor logic
The facts speak for themselves. Obama hired Bush's economic adviser Bernanke and stayed the Bush economic course of bailouts, stimulus and tax cuts to the rich which resulted in Obama reducing the deficit by $207 billion while adding $1.8 trillion to the national debt in the same time period.
Just becasue you want to ignore the fact that Obama's debt crisis has made our government unstable, doesn't change the fact that reelecting Obama has condemned our country to financial suicide by Obama.
Go sign up for everything Obamacare, Obamaphone, Obamadisabililty and Obamafoodstamps. I watched over 30 very healthy neighbors go get it over the last three years while I take my cane to the car, drive to work that pays minimum.
Only took me 90 days to get all most of the above and I thank all Obama voters for paying my way from age 50 on. Thanks gang.
Can't beat em them join em yes?
Does your Obamaphone include unlimited free texting?
Does your Obamaphone come with a photo of Ronnie Raygun who actually started the program (and it's a good program at that,lol)?
I'll actually answer your question Hand:
No. Texts cost around a quarter of a minute and the phone gets about 200 minutes a month paid by the government to which you can add minutes from your own pocket.
At least, on the company my mother's phone is tied to... you have the option to switch between a few different carriers foer the program but several do not offer texting at all.
My mom used her lifeline phone when she had a stroke and it saved her life!
Pelosi and Obama what a terrible combination.
"Pelosi and Obama what a terrible combination."
The voters decided the "terrible combination" should remain in office.
Not all voters. Pelosi is a NUT!
Kathleen, those who would disagree get their way. That's how elections work. Deal with it.
These Obama words are the reality of the next 4 years.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead,interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans–a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.
Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and
grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.
Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., (Senate – March 16, 2006)
Obama has had a plan to destroy the USA and now he'll get his wish.
You deserve the government you elect. Thomas Jefferson
Did he really spell out his middle name, or did wh add that for some sinister purpose?
Invisible Hand
You know that I copied that word for word out of the Congressional records. Why do you people have such a hard time with Obama's own words.
It seems that you people are ashamed of your support for a man whose won words condemn him as a failed leader.
All talk and NO GMAE!!!!
You elected an eloquent speaker, that's it. He does NOTHING! He delegates to his cronies and then goes golfing or takes a trip and then has the nerve to blame it on any and everyone but himself. He proposed a budget that even his Democratic owned senate would not even take up a vote on because Harry Reid knew it would get ZERO votes, he did not want to embarass the "holy one". They did vote on one of his budgets back in 2009, guess how many votes IT got..... ZERO... the vote was 99 against and one no vote.... guess who absatined? HArry reid.... once again so as not to embarrass the presisdent.....
wake up!!!!
i fear it may be to late.. be prepared for $5-6 per gallon gas etc......
from CBS dated march 19 2012
(CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.
The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.
The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.
The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.
Mr. Obama has been quick to blame his predecessor for the soaring Debt, saying Mr. Bush paid for two wars and a Medicare prescription drug program with borrowed funds.
The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.
Federal budget records show the National Debt once topped 121% of GDP at the end of World War II. The Debt that year, 1946, was, by today's standards, a mere $270 billion dollars.
Mr. Obama doesn't mention the National Debt much, though he does want to be seen trying to reduce the annual budget deficit, though it's topped a trillion dollars for four years now.
As part of his "Win the Future" program, Mr. Obama called for "taking responsibility for our deficits, by cutting wasteful, excessive spending wherever we find it."
His latest budget projects a $1.3 trillion deficit this year declining to $901 billion in 2012, and then annual deficits in the range of $500 billion to $700 billion in the 10 years to come.
If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms.
Election Day was November 6. Scottyyy posted this comment on November 14.
Obviously, Scottyyy is not the author of this copy-and-paste job.
Try writing your own material, Scottyyy, and be sure to use spell and grammar checker.
scotty,
Bush LEFT office with a budget deficit of over $1 trillion.....plus our economy was shrinking at 9% per quarter.
Are you actually suggesting the wise move would have been to, in an already shrinking economy, take even MORE money out of the system?!
Are you actually suggesting that Obama should have pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan on day 1 of his Presidency?
Are you actually suggesting that Obama advocated for immediate repeal of all Bush tax cuts?
The problem with you yahoos is that you act as if Obama came in with the slate clean. The majority of what has added to the debt was leftover **** from his predecessor.
I direct you to post 8.1 for actual policy changes that led to the increase in debt. Oh, that's right, you're the dimwit who refused to look at it.
i know its hard for you guys to see such articles when they come from liberal media, but facts are facts, your obama has increased the national debt by more than $6 trillion. stop defending something you cant defend. the numbers speak for themselves.
scottyyyy...
Can't help but notice you completely ignore the points I made about who initially created the debt. You should be embarrassed...but I know won't be.
But, you know what, that's OK.....it is this 'inside the bubble' thinking that cost you the election last week. If you clowns keep on that same path, keep thinking the same things, you will become more and more insignificant to the conversation. It is just a matter of time.
What made last week's victory so satisfying for folks like me was that Obama won by actually winning the argument on facts and evidence....Romney lied from the beginning; and lost. That is a good, good sign for justice and what is right and a bad, bad sign for folks like you that live in some self-generated reality.
Doctor Logic
Obama has had a deficit of over a trillion each of his four years. Bush added $5.1 trillion to the national debt in 8 years while Obama has added over $6 trillion to the national debt in less than 4 years.
Obama is now buying back the bad mortgages from banks like Wells Fargo. Apparently you aren't aware the Wells Fargo has already begun exporting its American jobs to India.
What has Obama promised to do next? He's planning to buy back all the bad student loans.
We'll all get to see Obama begging China for more loans in the near future. In fact it's so near, if the news reports are correct, our government is facing another shut down as soon as March 1, 2013.
Can't wait to see what Obama wants to raise the debt limits to so he can follow the Bush economic course of bailouts, stimulus and tax cuts to the rich.
You're probably one of those simple(minded) guys who thinks that because the debt was $10T when Obama when Obama took office and is now $16T, he must personally have increased it. Of course, that ignores the ongoing costs of the Bush wars, the ongoing cost of Medicare Part D, the ongoing costs of payment on interest on the debt, and the decline in tax revenue brought about by the Bush recession. It also ignores that, with interest rates around 1%, currently it makes sense to borrow money to further stimulate the economy.
It also ignores that that the debt more than doubled under Bush and the deficit more than quadrupled. But why quibble over facts?
pkgoode
No you fool, I think that when Obama said that the buck stops here, that the buck stops with him. After all he claims to be the leader of this country and he did personally sign all the spending Bills that increased the national debt. No one made him sign those spending Bills and he certainly didn't have to hire Bush's economic adviser and stay the Bush economic course that added an additional $6 trillion to the national debt in less than 4 years.
I agreed with Obama when he claimed that increasing the debt limit and national debt weakens this country both domestically and internationally. I also agreed with Obama when he claimed that the interest we pay on our debt is a hidden tax that is keeping our economy from growing.
What is amazing is that his words are now a reality in this country as Obama's debt crisis not only has made our government unstable, its turned us into the Greece of the America's.
Listening to these Republicans, one would think that on January 19, 2009 the country was in great shape with a massive surplus, record low unemployment, a booming economy, increasing wages -- everything was just outstanding. Then -- Obama took office on Jan 20, 2009 and everything immediately came crashing down.
Now -- how about a reality check? The nation was much closer to that ideal on January 19, 2001 when Clinton left office but on January 19, 2009 when Bush left office, we were on the verge of a depression.
Charlie how long does this moron get to take us out the mess that we are in??? We are seeing no hope and c60 hange from this president at all... We get the same as what we get from any Democrat with no ideas on how to fix anything rip apart any idea that doesn't spend money or raise taxes. I call it the boogie man effect, as the Republicans are going to take your check be it social security or welfare. Scare the people or the ones dumbe enough to believe you.. I do me dumb people becuase as far as i can remeber not one time has this happened once an entitilement always an entitlement...
The biggest problem with raising taxes is that half the people are paying and half the people are taking what happens when 60 or 70% are taking? This is the direction we are headed where is the money going to come from than???
In their own words, they won by protecting and expanding freebies and determing how much money the rich can keep for themselves.
Spending OPM's just never works. Telling someone how much of their earned dollars they may keep doesn't exactly drive people to work harder either.
In four years Iran will have its nuclear bomb, Israel will be defending itself alone, and waiting to see a doctor should only take six months.
Lets go over the cliff now and get it over with while we still have the will to rebuild this great country.
The election is over, and obama won. So, we now need to enact voter ID laws as 4yrs is plenty of time for EVERYONE that is a LEGAL voter to get an ID. Voting machines that malfunction,election officials committing FRAUD, and ballots being found in warehouses is absurd. It's time we conduct HONEST elections becouse if we don't it wont be long untill our ballots are replaced by bullets. Nobody wants a civil war, and the best way to prevent one is through HONESTY.
A national ID? Just try and get that through a Republican-dominated House...
The Democrats will never allow that . On a Fair and Honest playing field they do not stand a chance !!!
It's interesting how those who lost the election want to take "their" country back.
Who "owns" this country anyway?
china owns this country and they will be here soon to clean house.
Answer is we all "own" this country. We all won and all lost whether we voted for Obama or Romney. Much like a family or marriage this nation must be run on compromise. No one is going get everything they want. In those uniques years when all 3 government branches were either Republican or Democrat were some of the worst years for this country moving forward. Tells you something about a culture that has always been a melting pot. People now speak of this election as if this were a football game. If the Republicans lost, then 49 % of the popular vote of this country lost. This country is divided the way it has only been few times in our history. What team do you think won the Lincoln elections? The most costly war in ourt history virtually wiping out an entire male population on both sides ending with an assassinated President with each side blaming each other. As a nation we all lost but moved forward as we should now. Do not let the media fan the blaze of division or worse, racism. Why is it necessary to so label all Americans into Demos, Repubs, Blue states, Red States, Blacks, Whites, Latinos, Single Women. It is the media that continues to fan this blaze soley for ratings as if Wolf Blitzer is announcing a football game. Shame on the media. If both sides are smart they would come to realize that no one won or lost but clearly we are divided and must find a way to reach middle ground no matter what our parties affiliation or race. Truthfully their is plenty of blame to go around on either side but blame solves nothing. Time to get to work on those principals that made this coutry strong.
Re: Connecticut - Murphy either has amnesia, he's lying or it's some kind of spin from an alternative universe. His campaign was about issues? Really. And then in this interview he calls Linda McMahon "sordid." The same thread was present throughout the campaign, the campaign's comments. And then there were the outriight lies - that McMahon was not pro-choice; that she wanted to scrap social security and medicare. Meanwhile, Murphy never said what he would do to save social security except to tax the middle class more by raising the cap. He claimed to have created jobs when he created no job; and lied about medicare by claiming McMahon was going to scrap medicare for the geezers on it already which is patently false.
Oh, and by the way, the reason why keeping the deductability of state taxes is important for Connecticut is because our state taxes are confiscatory - know why? Two words: Chris Murphy and Democrats. oops...4 words.
Linda McMahon tried to buy a seat in the Senate. She failed -- for the second time.
Invisible....based on your shotgun pattern attempt at witty comments I don't think it is your Hand that is Invisible...more likely it is your BRAIN. Put some MEAT ON THE BONE.....
Wrongsize must have voted for McMahon.
What I'd like to know is why didn't NBC cover the question to Nancy Pelosi about "wasn't she too old
to be minority whip of the US House. This question was asked by an NBC reporter but not covered in
your write-up. I heard that Pelosi creamed his ears - let's discover what this was all about and if
you would ask the same question of a male? Shame