Savor it :)

It's a start, GOP, but it's not enough. You're going to have to raise taxes, too.

Always troubled me that a pledge was made with someone other than the citizens in their districts.

That silly pledge reminds me of King Canute and holding back the tides. The pledge should have been aimed toward the good of all Americans, not just the affluent (a.k.a. the filthy rich).

GOP - better wise up - if GOP wants to win in 4 years....

.

Instead of kicking the can down the road...it's time to kick Grover Norquist down into the Rubbish Can of History

It's just more weaseling rhetoric from the GOP in an attempt to sound 'reasonable'. They found out their 'no No NO!' position isn't as popular as they thought, so closing 'loopholes' for the middle class would be a good place to start.

Hold their feet to the fire Dems, bring back the Eisenhower tax rates from the good ol' 50s, that seems to be where they want the country to go. Oh wait, they just want to return to the 'social' part of the 50s; segregation, gays in the closet, back-alley abortions, bible-thumping to stop the 'commies', and all those 'others' are kept out of sight of 'good' citizens...

We also need to stop spending on pork and useless projects.

Now Obama has his second term...it's time to be more inclusive to have the GOP on-board on some of the important agenda items...to build a great presidential legacy.

.

Now GOP should cooperate with the President and build on something big to have electoral success in the future - We all benefit from a competitive two-party system...it's time to have new leadership inside the GOP...moderates with common sense...not Mitch McChicken

lulu - Please give examples of "pork" and "useless projects."

Regardless of how conciliatory this sounds, make no mistake Grover Norquist is still creeping around the back room.

It’s abundantly clear that even with meaningless statements like this one the Republicans are positioning themselves for even more obstruction.

They didn’t get the message from the 2012 election so in 2014 they will become a party of the past and a new party will rise in its place. The new party better be more in sync with reality and work for real progress both social and economic otherwise the American people will show them the door too.

The days of all the breaks going to the top 1% are over; unfortunately for the country the Republicans just don’t get that yet.

I volunteer to drive that bus...

Sambodotcom: Just google it. There are literally dozens of websites listing hundreds of examples of our wasted money.

@sambo. Schools on military bases. I live near Andrews. Those kids go to the county schools. Bridges to nowhere. Studies of some frog, bug, etc. that should not be federally funded. House boys for generals. Or cooks or house cleaners. If they want them pay for them like the rest of us. Hover chairs for people who would benefit more from a diet and exercise. Google the rest. Too many to delineate.

Grover Norquist is the individual that poses the greatest threat to America today.

Oh, I know what my picks are - don't need to google that. I was just wanting you to tell me what YOUR picks are, not what google's are.

Not that it's what anyone wants to hear, but they'll raise a lot more revenue if the make taxes fairer. And fairer means that everyone pays their fair share and creating a sense that government is doing what it is supposed to do and not be a scheme for politicians to buy votes. The first step is to eliminate itemized and standard deductions. If you want to own a home, then buy one. In no way should you get a tax break (ie: force others to help you pay for the home) just because you are buying rather than renting. That will prevent a distortion of the marketplace. If you want to rent, then you can rent and won't be penalized. Same with all the other deductions. If you want to go to college, then you pay for it. If you want to give to charity, you pay for it. Same with the personal exemption. You are alive, so you have to live with it. It's better than the alternative, so you don't need a special tax break just because you are breathing. Same for being married or having kids. The older generation is just shaking their collective heads. They had to pay for their own kids and now they are paying for the younger kids' kids. If you want 12 children, fine, have them, but don't ask anyone else to help you pay for them without asking them personally. Why penalize someone who wants 3 kids or no kids? Same with the marriage status. Marriage should be something people want to do or not do regardless of tax implications. People shouldn't be penalized for their decisions just because someone else thinks being married is a good thing or a bad thing.

This would save a ton of money for everyone. It wouldn't take a PHD to figure out how to do your taxes. That takes care of one side of the fairness equation. The other side is to cut spending and getting back to what the federal government was intended to do. That obviously would be the harder sell as this is really where the politicians gain their power. Collect the money and give it to those who can be bribed to vote for you. But, it can be done and it has to be done or else the goose that lays the golden egg will lay no more eggs. And that will hurt the poor and middle class the most!

Agree with you generally. Although we take some of the above deductions, I fully realize that others basically take none of them. I also agree that somehow we raised children without all the various subsidies and that included sending them to college.

I agree that everything should be on the table but unfortunately we have the Tea Loonies in Congress not willing to compromise, their boss - the Koch cult that started the Tea hate party want their greedy tax cuts and Loopholes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any Congressman who signs a pledge to a millionaire lobbyist and holds to that pledge has violated their oath of office and the trust of the American people and their fealty to the United States Constitution. They are TRAITORS first and lastly COWARDS and should be treated accordingly. They literally used to tar and feather these bastards.

Arthur,

everyone already understands that. Or are you saying that if the called it "raising taxes" that Dems would have not gotten any votes? If the latter you are no better than Norquist who is looking out for his own self interests and not those of the country.

AG #1.12, Wasted money, I agree - For starters stop with all that Foreign aid, billions will be saved !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let all the "W" Tax cuts expire for the 1% and put a stop to their loopholes !!!!!!!!!!!

Get our trade policies in order to level our playing field, Americans first !!!!!!!!

Stronger rules and penalties on out sourcing American jobs !!!!!!!!!

This is just some thoughts of what America needs to get back to good health !!!!!!!!!!!

Except to further confuse/delay the issue (to the benefit of those with high income levels), what is the net effect on tax rates to upper income levels when deductions/loopholes are removed? If this is drooling clown admission that tax rates on upper levels of income need to increase then can we just be done with it already? Then maybe the country can get on and do the great things again. This tired fight is like watching a spoiled child scream and get their way while it ruins everyone's time in a nice restaurant. Maybe its time to take the snotty nose brat outside or leave it at home with a baby sitter.

Hey, Arthur66

The Democrat Party has NO new solutions other than raising your taxes and increasing spending.

I agree with you. We humans - including you - have no new ideas other than breathing air to stay alive everyday. I dare you try something different (from breathing).

Grover throws out a threat to the Republicans to fight them tooth and nail if they raise taxes. In other words Norquist black mailed duly elected Congressmen and Senators if they did not vote his way they would be without a job. Now we have had an election wherein the People spoke with the vote along with a shot across the bow.

Grover has lost his black mail leverage and now must run back to the cover of darkness and the shadows along with the Koch brothers and other 1percenters who tried to buy an election. I would lay odds that the mid-term election will show most Grover Norquist cronies the door if they do not do the bidding of the People instead of his bidding and the Koch brothers. The 1% Club has had its run and will now be running for cover since the People have taken their house back. Good luck Grover and let Red Rover come over to common sense for once. It could not have happened to a better creep.

Republicans will lie, posture, and develop illusions, but they will not collective agree to raise any taxes on themselves or their rich friends. They'll go with some sort of pseudo reduction in deductions and credits, which they will claim are revenue raisers, but really aren't, at least to any appreciable degree. The Democrats must hold firm, and allow the Bush tax cuts to die. After that, if the sons-ah-bitches want to get serious, let 'em present something serious for consideration. The Country is quite tired of living hand to mouth due to the bullsh^t, and greed of republicans and their ignorant minions. Voters have 2014 to look forward to.

The Repub-A-Con party resemble the likes of Russ Limbaugh !!!!!!!!!

Hey, Arthur66

The Democrat Party has NO new solutions other than raising your taxes and increasing spending.

I agree with you...I also want to add -

The Republican Party has NO new solutions other than cutting taxes for the rich. Actually this is not a solution...such tax cuts contributed to the Great Depression of 1929 and this Great Recession of 2008.

The Republican Party has NO new ideas other than calling every good problem-solving idea 'socialism'...this poverty of vacabulary has been a GOP symptom since the late 1800s all the way to today?

GOP has called the following ideas socialism -

income tax-1913

FED 1913

New Deal laws - collective bargaining, social security, banking regulation (Glass-Steagall 1933)

Medicare (Paul Ryan's vulture killed his chances?)

EPA (Nixon a Republican?)

Obamacare (even after giving insurance companies more customers?)

.

thousands of other good measures that have saved American capitalism - all called socialism by mostly Republicans who have had limited vocabulary...socialism is the only one they have command of).

pigotry... why is it you never make sense? Were you a test subject back in the 70's for the commercial "this is your brain on drugs"? Just sayin'

Hey Pigotry, The GOP doesn't want to interrupt with the lavish life styles of their 1% buddies !!!

Bill why is it you never have anything to offer except worthless kindergarden level insults? Just sayin'

It is safe to say raising revenues is a drop in the bucket compared to the necessary spending cuts, so why are the politicians so insistent, along with many others who pay minimal federal taxes, with raising funds before electing to cut spending. What a joke. Cut first, then raise funds...if necessary.

All the financially well-off businessmen in the GOP may be fighting tax hikes for the rich, but I imagine all the good ol' blue collar boys who voted GOP/TP are secretly hoping taxes will be raised on wealthy Americans. They just can't say it out loud though because that might make President Obama look like he's got some good ideas and they couldn't let that happen!

Government help to the poor is very small percentage of the budget..very very small...

....actually one bailout of AIG 2008 is equal to all the government help to the poor for 15 years from 1990-2005, according to a Nobel prize winning economist.

.

and ... When the poor are helped...they use the money to boost demand (either college training, or buying groceries, other goods and services); many became poor not for the fault of their own, but caused by recession started by the bankers.

but.....when the bankers got bailed out, they used the money to boost their own bonuses which they didn't need and didn't spend to boost the economy, instead they moved such wealth off-shore to Cayman or Bermuda Islands or their Swiss accounts, to avoid taxes...so much about the trikle-down economics.

Obama's approach has always been favored by more Americans - in poll after poll...it's a balanced approach - common.sense approach - raising revenues and cutting services.

.

In the November Presidential Election, American voters against sent the same message...so what's so hard for some conservatives to comprehend this mandate.

.

Paul Ryan wants to make Medicare into a voucher system...guess what happened to his VP campaign???? Medicare is very well-run, efficient. Corporations have to make profits, adding more cost to such programs...not good....but corporations hate the fact that they are not as efficient in reality....the common sense approach is that corporations are good in many other things...a balanced approach is that both government and the market should work together instead of one trying to beat down the other.

First of all, the Fed has not "prospered." The Fed has been cut to the bone--with the single exception of the military-industrial complex! The so-called "financial cliff" is a Koch-created figment to keep Americans feeling insecure; it's a gradual process and doesn't call for cuts to the military AT ALL--just a decrease in the increases. If the GOP had merely allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire, we wouldn't be in this mess; that's why the cuts had a sunset provision. They are unsustainable.

All of us need to understand that when we go to war, we must all make sacrifices. The military-industrial complex (brought to new extremes by Cheney with his Halliburton corporation) wants us to forget we're at war, exactly as Bush encouraged us all to just "keep shopping." But we are currently still engaged in the longest war in our history, and we had two wars that were completely unfunded during Bush's entire tenure.

Our tax rates are the lowest of any 1st world country. And the ones getting hit the most are in the vanishing middle class--the wealthy haven't carried their weight in years.

The electorate understood our president's agenda to raise taxes on those with incomes over $250,000 (sigh* I'm among those) and voted him a second term by 332 (and counting) to 206--quite a landslide, no matter what McCain & Graham say!

It's time for us to make the sacrifice these wars have forced us to--and Ben Bernanke, Fed Chair, should bypass Congress altogether to put forth a massive stimulus with two objectives:

1) to rebuild infrastructure, which is crumbling and cannot withstand climate change, and

2) to invest in a smart electrical grid that can save & transmit clean tech renewables like solar & wind, and build it not on wires on wooden poles, but in concrete towers as in Europe--also to withstand the catastrophes of climate change, such as we saw in Sandy.

Bernanke can provide the funds without any input from Congress at all.

Then in 2014, all the obstructionists must go.

Sorry, I missed the time cut-off for my edit. Unlike the Fed, the private sector has been profiting all this while.

See:

Corporate Profits Just Hit An All-Time High, Wages Just Hit An All-Time Low

Read more: businessinsider.com

See also:

Robber Barons Revisited: Wages and Profits as a Share of GDP
Posted on June 27, 2012

Turns out the private sector is “doing fine” — its just not ending up in the pockets of private sector workers. Corporate profits are near an all-time high as a share of gross domestic product (so much for the regulation monster, as Dean Baker points out). And the share of the economy going to wages and salaries is near an all-time low. I’ve adjusted the axes so that the lines run alongside each other: wages (in blue) are keyed to the left axis; profits (in green) to the right axis. Use the year slider to view the change over any period–since 1970 is most instructive.

The whole article can be found at: telltalecharts.org.

The jobs to be created by rebuilding infrastructure and a protected, smart electrical grid are "outsource-proof" and excellent paying jobs that would bring most everybody back into the circle of taxpayers ordinaire.

And all the bogus brouhaha about fiscal cliffs and overspending--completely a red herring--would fade.

The only real concern is that if we foolishly engage in austerity as Europe has, we will fall back into a recession so deep it will take years to recover--which is, of course, just what Big Business wants: everybody scared and hungry enough to take any pittance for a dull job without dignity or benefits.

Wake up--in 2014, we must rid ourselves of congressional members who made a pledge to a private citizen in dereliction of their primary duty under the Constitution: "to raise taxes during time of war... and for the general welfare." That is treason.

witchhunter...(or witchrunner)

that's exactly my point ... these measures (listed in #1.30) have had an restraining effect on a run-away capitalism and saved capitalism from itself (its destructive self)...but - sadly - you are one more proof of my point (in my post of #1.30). You want market tyranny.

I'll take a whack at some government waste that's been baked into the budget:

I work at a facility not too different from hundreds, perhaps thousands of other sites. We have an annual budget, let's be simplistic and call it $50 million. During the course of the year, they only spend $47 million. If there was any rational thought, the surplus $3M would be returned to the Treasury. (to be fair, I understand that this is a problem in the private sector, too...still) Instead, the facility went on a $3M spending spree in September, buying monitors that didn't need replacing, "executive" furniture to replace last year's executive furniture, etc. They do this, because in the logic of bureaucracies everywhere, if you didn't spend this year's money, next years budget is reduced (regardless of the "why" not all money was spent).

Just imagine how much money could be saved each year if excess money was returned to the Treasury without "penalty".

Another example of waste is in the Air Force particularly, you will find a near war-time surge in training operations in September of every year. Why? Because if they don't consume all of the gas they buy each year, they buy that much less gas next year. Seriously. All taxpayers should be appalled at the burning of millions upon millions of gallons of gas every September, just to ensure that NEXT year, they'll have budgeted enough money to once again waste millions upon millions of gallons of gas.

And since all this money is just part of the budgeted money, it ain't even considered part of the "pork" or waste in our spending.

witchrunner.. Wrote...It's been well established that they kept the country in the Great Depression for years longer.....

Please Put Up or Shut Up....Well established by who? Wiki says the economy reached bottom in the winter of 1932–33; ( March 4th1933 was when Roosevelt took office) then came four years of very rapid growth until 1937......

http://iws.collin.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/20th%20Century/DepressionNewDeal.html

Maybe you are trying to confuse the Natural Disaster of the "Dust Bowl" with the Great Depression?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl....Or are you just "Blowing Smoke"?

Either way the "New Deal" Brought America 40 years of the most Prosperous Economic Bloom in World History!

Only since Ronnie Raygun and 1980's have the Wall Street Banksters gotten away with bribing and corrupting their way out of our "New Deal Laws". BTW which most are still in effect only the NWO Government refuses to "Fund" Prosecutions or Investigations into Wall Street and Corporate Monopolies & Crimes Against America!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics...Then Ask Yourself Did This Trickle Down Economy really Happen? If so then "What did they Trickle Down Upon US with?

Seems we "Allowed" Wall Street to Change A Prefectly Working System and now after 30 Year's of Trickle Down Failure all they want to do is "Re-Write" History instead of returning to what WORKS!

So witchrunner I've provided supporting links proving the "New Deal Laws" Saved America so how about you provide something to support your New Deal delayed "Something" and the rest of your "Nonsense" about FDR?

"THEY (WHO) SEEK TO ESTABLISH SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT BASED ON THE REGIMENTATION OF ALL HUMAN BEINGS BY A HANDFUL OF INDIVIDUAL RULERS...CALL THIS A NEW ORDER. IT IS NOT NEW AND IT IS NOT ORDER."~Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial

I say we go back to taxes when President Clinton was in office, also get rid of the loopholes for the rich, and cut spending. Why not do all 3? Budget would be balanced and we could pay off the national debt in no time. No more borrowing from China and we could change the tariff laws so that trade is even. This will bring back jobs from overseas. Companies should be required to hire 1 American for every under aged sweat shop employee they would hire in China.

P.S. To help the economy we could also vote out the Republicans in 2014 and take control of the House. No more grid lock by the GOP. That alone would help the economy, because they sure as hell don't care about people suffering while they block everything that would have helped. Also Hillary Clinton 2016. Last thing we need is a Republican President to screw up all the progress and take us backwards to that stupid trickle down theory they have.

pigotry: I guess you are a perfect example of why I don't understand libs. Putting 18,000 + people out of work is a good thing to prevent runaway capitalism? Keeping the country in a depression is a good thing? Making 3.5 working people pay for the benefits 1 recipient of social security is a good thing? And that is saving capitalism from itself? Just one question, without a vibrant capitalist system, where do the socialists get their money to spend?

There are so many problems with our tax system that it needs to be reconsidered from every angle and evey level. The simple groundwork should be settled first based on relative necessity to each individual in terms of their income. A simple percentage of income across the board (i.e. everyone pays 28%) is simply not reasonable. As Warren Buffet pointed out....35% of his income isn't a sacrifice to him, but its a massive sacrifice to most people. We should all be sacrificing equally...not just paying an equal tax.

Also, deductions that obviously help only one segment of the population need to be eliminated. I am thinking specifically of churches. We need to eliminate the idea that religious organizations are free from taxation. Saying that you're taking your belief in fairy tales to the next level and opening a church somehow makes your organization exempt from taxation is Medieval and childish.

Cutting our bloated military is a necessity as well. I am all for the idea that we need a veto power in the hands of the Pentagon when it comes to being forced to spend on programs they say they don't need, For instance, more M1A1 tanks. The Pentagon says they don't need or want anymore but certain congressman whose states have a vested interest keep making more.

witchrunner

pigotry: I guess you are a perfect example of why I don't understand libs. Putting 18,000 + people out of work is a good thing to prevent runaway capitalism? Keeping the country in a depression is a good thing? Making 3.5 working people pay for the benefits 1 recipient of social security is a good thing? And that is saving capitalism from itself? Just one question, without a vibrant capitalist system, where do the socialists get their money to spend?

Witchrunner - You seem to have your facts in a bunch. Bush was losing jobs at a steady rate ever since he took office all the way up until and a little after Obama took control. Then during Obama's time in office, it has been a stead increase in jobs. He finally is getting it back down again. Not sure where you got that Obama lost all those jobs. If you want to blame someone for stopping the economy and preventing jobs, blame the House that has blocked every jobs bill that Obama has put forth. They have held the economy hostage just to try and make Obama a one term President and they are still doing it. They are willing to go over the fiscal cliff just to prevent Rich people from taking a tax hike. They don't care that the middle class or poor get taxed more in the process, just so the Rich don't. Don't you see how stupid that way of thinking is?????? To answer your last question, President Obama is not trying to stop capitalism, he is trying to save the middle class. Nobody has a problem with capitalism, but they do have a problem with Unfair tax rates for the rich. The Rich are getting welfare from the government in the form of lower tax rates while making the poor and middle class pay for it. All the while complaining about the middle and lower class getting government welfare. To quote President Clinton, "Gotta have some brass to accuse someone else for doing the same thing you are."

I always thought that Norquist should have been prosecuted for RICO violations. Conspiring against the duly elected government! He literally caused elected officials to swear to violate their oaths of office!

Wants to know, I could not agree more. Where does Norquist get his funding to pay the light bill? Does he work? Who supports this nut job black mailer?

Reducing the size of the Federal Government, which has increase 15% under Obama, would go a long way to increasing revenue!

Oh, we can go a lot further than that! Under George W. Bush, the size of government increased more than it has in 70 years! An 87% increase! Don't believe me? How about John McCain during the debates leading up to the 2008 election: “We have now presided over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society.”

We should start by dismantling most of the BS that George W. Bush put in place, including useless and ineffective Homeland Security, Medicare part D, and the Medicare Advantage program. A large part of that 15% increase under Obama that you mentioned comes from legislation signed into law by Bush that Republicans have fought tooth and nail to keep from being modified or rescinded.

Term limits for Congress !

If you've watched them over time, you might recall times when the general population did NOT get raises, while those in Congress, gave themselves pay raises and assorted perks.

Why do we get involved with every problem in the world? It's our troops that endup bearing the injuries and deaths in countries that don't want us and don't like us.

We've runup deficits without plans and efforts to contain such runups.

People complain that technology has caused job losses. Well, if we didn't utilize that technology, then other countries would do so, and we wouldn't benifit at all.

Technology advancements usually result in CHANGE. If we don't see this and adjust the change we will be left behind.

Why do we get involved as deeply as we do in military activities where those people despise us?

Why do we allow our government to runup deficits with no plan to pay for whatever they want?

A few posts in this thread on the subject I was going to bring forward:

Just exactly who is Norquist to run the Republican party's financial agenda? WHY does the Republican party bend to Norquist's influence and sign 'his" pledge? What is his power over them?......................Is this a financial threat a la Koch Bros and other financiers??? What is the REAL story behind the Norquist agenda????

Why is Norquist so powerful and his pledge have so much more importance than their pledge to represent ALL Americans................. that does include the poor, the blacks, the Latinos, the unemployed, welfare mothers, women who want abortions and the disappearing middle class BTW.

HE'S BAAAAAACK! (Tanned, rested and ready)

The GOP says it's ok to put 'revenue increases' on the table now. Revenue? OHHHH you mean TAX INCREASES. C'mon boys, you can say it, just three little syllables TAX IN-CREASES...see, that wasn't hard was it?

Lots of moaning and groaning and gnashing of teeth on MEET THE PRESS over the weekend about the current Congress and it's seeming inability to COMPROMISE. Another three syllables the GOP has trouble with. The great big giant brains on the panel kept asking "Why can't they compromise?"

Well DUH!

A table full of certified smart people. Authors of books written about past presidents and they can't figure it out?

HATE RADIO you idjits. FOX NEWS and Rush Limbaugh! Geez, where did you get all those degrees out of a Cracker Jacks box?

The American electorate is so deeply polarized because of Rush Limbaugh (and his imitators) and FOX NEWS and yes MSNBC as well although to a much lesser degree (just look at their ratings compared to FOX and Limbaugh).

Until we do something about these paid propagandists posing as news and entertainment we will NEVER be able to address the pressing problems facing this nation.

RESTORE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE IN BROADCASTING and say buh-bye FOX and Limbaugh (and..sadly, MSNBC)

• Well Lindsey Graham -- be ready to kiss Rush (the junkie) Limbaugh's gigantic ass.

Hey, Pride and Joy

Reducing the size of the Federal Government, which has increase 15% under Obama, would go a long way to increasing revenue! This is a common strategy in business... I guess it is a concept very foreign to someone like Obama.... eh?

All indicators have showed that government has expanded the least under Obama (especially compared to W. Bush's war government) ... actually government shrank in absolute dollar terms under Obama's 1st term ... that's one of the reasons why the recession lingers on..because GOP attack on good government (McConnell said the GOP would do anything to make Obama a one-termer). So when GOP was in the White House, it's OK to expand the government to invade other countries, but it's not ok for Democrats to use effective government to do aomething good (to deal with the Bush-induced recession, for example)?

.

the right wing hypocrisy.

Dee Turner,

I am VERY GLAD you are not in our government with your lack of knowledge of economics...

Your long winded and very poor understanding of economics and saying the fed should flood AMERICA with a FIAT currency is completely moronic...

Ever heard of inflation... or better yet HYPER-INFLATION. Gas has doubled its price in FOUR YEARS. That is what you get when hyper inflation kicks in...and flood the market with useless fiat currency backed by NOTHING but debt.

You know nothing of economics when you think the federal reserve bank (which has ZERO to do with our government except we rig the books for loans out of THIN AIR with them) should be giving out BUTTLOADS OF MONEY.

What?... there is not enough of other peoples money for you yet???

People like you stay in debt and broke...call Obama and tell him to write you a check out of HIS PERSONAL WALLET since you voted for him.

witchrunner..you have some good ideas..you miss however that members of congress, both houses are mostly millionaires to one degree or the other..and to think they will do anything that will effect them is just silly. So far..most all rues they set do not effect themselves....such as conflict of interest on any committee they happen to get themselves placed on and have stock or ownership of one kind or the other..or friends of one kind or the other who benefit...just like with most of the posk mess they pass on to the tax payers..many of those in congress benefit from them...as has been printed on the web a nukber of times. JUsdt because these folks in congress are politicans does not by any means make them all honest.

These two faced republican pigs ( insert the B word instead). They hold out for years saying Obama will be a one term president and America is held hostage by them. Now, all of a sudden they begin to change their stance. Could they actually care about America and Americans after all? Oh, yes! For years it has just been the rich and business community that they cared about, but since their money could't buy them the election after all they suddenly have a change of heart. Norquist should be strung up!

brenda: How's that saving the middle class working for you? As usual, the problem with libs is that they buy into "stated intentions" of lib politicians and ignore results. The New Deal. The Great Society. The War on Poverty. All were miserable failures. But, libs like them because their "intentions" were noble. Oh, and they also seem to feel the need to falsify facts to justify themselves. The fact is that employment grew under Bush until 2008. The fact is that the "Bush Tax Cuts" saved the economy after 9/11. The fact is that Bush warned of the impending housing crisis shortly after he took office and the House passed a bill to deal with it, but it was filibustered in the Senate by dems.

Another problem with libs is a total failure of understanding of economics. This concept of saving the "middle class" is another myth created by dems to divert attention from the failures of Obama's policies. Just look at the jobs that Obama and the dems have been touting. Wages are down because the bulk of the jobs created in the last 4 years have been the dreaded hamburger flipper jobs.

The fact is that there hasn't been one policy of Obama or the dems designed to actually increase private sector employment. TARP, although signed by Bush, was in fact a dem bill. All the repubs voted against it. Turns out they were right. The "Stimulus" bill was a dem bill opposed by all repubs. Remember all those "shovel ready" jobs that were going to be created? After spending almost a trillion dollars, Obama shows up on camera and chuckles about those jobs not being so shovel ready after all. The waste, fraud and pork of the entire program is well documented. The results are even more amazing when you consider that the amount spent to stimulate the economy, which is more than the annual budget for the Department of Defense, would ordinarily be expected to produce about as many jobs as exist in the Department of Defense. But, it obviously didn't happen because if it did, then unemployment would have gone down below 5%.

The rich are getting welfare in the form of lower taxes? That about sums up the difference between libs and conservs. Libs look at all money as belonging to the government. Conservs look at the money someone earns as belonging to them. Besides that, the dem solution of just tax the rich is absurd to the extreme. What would doing that solve? Actually, nothing! You can double everyone's taxes and it would still barely make a dent in the budget. The fact is that the budget is out of control.

You say you want to save the middle class and that this is what Obama wants to do. Then, please tell me how raising taxes on the employers of this country will save the middle class. Do you really think that by making sure employers have less money to spend that they will hire more employees or pay them more? That is, after all, the argument that libs are making.

Wants to know #1.49~~I am not sure that Norquist has committed a crime, But I do know all of those elected officials who signed that pledge, did violate their oath of office, which is a crime. They are adults and were not forced to sign. It was their choice to sign and now they are backed into a corner, with another choice to make, either being brought down by their constituents, or being brought down by Grover. If they are brought down by their constituents, then America, could return to progress and prosperity for all

Intellect-1949393 #1.50~~He steals his wealth from the taxpayers, just as does, big corporations "job creators" big CEO's, "job creators", big banks, "job creators", Wall Street, "job creators, AIG, "job creators" Mitt Romney, "job creator", off shore banks, "job creators", the very wealthy, "job creators" as they say,"no poor person ever created a job" so their main goal is to keep us all poor, with just enough to support their corporate welfare.

GreatGran, I knew he was getting funds from someone or something like Koch Brothers, et al. Grover is nothing more than a hypocrite and only idiots would fall for his black mail. Seems like there are a lot of idiots in Congress and Senate for the last 20 years. IMHO.

The republican party is not serving the American voters. They are serving Grover Norquist. After voters cast their vote, the republican party is finished with them, DONE till the next election. We already have elected criminals, (3 dems) and 235 republican house members, 41 republican senators, 13 republican governors, 1,249 republican state legislators, who have illegally signed the Norquist pledge. Norquist has never been elected for anything. Republicans got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, (thanks to Rachel Maddow) and are now squirming like maggots, trying to get out. Tn Sen Bob Corker (R) was just re-elected to a second term, has signed the pledge, years ago, and has been all over TV, today lying about having signed Grover's pledge. Go figure! Republican voters, wake up, see the light, save America. Vote ALL of those Grover pledge signers out, of office.

republicans are so screwed up in the head.

I read these comments and it is easy to see why this nation is so hosed. it is all 10000% Republican mindset

in 1960 the top tax rates were 90% for the wealthiest. Unions were strong. Job security was abundant, we have pensions and healthcare. The USA was living robustly

Now we've reduces taxes to well below 35% for the wealthiest, corporation profits are at all time highs and wages for American workers are at all time lows>

the wages of CEO's are up 1000 +++ % over the last 4- 5 decades. Many of these CEO's cut pensions, cut wages, off shored jobs to appease stock holders. In return they starved America of the very economic engine it needed to maintain capitalism

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

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

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

the very infrastructure by which all wealth is built upon and maintained.. Tax breaks to the uber wealthy starve this nations ability to function as a capitalistic country...
We are well on our way to being a plutocracy ruled by oligarchs

money up top needs ot be pushed low and recirculate thorough the entire economy so it can create more tax revenue so we can pay our bills and our obligations to the working classes

witchrunner

brenda: How's that saving the middle class working for you?

It's working great. President Obama is still President and won the popular vote as well as the electoral. We kept the Senate and won more seats in the House. In 2014 we will own the House and Behnor will be a forgotten dream. Yes, I would say I am well pleased. Sorry you lost, hows that working for ya?

You can take everything the rich own and it will not take care of this:

Government's mountain of debt

(2011 numbers)

Medicare: $24.8 trillion - Obligation per household: $212,500

Social Security: $21.4 trillion - Obligation per household: $183,400

Federal debt: $9.4 trillion - Obligation per household: $79,900

Military retirement/disability benefits: $3.6 trillion - Obligation per household: $31,200

Federal employee retirement benefits: $2 trillion - Obligation per household: $17,000

State, local government obligations: $5.2 trillion - Obligation per household: $44,800

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-06-06-us-debt-chart-medicare-social-security_n.htm

There must be significant spending cuts. Problem is, no one is willing to give up their benefits. Everyone wants the other guy to sacrifice.

MUW...and here is another slant on the Great Depression by an economist:

"The grand myth that has been taught to whole generations is that the government is "forced" to intervene in the economy when there is a downturn that leaves millions of people suffering. The classic example is the Great Depression of the 1930s.

What most people are unaware of is that there was no Great Depression until AFTER politicians started intervening in the economy.

There was a stock market crash in October 1929 and unemployment shot up to 9 percent -- for one month. Then unemployment started drifting back down until it was 6.3 percent in June 1930, when the first major federal intervention took place.

That was the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill, which more than a thousand economists across the country pleaded with Congress and President Hoover not to enact. But then, as now, politicians decided that they had to "do something."

Within 6 months, unemployment hit double digits. Then, as now, when "doing something" made things worse, many felt that the answer was to do something more.

Both President Hoover and President Roosevelt did more -- and more, and more. Unemployment remained in double digits for the entire remainder of the decade. Indeed, unemployment topped 20 percent and remained there for 35 months, stretching from the Hoover administration into the Roosevelt administration.

That is how the government was "forced" to intervene during the Great Depression. Intervention in the economy is like eating potato chips: You can't stop with just one.

What about the track record of doing nothing? For more than the first century and a half of this nation, that was essentially what the federal government did -- nothing. None of the downturns in all that time ever lasted as long as the Great Depression.

An economic downturn in 1920-21 sent unemployment up to 12 percent. President Warren Harding did nothing, except for cutting government spending. The economy quickly rebounded on its own."

(Back to the Future: Part II - by Thomas Sowell - 9/13/2011)

hs321, you stated the following:

"You can take everything the rich own and it will not take care of this:" What you left out was the DOD annual budget that does cause other budget needs to increase. The following is what it costs per household per year in perpetuity. I will not begin to approach the attributes of the DOD or wars to the natonal budget.

Government's mountain of debt." No where in your post do I see the mountain of debt for the DOD spending per household. Here is the 2010 DOD budget, $671B. With total households in 2010 at 117.538M (US Census Bureau) the amount per household per year to pay off the DOD budget is $56,478.76 per year. I would postulate the DOD budget needs to be cut significantly specifically since it does not create a domestic product or GNP. In reality the DOD budget increases our overall budget due to the need to take care of the wounded/maimed and increasing overall medical care for military dependents as well.

hs321, why did you leave out one of the largest portions of the nation's causes for creating the national deficit? The DOD portion is never paid down since it is a constant debt every year not to mention the wars such as the two Bush II committed this country to on our credit card. As can be deduced the DOD deficit is never paid off but continues to climb in a runaway fashion. One thing is for sure we must cut DOD spending to a manageable amount and increase as needed then back to a manageable amount. No more pork barrel spending for the Military Industrial Complex. It is destroying this country's future and its posterity.

more taxes by the rich ($250,000 and above annual income) - helping in the budget crisis...funding more programs to help those down in this recession (not the fault of their own), there is a flush of credit in the system - more workers hired..better economy...more people purchasing stuff-more demand in the economy...more money and profits going back into the pockets of the 1%..economy better...then better stock market...the rich with more stocks getting even more profits...

..

You have to be really dumb not to understand this.

Know what else increases revenue into the treasury? A stronger economy that is not being hampered every week with some new regulation and threat of attack on one industry or another. A POTUS that actually works more to let business work than he does to hamper business.

Absolutely no one on either side and especially from within the administration seems to give a DAMN about the economy. All they can talk about is where can we raise rates? (and reduce revenue over the long term) NO ONE is talking about any meaningful ideas and policy to promote and foster a growing economy.

... And no, i'm not talking about more "stimulus" or more QE. That's the last thing we need.

@sTexan Then you need to talk to the members in your party, whether it's the GOP or the Tea Party, or whatever you call yourselves. Those are the ones that have hampered and obstructed everything that's been proprosed to make the economy stronger. The American people have figured out that trickle down doesn't work, that it takes more than tax cuts and deregulation to create jobs.

The extreme right wing policies were rejected. Time to listen to the American people for a change, not someone who has never been elected to anything. That includes the people at Fox, Rush, Beck, et al.

@pig. Please understand that $250k does not make you rich in certain parts of the country.

Hey, lulu98

@pig. Please understand that $250k does not make you rich in certain parts of the country.

Oink...Well, the members of Congress certainly should know this...and raise taxes on those with income $250,000 and up (adjusted for regional differences).

.

Ever since 1981, the first year of Reagan presidency, US top marginal tax rate has not been above 40%. Remember 1945, it's above 90%, in the 1970s, it's around 70%.

.

More revenue, more investment in education and tech, more returns...better economy...better for the rich

@lulu: I assume you're talking about places like NYC with a very high cost of living. From what I've seen, people in those areas tend to have the most deductions as well. It sort of evens out. I think it's a reasonable place to draw the line. (Which means it will probably be drawn somewhere else anyway.) I notice that you're not complaining that people in low cost of living areas won't be paying enough taxes...

Not sure what you mean, BinNH. I live in Md. We already loose a lot of our deductions. Since I have retired, we no longer make over $250k. We are highly taxed in MD. We like NY,Conn and NJ. Loose out in deductions if you are just the normal person with a mortgage, property tax. Etc. I agree with Pigotry that some indexing needs to go on. $250k in Tennessee is NOT the same as in NYC.

There were less jobs created under the bush administration with these tax cuts than were created under President Bill Clinton's administration. 22 million plus under Clinton and only 2 million under Bush.

The only reason less jobs will be created is because everybody is telling companies not to hire so that the republican politicians can say,"see ,I told you so".

Companies in AMERICA have no pride in themselves. They would rather create jobs overseas so that they can avoid paying their fair share in taxes.And do not give me any crap about paying more. I am a self-employed person and I pay higher taxes than the top 1%.

you have to realize, we the AMERICAN electorate are suppose to run/elect people to run our great country. Not the Karl Rove's and the Koch brothers.AS you saw,they tried to buy the election and failed.We the people are suppose to be the ones who tell congress how to vote for us,not the 1%.

Jim, you're pretty good at regurgitating Leftist talking points: "Koch Brothers. Bush tax cuts. The 1%"

You can use your own brain. You can do it!!!

You need to remember that during Clinton 's administration there were many bubbles which increased hiring. Internet, housing, it was an unreal time that we still pay the consequences for. That is not a dig at Clinton. We were all rocking and rolling.

"Throw all the Koch paid Bums out" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey lulu98, like Reaganomics - "Right" !!!

@STexan You say that like all government spending is a very bad thing and produces nothing of worth. Yet it's your own party that fights to keep defense spending higher than all other industrialized nations spending combined. Why? Because of large corporations like Halliburton, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and a huge list of others that depend upon defense contracts for their bottom lines.Please DON'T tell me it's all for our national security!

What about the billions of dollars given in subsidies for oil and gas companies? Something else your party has fought any attempts to eliminate or even reduce.

That's only a couple of examples. Why is okay to spend money to shore up the profits for some of the most profitable corporations in our entire history, yet it's not okay to give seniors benefits that they've paid into for their entire working lives?

It really is time to start nation building at home. Our infrastructure is in need of repari. We have lots of unemployed who can not only do those repairs, but provide the supplies needed for said repairs. We can borrow money at a negative interest rate.

That's the kind of thing that creates jobs, not voting for bill after fill that only attempts to enact bans on abortion, limiting voting rights, gays, and any other kind of bat crap crazy social engineering the right wing comes up with. Small government? Please! Not until you stop trying to put the government squarely in my uterus and/or my bedroom.

The "job creators" have had 4 extra years of tax cuts and aren't creating squat.

The Tea Loonies destroyed the GOP, they are no longer a viable national party. Personally I think the Republican party is finish !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To save the GOP the Republican regulars distance themselves from the loonies !!!!!!!!!

STexas,Great comments and level headed thinking,something that our government sorely needs.

Then, refresh your memory on how many House bills are being held up in the Senate by Reid.

Oh, I have done so! Have you actually read any of those bills? A more odorous list of business welfare hasn't existed in the history of Congress. Write your Republican Congress-critters and tell them to start proposing more meaningful legislation, rather than just more self-serving lobbyist-written proposals.

Understand please the difference between Gross and Adjusted Income which are rarely mentioned in the discussion(s) on raising taxes. IRS tax rates are based on Adjusted Income and a couple that make $250,000 in Gross Income may well come well below that number for adjusted income if a home mortgage deduction and child care expenses are available. Similarly, a "small business" that has a Gross Income of even $1 Million dollars would also likely have an Adjusted Income below $250,000 after expenses, uncounted numbers of complex business deductions and deductions for other federal, state and international taxes and their payment for mandated employee benefits .....................Thus, the discussion to limit deductions and which deduction on the "rich" becomes complex to determining just who will actually be hit the most by new tax rates if they are returned back to those rates seen in Republican's saint Ronald's reign when he "saved the economy"................and raised taxes BTW.

Pigotry

more taxes by the rich ($250,000 and above annual income) - helping in the budget crisis...funding more programs to help those down in this recession (not the fault of their own), there is a flush of credit in the system - more workers hired..better economy...more people purchasing stuff-more demand in the economy...more money and profits going back into the pockets of the 1%..economy better...then better stock market...the rich with more stocks getting even more profits...

..

You have to be really dumb not to understand this.

You have to be dumb to think inflation and hyper-inflation do not exist...gas has doubled in four years LOL ...got it?

Then you could tax every American making 250k, or more, 75% of their income, and NOT EVEN DENT THE DEFICIT. That is how foolish your statements are....

Your thoughts on simple economics are really bad.... you do NOT have a clue about anything concerning politics and economics... that is a FACT and not some partisan spin of total crap life you post.

Oh notice what I put in BOLD in your post... YOU WANT MORE DEBT FOR AMERICANS... SCREW YOU, you could NOT pay it back.

lulu98

@pig. Please understand that $250k does not make you rich in certain parts of the country.

You've got to be fu@*ing kidding me. It may not make you rich, but it certainly makes you wealthy and it most definitely puts you in the single digit % income bracket. Do you actually believe the $hi+ you write?

Yeah, I really feel bad for those making +$250,000 a year.

Just about anybody I know would walk across flaming coals and wipe the char off with broken glass to have the same problems as a person making a measly +$250,000 annually.

This right here folks is what's wrong with our socioeconomic society today. Look how out of touch we have become. There is no sense of anything at all between the wealthy elite and the people at the bottom.

"scuse me sir...... may I have a splash of GFY with that trickle down $hit slurpee?" "Mighty nice a you sir."

S. Texan...you might find this interesting:

Back to the Future: Part III - by Thomas Sowell

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/09/15/back_to_the_future_part_iii

(Excerpt: Ninety years ago -- in 1921 -- federal income tax policies reached an absurdity that many people today seem to want to repeat. Those who believe in high taxes on "the rich" got their way. The tax rate on people in the top income bracket was 73 percent in 1921. On the other hand, the rich also got their way: They didn't actually pay those taxes.)

WTF Over-1040784, if you are trying to say that "trickle down economics" won't be able to function it hasn't and will not function. It has proved that this voodoo theory has been a total failure since Reagan and Gingrich put this into action. With that in mind the 1% Club should refund America the corporate welfare they received since they have failed to meet or even try to make "trickle down economics" work as Reagan and Gingrich advocated for this tax break. In reality it is a refund due the people because the corporate welfare break has been a failure since its inception.

You are not fooling anyone with your rhetoric on the uber wealthy moving out of this country. Let them go as we will probably be better off economically without these losers who do not create new jobs from their welfare checks that have come due as a refund to the people of this country.

I'm glad you put "entitlement" in quotes. Those are earned benefits, as in I paid into them for decades and are in fact - entitled to them. They are not give-aways, pork, or a "free" anything. They were bought and paid for long ago... something the GOP and Tea Pinheads conveniently forget and don't want discussed.

If they put money into an account and after 40 or more years a political party was telling the world that they were not entitled to use those funds because they were a "handout" or a "freebee" there would be second ammendment remedy hell to pay!

Besides, the politicians have it rigged for their COLA to go up every year. 1 thing they need to do is start putting money back in the lock box like they were starting to do under president Bill Clinton.

We paid into the system and they too it out.PUT IT BACK. Besides the top 1% should not have a cap on the amount of social security taxes they pay.In fact there should be no cap at all.

WE PAID INTO IT AND THERE SHOULD BE NO CUTS AT ALL.

LET CONGRESS CUT THEIR BENEFITS. THEY DO NOT SHARE THE BURDENS LIKE WE DO.

WE PAY FOR THEIR INSURANCE,WHICH THEY ,THE REPUBLICANS, WANT TO DENY US. WE PAY FOR THEIR CARS,HOUSES AND OTHER PERKS. THEY SAY THEY PAY FOR IT,BUT THEY DO SO BECAUSE WE PAY THEIR WAGES. THEY GIVE THEMSELVES PAY RAISES AND DENY US,THE PEOPLE,RAISES IN THE MINIMUM WAGE. THAT IS BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE LIKE THE KOCH BROTHERS WHO WANT TO DO AWAY WITH THE MINIMUM WAGE.

The WALTON family also would like to do away with the minimum wage.They will spend millions to defeat minimum wage increases so that they can line their fat pockets with profits from CHINESE SLAVE WAGES.

I hope the DEMOCRATS wake up and start to protect the REAL AMERICAN WAGE EARNER.

You're free to pay more in taxes. There is a column in the tax return for that.

"Programs" are what illegal immigrants receive when they haven't paid into the system but enjoy the benefits of the American taxpayers.

"Entitlements" are insurance for Americans that have worked and earned some support when the time comes that they are needed.

Know the difference.

Did you know the Koch boys started the Teabag movement, now why would they do something like that ?????

The changes needed to the "entitlement" programs...

"entitlement" belongs in quotes. Americans paid into them for decades and are in fact - entitled to them. Do you realize that the $16T debt includes $6T that is owed to the Medicare and SS trust funds? For far too long (since the days of Republican hero, Ronald Reagan, as a matter of fact!) our government has treated these monies as additional tax revenue. That $6T that the government owes to these trust funds would fund Medicare and SS far into the future. Time to start paying down the national debt with BOTH spending cuts and tax increases!

Warren Buffett is right: Raising taxes on the highest earning Americans back to levels that will still be historically low is a smart place to start.

http://www.businessinsider.com/buffetts-tax-plan-smart-fair-and-reasonable-2012-11

Joe Scarborough: It Is 'Immoral' For Richest Americans To Pay 15% Tax Rate (VIDEO)

In a move that will surely rankle his fellow Republicans, Joe Scarborough criticized the GOP's tax policies and argued that wealthy Americans should pay more taxes on Monday's "Morning Joe."

The panel was discussing tax reform and Steve Rattner's New York Times editorial, which suggested that President Obama should raise the tax rate on capital gains to 28%. Scarborough jumped in, arguing that the richest Americans can and should pay higher taxes.

"You see again this huge divide between the richest Americans and the poorest Americans... and you sit there going, you know what, these people that live in these mansions and have private jets and live an extraordinary life like few Americans live — they can probably deal with a 20 percent tax rate on capital gains instead of 15 percent," the MSNBC host said.

Scarborough further criticized, "Why are we fighting and risking our majorities protecting billionaires that are hedge fund guys who are paying 14 percent tax rates?"

He continued, "There's something immoral about these people paying fourteen, fifteen, sixteen percent of their taxes because the tax rates are the way they are while small business owners who make $250,000 a year in Manhattan and may employ four people are paying a 35% tax rate."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/joe-scarborough-tax-rates_n_2191232.html

I think there are unintended consequences about a lot of AHCA that will be washing out. I think federal and other public pensions need addressing. In some communities, current employees and services are being cut to fund pensions, etc. Medicare was paid into and needs to be funded. If that means raising the ceiling, so be it. That will affect us. I love Big Bird but we need not be borrowing money to fund it. Those who want it, get out your check books like we do. Most people on Medicaid are in nursing homes having run out whatever money they have. I know because my aunt spent $300k of her money on her care before she needed Medicaid.

Actually, that was the Republican definition of compromise in the president's first term. Not much for recent history are you?

I love Big Bird but we need not be borrowing money to fund it.

Small potatoes, I don't know why the right likes to harp on it. 0.014% of the budget. And it is undoubtedly one area where we see a payback. It's cheap early childhood education which pays off in spades with a better educated workforce years later. Rural areas benefit the most from public TV and that's where most of the government subsidies go, to rural stations. A PBS station in NY has no trouble raising its revenue from viewers. It's stations such as in Lake Charles, LA, where you get three channels: NBC, Fox, and PBS, that benefit the most from government subsidies.

WOW, TALK ABOUT A BUNCH OF CRAP. Business gets to write off more than you do.Provided you are a regular working JOE.

i am self employed.I pay more than the average person.I pay double to social security.I do not think it is a communist thing.That word is foe the phonies who want the free ride at the expense of the average wage earner. IE: KARL ROVE,THE KOCH BROTHERS BOB MURRAY.

Plus you have these phonies who are closing mines blaming OBAMA for regulations. Actually,it is the cost of natural gas going down in price.It is cheaper to use gas. Gas cost around 60-80% less than coal.SO,WHAT WOULD YOU USE? Besides,the OBAMA administration has spent millions on R&D for clean coal.

The companies with a crap load of money sitting in their treasuries and the record profits should hire more people.It is the corporate greed that is sinking our economy.

And YES, there are also some BUMS out there that are lazy.

@Pragmatic. May be small potatoes but don't you cut back on discretionary items to balance your budget? I stand by my comment not to borrow money for such spending. I write checks for this. Do you?

@Pragmatic. May be small potatoes but don't you cut back on discretionary items to balance your budget?

I generally don't bother with something that is 0.014% of my budget. It works out to about a dinner out per month. I'm more fiscally disciplined than to worry about such a small amount of money.

I stand by my comment not to borrow money for such spending.

Of all the things the government spends money on, this isn't the thing that breaks the bank. This is a distraction from the big items that suck the coffers dry and put us all into debt.

It all adds up. What you think is discretionary, someone else will swear the country will stop in its tracks if that program is not funded. We do not have the money.

The country will go on with Big Bird, Sesame Street funds itself 100%. My issue is that people bring it up as a means of focusing attention away from the large budget items and the difficult decisions that need to be made. 0.014% isn't going any substantial length to solve any problems and it isn't worthy of the attention it receives. I don't spend months and months agonizing over the approximately 40 cents/month that composes 0.014% of my budget. (I know I said it was about a dinner, I made a stupid mistake, oops.) There are much larger and more difficult problems to solve and that is where attention should be focused.

blankballot: You're not thinking clearly and seem very bitter. That's a mindset that destroys its own vessel. You're not alone; many people are suffering.

Nevertheless, we still have two wars that weren't even in the budget until 2009, that began 8 years before--and we still have unsustainably low tax rates, especially for the rich. We have the lowest tax rates of any 1st world country, even as we try to impose our will on the world--we just cannot sustain both. We should sustain neither. 40% percent of our nation's economy is sitting in offshore accounts to evade taxes. Big Business intends to choke small business to death, withholding now $5 trillions they refuse to invest in new hires as they take enormous subsidies and fail to pay their share in taxes--just as the rich are doing in the middle class. Why should we give Exxon millions in tax "refunds" when their profits are $41 million per quarter?? The Fortune 500 don't pay taxes at all!

We simply cannot outspend the rest of the world for the military, and it makes no sense to police the world just to have everybody hate us for the effort.

Bush's tenure remains to be paid.

We need government to protect our soil, water,air, food supply, to provide aid in bad economic times, to regulate pharmaceuticals, to educate the next generations, to invest in renewable energy and new tech so we can be the best we can be, and to assist in natural disasters increasingly expensive due to climate change.

States are too small to do any of this without efficient economies of scale or leverage against corporations buying local politicians. We must not balkanize our nation.

As a small business, you suffer from this, too-- but it's Big Business you should blame. You cannot compete to offer products as cheaply. The failure of government lies in the SEC having allowed acquisitions and mergers over the last 50 years that encouraged monopolies it was their job to prevent.

I'm willing to pay more so our next generations won't have debt before birth but will have ensured educations to compete better in a global marketplace. I'm willing to pay more to help those who have less. I'm willing to pay for police, fire, more and better teachers, to preserve this American community. I want to help put folks back to work so they can pay taxes and share our responsibilities.

And when politicians and Big Business want to force us into more and endless wars--we must never forget this present pain. Ultimately, we did this to ourselves by failing to pay attention to what government was doing--by failing our obligation to be informed past 30-second TV spots and to vote during primaries, when who gets to run is decided. In fact, Congress looks very much like us right now. We need to come together and share the sacrifice so we can have tomorrows.

States are too small to do any of this without efficient economies of scale or leverage against corporations buying local politicians. We must not balkanize our nation.

California is the 8th largest ECONOMY in the world... come back to planet earth with your partisan rhetoric.

Once again you know nothing of economics yet spew your rhetoric like you do...

Most states in the USA are economically larger then MANY nations in the world. What planet are you from?

Lindsey Graham is the stump of the GOP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We had a budget surplus, but we still had a national debt. We haven't been free and clear for decades.

Both sides haven't done $h!t in 4 years and now, all of a sudden, we are gonna get our fiscal house in order in 35 Days?

Well the election is over. No need to make the president look bad so he doesn't get re-elected. Sure they could spoil his legacy, but that doesn't really help in the short term, which is all politicians are capable of thinking in.

Heaveto

I agree that the whole scheme of congressmen and women is up for scrutiny. I also doubt anyone in Congress (senator, representatives + all the benefits, etc...) also makes less than 250K a year. So are you surprised that none want to pay more in taxes?

However, please enlighten us with the facts it costs 80 billion a year?????

Heaveto: Yes, and the House spent $43 MILLIONS voting 33 times to "repeal" Obamacare in what they knew perfectly well was a wasted effort the Senate would never approve. $43 million is the amount it costs to run the House of Representatives for 80 hours.

See:

Health Care Law Repeal Efforts By House GOP Cost Nearly $50 Million: CBS Report

Posted: 07/11/2012 at huffingtonpost.com

We are no more impaired than a democrat with a checkbook.

Why? They are not Tax Cut and Spend Republicans. Check your spending numbers...it ain't the Democrats.

I remmeber 2006-2010. Especially 2008-2010. Check those numbers. Mucho spending with who at the helm of the house and Senate?

onermailliw: Please read the following excerpt.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

So in reality, 2006-2010 spending is on Bush.

You can read the rest of the article, titled,

Obama spending binge never happened

Rex Nutting

Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

at articles.marketwatch.com

The article includes a graph which shoes that spending increased at 8.1% under Bush, and only 1.4% under Obama.

Meanwhile, the Bush tax cuts have been draining Treasury of $250 BILLIONS every year--cuts only the wealthy have enjoyed--during wartime.

Keeping tax cuts for the wealthy could cost the U.S. big time.

Letting the Bush-era tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 expire on schedule at the end of 2012 would bring the government nearly $1 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years, according to a new report from theCongressional Budget Office. That’s $823 billion in added revenue and $127 billion in interest to be exact, for a total $950 billion in ten-year deficit reduction.

The House voted in favor of extending the cuts earlier this month, but Obama has vowed to veto the measure, and lawmakers are likely to address the dispute after the elections. For his part, President Obama has said he supports extending the cuts for the middle class, or those making less than $250,000, while returning to the rates seen under President Clinton for anyone making more.

And it's not just lawmakers arguing over the cuts, a variety of organizations have sparred over their efficacy as well. On the one hand, the tax cuts are the single greatest contributor to public debt, according to the non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. On the other, some argue that letting the cuts expire may hurt small businesses, as well as provide an incentive for the wealthiest Americans to focus on forms of income that are less taxable.

This is from an article titled
Bush-Era Tax Cuts Will Cost U.S. Nearly $1 Trillion Over Next Decade [GRAPHIC]

The Huffington Post | By Harry Bradford Posted: 08/25/2012

at huffingtonpost.com

Everybody posting here should look at the 6 charts included with the article to get a true picture of fed spending and remember--it's Congress that holds the purse strings!

Larry, take your meds and go back to bed.

what's the matter David- does the idea of fiscal responsibility and constitutional governance upset you?

Or is it because the idea of a conservative proposing decriminalizing drug use or reducing the defense budget is not allowable in your little liberal brain?

No, it's just that you have deluded yourself into thinking any of that will EVER happen.

so Sambodotcom- you think that continuing down the same road is better?

So abolish the FDA? How are we going to even try to keep our drug supply safe? It is hard enough with the FDA in place. Example, Avandia. What alternative solution do you have?

@Larry - Absolutely not, and I agree with a few points. I just don't think politicians have the will or ability or the current corporate/political system will allow the citizens to make the changes. It is those people who have us all fighting each other - even when we agree. I don't think change on that scale will happen in my lifetime - if ever.

Sadly Larry... you are very short sighted. Frankly... sure... that would solve some financial issues... however... the abolishing of the government programs that ensure the health and saftey of our poor, elderly, and our handicapped would cause a humanitarian crisis on a level you could not imagine. Possible thousands if not tens of thousands of handicapped, elderly, and otherwise ill people would die as a result of your ideology. But I supposed you don't care about those people. Those people are part of the 47% that don't matter right?

As Madison noted in Federalist 45, those issues not specified in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution (regarding Congress's authority) are left to the States and people respectively to determine.

States should responsible for issues like drug approvals.

As the father of the Constitution James Madison stated in Federalist #45:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

The general welfare clause has nothing to do with the general well being of the citizenry. It was carried over from the Articles of Confederation and relates to the general welfare of the Republic-the nation, not the people themselves. It is about the general stability and functionality of the govt itself, as the clause states “The General Welfare of the United States”, not the citizenry. The sentence clearly states that the taxing power is for the purposes of the common defense and general welfare of the United States. There is a reason for conjunctions in a sentence.

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

– James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

Also we managed until 1913 to build the greatest nation in history without an income tax and all of these unconstitutional departments and programs.

Larry,

The nation was undoubtedly better off after 1913. Before 1913, the US was pretty much an agrarian nation, culturally and intellectually inferior to most of the developed nations of the world. It is the years following in 1913 that the nation came of age, became an industrialized nation, and became a major leader on the world stage. America's greatness really manifested. That's not to say that income tax is the cause of these changes, but there is a lot that America accomplished using them. Know when Texas became electrified? The 1940's when big bad government came in and dragged them kicking and screaming into the 20th century. Texas's economy prospered as a result. We all benefit from that. And what income taxes pay for nowadays is primarily the military. Our greatest most technologically sophisticated military the world has ever seen comes with a mighty big price tag. Without it, we might look more like India, populous but with a military not many take seriously.

As for states regulating drugs, I can't believe you'd suggest it. Did you see the recent meningitis outbreak? That's an area where the feds saw a problem, felt they didn't have the authority, and notified the state (MA in this case). The state put the manufacturer on probation even though these were serious issues (in exchange for some revenue and election donations I'm sure) and let them go about their merry way uninspected for a decade. The company was running a filthy operation, and that's a professional opinion. The company was operating outside their license as a compounding pharmacy and producing bulk drugs. The state knew all of this 10 years before this recent outbreak, including incidents where contaminated drugs from this company were known to be the cause. The end result is hundreds dead, thousands sickened, billions of healthcare dollars, and most of the damage done in states outside the state where the manufacturer operates. It doesn't work. Each state doesn't have the resources to send inspectors to all 50 states and globally to any place where drugs are handled. State taxes would jump tremendously, hitting the poorest states (in the south) the hardest. They could be lax in what drugs they allow in, letting incidents like this happen, or be parasites and expect that some other state did a thorough enough job. Or there's the benefit of centralizing and combining resources and making it more efficient. Instead of 50 departments complete with all the overhead cost, we have a bigger centralized department with only one overhead cost. And we all benefit the same from it. The invisible hand of government ensures that the Advil you pop after reading my rant won't give you a deadly infection because some bean counter somewhere is focused harder on the bottom line than on your health.

Larry.... you are SOOOOO living in the wrong century. History is great but time moves on as does the way of living, working, earning and governing. Historical information is worthwhile to know from whence we came, it is not an accurate predictor of where we should be headed. The entire way of living has changed and our method of operating government, education and social relationships must also change. We are no longer just that "new little" country on the huge land mass. We are now just one more piece of a very big international puzzle and we need to start acting like it. Get over your ethnocentric attitudes.

Larry,

If you truly believed in the principles of the old Republic, you wouldn't have ended with a suggestion to only cut military spending by 10-15% and then throw in, "removing the stupid ban on assassinations." First of all the current President has already unilaterally ended the ban on assassinations, as in he's got a kill list that may or may not include more American citizens to be terminated. But instead of being worried about the dictatorial powers that our leaders assume as part of our misguided foreign policy, you want to get rid of the FDA and sell Federally owned lands. Get your priorities together. What we need to do is withdraw our forces from all over the world (except of course the high seas); stop interfering in other countries' internal affairs, both through violence and massive financial aid; and return to the rule of law under the Constitution. To maintain liberty it is necessary to weaken the war-making powers of our leaders. That's why under the Constitution only Congress has the power to declare war. Start enforcing that and maybe even impeaching presidents who start bombing without a declaration from the Hill. Then, maybe we can start talking about things like abolishing the IRS and a some unnecessary agencies

Larry's proof the Republicans are learning disabled. Didn't you pay attention to the election? We will make sure any Republican that refuses to raise taxes responsibly is removed from office. We will make sure any more obstruction is met with further losses to the House in 2014. If these douchebags don't toss Norquist to the side and remember they work for us, and only should answer to one oath - the oath of office - they will be removed.

First of all the current President has already unilaterally ended the ban on assassinations, as in he's got a kill list that may or may not include more American citizens to be terminated. But instead of being worried about the dictatorial powers that our leaders assume as part of our misguided foreign policy, you want to get rid of the FDA and sell Federally owned lands. Get your priorities together.

I wish I could give you more than +1. I hated the unilateral drone assassinations under Bush and I despise them now that the program has been expanded by Obama. This is a bi-partisan problem, but it's okay when "our" guy does it, whomever that may be.

@dangerous. You think you will remove some of these Repubs. What you seem to forget is that they represent the thinking of their district. You think somehow you will change that? How?

dangerous- I'm not a Republican- I left the Republican party over 40 years ago because they are too liberal.

We had record tax revenues with the Bush tax cuts until the Dems retook Congress. In fact according to the data from the White House tax revenues as a percentage of GDP were higher under Bush than during the Eisenhower 90% top marginal rate years.

Tax Revenues as % of GDP

Eisenhower=17.52

Reagan 18.18

GW Bush 17.63

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

“Closing the more than $1 trillion deficit Obama’s spending would produce in 2020 by taxing only the rich would require a top income tax rate of 134 percent. Of course it is impossible to tax more than 100 percent of any taxpayer’s income. More importantly, any rate even approaching such a dangerous level would destroy the economy. Period. So even if it were mathematically possible to tax more income than the rich earn, there would be none of it left for the government to confiscate.”

http://tinyurl.com/4znkera

I'm not a Republican- I left the Republican party over 40 years ago because they are too liberal.

They've never been further right in the history of the party. It's been shifting right for the past 20 years, picking up in earnest since Obama was elected.

“Closing the more than $1 trillion deficit Obama’s spending would produce in 2020 by taxing only the rich would require a top income tax rate of 134 percent. Of course it is impossible to tax more than 100 percent of any taxpayer’s income. More importantly, any rate even approaching such a dangerous level would destroy the economy. Period. So even if it were mathematically possible to tax more income than the rich earn, there would be none of it left for the government to confiscate.”

You're quoting a conservative think tank. They have skin in the game. If I sent you to the Center of American Progress you'd say the same thing. They're presenting a straw-man argument. Nobody is proposing closing the gap with tax increases on the wealthy alone.

You don't get it------------it is 'Party first' and 'Country second!!!'

Party first, yes. And the egomaniacal need for domination and control. Throw in the tendency for pathological lieing, hypocrisy, narcissism and you've got hard-line resistance.

Time for some of the old crowd to go.....McCain, McConnell, Karl Rove, etc. They've been around too long, they're too old and stubborn, and can no longer "serve".

And the PeeParty can get voted out in a couple of years.

Some people are multi millionaires because they have two person incomes and saved money. Remember the millionaire next door stories? Should they have their money sucked away the same as those with billions?

according to my accountant, they will still be millionaires. Nothing wrong with that.

I earned my money. I pay a lot in taxes. I do not need it wasted to subsidize you. Why do you hate successful people? Remember I said I pay overall about 50 % when I include state and local. Why is that not enough for you?

lulu....you're making a lot of assumptions about me. I earned and continue to earn all my money. I've paid and continue to pay taxes up the wazoo. I have no hatred for anyone (tho I do struggle with Rove and Nordquist) and consider myself successful, relatively speaking. Morph Romney would consider my success a joke. I own 3 small companies and work hard and long every day. It's not that your tax rate is "not enough" for me....I am no tax expert, neither am I an economist, but it seems pretty simple to me that the rich get enough breaks and can afford to pay more WITHOUT IT HURTING THEM. The backs of all levels of the middle class are broken. And spending cuts THAT DON'T affect the middle class or the poor must be made.....even the military has said it doesnt need any more appropriations. I'm in SC and the restaurant tax is at 11%...plus sales taxes, property taxes, all kinds of motor vehicle fees, state taxes and federal taxes. It's just TOOO much for ordinary people.

The other issue that no one seem to address is that the reason why some people are poor is because everything is so darn expensive. I thank God every day I'm not raising a family, because I don't know how I would do it. All the basics are expensive, rent, food, gas, clothing, TAXES.....it's just become close to impossible for ordinary people to exist. It's a damn shame too.....most people want a decent income to afford a home, raise their family in a good way, go on a vacation once a year, buy a car, and try to squeeze college education out of the whole thing too. It's just gotten too hard.

Do you consider yourself middle class? I struggle with that definition anymore. As to taxes, all that you listed is why I also struggle with who should pay more. Do I think it ok for some wealthy to pay next to nothing?Absolutely not. Do I think a 90% rate which some suggest is ok? Absolutely not. We need to get a grip as to why all these axes and fees are required. Is the money well used? Absolutely not. That said, I also want to know why our schools seem to be failing since I think education is the way out of low incomes for most. Yesterday, I bought Girl Scout cookies from an about 12 year old in a strip mall. I bought two boxes.....8 bucks. Gave her a 20. She could not make change. Scared the hell out f me, especially since at one point in my life I was a math teacher. What is happening with this? Too many video games. I do not know. If manufacturing jobs return, they will not be the old type jobs. They will require training, education, even degrees. How are we going to educate and train a workforce so they are not in poverty? It is not more money for schools. Look at Chicago. Look at D.C which has a very high per capita spending with poor results. We need problem solvers. Not more money.

Do you consider yourself middle class? I struggle with that definition anymore.

I don't have to struggle with the definition too much. If 2% of your annual income is about a month's rent on your only dwelling, you're likely middle class.

That said, I also want to know why our schools seem to be failing since I think education is the way out of low incomes for most.

The states do a lot of the leg-work here. The feds tend to just hand out money. They don't set curriculum. They've gotten a little more involved since NCLB, but that is a very poorly crafted law.

If you can post long winded crap on a internet blog/discussion about political bull@!$%# and armchair economics.... THEN YOU ARE NOT BROKE OR POOR.

I disagree. You can be poor and terrible with money and still post. I knew a family that had two computers and took food from the food bank, got WIC assistance, and welfare assistance.

Because they don't think it irrational to act against the best interests of the country that has provided them their freedoms and opportunity. They only think about what they must contribute to maintain the freedoms and opportunity - for themselves, and God forbid - someone else.

Absolutely TB, the republicans are ruthless politicians who will not even begin to get halfways reasonable unless we go off the cliff. Your way is the best approach, the Bush cuts need to expire.

Terror Bird: I actually think that's what has to happen.

They're on break from now until January 3rd. That's how hard this tea-Congress "works". Any of the rest of you get 16 weeks vacation? And yes the right wing house are the ones who gave themselves pay increases and extra vacation during the last 4 years. You know, because they're working so damn hard saying 'no' to everything and obstructing the progress of the nation. It's really hard to do nothing for months at a time in an effort to blame it all on a sitting president. Better take an extra four weeks vacation.

@dangerous. Do you really think this is something new, only begun when the House became Repub majority. It is always like this regardless of who s in charge. I am never sure if I want them to work more as in screw up more or to just stay away as to do no more damage.

lulu98: You're wrong, sorry. This Congress has worked less than any other in history. The House worked just 109 days in 2012! That's less than a third of the year.

They also accomplished less than any Congress in history, refusing to vote on the president's Jobs Bill, his Transportation Act to rebuild infrastructure, and the Returning Vets Jobs Bill.

They did manage 80 hours and wasted $43 million in 33 votes to repeal Obamacare.

I stand by my statement in general. Most of them do not give a real day's work....on both sides. And some are too old. On the Senate side does anyone think that Thurman or Bird were really able to make decisions? Jackson, Jr. Missing in action for months, etc. both sides.

I agree. I think it is slowly starting to "sink in" that they lost and got a beating and now maybe they might want to actually do what we voted for. If not, 2014 is not that far off to again, hand them another part of their a$$.

I agree they lost but it is ridiculous to say the people voted to have the others pay. Every one wants the other person to pay the tab.

lulu,

this is where you are wrong. We only want the rich to pay a reasonable rate. 14% on capital gains is not a fair rate. Being able to regain 80% of a charitable donation at the tax payers expense is not reasonable. Using tax loop holes to pay 0% in taxes like GE did is not reasonable.

The people with $250k and a little above do NOT earn their money from capital gains. That is where you,Geowil, are wrong. Grandma living off her savings in a mutual fund is already paying a fair rate. The problem with people with your thinking is that you do not discern from GE and the two earner professional income. And do you take the mortgage deduction? I do. But I bet the renter is unhappy with that

Go off the cliff! It won't do any good to allow congress to raise more taxes, they will just spend it, look at their record. Every time congress has had any money, or could lay their hands on it, they spend it like drunken sailors on liberty.

lesleylotsa numbers: The next election is in 2 years. Please do not forget to vote out all the obstructionists. And please, don't just vote in presidential elections!

Primaries are especially critical, as they determine who gets to run for public office. Only 24% of us vote in primaries, and that's a real dereliction of duty. It's also why Congress is so extreme and polarized--the extreme and polarized are the only folks who vote in primaries! If we want Congress to cooperate, we all need to vote so the minority extremists on either side are lost in the vast numbers of us all.

Everybody should work at being good voters, by educating themselves on the real issues even when the candidates don't refer to them--and by voting in each and every election available.

If we fail to exercise our precious right to vote, we could lose it.

Dee Turner...you are so right. Every election is important from the lowliest small town position to Mr. President himself...we have to make them all hear us. After what we, THE PEOPLE, have been through this past year...OMG, I cringe just thinking about all this again in 2 short years.

After all that, if the GOP is allowed to step right back in and start the same BS that's been going on the past 4 years...there's nothing left to do but revolt...a revolution. We haven't had one of those in decades, plus some. It'll be good for the big shots that think they run and own this country. And the women need to be on the front line. Did any of you ladies sit there and listen to the crock coming out of the GOPers mouths about rape, what's best for our contraceptive needs...the one about the aspirin between your knees...all those God-awful remarks. Who else do this jockies think is going to be responsible for preventing unwanted pregnancies...the men? You know, through this whole thing I kept wondering how your every day, average man feels about the women (and girls) in their lives? Does the Dad that loves his daughter without reservation want to worry whether she can be strong and abstain from sexual contact until it's right, at least in his eyes. When would that be? 18, 25...marriage is good, but not before 30? If there's one young woman in the country that seeks birth control for WHATEVER reason, it should be there. And not because her Daddy, Rush Limbaugh, said it's OK, but only if she makes a video having sex that he can watch on the internet. OMG...why is that man still on the air??? OK...enough. I swear, I CAN NOT go through another election listening to a bunch of holier than thou, rich SOB men dictate what's right and of course, what's WRONG with American women. And then here come all the little Stepford GOP females obediently trotting along behind asking, "Mitt...Paul, Mr. Limbaugh, uh...gentlemen, can we get anyone more of our fabulous fresh baked cookies?" Turns my stomach...

I really get a kick out of listening to people on this. The repubs talk against abortion, which cannot be changed and people believe it and vote for them. Course the dems, say womens choice and the repubs are going to take it away, which the repubs cant and people vote for them. Of course now all our problems are related to the rich, having money, which pay for the social welfare programs. So the dems say they are going to tax those bad bad rich people, as they are the cause of all the ills of the non rich, and people vote for them.

And the number of rich democrats and republicans are equal nearly, So with the latest lies the democrats now have the republicans in a corner and they will make new ways to tax the bad bad rich people, but there will always be a loophole because they put them in and then they blame each other and the sheep jump up and down. Course to keep the sheep busy and not notice they start wars. Bush- Iraq, Johnson-Vietnam, to fight for the hearts and minds of the poor underprivleged somewhere. And dont forget the democrats voted for iraq just as the repubs. Same with vietnam.

So the game goes on and none of the sheep catch on, because they are too busy jumping up and down, yelling abortion (which cant be changed), morals (which cant be regulated), the rich are at fault (its everyones fault for electing idiots), gay rights (geez whats next pedophiles rights only one left). Except the gravy train is over, and nobody seems to notice. And the sheep jump up and down. ROFLOL As bugs would say what a bunch of maroons.

Well said Thomas

We need both, and all reasonable people know it.

mcpaddywak is not reasonable so he doesn't know squat.

.no more taxation without representation....

Everybody has representation. I don't think you understand what that phrase means or the historical context of it. It's like an advertising slogan to you.

wow.....another lib moron.....obama won the election and is still an ass...

yeah...Obama is still a donkey...Democrat...if that's what you mean...mcpaddywack the wacky

Yeah P-Whack... You'll go far in life believing the majority of citizens are morons. Worked well for Romney/Ryan though, didn't it?

Who's the ass now?

Take y'all gawd awful language and still it where the sun don't shine butthole! I don't know how y'aint banned from this forum by your ISP, let alone your name!

Actually - both are. You can't cut your way to solvency, the country bleeds to death first.

Europe has a cut-only approach. It put them back into recession. We need an American solution for our American problems.

LoisB, letting the Bush tax cuts expire is the most obvious route and possibly raising taxes for higher income earners above that. Can you imagine if Congress gets bogged down in changing tax deductions? It would take a hundred years to resolve and of course that's the Republicans strategy.

Another example of asking someone else to pay for everything. The Repubs have never suggested cutting all deductions. Both sides are talking about a certain dollar amount limit. That generally would hit upper incomes mostly. Personally managed to raise kids without the child credit. You all complain about higher income people getting deductions. Why should the renter who has no children subsidize you?