Neither house of Congress allows a "Present" vote.

Re, you are lying.

A Congress member is not forced to vote Yes or No.

"I have to just tell you, that is a bad strategy for America, it's a bad strategy for our businesses, and it's not a game that I will play," Obama said.

Way to go Mr. President! We're all getting sick and tired of Congress' games! We voted for leadership and to move forward. Time for Boehner & Co. to move out of the way!

Tea Loonies in Congress say we are here help ???????????????

How can Republicans be intimidated by Grover Nordquist? Did anyone ever listen to him talk? The guy sounds like a twelve-year-old. He sounds like his underpants are two sizes too small.

Elliot are you insane. We tried it your way with Reagan and again with Bush. The Give all the money to the rich and everything will be good for all of us didn't work. It did not work. So you want to do more of the same. It still will not work. The Problem with your thinking and the Gop's thinking that they can invest money in Communist Country's because they still have slave labor and they can make tones of money fast. Well the problem is when this country takes a dive like we are in right now because fools like you have sent all the jobs to China, The Americans can not buy all the things made in China or India, Vietnam and all other slave nations. We Invent things here and have them build in those places because Labor is cheep. That is short sited thinking. Sure you make lots of money right now, but at what cost to your country. Its a lazy mans way of making a living. I look at your man Mitt Romney, He never had to work a honest days work in his life. He was given a world class education and what did he do with it. He stole from others and found a loop whole to make it legal. He stole working peoples retirements, and let the tax payers pay the bill. He learned how the man that bought Eastern Air lines and did the same thing to that once great company. What a Great American. A modern day Jesse James. The whole world does better when the Middle class in this country is working and buying things made all around the world. This Union busting movement isn't good for the Country. A smart man would learn to work with the unions for the good of everyone. We give Walmart a pass on under payment to there workers. The only use part time workers so they don't have to pay Benefits. The whole time knowing many of these people have to live on Welfare and food stamps. Who Picks uo the tap here? That's right, the Tax payers. That's is welfare to the richest company in the world.

Please just raise taxes on $250K +

Then go ahead and set up Committees to "Study" spending reforms that will never happen.

Take away these low informed voters talking points and let them see how little it will matter.

Please let them see the folly of their desires.

Although, based on most who post here, it is tough to see the real world when your head is stuck in the sand.

Chuck, go read "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, published in 1776. Take notes on the section titled "Of the Devision of Labor"

You have no idea how a globalized economy works.

You seem to be very passionate about isolationism though.

I find it funny that O has actually salvaged the economy from the freefall into chaos it was going through thanks to Republican policies, and yet Republicans are doubling down on doom and gloom. And of course, not one mention of the policies sponsored by Republicans during their 6 years of controlling all 3 branches of government that created the biggest economic mess since the 30s. O didn't tank the economy, didn't take away anyone's guns, never sponsored a madrasa, and is pretty much a middle of the road conservative Democrat, but somehow they're already fearing what he hasn't done and won't do. And of course, the worst of the doom and gloom predictions NEVER come true.

Jesse AZ

You guys just keep spewing the same old crap. Don't you ever get tired of it. The President already gave most of the Cuts the GOP wanted and more, but there is never enough. Funny thing they never allow cuts to the Military. Why? Because that will take money away from rich people. So we need to keep building Tanks that we don't need, Plains we don't need. We have a military bigger then the rest of the world combined, that is insane. And who is that has to fight all the wars. That's right its us. Israel wants us to go take out Iran and we will most likely do for them. You know what. WE THE PEOPLE are sick of that. What is good for Israel is not what's good for America. We have let our country go to hell while trying to take care of the rest of the world. Now we have dug our way into a hell of a hole. Do you think there is anyone in the world that is going to help us get out of it. HELL NO.

Gonna need to raise taxes to bail out Detroit.

JoAnne Watson thinks that since Detroit carried Obama to victory, he owes the POS City Council.

No need to address the problems.

Just GIMMEEE, GIMMMEEEE, GIMMMMMEEEEEE!

Elliot,

As a well-heeled dem myself, I agree with you. Democrats should never be afraid to put their names to anything. They only time they back away was with Obamacare and they got trounced nonetheless. We should not be afraid to own programs. And the Republicans should get down to business and design their own using their principles. "No" is not a principle neither is a tongue lashing on Constitutional Law. Both cap and trade and the health mandate were originally conservative ideas using market driven forces. Republicans could have implemented both ideas instead of typical regulations favored by Dems. Instead the forfeited the health debate to the Dems and choose to ignore environment issues. Until the Republicans have programs that they are willing to put their name to, they will become a minority party.

While I totally agree with President Obama, I believe he should lay out the parameters of his intended spending cuts and tax loopholes he intends to close. The Republicans have successfully boxed themselves in a corner with their hard line stances that Obama has the upper hand. If the GOP refuses to negotiate and sends us over the cliff 2014 will be a very bad year for them.

Just GIMMEEE, GIMMMEEEE, GIMMMMMEEEEEE!

That's exactly what we are trying to reverse. The "GIMME" economy hasn't worked out so well for the rest of us.

Republican plan under Reagan, Bush1, and W - jack up defense spending through the roof, hire contractors and pay them trillions, give a drug monopoly to Big Pharma for Medicare also wasting hundreds of billions of taxpayer money, begin and wage TWO wars off the books, and create one of the largest Federal bureaucracies in history with the bloated, inefficient, and corrupt DHS/TSA. Then cut taxes to an unsustainable level. That created this crisis. It sure didn't begin in January 2009.

Oh get a clue Arthur66, Obama has said over and over he does not want to change a thing for the first $250,000 of however much you make.

If your family's income fell, what would you do to balance your budget? Would you increase spending and charge the extra expenses to your credit card (Obama/Democrats plan) or would you try to reduce your spending by cutting back on expenses like your cable (Romney/Republican plan).

The United States is not a family. Your whole analogy falls flat on its face.

A lot of you guys are under the insane belief that we can continue the same spending that brought us trillion dollar defecit and pay for it by taxing the rich (mostly small businesses) and businesses in general.

That's exactly what we are NOT doing. The trillion dollar deficits was brought by tax cuts and unpaid wars. We are finishing those stupid wars and trying to reverse all the tax cuts that have hurt the economy, while keeping the ones that help the economy.

[Just GIMMEEE, GIMMMEEEE, GIMMMMMEEEEEE!]

Still living in denial, huh Captain Cupholder? Bailing out the auto industry AND saving your job not enough for you?

Did you ever write that letter thanking the Administration for saving your job?

Sure you did...

Hypocrite...

I say it's time for the Republicans to start voting present on all economic bills.

Well Elliot -- it's clear you don't think the Republicans were kicked hard enough by the voters last month. Guys like you are the best friends Democrats have.

Laughing cat, I find it kinda funny but mostly sad that you totally omit any mention of the democrats plan to force banks to make bad loans to people who had no chance of paying them back.

You live in a strange world.

"We ask the president, sit down with us, be serious about the specifics and spending so we can stop the wasteful spending in Washington and finally address the problem," said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.

=====================

...and he of course followed that up with a bevy of meeting notes when he and other members of the GOP sat down with the previous President with the intention to 'stop the wasteful spending in Washington and finally address the problem'?

American Labor - your post has already been decried by the Republican leadership as totally false - but keep spouting it. Of the 47% who pay no FEDERAL taxes - many are seniors who have worked and are retired; veterans who have served our country and paid their taxes but come home and are having a difficutl time assimilating back into our workforce; the working poor who even though they work 2 jobs are having a difficult time keeping a roof over their heads and putting food on the table; and children who never know where there next meal is coming from. Yeah - let's definitely punish them.

Your post - at best - is imbecilic! It clearly shows you don't have a clue!

Yeah, the idea that the US is like your family and its revenue/expense calculations is ridiculous. If you are a business that is not generating new revenue, because nobody's heard of you or because your workforce isn't qualified to handle the new technology your competition has, then you'd need to invest in marketing or training in order to increase revenue. Smart investments will increase revenue. If you only calculate expenses, and try to keep your business afloat by simply firing workers or downsizing, you will fail.

The Bush tax cuts weren't some philosophical opposition to taxes. They were an investment, one which the republicans were sure would grow the economy. Not only did they fail to do so, but the latest historical research by the Congressional Research Service says that tax cuts for the wealthy have NEVER grown the economy. So that investment idea failed, and Obama is trying to stop that investment and try one that historically has worked very well: boost the middle class.

None of this has anything to do with who wants what perks in our society, and whether they deserve them. If the tax cuts to the rich worked, we'd all be for them. Since they didn't, and since we have a good idea historically what does work, it is foolishness not to shift our investments. A strong middle class grew the best economy in the world. Trickle-down economics grew nothing but non-taxable wealth at the top.

I say screw the GOP..lets go over the cliff then the playing field is leveled !As for healthcare the congress and the senate should never sit on any committee once they have taken the bribes ...I mean donations !

You do know the 47% includes active military, retirees, college kids, and even a billionaire (according to Warren Buffet on the John Stewart Show).

Your ignorance is exceeded only by your gullibility. But you don't know what I just said because gullible is not in the dictionary.

Elliot. Some times people can be to smart for there own good. They out smart themselves. Henry Ford had it right. He seems to know that if he wanted his workers to be able to buy a ford, then He had to pay them enough to be able to afford to buy one. That is a simple Truth. Your way of thinking is let Walstreet do the thinking for us. They seem to only want to invest in company's that will Screw there workers. Less See, What did Walstreet bring us? That's right, the worst Recession in our history. Had it not been for the cool handed President and his handling of things, we would have certainly had a world wide Depression. If that is what free market is, Just let these guys run wild and give us the bill when they fail. Then I want no part of that. We will do much better letting the Government do direct SBA loans to get this Country moving forward again, and stop letting the banks get by loaning the Tax payers money to others while making millions for themselves.

@John-2895194#1.9: Ha,ha,ha,um, I've always noticed that about Norquist too. His voice, and eyes have a definite "pig" quality. Appropriate I suppose.

Arthur66 - The tax rate hike is on the income OVER 250,000. Now, let's talk about how you get to an "income" over 250,000 for a small business. On business tax returns, a business's income comes AFTER they have paid their employees, paid for inventory, paid for business fixtures (whatever tangible things like desks, computers, cash registers et al that a business has bought) which includes depreciation on those fixtures, any rent/mortgage payments on company property, electricity and fee payments (like from credit cards or professional dues that the company pays for their employees), employee health insurance payments, employee retirement program/401k payments, employee FICA payments ... Income comes after ALL deductions - including carrying any losses from 10 years ago forward. So "small business" generally doesn't have an "income" that is over $250,000. Families that have an "income" over $250,000 also comes after all tax deductions that are allowable. Both types of "income" would have the first $250,000 protected at the same rates that the middle class pays. Only that "income" that exceeds $250,000 would have a higher rate. So, for example, if a family has an AGI of $260,000 in a year, they pay higher taxes on $10,000 - not the whole $260,000.

What happened in 2007 and 2008? Why not include those numbers for us?

I'll tell what happened to the market in 2008 it lost over half it's value, the loss of wealth across the board was staggering.

Obama is like a dog with a bone on this 2% nonsense. I say, give him the 2% and when his house of cards still falls, then people will realize the silliness of going after this small chuck when he ignores the fact that we still spend more than we take in...

Hey, Rick 3416939, is your last name Perry? On that secession kick again I see, huh? What, did the spinal meds wear off again? Pssst, chucklehead, nobody’s looking to destroy the Rethugs. They’ve done a bang-up job destroying themselves with their out-of-touch, dated, Neanderthal, racist, anti-woman, anti-Latino, anti-science, anti-gay, anti-atheist, anti-intelligent, anti-gov’t, anti-poor, anti-takers, anti-47% agenda. Hell, their only agenda is pro-war, pro-life, pro-guns, pro-rich, pro-white, pro-religion and pro-vaginal control! Maybe your Klan can start its road to redemption/moderation by hugging a woman next time you see her rather than erecting a fortress around her genitalia.

Facts and history (you know, Fox’s kryptonite) will reveal that, as a result of this president’s actions, what ultimately arises from the pile of sh!t left behind by the Republican ignorati will be an even greater nation. A nation that didn’t go communist on 1/20/09; that didn’t become a Kenyan or Spanish colony; that didn’t revert to a fried chicken diet nationwide; that didn’t become hostile to white women, etc. In other words, despite the Republicans’ best efforts to undermine this president (and by extension this country) things have, and will, continue to rebound. Don’t like it? Take your sorry a$$ to Canada…

If you do not like the family, try looking at State Government who are mostly required to limit their expenses (investments) to the amount of taxes collected. If you want a comparision of a national government that just kept printing money (like our debt) look at Germany post WWI. It got to the point where the German people needed a wheelbarrow of money to buy their weekly groceries. The currency was devalued. They began to look for someone who told them what they wanted to hear and ended up worst that where they started.

You can keep talking about a strong middle class being the basis for a strong economy, but these strong anti business regulation and taxation policies there will be no jobs for anyone. The middle class will disappear.

Look at the "investments" the Democrats made with the Stimulus that did nothing to stop unemployment from going up and up. A year after the Stimulus passed, unemployment was at 10%.

As far as tax cuts never stimulating the economy, then maybe you can explain how a year after the Bush era tax cuts went into effect, the amount of taxes collected went up? The same thing happened with Reagan and Kennedy. The "just tax the other guy" policy of Democrats do not work.

Laughing cat, I find it kinda funny but mostly sad that you totally omit any mention of the democrats plan to force banks to make bad loans to people who had no chance of paying them back.

You ARE kidding, right? Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that anyone could force the industry with the most powerful lobby in the country to do ANYTHING they didn't want to?

The "blame democrats" is a post facto excuse, nothing more. "We never meant to crash the economy but the Democrats forced us."

You live in a strange world.

And you expect us to be really naive.

elliot - Please. The banksters never gave a loan they didn't think was covered. Besides, this mess began with W's "ownership society" where he encouraged everyone to get a house, and then spend and spend and spend as a response to 9-11. Savings went out the door when it came to showing patriotism. Even Condi went shopping.

Bill, you're naive to believe that Republicans don't control the Supremes. As for the other figures, you cannot count 2009, since that was W's budget. Hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in the first few months of the year, economy in freefall, Dow below 8K. Be truthful in your numbers.

Republican conservatives are like Nazi's today! They will not turn away from their right wing beliefs even for the benefit of America and Americans. It is called hungry for power and Greed! They would even sacrifice their own party for their lusts!

Hey BILL where's 2007 and 2008? Bush inherited a strong economy from Clinton and drove it straight to hell, Obama inherited a crashed economy, out of control unemployment, failed banking system and two wars.

I don't understand why people think that for example eliminating the capital gains tax is a tax only for the rich: it would affect everyone. Just because the only ones who really get any advantage from it are those making above $250K is irrelevant, it would impact everyone with declarable income for those purposes. I've yet to hear any well founded argument why capital gains is taxed at a lower rate. And PS it is NOT double taxation as you're only paying on the revenue you earned on your dollars you've already paid tax on.

White collar Auto. I have seen many smart people go on to collage and end working at McDonald's. I didn't go to collage and worked for GM on 2 different times. the second time I worked in a factory and had a good paying job witch I was very good at, I earned every dime of my wages. I even earned more then I made. I was always being sent to the engineering dept, to help them solve problems the smart kids couldn't figure out. Why you ask? because they can't teach common sense. The problems I help solve were so simple. I would find the problem and find the fix with in hours, that these guys have been trying to solve for weeks. But I didn't have the Education to work in that department. After the third time I had to go bail Good old Steve out, My Plant Super. worked out a way to pay me the same pay that the engineer was making when I went to work with him. Hell I spent half of my time in engineering. Yes I wish I could have done better in School, I came from a poor uneducated family. Out of 7 of us, only 2 of us finished school. I went on to own my own company for 35 years, right up until 07. The smart people cost me and millions of others there businesses and jobs.

Bill:

It's not about printing money, it's about investing in things that will bring a return on revenue, i.e., grow the economy.

The regulation and taxation policies during the golden age of the American economy were MUCH more stringent than they are today. The middle class was CREATED by those market regulations and high taxes on the upper end. And the economy boomed consistently for 50 years, without a bust.

Cherry picking the stimulus numbers is just a partisan trick, not reality. Reality shows that the stimulus stopped our free fall, and the numbers went north consistently since then, without a single relapse into negative growth. Not even Romney had the cajones to say the stimulus didn't work, his argument was that it was too slow.

How is the democratic plan to alter our investment strategy a 'tax the other guy' policy? If only 2% of the top will see increased taxes, that means a hell of a lot of republicans are in the boat on the lower end. And of course, there are a lot of dems in that top 2% as well.

We're all in this together. Our difference is where we'd like to invest for growth. A strong economy works for all of us, rich and poor. Again, if trickle-down worked, we'd all be singing its praises right now. Instead, it blew up our deficit and ultimately sent our economy off a cliff.

I like how bill excludes years 2007-2008 and 2011-2012... sorry you don't tailor evidence to fit your conclusion and call it fact.... if you can't include the full picture and have your conclusion make since it isn't fact.

Robert Anderson-7179517

Sorry, but your buddy Obama wants us to go over the cliff. That way everybody gets taxed, and he can try to pin it on the GOP. A tax hike on the top 2% will only provide 8 days worth of Obama's runaway spending addiction. Read a book.

When you say that "a tax hike on the top 2% will only provide 8 days worth of Obama's runaway spending..." you make it sound as if the extra revenue gained by a tax increase would be the only money we have to operate the government. This is a logical straw-man.

1st of all, what needs to be done is for revenue and cuts to overcome the rate of increase in the deficit not running the government off the gains.

2nd the tax increase would be accompanied by some cuts as well. Maybe not as harsh as "the cliff" but substantial.

We can't go on with our current tax rates and still be building a military bigger than all the world's other 10 biggest armies combined and expect to not have a deficit. You're in complete denial if you think so.

What we really need to do now is find a way for the GOP to save face and accept the President's plan at the same time. I don't think there are actually that many huge objections to what the President wants to do (other than raise taxes on the Republicans' wealthy friends and donors), but the real dilemma for the GOP is how to accept the President's policies and at the same time end up smelling like a rose and looking like the great compromisers, instead of just the losing party that doesn't have any really good ideas of their own.

Here is the summary of a 50 year study of state economics. Guess what? Democrats are better at handling the economy than republicons.

There are two major take-aways. First, a "state's fiscal policies have a measurable relationship with per capita income growth, although not always in the expected direction." Tax impacts, they report, are "quite variable"; "expenditure impacts are more consistent."

Second, they find "moderately strong evidence" that a "state's political orientation, as indicated by whether the governor is Republican or Democrat, whether the state has enacted tax and expenditure limitation legislation, and whether the state frequently elects a governor of the same party as the incumbent, have consistent, measurable, and significant effects on economic growth." And then they drop their bombshell: "Having a Republican governor," they conclude, "is associated with lower rates of growth." They qualify their conclusions slightly--but only slightly--noting that past measurement errors may have introduced some distortions into the record.

Taken together, these findings seem to support the spending orientation favored by liberals and pose a rather stark challenge to Republican governors who are embracing austerity.

This is mirrored in the federal economy too, as the top three Presidents in jobs created per year in office are President's Clinton, Carter, and Johnson.

Taxes, Spending, Democrats better

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Boy o Boy, you GOP Cult members sure have your Rush and Shawn talking lies points down pat.

Hey, Chuck,

Don't knock McDonald's.

Three years ago, my son in college said some of the students expressed outrage that McDonald's advertised on the student job board that a position was available in their Company. Some of the students posted angry responses saying that they were paying thousands of dollars to go to college and did not want to work at McDonald's when they graduated.

Turned out it was a job in the corporate division of McDonald's, required a college degree, and the starting salary was over $ 50,000. And that was back when the economy was at its worst.

Besides, McDonald's has got great coffee.

miklkit, the only reason that bs above works is because Clinton fell ass backwards in the biggest economic bubble in the country then handed off to Bush right before it popped. Not to mention the housing crisis that democrats created which hit in 07-08.

"There are ways to limit deductions, close loopholes and have the same people pay more of their money to the federal government without raising tax rates, which we believe will harm our economy."

Now, why would that make any difference? Why would it harm our economy if we raise tax rates but not if we raise the same amount of money by limiting deductions and closing loopholes?

THAT's why we don't trust Republicans.

They don't vote PRESENT in Congress,,, they ABSTAIN.

Pigotry...go to the Obama administrations government website and find the "Economic Report of the President" for 2012. Go to page 411 and look at the revenues from 2003 -2007. Come back here and tell us all how tax cuts decreased revenues.

Here is a hint of what you are going to find:

New York Times reported in 2006: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year."

Republicans just aren't smart enough to go toe to toe with Obama. Just as they weren't good enough to defeat Bill Clinton. That's why Boehner obstructs now like Gingrich did then. But at least Newt's Republicans didn't obstruct every-farthin-thing under the Sun. Just to spite working class Americans as Republicans do now. If the Republicans would quit trying their hand at the economy, they've always sucked with economics, we'd be well on the road to recovery!

Raising taxes on small business owners by 4% will only get you 10% the of the way towards a balanced budget. You still need over 1.4T per year in additional tax revenue or cuts.

Obama is pandering to the ignorant voters that ask for revenue "from someone else, but not me."

Increasing the debt ceiling means we are still out of control on either spending or entitlements. One suggestion? End the US Post Office.

After posting the fact that the FOX Approval Poll says that 53% of Americans would blame republicans for falling off the fiscal cliff I noted that our small town newspaper, a republican community, has the blame going 84% to republicans if this happens. I 'm loving it. Keep it up republicans and we true Americans will flee just the word republican!

Elliot. Walstreet Just did a poll just before the Election. They were asked it they thought it was ok to cheat to make money. Over 25% said it was ok to cheat to make money. This is just my option, but the baby boomers were lazy, They didn't have to work for what they made. They thought everything should just handed to them. I think that is what has brought this country to its knees. We see it every day where some CEO is getting Millions in salary's and Bonuses to boot while running the company into the ground. And when they were found out, they would lay off hundreds or Thousands of workers to hide there looting of the company. And the demand there bonuses when they were fired. How many times have we seen that. But we always blame it on the workers or the unions. The buck stop at the top. Own that and we can fix this mess.

laughingcat:

the "ownership society" as you call it was escalated by Bill Clinton in 1994;

"The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros convened what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994. The group eventually produced a plan, of which Mason sent me a PDF of Chapter 4, the one that argues for creative measures to promote homeownership."

exerpt from Bloomberg Businessweek - February 27, 2008 (www.businessweek.com/the _thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html

Robert Anderson-7179517

Sorry, but your buddy Obama wants us to go over the cliff. That way everybody gets taxed, and he can try to pin it on the GOP. A tax hike on the top 2% will only provide 8 days worth of Obama's runaway spending addiction. Read a book.

When you say that "a tax hike on the top 2% will only provide 8 days worth of Obama's runaway spending..." you make it sound as if the extra revenue gained by a tax increase would be the only money we have to operate the government. This is a logical straw-man.

That's not what he said. This isn't a straw man argument either. Good grief it's ridiculous.

The additional income from more taxation of the 'rich' will not amount to a significant increase in total revenue.

All increasing taxation on 'rich' people does is drive them to move to other countries that aren't as interested in the confiscation of wealth, or, hide their money better to avoid taxation. Even Buffet deliberately hides his money so he doesn't have to pay so much. If Buffet speaks out of both sides of his face, you can bet his actions are to be trusted more than his words, and those actions are to hide his money to avoid taxation.

This ain't over. Boehner says:

"Now the revenues that we are putting on the table are going to come from, guess who? The rich," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Wednesday morning on Capitol Hill. "There are ways to limit deductions, close loopholes and have the same people pay more of their money to the federal government without raising tax rates, which we believe will harm our economy."

Same ol' "Grover Nerdtwist runs our side of the legistlative process and he says we can NEVER raise tax rates. So I will find something that can appease him and still sound like we are raising taxes, even though we are not." What wimps. Does Grovie really have that much money left that the republicans should wimper with their tail between their legs? "Grow some" you righties and do what's best for the country. And tell the story of how you defeated the extremist of the Republican party at the next primary...you are all fighting yourselves.

The economy is turing around and if you don't look like you're participating in the success by raising taxes and celebrating good economic news, the beating of 2012 will look like a massage compared the beating you will take in 2014.

cdahl,

But raising the rate and tax to more than the 14% the average rich are paying would. My neighbor doesn't own a small business and makes $5,000 a week. He says he paid 9% last year in taxes. Being that he's a republican I don't know if he is telling the truth, but since Mitt paid only 14% that sounds reasonable. That is the raised revenue that Obama is talking about.

Well Mad in CT you do spew the talking points like a good little KoolAid drinker. But much like everything else liberals spew these days, not a single solution among them. You can conjure up whatever fantasy fills your head, but there is no solution in sight from Obama or the Democrats. What you are seeing is the beginning of a tickle out Obama agenda, something he could not speak of to get elected, and something only true believers can accept without answers. You may not like this but whatever Obama has planned will never hurt the truly rich, and those that will pay the highest price are the young that were so easily fooled by the free KoolAid. It has been repeated often throughout history, and the lesson never learned. How do truly evil people ever rise to power? But of course the answer is simple, to the raucous applause of cheering crowds. Let us hope that the misguided crowds that swoon without questions or the need for answers have not lead us down a similar path.

Hey Chuck, maybe if you had learned how to spell your company would still be in business.

Based on the illiteracy of your post, it seems you are the consumate Obama supporter and victim.

TO: elliot-3020456 who wrote:

"I say it's time for the Republicans to start voting present on all economic bills. Don't even draft any bills, let the dems come up with their own solutions and let them pass by voting present..."

That ought get a bunch of Republicans kicked out of office.

Republicans don't seem to realize that the American People are growing more and more tired of that kind of gamesmanship.

We need to put some steam into our Economic Recovery and some strength into the middle class.

President Obama has it right, Republicans can't stop getting it wrong.

Well Rick let me start by assuring you my math skills are just fine, but you never did explain to me why 30% of a millionares income "screws" him more than 30% of my modest income "screws" me.

At no time did the president say raising taxes on the top earners would alone balance the budget, nor did I. I will apologize up front for the re-post but what he did said was that it was a matter of fairness and shared sacrifice and it very much is a matter of fairness, you can't ask the old, poor, and sick to constantly take the cuts and pick up the tab, who paid for the bank bailout, who paid for the real estate collapse, the middle class did, they always have and always will pay the bulk of the bills. You can not in good conscious continue to ask them to pony up more when the wealthiest of the wealthy pay half the percentage in tax as they do. If republicans don't allow taxes to go up on the ubber rich why should anybody take any cuts. Taxes on the rich are not going to balance the budget on their own but if you don't start there then everything else is a non-starter, it is a matter of being a fair and equitable nation, the president understands this as does the majority of the country by huge margins. You tell me why should a guy like Mitt Romney who makes $57,000 a day, who has not worked in years, what jobs has he created recently if any at all, what has he contributed to this nation lately, why should he pay half the tax rate some poor bastard laying bricks for a $1,000 bucks a week does. You tell me why you think that is fair, you tell me how him and his money in offshore accounts is more valuable to this nation than the guy laying bricks, so that guys like Romney are granted half the tax rate of the wage earner. The president said it is about shared sacrifice and he is dead nuts right about that. The middle class is used to picking up the tab, but they are sick of being played for chumps they would like to see a good faith deposit on some fairness by those who can damn well afford it whether it solves all our economic problems or not. It is the right thing to do, it is the fair and equitable thing to do, the nation wants fairness and equity it's that simple.

Lastly I know enough math to know that more revenue from the top 2% won't make the deficit any worse, that the lowly 47% did not elect Obama because he got more votes than that, and that the top 2% republicans so desperately protect will never get them in the oval office.

GaryInColumbus....the Republicans are the absolute worst at politics. Hard to find anyone worse to run against Obama than McCain and Romney, both who looked like another version of Bush II. And they can't even use Obama's own government figures to show his half-truths about the economy and taxes.

They're down right pathetic when it comes to politics and manipulating people. They need to follow the Democrats example.

Phil: The additional revenue from ending the Bush investment in lower taxes for the wealthy is about $100B per year. Does that sound insignificant to you?

That $100B in corporate welfare is what we'd call 'wasting' money, since it is an investment without a return.

If lowering taxes on the rich was supposed to keep them from moving to other countries, then it is plain to see that it didn't work. What y'all don't seem to understand is that we TRIED trickle-down. We all sacrificed quite a bit to try it, we blew up our deficit to make sure it had all the fuel it needed to grow our economy. It didn't work. Jobs were not created, the economy didn't grow, the wealthy still took their money offshore. What is hard to understand about an investment that failed? Cut your losses, stop that investment, and look elsewhere for the key to growing our economy.

American Girl-724855

TO: elliot-3020456 who wrote:

"I say it's time for the Republicans to start voting present on all economic bills. Don't even draft any bills, let the dems come up with their own solutions and let them pass by voting present..."

That ought get a bunch of Republicans kicked out of office.

Republicans don't seem to realize that the American People are growing more and more tired of that kind of gamesmanship.

We need to put some steam into our Economic Recovery and some strength into the middle class.

President Obama has it right, Republicans can't stop getting it wrong.

Un-American girl, So are you now saying that you need republican ideas to improve our economy? Sounds like it.

Why wold you have a problem with the dems getting everything they want? At least everything they want except the ability to blame the Republicans.

Say Bill#s are you gonna give us those numbers for 2007 and 2008?

In removing four republican members from committees for not being "team players", the republican party showed it's loyalty is more to party ideology and Grover Norquist than country.

Our democratic republic was founded on the notion of compromise, not Taliban ideology, and it is time to make it clear America will not relent to a faith based government, ever.

Randy,

Admit it! Republicans are wrong and have been wrong for a decade. They got us into two lost wars costing $4,000,000,000,000 and 72,000 body bags. They ruined our banking system almost permanently. They lost an election and are still trying to come up with excuses other than the truth which is they don't care about most Americans and certainly not the middle class. Even the Worst President Ever said today, GW, that republicans need some compassion when dealing with immigration and even illegal immigration. The party of losers just has lost touch with reality!

Mil,

The first sentence in your reference was that Bush entered office with a recession starting...so WTF? I though Clinton was your savior? How is that we were heading for a recession BEFORE Bush got to office... Nice try...

Prez O IS keeping his ReElection Promise of taxing the EVIL Rich, who are Really Criminals living off the backs of Working Americans who pay 37% taxes and Without An American Universal Healthcare System, WHICH IS AN AMERICAN DISGRACE. That is so insurance companies can keep RAPING Americans financially who must have healthcare. Did You KNOW that the ceo of united healthcare took home, TAXFREE, $128,000,000 for salary year 2008 using republican congress legislated capital gains loopholes. Free Market Capitalism does not work as the corporations are infested with and controlled by criminals.

TO: Randy-840072 who wrote:

"Liberals are WRONG and its so sad the world has come to this..."

Well, I'm totally convinced that Republicans are the ones who are "WRONG" and I have plenty of reasons for thinking that, not the least of which is Republicans crashing the entire United States Economy by taking a totally thriving Economy and turing it into the 2nd Great Depression, lying us into war, our country being attacked by terrorists who grew up with GWB, etc.

Another thing, we can't seem to get through to Republicans that we don't want them interfering in our personal or private lives, and the Republican vision of Social Engineering is disgusting.

Ellis, the committee members that were removed were what you would call right wing tea baggers. They are being replaced with moderates.

You don't even have a grasp of current events, you are blinded by the stream of BS you are fed by 0bama, the DNC and news outlets like this that shelter your fragile sense of reality from the real world.

American Girl: And tell me exactly how taking money from those who invest in new ideas and businesses and simply give to others will create economic recovery? Newsflash: it can't. And is the reason we have this economy in the first place.

Interestingly we have seen this playbook before. Tax the rich. Spend on "infrastructure". New "investment". And saw the same recovery: a decade long stagnant economy and incredibly high unemployment. That was during the Great Depression. A UCLA study shows that FDR policies actually PROLONGED the Great Depression by 7 years (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx).

You see when you punish success then you disincentivize growth which creates a stagnant economy and high unemployment. So what did Obama do 4 years ago? Implement FDR type policies. What did it accomplish? An extension of the recession we are in. What does Obama promise the NEXT 4 years? The same.

So why is ANYBODY surprised by the current stagnant economy, unemployment near 8% and rising, business investment stalled, and massive increases in government spending. Additionally, this president is responsible for the WORST economic recovery in United States history. So why is anybody surprised?

This president has created a much deeper recession than we should have had and is extending it years more than it should be. UCLA will be able to do a similar study on the Obama policies in about 10 to 15 years and will find that his policies were similar to FDR - and resulted in the same outcome: stagnant economy for a decade, incredibly high unemployment, and stalled business investment.

Amazing how only a liberal can look at history, do the same thing, and expect a different result.

Obama pitting everyone against the people who give them jobs and creating class warfare it is WRONG

Clerical workers at the LA docks who make 165,000 a year and wanting 195,000 + 11 weeks paid vacation time and the union wanting featherbedding on top of all that is WRONG

Isn't that just what you did? Creating class warfare by dissing the dockworkers as overpaid?

Pot meet kettle......

TO: elliot-3020456 who wrote:

Un-American girl, So are you now saying that you need republican ideas to improve our economy? Sounds like it.

We just had a Presidential Election, and THAT didn't speak to you?

I wouldn't let a Republican clean my house OR wash my car, so you know I wouldn't let one balance my check book. THAT is what I think about GOP/Republican Economics.

Hope that answers your question.

I don't know what everyone is crying about? This is what the country voted for. They voted to reelect Obama and they voted for a Republican controlled House. I actually like the comment made by an earlier poster. Let Obama have everything he wants but control of the debt ceiling. If they do give him that they need to have sunset rule on his control of it.

This president has created a much deeper recession than we should have had and is extending it years more than it should be.

Hmmm, didn't realize we have a real life economist here. Perhaps a Nobel prize winner too?

Elliot - why do you keep repeating lies?

For a lot of upper income individuals, their investment income is NOT "taxed twice".

A good example is Mitt Romney. He took his wages from Bain as "carried interest", which is taxed ONCE at 15% - after deductions.

That's why he got away with an effective tax rate of 13% - he's still using that "deferred compensation" as income, but he only pays the capital gains rate on it. ONCE.

Frankly, I think the carried interest deduction should be the first thing on the chopping block when we start "closing loopholes and deductions". But I haven't heard the GOP mention it ONCE.

Irish - your post is beyond idiotic. It's totally insane. Many liberals own small businesses and run them well. You're clearly jealous that you know nothing about economics and you show it every time you post something as ridiculous as you did in 1.89.

And, if you had any concept of reality, you'd know there are more liberals in the top 1% than there are conservatives. You truly need to get a clue!

So what do you want Un-AmericanGirl? Do you want to stand around bitching because you disagree with the Republicans, or do you want them to let the dems pass what they want and still bitch about the Republicans?

0bama and the rest of you America destroying commies will get everything you want and when you are done destroying everything the country has built over our history, you will have nobody to blame but your own sorry asses.

Have fun.

It just amazes me at how many Americans are jealous if someone is rich and they are not. This country is about freedom and working for and earning what you have. It is no ones fault if you did not become successful. If it weren't for rich people donating to charities and providing people jobs, where would we all be. I am sick of this war on wealthy people. Our country is in a serious decline and all some people can think about is taking from the rich so they can get their birth contol paid for and whatever else free they can get. Remember one thing-nothing is free. I think the rebulicans should just agree with what Obama wants and sit back and watch the country spiral into hell and then the blame can all be put where it belongs-on the the democrats. The democrats are so ignorant that they are willing to cut their own throats-I say let them do it-we will all suffer, but I will love watching it happen especially to the idiots that voted for Obama-I will LMAO!

elliot-3020456 - I say it's time for the Republicans to start voting present on all economic bills. Don't even draft any bills, let the dems come up with their own solutions and let them pass by voting present.

Wow, elliot - you want to perpetuate government "entitlement junkies"?

We're paying members of Congress a minimum $174k a year plus benefits (more for leadership positions).

And you want them to sit there and not do their jobs?

Since when did the GOP think government workers should collect paychecks for doing nothing?

And obviously the American people just voted for more obstruction and do-nothingness, right?

I think you all need to wait for Obamacare to kick in next year and go see a shrink.

All I want for Christmas is the Fiscal Cliff

The Fiscal cliff? Yes the Fiscal Cliff.

All I want for Christmas is the Fiscal Cliff

So the GOP can whistle past the graveyard.

Ho HO Ho Meeeerrrry Fiscal Cliff.

Here's a lump of coal for each and every member of the GOP caucus. MEEEEERY CHRISTMAS.

But what will the Tea Party do when they find themselves at the bottom of the Fiscal Cliff at this festive holiday season?

Are there no workhouses? No debtor's prisons? We are forced to support these institutions so let them go there.

Yes, Virginia there is a Fiscal Cliff and each and every member of the GOP caucus are going to find themselves at the bottom of that cliff come the 2014 election cycle.

Grover got run over by a reindeer

Headed for the Fiscal Cliff this year.

If you say you don't believe in Santa

Then let Grover whisper in your ear!

HOHOHOHO, Merry Fiscal Cliff. God Bless us everyone.

TO: ProBusiness who wrote:

"American Girl: And tell me exactly how taking money from those who invest in new ideas and businesses and simply give to others will create economic recovery?..."

We're taking about raising rates on the Top 2% wealtiest Americans and Republicans are trying to say that everybody who is in business for themselves is part of the Top 2%.

Ignorance like that is why Republicans couldn't get a second chance to push their losing agenda.

American Girl re- #1.85, Voting present did not get Senator Obama kicked out of office which is what he did his entire time in Illinois. It turned out to be his path to the White House. No one could challenge his voting record because he had none. Just a bunch of articulate speeches and promises plus a lack of true statesmanship is the problem. Or, a big part of the problem now. Thus the President cannot lead. He creates standoffs and fingerpointing and after the fact solutions

"Clinton said Wednesday the dialogue needed to be two-way — not the government imposing its view"

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/05/15699308-vicious-attack-egypt-presidents-supporters-clash-with-opposition-protesters?lite

Hm, typical liberal, it only pertains, when it's someone else. Smoke clouds their mirror.

Moth Lady, yes, and every preznit since FDR has had some policy to stimulate home ownership. It sure didn't begin with Clinton, but W pulled out every stop to get people to shop.

TO: elliot-3020456 who wrote:

"So what do you want Un-AmericanGirl?..."

Umm, how about some "advice" on how to get you to STFU?

I think you should do some concentrating on why the majority of the American People disagree with Republicans' failed economic policies. Ooops, there, I said it, because Republican Economic Policies have FAILED over and over again, and we don't have enough money in our pockets to try those same failed policies yet again!

Probusiness just made the case for going back to trickle-down economics. Look closely at his argument. Sounds cogent, doesn't it? Sure sounds in theory like it might work. The problem? It didn't.

The growth of the middle class occurred in those years following FDR. Before that, we didn't have much of a middle class. With the growth of the middle class, our economy grew to be the biggest in the world. Why? Because the middle class had money to buy the new products brought to the market by the 'job creators'.

Turns out that when we moved to try trickle-down, it squeezed the middle class hard. Too hard. In the end, all that new innovation the wealthy theoretically could have started with their new money (though didn't) wouldn't have worked anyway, because so few could afford their products.

In the end, the reason FDR's policies worked and trickle-down didn't was pretty simple: the middle class spent their money in our economy, and the wealthy took their money oversees looking for more money.

It is no longer theoretical; both options have been tried. Trickle-down failed miserably. No cherry-picking numbers is going to cover that up. It is insanity wanting to continue investing in a failed investment. Probusiness' ideas hurt everybody, including the top earners, because nobody will get rich in a sinking economy.

No member of the House, Senate or the White House should be able to leave Washington until this is cliff is avoided. The American people deserve a more functional government. We need to prepare for changes and plan for our future and the future of our children.

Girl, go read 0bama's tax proposal. he wants to raise taxes on capital gains.

You don't even know what your own slave master is up to do you?

fenderbluesjr- why do you post lies? President Obama DID NOT vote present his entire time in office. He voted "present" no more than any other Senator -and it's on record. Now, next lie please - because clearly you'll make up something!

clwyd-2621393

Randy,

Admit it! Republicans are wrong and have been wrong for a decade. They got us into two lost wars costing $4,000,000,000,000 and 72,000 body bags

WRONG: The total US deaths is 6648 for both wars. While I don't think that is good, it is far less than 72,000. You liberals just make up stuff and call it fact. That makes you a LIAR!

http://icasualties.org/oef/

http://www.icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx

Mr. Obama does NOT WANT to negotiate anything.

New Progressive rally cry: "FORWARD over the fiscal cliff."

BTW: Mr. Obama wants ALL Congressional representatives out of D.C. so he can make more recess appointments.

The President is banking on the republicans caving? If they do not what is his plan? I do not call this leadership. It sounds more like a game of chicken that only chickens play. We need some real leadership and not some pie in the sky make up numbers game. Can either party show me some real math on how we are going to balance the budget? I know the republicans have put forth a bill but no one likes it. Mr Obama also put forth a budget but even his fellow democrates would not vote for it. So lets just spend our future, our children's future and our great grandchildren's future away becuase we as Americans cannot step up and take care of this problem ourselves. Everyone wants to blame the rich because they have not paid their fair share but just what is a fair share? How many people have paid nothing? Is that a fair share? America will not improve until the people of America improve. We all need to be more responible for ourselves. Government is never the answer. Name me one program that is run by the government that is run efficiently?

TO: elliot-3020456 who wrote:

"Girl, go read 0bama's tax proposal. he wants to raise taxes on capital gains."

OMG CAPITAL GAINS!!!! GASP !!!!!

Good. If Republicans can tax my wages then why not tax capital gains.

"Capital Gains" just a fancy word for a property owner's or business owner's paycheck to himself.

So why do Republicans think it's ok to tax my earnings, but not my bosses earnings?

That's why President Obama is still "President" and Mitt Romney is a "Costco" shopper.

Seeking Sanity,

Again you run your mouth. I work for a small business that I will one day run, I know that for a fact. And those liberals in the 1% that you speak of, how many are small business owners? Not many, they own corporations and according to you libs the corporations are the evil ones. And how much money do these 1% liberals stash off shore? Warren Buffet anyone? So in your mind if someone in the 1% is a liberal then any shady dealings they do is fine with you? You are a hypocrite and prove that everyday.

All I ever see you posting is jabs at other people, calling them idiots and clueless but I have yet to see you post anything of substance. You are what is wrong with this country. You take your barking orders from progressives and fall in line. Try thinking for yourself for a change.

@elliot

Given your predictions,strike that...given your guarantees of a Romney landslide and a solidly GOP Senate I find it laughable in the extreme that you still think anyone pays any attention to you and your blithering idiocy.

Outside of the GOP echo chamber at least.

Oh well,at least you don't have the temerity to keep your caps lock engaged anymore when you post your drivel. I guess that's progress.

Pig said,

"Bush's market tyranny has not delivered prosperity, Obama's balanced approach will. As if to make his point, Obama even agreed to extend Bush's tax cut 2 years ago, but it didn't work."

If the Bush tax cuts didn't work then why not let all of them expire and move on?

Why the big fuss?

I don't think it matters what kind of plan the republicans come up with Obama will not agree and send us over the cliff then blame the republicans for it!! Obama has given Madcow and Sharpton their marching orders on how msnbc should promote it.

Game over and the country loses again!!

Maxx the Moocher says... You heard it here first!!

It would be interesting to see what % in taxes people pay who loudly back either party (lets limit that to multi millionairs). Those who don't think they pay enough, does anyone really believe they check the little box and pay more??? If they require the government to make a new law and force them to pay what they think is their "fair share" they voices don't mean very much in the end. Obama paid 25% on $1,795,614 for 2010. How any of them make that much while president is beyond me but... He should have paid 40% that he says is fair. Interesting how it's only fair for others to pay

"Capital Gains" just a fancy word for a property owner's or business owner's paycheck to himself.

lol... there you have it. The liberal voice of intelligence. American girl.. Is your real name Monica Lewinsky?

She doesn't read. She just repeats what she reads on facebook. Typical liberal sign holders like this bimbo and seekingsanity (because she has none) are the slut's of the democraps only repeating what they hear. They know nothing for themselves and their beliefs change with the crowd... Just like the President.

Spineless and Empty.. If Obama told them to fall to their knees and open their mouths for their fair share they would break their knee caps from hitting the pavement... Infatuated fools...

Mitt Romney paid 13% on $20.6 million. And, no, I don't think that's his "fair share".

Un-AmericanGirl, Its not the Republicans who are making income taxes high. We want all of them lower, Flat would be nice. And capital gains are taxed, at 15% for securities held more than a year and regular income levels for those held less than a year.

You mind has been filled with so much campaign DNC garbage that you actually believe that republicans want to tax anyone more?

Heh heh, I have to laugh reading Republican postings here, and it isn't at the sense of humor. It's the repetitive doom and gloom, inaccuracy, lack of understanding and inability to follow an argument through to a logical conclusion. Many here have tried to correct their errors and inaccuracies, but they refuse to surrender them. I hope some Republicans in Congress possess a firmer grasp of reality, and the individual integrity to stop marching in lock step with partisan obstructionists. One thing they cannot obstruct: in 2013, top tax rates are going up. Eeeek, it's the end of the world!!

Max, it is called greed why everyone is not willing to pay more taxes; I think everyone should go back to the pre-Bush tax rate, everyone said things were great, great, great under Clinton, so why not????????? I also want to see the automatic spending cuts take place and entitlement reform. yes the economy will fall back, but you will get the debt under control faster

I am out for the day but dont worry Seeking Sanity is here to tell everyone how they are supposed to think and to call anyone that has a differing view a liar. Cheers all.

SeekingSanity, re #1.117, Your guy missed roll call votes 24.2% of the time in office in Illinois. And voted present for the majority of time he bothered to show up. The median voting record for missed roll call votes of Congressmen is 2.2%! Keep seeking sanity, someday you'll find it. Or,not !

Kanic: Why make this personal? Everybody want a strong economy. Everybody. It is not about who gets what and whether they deserve it, it is about where to place our investments to grow a strong economy. Had the investments in the wealthy worked, I certainly would be singing its praises.

But trickle-down failed. If your sense of 'freedom' means that we have to return to trickle-down (as it seems) then we are in a tough position: we can either have freedom (as you define it), or a strong economy, but not both. Which will you choose?

Our fathers and grandfathers believed that they had the freedom to work hard and earn a real living - and they did. They lived under the rules and regulations of FDR's great society. I don't think they were wrong - why do you?

According to the GOP, any business with $10 million a year or less in revenue is "small".

It's easy to mislead people if you don't define your terms.

Hey Job1,

What union are you in?

fenderbluesjr - You lie.

From FactCheck.org:

Obama’s Legislative Record

Q: How many times did Obama vote 'present' as a state senator?

A: He did so 129 times, which represents a little more than 3 percent of his total votes.

Here are the facts: According to reports by both The New York Times and the Associated Press, Obama voted "present" 129 times as a state senator. The AP reported that Obama said the votes represented a small portion — a little more than 3 percent — of the "roughly 4,000" votes he cast as a member of the state Senate.

If obama gets the tax hikes he wants, that will generate enough money to run the government for 6 days. Seems to me there is a spending problem here not a tax problem.

obama also said that putting America 9 trillion in debt was un-American. We are now at 16 trilliion and growing!! So that would make obama even more un-American...but somehow I think obama would see that as a compliment.

The man is running our country into the ground.

Apparently some on this board confuse people not wishing to be played for a chump as being jealous. Just because I do not make myself a handmaiden to the rich does not mean I am jealous of them. I see them as my equal they should pay the same tax rates I pay, they should not get a better deal than all other Americans just by virtue that they are rich, it has nothing to do with jealousy or envy and everything to do with a nation that grants the same rights and privileges to all, and requires equal responsibility from all. The fact is now that if you are rich by that virtue alone you get a better deal, a much better deal, the nation knows this is not right, it is un-American in nature, and it is about to change, whether republican lawmakers like it or not.

Real American, are you referring to the Tax Returns he submitted prior to the election? Because I believe he paid 14.5% but only should have paid 13%. I'm not a liar either, screw your sources, Govtrac.us has the real numbers

Seems odd to me-In 2001 the entitlement programs were being paid for, budget was balanced and there was a surplus available to pay down debt- Where did this big increase in the entitlements and deficit come from that now we can no longer afford them??? Was there any other spending increases at all since then- Where did this problem start- who increased spending and insisted we continue spending. I am at quite a loss to explain this. We know that the years between 2001 and 2009 are not allowed to be mentioned." Let the name never be spoken- So let it be written, so let it be done."

Irish - again with the totally moronic post. Many liberals own small businesses as well as run large corporations. And - still more stupidit from the FOX poster - none of us are jealous of people who are successful - many of us fit into that group. We do however know that it is not wrong for taxes on the very wealthy to be raised - it does nothing to hurt job creation as evidenced by past tax raises.

And, we know lowering taxes DOESN'T increase job growth - as evidenced by the massive job losses after Bush tax cuts went into effect. See those are facts - not your idiotic and nonsensical posts.

Oh, and you will NEVER run a company since you clearly don't know much and are very vocal about shouting how little you actually know. My guess those who own the company already know you are a BIG mistake as an employee!

I take my orders from NO ONE - but clearly you only post FOX "facts" which really aren't. If you haven't read anything of substance I've posted, please have someone who has actual reading comprehension read to you. Then they can explain what they've read so you might actually understand it. You probably won't but it's at least worth a try!

Liberals dont own small business because they dont know how. You see liberals need someone to constantly tell them what to do and how to think because they can not do it on their own.

This comment by Irish wins today's Stupidity Award. Congratulations, Stupid . . . err, I mean, Irish.

Failure to vote is recorded as a no vote. That's how republicans could say over the last year that Obama's budget proposal didn't receive a single vote even from democrats because democrats refused to vote on a budget they couldn't pass so they were all recorded as no votes. If republicans want it on the record that they voted no on important issues go ahead.

No, fenderbluesjr - Romney should have paid 35%. But because rich people like him have bought themselves loopholes like "carried interest", he paid 13.9% in 2010 and 14.1% in 2011.

From Bloomberg News:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's 2010 tax returns and the 13.9 percent rate he paid highlight how wealthy investors can use the preferential treatment of income classified as capital gains and dividends to minimize payments to the U.S. government.

The returns provide a glimpse into the financial life of Romney, whose campaign estimates his fortune at between $190 million and $250 million. Romney and his wife, Ann, receive money from blind trusts that invest in hedge funds and receive profits that flow from the private-equity investments Romney made during his career at Bain Capital LLC. The couple donated about 16 percent of their income to charity.

"The most affluent Americans in recent years have pulled away from the rest of us, and the reason is at least in part that they are able to compound their wealth at very, very low tax rates," said Edward Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California. "Romney's tax return, with its heavy reliance on income taxed at low capital gains rates, demonstrates that."

Well there sure doesn't appear to be many actual independents on this site as usual. And as usual, it's business as usual in Washington and in the main stream media. The fact is that there is plenty of room for cuts in the defense budget and room to tax the top earners in this country. There is also more than enough room to make serious spending cuts to get us working toward a balanced budget. Not cuts that take place primarily after this adminsitration leaves office, but right now as well as in the future.

Obama said he wants a balanced approach, now it's his opportunity to prove it; not increases of revenue with no immediate spending caps. We're all going to have to feel some pain to resolve this problem, not just the chosen few. And contrary to published polls most independents will not blame just the right if this doesn't get done.

Snakebone

Phil: The additional revenue from ending the Bush investment in lower taxes for the wealthy is about $100B per year. Does that sound insignificant to you?

100B in terms of our existing spending and entitlement programs is not even a drop in the bucket.

100B might sound big to you, but it's not.

Irish - I would tell you to think for yourself but you prove daily that isn't possible!

Phil - ya'll lost that argument when Ryan supported cutting Meals on Wheels because "we just can't afford it".

If we can't afford Meals on Wheels, we can't afford a $100 billion tax gift to the wealthy, either.

We have lower rates on investment in order to encourage it.

There is nothing stopping anyone in the country from making investments and willingly paying the "tax rate of the rich"

Why since you are welcome to pay their rate, do you think they should be forced to pay someone else's rate?

But no worries my little commie friend, 0bama will get everything he wants and you will see what mediocracy for all feels like.

But for all you illiterate posters here, When Bush cut taxes, revenues went up! THEY DIDN'T COST A DIME.

While all you guys argue and quibble over taxes and spending more tax payers were given pink slips yesterday and today. City Bank announced 11,000 layoffs today, start adding those numbers to the unemployment numbers again and you will see revenue shrink next year even after a tax hike. So in actual truth the only sane thing for the President and Congress to do is cut expenses and layoff employees since the actual revenue will shrink and not keep pace with spending. Spending must be curtailed...lets start with all the Congressional salaries and move to the President and Ex-Presidents next. That could save us a few billion and maybe the ball would get rolling on actual reform.

So many of you ignore the necessity of revenue (income) to match expenses (spending). Get a clue deficits do matter and are a reason the economy is in such a deep stall.

Remember is was the Democrats who took control of the budget process on January 1, 2007 until January of 2011. Guess when the budget got screwed up? Is this not the party who could not be bothered to even produce and pass a budget? You are seeing the results of their mastery of math skills.

Next

Hey, calmbefore, is there also room for the 47% who pay no taxes to contribute their share to support the system that supports them? If not, why not?

American Girl, so You are saying Obama's policies have worked better than say Reagan's and Bush's ? And lets make it clear who was in charge of the senate and congress when the financial markets crashed, the Democrats. They had a Majority in both Houses, so quit saying the Republican economics crashed the economy. Now American Girl, and all You other Libturds, go back and look at the debt, and unemployment, and tell Me again who's policies have worked. Nothing has gotten better since Obama took office, it has gotten way worse. Look at the National debt for starters ! And Bush didn't start these wars by Himself, there was republicans and democrats a like that looked at the intel and voted to go to war. Unlike Obama who decided on His own to go into Lybia and install the Muslim Brotherhood ! Remind Me again of how great these Democratic economic policies are working again ? Oh, and last but not least, You libturds that bitch about Wall Street executives running companies into the ground, and then getting millions in bonus's, how come You voted for Barry, when He installed several of the same people in His cabinet ? Evil rich people !

Phil:

$100B is about 9% of our current deficit. And since it represents wasteful spending, it seems like a no-brainer to stop spending it. I thought you might be a fiscal conservative, but now it appears you like wasteful spending, when it is spending according to your partisan ideology.

If obama gets the tax hikes he wants, that will generate enough money to run the government for 6 days. Seems to me there is a spending problem here not a tax problem.

obama also said that putting America 9 trillion in debt was un-American. We are now at 16 trilliion and growing!! So that would make obama even more un-American...but somehow I think obama would see that as a compliment.

The man is running our country into the ground.

Worm meat: Bush ran it into the ground, Obama's trying to turn it around. The debt was 10.9 trillion when Bush left office. Bush's last budget that ran from Oct. 2008 through Oct. 2009 had a deficit of 1.2 trillion. Had Obama simply ran Bush's last budget for his first term and added nothing himself the debt would still be 15.7 trillion. When the average republican is able to do simple math they'll begin to understand why most Americans blame Bush and not Obama.

No matter what happens in the cliff dive, Republicans will be condemned as the reason.

Time for the Republicans to do an Obama, vote present, and allow the House Dems and Senate Dems to pass whatever Obama wants. Then he can't blame anyone but himself when his policy again fails.

Sit back, relax and watch the nation implode. Obama did it and he will be happy to have this legacy.

@Irish, you can't reason with Seeking and her Dukester degrees. She is the consumate arbitrator of what is on the Obama alter she worships at. Only her views are correct. Disagree and you are attacked with her little words of intelligence.

Makes you wonder if she isn't Feisty with another login.

Speaking of Feisty, is she back at GSG or still in her present role?

Finally, a return to sane taxes, for 2% of the population. THEN, when the economy starts rolling, the rest (the middle class job creators) have to pay up!

I would l8ike to see bipartisan approach, as promised during the campaigning.

notsofunnygirl - it is so easy to attack you on intelligence because you prove daily that you are less than half prepared. As usual, you post nothing but drivel so there is nothing to refute with facts - because you post none.

See how that works - no, of course you don't. It is totally above your level of comprehension. Don't worry - it's what we expect from you!

Oh, and notsofunny - I don't worship anyone. I leave that to the small minds on the right because you do it sooooo well!

Had to jump back on to see what my favorite stalker Seeking Sanity had to say. Again you call me a liar. If my company sees me as a big mistake then tell me why I started out at a minimal salary and position and was able to work my way up holding 3 different positions at once with steady increases in my salary. Actually 80K in increases over 6 years. Obviously they see something a dunce such as yourself cant see. Hard work and being succesful at it is what they see. Holding down a full time job with travel and taking classes at night when I first started proved that I was willing to work hard and I was rewarded for it. I didnt walk in and demand that I get a certain salary and position because I felt I was entitled to it. And FYI I will be a partner of this fine company in the near future, it has been discussed. I know my business, the industry and the markets. I am not just stuffed into a cubicle and counted as a number, that is the advantage of a small busniess.

And then you want to bring FOX into the insults. Funny that I am on MSN posting, what does that tell you? That I get more than just one source of information because I can actually think for myself. I dont need one source to tell me how to think.

Maybe you are right maybe all of our money should go to the government and they should tell us what is best for us. But then again maybe you are wrong and the government should keep their hands out of everyones pockets and learn how to balance a budget and cut spending first?

Both parties need to put forth some simple math and tell us how we are going to balance this budget. I think EVEYONE in the senate should be thrown out becuase they failed to pass a budget and fulfill their responsibility. Why do we let them just float along without doing their duty?

Larry, He was in charge of the House and Senate in those years ? And who makes the budget Larry ? Buddy, someday You Guys are going to have to let go of " It's Bush's fault" and hold Your Boys feet to the fire, the same way You would if Bush was overseeing this economy! You Guys just repeat what Barry says. And even if Bush caused the entire mess, which is BS, He had lots of help, Barry ran saying He would reduce the deficit in half His 1st term, the stimulus wouldn't let unemployment rise above 8% bla bla bla. He didn't do any of these things, and You still reelected Him. We need a new direction, and new people that are serious about turning this thing around.

TO: elliot-3020456 who wrote:

"Un-AmericanGirl, Its not the Republicans who are making income taxes high. We want all of them lower, Flat would be nice. And capital gains are taxed, at 15% for securities held more than a year and regular income levels for those held less than a year..."

THAT is why Republicans make no sense!

First the Republicans brought 2 wars that have not yet been paid for, NOW they want to take the money that does come in and NOT use it to pay down that debt! So how do you pay YOUR bills when you don't have any income?

And capital gains being taxed at 15% is less than 1/2 of what I pay in taxes, so cry me a river!!!

I'm paying around 35% of my income in taxes, and people making more than 3 times what I'm making would be taxed at 15%, and THEY'RE crying! Give me a break!

Please don't ask me to give a crap about someone making a net income of over $250,000 a year and paying taxes at the rate of 15%.

Republicans have no plan to pay down any portion of the debt OR the deficit when they keep talking about spending the money that does come in on nothing more than tax cuts for the rich.

We ain't buying it!!!

Al,

Sorry! You are right! I need to proof read where I put my place holder. It wasn't 72,000, but 7,200. Your numbers are wrong however also! Too low!

If my company sees me as a big mistake then tell me why I started out at a minimal salary and position and was able to work my way up holding 3 different positions at once with steady increases in my salary. Actually 80K in increases over 6 years.

Wow! That is so cool. I wanna be just like you, Irish. Full of myself. Self-congratulatory. So positive that no one else could ever have done what I did. Bragging to anyone who will listen. Wow! You're a real role model.

Forrest Grump 2.0

Apparently some on this board confuse people not wishing to be played for a chump as being jealous. Just because I do not make myself a handmaiden to the rich does not mean I am jealous of them. I see them as my equal they should pay the same tax rates I pay, they should not get a better deal than all other Americans just by virtue that they are rich

Kids these days. If you've ever done your own taxes, or paid any for that matter, you'll know that nobody pays their tax rate. My tax rate is 25%. I ended up after doing my 2011 taxes with an effective tax rate of 8.25%. This is exactly what's wrong with this country. Immature individuals trying to act like grown-ups and failing miserably.

Seeking Sanity,

Please tell me how I dont think for myself? Because I think our government is totally out of control and screwing over the entire country? And that includes both sides. You see if I couldnt think for myself I would just fall in line, kind of like you.

Jackass,

Whats the matter, jealous? Deadbeat.

Confidence in ones self is a good trait. Obviously you cant tell when someone is proving a point to one of your other liberal douche bags.

1funnygirl ...

Speaking of Feisty, is she back at GSG or still in her present role?

You do realize that every single one of your posts has Feisty mentioned in it? Every one. Obsess much? That MUST be the case as it is very apparent thinking isn't your cup of tea.

Irish - when you make up things that I "said" it again shows your posts to be nothing but lies. Never did I say "all of our money should go to the government" - that is your nonsensical FOX again. You truly should stop with their talking points as it makes you look like a totally out of touch individual.

IF you did what you say you did in business - good for you. It is what a lot of us have done. Will you EVER be partner? Not a chance. You've shown a total lack of ability to reason and you keep posting things and attributing them to people who NEVER SAID what you post. Your employer clealry knows your lack of ability to argue facts and knows your fall back on false "information" when you can't come up with articulate arguments. So, no, you will never become a partner unless you begin to function with at least a minimal level of intelligence - which your posts show you lack.

Your need to actually function as a person who can contribute logical solutions and facts in order to become partner. But, my guess is that is far beyond your abilites.

Now, I'm off to meetings for the rest of the day - and part of the evening - so you and notsofunnygirl can make all the nasty comments you want about me. I know it seems to make you feel better and it appears to validate you in some sick way!

But for all you illiterate posters here, When Bush cut taxes, revenues went up! THEY DIDN'T COST A DIME.

Give us a break elliot#s, they cost at the very least the surplus Clinton left Bush, that was his whole justification for the tax cuts and rebates, and the fiscal wisdom of republicans, "we have a surplus so we must be collecting too much taxes", and he gave it all away. He did not pay down the debt, or invest in infrastructure, or strengthen SS or Medicare he mailed out rebate checks. Now you and Rick both tickle me.

Whats the matter, jealous? Deadbeat.

Unlike you, idiot, I've worked in a number of fields, both here and abroad, and I know your type. Full of bluster and self-importance. What you will never be good at is management. It shows in everything you write.

JB:

The devil is in the details. You brought up Obama's statement that the stimulus would keep UE below 8%, which has been a mainstay of republican criticism of his policies. But of course, reality is a bit more complicated than that.

When Obama said that, he was relying on the economic numbers for the last quarter of Bush's tenure, which showed GDP lost 3%. After Obama said that, the economic numbers were revised to reflect a GDP loss of 9%, three times the original estimate, making it the worst quarter since the Great Depression. Nobody expected that on either side of the aisle. It was huge. The economic catastrophe was much worse than estimated. UE climbed above 8% before the stimulus was even voted on, heading toward 10%. That was not a result of his stimulus, it was the fact that the depression was much deeper than anyone believed.

The result of the stimulus is very clear: it stopped the slide, took us very quickly to positive GDP growth, and has slowly but consistently been moving north ever since, without a single quarter sinking back to negative growth. Look at the GDP charts, and put those numbers against the stimulus. Pretty clear results.

jb1961, well said.

Larry, obama has done nothing to improve the economy. his only course of action is to spend more tax dollars. the debt is now OVER 16 trillion under obama's term as president. I suggest you go back and read jb1961's comments.

government spending money to improve the economy is the same as standing in a bucket and pulling on the handle to lift yourself off the ground.

Lil Michelle,

I think everyone would like to see both sides working together but that isnt going to happen. Neither side is willing to give an inch, get ready to see nothing getting done for the next 2-4 years.

Little Jack and Sanity,

I know, you two are so right. I feel all empty inside......I hope I can sleep tonight.

Why would anyone believe King and Queen Obama are serious about a solution to debt, while spending 1.4 Billion American tax dollars on their vacations..

Good God the Royal Family in England spends about 50 million a year...That's over 20 times as much.

What a good Leader we have ... he's concerned alright.

Wow! That is so cool. I wanna be just like you, Irish. Full of myself. Self-congratulatory. So positive that no one else could ever have done what I did. Bragging to anyone who will listen. Wow! You're a real role model.

You beat me to it Jack!

I sure hope Mr. Irish didn't pull a muscle or anything while stretching to pat himself on the back! lol

History shows, those who have to brag about what they accomplish in fact accomplish very little in the "real world"!

People who are truly successful never have to try to convince others...

Bob - when you stop getting your "facts" from Rupert Murdoch, you might actually know something.

Oh, so suddenly ProBusiness is all interested in studies. (I'm referring to his comment citing a study that says the New Deal lengthened the depression.)

But when six of nine studies say Obama's stimulus worked and only two say it didn't, he doesn't care about studies.

What a puzzling logic. He would guess your height by quoting studies on the height of your grandpa, rather than going directly to the source and reading studies on your own height.

But I'm going to bite and go back to the New Deal, if that's what he wants to debate. He cites a study that he directly pulled out of Wikipedia —evident in his choice of words, which closely mirror Wikipedia's— but, like a good cherry-picker, he conveniently forgot to mention other studies and conclusions from equally respected scholars:

The expectation of higher future income and higher future inflation stimulated demand and investments. The analysis suggests that the elimination of the policy dogmas of the gold standard, balanced budget and small government leaded endogenously to a large shift in expectation that accounts for about 70–80 percent of the recovery of output and prices from 1933 to 1937. If the regime change would not have happened and the Hoover policy would have continued, the economy would have continued its free fall in 1933, and output would have been 30 percent lower in 1937 than in 1933.

Which pretty much cancels out the study that ProBusiness quotes, because said study has one important caveat (again, conveniently left out by our friend):

Cole and Ohanian's [from UCLA] argument relies on hypotheticals, including an unprecedented growth rate necessary to end the Depression by 1936

Overall, forgets to note that, for every scholar who argues the New Deal prolonged or worsened the Depression, there are two or three who argue that such isn't the case. In other words, there is hardly anything resembling consensus that the New Deal failed.

In fact, a case to the contrary may be made, say surveys. Both a majority of economic historians working in history departments (74%) and economics departments (51%) completely and unreservedly disagree with the assertion that the New Deal lengthened or worsened the depression. Only 6% of those in history departments and 27% of those in economics departments completely agree with said assertion.

And regardless of whether the policies of the New Deal were damaging to the economy or not (and, as shown above, a majority of scholars think they were not), the New Deal had many tangible and intangible effects going above and beyond economic recovery. In order to assess whether it was good or bad policy, then, you have to weigh in every single factor, economy-related or not. Say Mary Beth Norton, Carol Sheriff, and David Katzman:

The New Deal preserved Democracy in the United States in an historic period of uncertainty and crises when in many other countries Democracy failed.

That pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

Next time you're going to quote Wikipedia, ProBusiness, don't half-@$$ it and quote the whole thing. Wikipedia is a pretty decent encyclopedia, precisely because it usually presents different points of view.

Worm meat, when Obama took over we were bleeding 750000 jobs a month, the economy was headed into the tank, Wall St. had crashed to 6000 and foreclosures were at record levels, G.M. and Chrysler were bankrupt,

"Obama has done nothing for the economy"

This month may be an end of a string due to Sandy, but 38 straight months of positive job growth, Wall St at 13000, G.M. and Chrysler is alive, banks are lending, houses are being built. In other words you would do a lot better with better resources, turn off Fox, turn off Rush and you might be able to argue an argument without being made to look like a fool. You do look like a fool.

so Feisty do you think that would apply to your buddy seeking? speaking of which, interesting Seeking is in her violating the COH, you know a place where tyler and sally can suspend violators...uh oh

For Real Americans

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/does-the-first-family-take-advantage-of-taxpayer-funds/question-3211409/

http://gov.aol.com/2012/08/30/white-house-expenses-dwarf-controversial-conference-spending/

The list goes on and on... but who cares Obviously not our King and Queen do

Bush and the GOP set this trap for themselves a long time ago when they put the Bush tax cut package together. They are their own worst enemy, as evidenced by the last election. So let's make it simple for them...

1) 90%+ of the people don't deserve a tax increase in this economy..

2) 65% believe that the wealthiest should have a tax increase and the middle class should not...

3) You lost the last election when you could only garner 47% of the vote against a black man that presided over the worst economy since the Great Depression.

4)You lost seats in both the Senate and the House, this will cost you the Supreme Court as well

5)If you create another economic crisis, by holding out for tax cuts on the wealthiest, we're coming for your seats, and we're bringing the guillotines this time.

6) You snuck people in at the 2010 midterms that have no business in Washington DC. They will be toast in 2014. You can fool most of the people only some of the time.

7) The GOP as it exists as a party has no viable platform, no plausible constituency, and no real future. You have money. But spending copious amounts of money on attack ads doesn't work anymore. We're on to that. And people that don't have copious amounts of money resent that you're trying to buy elections.

8) If Mitt Romney was the best of the 7 dwarfs, you have no appealing candidates either. Lost in all this is the fact that VP candidate Paul Ryan won re-election in a heavily gerrymandered Republican House district by the smallest margin of his political career. We're on to you guys...

9) Your own constituencies have as much to lose through budget cuts as the democrats do. Government contractors, military contractors, and government spending in the red states will all have to be cut as well. You are idiots if you think that people in your own districts will not be affected.

10) Any failure, or crisis is going to be blamed on you and laid at your feet. As if your party hasn't got enough problems, do you want to deal with that as well? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different result. How many elections do you think you can lose before you become irrelevant?

Lord, Lord, how subject we old men are to this vice of lying! ~William Shakespeare

Let US hurry the Demo-Republo-Bureau-RATS over the Fiscal Cliff. Let the Automatic Cuts & Taxes kick in and let US stop their "False Hysteria" already!

This was the "Compromise" they worked out last time to insure that if Congress could not come up with a Working Budget, the Automatic Process would.

All Congress is trying to do now is to wiggle out of their prior agreement to save their own personal Pork and to generate even more "Drama" for Wall Street Benefit! Nothing good will come out of this for US for what they "Give" they will soon take away for their Robber Baron Masters!

Impeach Obama in 2012 and Prosecute Hillary Clinton for the Criminal Conspiracy to Cover Up the Murder of a US Ambassador, their Secret CIA Prisons, and their Secret Aid to AL Qaeda in Benghazi-Gate & now in Syria!

Communism has never come to power in a country that was not disrupted by war or corruption, or both.~John F. Kennedy

The ONLY REAL FIX is to Raise Revenue, by Bringing Back Jobs to US Citizens who Pay Income Tax.

Massive cutting just puts more people on unemployment, which just depresses the economy even further.

Returning private sector jobs to American Citizens will provide income tax revenue to OUR Government versus our government having to pay unemployment benefits to those who would be jobless instead. We need our elected officials to Start Protecting American Jobs and do whatever it takes to bring back the jobs they let go. We need leaders who will actually stand up for the American people.

The bottom line is that “Our Government” has to protect domestic industry and the jobs that those industries provide. If they do that, the rest will take care of itself.

We may have to pay a bit more for products made here in the USA by US citizens, but at least we'll still have jobs and a future for our children.

It looks like the Nazicrats are going to play Robin Hood.(steal from the rich to give to the poor.).It won't take long for the politicians to realize that taxing the rich alone won't be enough,then it will be the middle class's turn to pay more taxes.These politicians will not cut back spending they will simply camoflage spending in Pork Barrel spending.In the end,Obama will bring an end to Capitolism because nobody will want to get in that of tax bracket.Anyone here ever wonder how Pigotry seems to manage being the 1st yo comment on these articles?this is probably a case of either unemployment or a house mouse with too much time on her hands.Then again,knowing these Nazicrats,It may be her FreiKorps job to be the 1st one to comment and stir up the population .

One more thing.Taxation is only HALF the answer.The other half is with the politicians to see if they really can cut spending.(which i doubt)Money is the METH of politicians.they have to have more more more and then some more until there is nothing left in this country.

Chuck that was beautiful I want to copy and paste your comment!

once he gets both the debt ceiling increase and this paltry tax hike on the top earners, that will be the end of any debt and deficit talks from Obama. Obama has no interest in solving the debt or the deficit, this is all about destroying the Republican party and setting about his real agenda to end the United States as it was conceived.

The right has consistently ascribed intentions to Obama that have no basis in fact. For example, it was claimed on 2008 that if he got elected he would ban guns. Didn't happen. I recall learning in Psychology 101 about "transference" i.e. attributing ones own faults to others. I suspect it has to do with convincing yourself that the unethical things you do are not unethical at all but normal, since everyone does them. In this case, since I have a hidden agenda, obviously my opponent has one too. The President says what he means. If you want to know what he intends to do, listen to what he says. The Republicans have painted themselves into a corner, largely by not taking the President at his word. Clearly, many have not learned their lesson.

RealAmericansFirst

Phil - ya'll lost that argument when Ryan supported cutting Meals on Wheels because "we just can't afford it".

If we can't afford Meals on Wheels, we can't afford a $100 billion tax gift to the wealthy, either.

huh? I didn't say jack about meals on wheels....only you did. Keep the programs that actually help those in need, dump the unobligated free money for perfectly capable able bodied freeloaders who think they are 'owed'.

Snakebone

Phil:

$100B is about 9% of our current deficit. And since it represents wasteful spending, it seems like a no-brainer to stop spending it. I thought you might be a fiscal conservative, but now it appears you like wasteful spending, when it is spending according to your partisan ideology.

So 9% is going to help significantly? If you say so, not in my book tho. This 'projected' amount isn't a real number anyway, it hasn't happened yet and people with money are very smart, they will find ways to hide their money and the only additional income will come from efforts of the middle class who don't have all the tax shelters the rich do. Increasing investment income tax will merely drive the rich people to refrain from cashing their money out or moving it. They will just hang on to it with a tighter fist and revenues will drop. Count on it.

Can't you understand any simple thing?

Why is it beyond your comprehension that there is not enough american money in the entire world to pay off our national debt as it is today.

How do you pay off you personal debts?

Wow, that fifth grade math sure is tough, isn't it?

Phil:

Well, since the wealthy are going to figure out how not to pay their tax increase anyway, why not just go ahead with the tax increase? What's the problem?

There are 2 words for Eric Cantor being so purposefully obtuse in his statement at the end of the article and they are: "MISLEADING" and "MISREPRESENTING". This isn't about deceptively "casting" just the right amount of doubt with an "M & M" defense onto some Voters, anymore; and I don't believe that Eric Cantor or any other Congressperson can look forward to retaining a lifetime pension if they are OUSTED, by The People, for ETHICAL VIOLATIONS, like purposefully, blatantly and "not inconsequentially" being MISLEADING and MISREPRESENTING facts; possibly "undue influence of the Fiduciary" and never mind plotting to "undermine" the President of the United States in order to treasonously and purposefully bring down and destroy the American Economy. That'll be a REAL "United Citizens"/"Citizens United" effort, won't it?!

@ Piggy

Bush Tax cuts?

Either President Bush somehow re-instated the "Bush" tax cuts during President Obama's first 4 years

-or-

Your messiah did something your cult doesnt agree with.

P.S. We are already over the fiscal cliff and holding on by a chinese loan rope. The question is do we let pathetic Liberal agendas, that destroy Americas independent strength, continue to weigh us down.

Snakebone

Phil:

Well, since the wealthy are going to figure out how not to pay their tax increase anyway, why not just go ahead with the tax increase? What's the problem?

Are you rich? Do you like paying more taxes? I am not, and I don't.

I believe we already pay enough, it is the extremely wasteful, gluttonous and greedy government that needs to get off it's slothful butt and figure out how to make what revenues it has work.

Larry, He was in charge of the House and Senate in those years ? And who makes the budget Larry ? Buddy, someday You Guys are going to have to let go of " It's Bush's fault" and hold Your Boys feet to the fire, the same way You would if Bush was overseeing this economy!

It's rather sad when an American adult has no idea the function of the different branches of government. The President leads the country and all initiatives spring from him. It was Bush's tax cut for the rich plan that cut revenue 400 billion a year, it was crafted by Ryan but Bush presented his 200 billion a year drug plan and it was Bush that initiated the call to war for both Iraq and Afghanistan. The house and senate are charged with presenting a budget to pay for what the president wants. Just because a president convinces the other party to support his policies doesn't mean theyt share the blame. You can't name any program initiated by congress because they don't exist. Which ever party has the presidency is where the buck starts and stops.

I am astounded that here we have a republican who advocates that we continue to spend $100B a year on an 'investment' with no return. His argument? $100B a year is not enough to eliminate the deficit.

Wow. If Phil worked for Bain Capital, even Mitt Romney would have fired him.

Yes, the president does say what he means. Like in 2010 when he said that any tax rate increase while the economy is fragile would induce a recession. Ooops. And then in 2011 when he said that he was seeking $1.2 trillion in new revenue, not from rate hikes, but only from closing off deductions, credits, and adjustments. Oops. Or how now he says that you just can't get $800 billion in new revenues from closing off deductions, credits, and adjustments. The math, he said, just doesn't work. Oops.

Sorry, but Mr. Obama doesn't say what he means, he says what he thinks people want to hear. Which is why he was so uncomfortable during the Steve Croft interview while demanding higher tax rates on the rich. Croft was asking him how it would help the economy. Cue crickets. Mr. Obama was reduced to saying higher taxes on the rich made sense, not for the economy, not even to close much of the deficit, but because it was "fair". Oops.

A few questions to leftists:

1. How would higher taxes improve the economy?

2. If the Bush plan was all about helping the rich, then why not end the insignificant benefits given to the middle and lower income earners? (Hint: Most of the tax cuts went to middle and lower income earners, despite the lie to the contrary)

3. If the government, you all think, is so much better at spending your money than you are, meaning that the government makes the economy good through its amazing economic prowess, then why do you oppose paying the higher tax rates as well since you know, already, that the more money the government has the better your life will be?

4. You all love Obamacare, apparently, but it is now projected to cost as much as three times what you were told when it passed. Is there any increase in the cost (and there will be even more increases in projected costs) which would make it a "bad"deal to you? In other words, is there nothing wrong the government, so long as it is spending your money, can do? Absent the military, obviously.

5. With some specificity could you please identify any Republican-sponsored policy that Democrats opposed which you credit with causing the recession? Conversely, are there any Democrat-sponsored policies which Republicans have opposed which you contend either would, or did, improve the economy? Frankly, I think neither exists, but without something specific to go on there is no way to debate this talking point of the left.

I am returning to work but I would love a rational, cogent, reply. We will go off the "cliff" whether or not there is a can-kicking deal. It's just a matter of when. I would prefer not to go Elliot's route and let liberals have everything they want mostly because we have many more trillions in national wealth we can borrow against before we finally fail, but I get his point. Instead I would prefer we conservatives refuse to compromise (compromise is what got us here in the first place) and instead go over the cliff with a promise to voters that within 6 months the House will pass reform bills for the tax code, for Medicare, and for a variety of other drivers of our poor economic performance. And then do it, and if Mr. Obama refuses to consider reforms so be it. We will be at that fiscal point soon anyhow.

Are you rich? Do you like paying more taxes? I am not, and I don't.

I believe we already pay enough, it is the extremely wasteful, gluttonous and greedy government that needs to get off it's slothful butt and figure out how to make what revenues it has work.

When both parties can discuss rationally how our money is spent we can talk. As it is republicans believe only they have the right to determine what we provide and democrats will never accept that as we're all tax payers. I refuse to be told my social security is a handout and should be cut or slowed even though I've paid in hundreds of thousands since the 50's and the military is sacred because it's constitutionally protected. Having 900+ foreign bases and millions of troops stationed in foreign countries that pay a fraction of their GDP in defense because we provide it isn't for our defense it's for theirs. Japan, Germany, South Korea can provide their own defense and defense doesn't include worlds policeman.

Larry You are a disgusting liar. The Bush tax cuts increased revenue and didn't cost a dime.

Go look at revenue levels for yourself.

RealAmericansFirst, mentioned in #1.190- "COMPROMISE" was struck on Meals for Wheels paradigm wasn't it?:

Since it now costs twice as much in gas to deliver the meals, we'll cut back and only deliver "half-meals"!!!!

Say it ain't so, Joe?

elliot

0bama and the rest of you America destroying commies will get everything you want and when you are done destroying everything the country has built over our history, you will have nobody to blame but your own sorry asses.

Have fun.

What crawled up your butt today? What a whiny little piece you are.

@ JOB1: your the kind of idiot i like to laugh at the most. You want to praise Obama for such a great job, when the morron is going back to using BUSH TAX CUT EXTENTIONS. You democrats can't see the forest from the trees. All you want to do is take credit for someone elses work. Obama can't fix anything right now, that's why he's been calling everyone to the whitehouse to help him. (INCLUDING ROMNEY). Giving free money to the banks, the wall street casino and auto industry haven't fixed anything. Let's not forget the $90B we have to make up now from the lost "green energy" idea's that were a total flop. You just follow your master to the slaughter like a good little dumb sheep, and i'll sit back and watch you get your throat cut and laugh at you while you bleed out.

Phil:

Ok, let me get this straight. You are not wealthy, and you think you pay enough in taxes. Right, so the only way your taxes goes up is if we go off the fiscal cliff. What is keeping us from solving the cliff is resistance to increasing tax rates on the top 2%, which you think they'll figure out how to keep from paying anyway. So what's the holdup? Why don't you support the solution to the fiscal cliff to keep your rates from going up?

You are right that the wealthy are good at hiding their money from the tax man. It's funny; we used to have a progressive tax system, so the guys calling for a flat tax were the ones at the top. Now that the wealthy pay lower rates than everyone else, I've been seeing lots of populist calls for a flat tax. You know, to be fair. How times change.

Snakebone

I am astounded that here we have a republican who advocates that we continue to spend $100B a year on an 'investment' with no return. His argument? $100B a year is not enough to eliminate the deficit.

Wow. If Phil worked for Bain Capital, even Mitt Romney would have fired him.

Keep ignoring economic reality snake, you are a winner. You cannot prove the $100B number at all, it is just a figment of a democrats wild imagination.

The only revenue that will be collected is off our backs. If you have a job you will be considered 'rich', and with no tax shelters or tax lawyers to help hide the money, we will be forced to pay more.

Fiesty said it best: "History shows, those who have to brag about what they accomplish in fact accomplish very little in the "real world"!

She just forgot to point out Obama is his biggest salesman. He said something like he is one of the top four presidents. Yea the truth is revealed. This bozo is going to raise taxes on everyone, he just is not man enough to say it. What did Clinton call it, fees?

ELLIOT

You need to take your prozac and quit being a Sore loser. Your republican candidate Lost. Deal with it. And quit acting like a 4 year old throwing a temper tantrum. Republicans are Not going to continue to get rich off the backs of the middle class and poor. WE, the american people, the country, have a democratic president. Either get behind him and back him or shut up. The country is tired of you whiny complaining republicans. Keep it up, and you will lose More seats in 2014. The country and people are Tired of republicans trying to Steam roll everyone. Romney Lost. Grow the hell up, quit throwing a temper tantrum and acting like your four years old, Deal with it son!

OK let me get this right Mr. Ego (uh I mean barry uh I mean Solito uh I mean Obama) if you do not get what YOU WANT (whine whine) you will let the little people that you CLAIM you are going to help get the shaft. I am SOOOOO happy that we have such a compassionate JERK (uh I mean Ego uh mean person) running the country. Nice to see that your lies and bullying are continuing into your new reign, so where are we going to pay for your wife and kids to travel to next!

Come on do you all really think the Tea Party is going to allow any Tax Increases for the Upper Class..... Rep Cantor did not hear the people when we voted for President Obama..... His plan might not be perfect but it is a hell of a lot better than anything you Republicans have come up with..... President Obama it is time to Sequester Congress - do not allow any House or Senate member to go home until this is resolved.....

Snakebone

Phil:

Ok, let me get this straight. You are not wealthy, and you think you pay enough in taxes. Right, so the only way your taxes goes up is if we go off the fiscal cliff. What is keeping us from solving the cliff is resistance to increasing tax rates on the top 2%, which you think they'll figure out how to keep from paying anyway. So what's the holdup? Why don't you support the solution to the fiscal cliff to keep your rates from going up?

It isn't my holdup, it is the Democrats in the Senate and the White House obstructing progress. I can't help that at all.

One wanders to the left, another to the right. Both are equally in error, but, are seduced by different delusions. ~Horace

Ah yes the Demo-Republo-Bureau-RATS are out at it again in the Vines! As if all of their Squeaking and Pawing at each other meant something!

Face facts Folks as long as "We The Sheople" allow ourselves to be divided by "Delusions" into thinking that there is one bit of Difference between the Wall Street Corrupted Politicians in Washington DC and at our State & Local Level there is "No Hope" for what is left of America's Freedom!

They have US fighting our "Scraps" while they Rob US of our very essence!

Since Ronald Regan we have had NOTHING but Corporate Controlled Politicians feeding US noting but excuses of why they need even more of Our Children's Future to be given to the UN Globalists on Wall Street Plutocracy and the Military Industrial Complex while they "Trickle Down Upon US"!

Folks this has all been planned since the False Flag Attack on America on 09/11/2001 (if not before) and we need to Wake Up and run the Social Not Liberals, the Wall Street Weasels and the Corporate Welfare RATS out of Our Government!

Don't believe....Watch this new PBS Documentary........http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l-8PFk8j5I

Then watch General Wesley Clark play "Connect A Dot" with 9/11 ......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw&feature=g-all-f

If you cannot understand the "Truth" of Wall Streets New Military Plutocracy Controlling America it is because you intentionally choose not to....Remember only you can say NO to more False Flag Operations!

It is time to stop the "War On America" (oops Terror).....Let US put an End to these UN Globalist "Not Wars" for Wall Streets and the Military Industrial Corporations Fun & Profits!

Impeach Obama in 2012 and Prosecute Hillary Clinton for the Criminal Conspiracy to Cover Up the Murder of a US Ambassador, their Secret CIA Prisons, and their Secret Aid to AL Qaeda in Benghazi-Gate & now in Syria!

Communism has never come to power in a country that was not disrupted by war or corruption, or both.~John F. Kennedy

Job 1 said:

Way to go Mr. President. Thank God for your leadership in getting this republican mess they created cleaned up.

Hey Hand Job1, you are a blind Obama follower who does nothing but drink the kool-aid and follow Obama like a panting puppy. You stupid Dems keep blaming the Rep party for problems created by your own party but you are never men enough to stand up and admit it. It's the easy way out.

Check out moonbeam's tax, lib's. You'll get to see for yourself. Texas will gain, california will lose. You don't need to take my word for it, look and learn.

I'll tell you what, if I turn out to be wrong, I will admit it. If I turn out to be right, will you?

TO: Steve-267218 who wrote:

""Capital Gains" just a fancy word for a property owner's or business owner's paycheck to himself..."

That's the only intelligent line in your entire post, and YOU didn't even write it.

Larry,

You don't like paying taxes just like I don't like it and didn't like my tax money being used to fund two lost wars that have cost 7,200 wasted American lives and poured $4,000,000,000,000 down the drain for nothing. The fact is we are paying the lowest rate of taxes since the 1960's. Greedy or just spoiled?

Larry,

You don't like paying taxes just like I don't like it and didn't like my tax money being used to fund two lost wars that have cost 7,200 wasted American lives and poured $4,000,000,000,000 down the drain for nothing. The fact is we are paying the lowest rate of taxes since the 1960's. Greedy or just spoiled?

I read in the newspaper, today, that Texas is getting 1 billion dollars in taxes from alliance this year. Thanks cali.

Keep it up liberal states.

Larry You are a disgusting liar. The Bush tax cuts increased revenue and didn't cost a dime.

Go look at revenue levels for yourself.

Before you call anyone a "disgusting liar," please ensure that you aren't lying yourself:

economistmom.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/cbo-baseline-revs-and-outlays-jan2010.gif

Note how, during the Clinton years, revenue skyrocketed past outgo and was on track to produce plentiful surpluses for a while. Note how, immediately as a result of the Bush tax cuts, revenue quickly plummeted as outgo kept growing. It wasn't until 2005 that revenue got back (in nominal terms, not even as a percentage of GDP) to 2000 levels. As a percentage of GDP, however, the Bush tax cuts cut revenue from levels that won't be reached in the foreseeable future; meanwhile, there is no indication whatsoever that outlays will take up less of our GDP. And no, discretionary spending is not to be blamed.

And before you say anything about Obama having caused the huge spike in outgo and dip in revenue in 2009, please remember that it was W. who signed the 2009 federal budget. There was this little thing called the Great Recession, which Republicans seem to have completely forgotten about.

Hi OHGuy,

I don't think the issue, at rock bottom anyhow, are tax rates. The wealthy already pay the lion's share of federal income taxes. Boehner, I think, has done a very poor job of making a case for why he is right or Mr. Obama is wrong. Mr. Obama is manifestly wrong, just as are you who voted for him. He concedes that the tax rate increases he would sign into law would do a tiny fraction (assuming his numbers are even real--most tax revenue projections err on the high side) of the work towards getting our budget back into line. Even the cuts Republicans want only go a short distance towards solving the problem. The two items together, Mr. Obama's tax increases AND REpublicans' spending cuts, get us about, at most, 1/8 of the way towards balance. So what we are arguing about here is the arrangement of the chairs on the Titanic.

We need fundamental reforms in a variety of areas. Tax reform is a must. Flatter rates, no deductions of any kind, credits either. Major reductions (I prefer the elimination entirely) of the business tax. But we also need serious spending reforms. Obamacare was pegged at $900 billion to get it passed by Congress. We now know that amount is well over $2 trillion. And it will become worse. Medicare is poorly run, but worse it shifts tens of billions in costs from the government (because they pay less for doctor visits and the like) to privated insureds, and this serves to drive up the private market costs faster and higher, which in turn acts like a major tax increase. We can go on and on I'm sure, and maybe you and I would agree with at least some tax increases and spending cuts, but the point here I think is made in my above post.

What Mr. Obama favors (same, frankly, as what Republican leaders offer) only makes things worse over the long term. I prefer we do nothing, go over the cliff, and then try to pick up the pieces. I don't think Mr. Obama would disfavor this option, btw, but I am pretty sure he would reject my ideas at the bottom of the cliff. The most important thing lost in this entire debate, imo, is that we have not had a pro-growth economic policy (Mr. Obama's is anything BUT pro-growth) for many years now, certainly before Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton. We can't grow ourselves out of this mess entirely, but a larger government simply stunts private growth and so to go Mr. Obama's way makes our future less bright. I'd rather we go for more growth at the same time we roll back the government to 2007 levels, or before. Growth comes with less regulation, not more, less punishing taxation, not more.

Oh seeking,

You are an amazing Dukester. That is if you actually spent four years there. Somehow I imagine a Duke education is only a figment of your mind.

Keep up with the "notsofunny" tag and the third grade comments. You do make me laugh on a regular basis with each post you submit.

Now you indicate you are a major corporate player. How do you function at your job when you are constantly on the site whining about a conservative view? Does your corporation have a policy on waisting time on the computer rather than work? Or is work so bad that you have so much time to spent being an evil person?

The budget I manage is a little over $250K; you never responded about yours or answer the questions I submitted re P&L management. Care to answer or is above you lying head?

@ The Pig - more taxation the issue or is it a never ending spiril of spending?

OHGuy, #1.209- Nice post! If he doesn't sequester them, maybe at least the Hostess CEO could send Funny Bones 15,000 Twinkies, one for each job that was IMMEDIATELY lost just before Christmas, to tide him over through his "paid vacation" stay in Washington while the others go HOME for a NICE HOLIDAY FOR THEMSELVES. PATHETIC!

Speaking of all of that, too. It would be a GREAT time for the Government to set up some kind of registry for those 15,000 Workers and track what happens to each one of them after losing their job/s like they did. 15,000 is a great "sudden cluster" number, too. How long had each worked there, did any have or lose pensions, how many end up exhausting unemployment benefits and what happens to them after that, any lose their automobile to repossession, not have enough food or heat because of it, any end up in foreclosure because of it, any end up homeless, etc...

Rich-281385

Good luck getting anyone to rationally answer any of your queries.

None of the Liberal proposals or plans makes any sense, as didn't the last 1,309 days without a budget. The Liberal/Progressive solution is the dysfunctional class-warfare/envy meme that Barrack Hussein has been promoting.

It's so sad to see an American president reducing the ambition of Americans to believe the best they can ever achieve is to be middle class. And as you so aptly pointed out, when all else fails on the Liberal propaganda front they all fall back on the irrational and unexplainable "fairness" meme.

Of course none of the Liberals can define "fair", or a "fair share", or a "level playing field". This is all just more redistribution nonsense that Liberals/Progressives have allowed themselves to submit to. When the best that Barrack Hussein can do is demonize the rich because he knows none of his policies will ever allow the unwashed masses that follow his tripe to achieve success or any level of wealth, our great Republic is in trouble.

But this is what Statist's do. They demonize the wealthy because they believe that only the Ivy League faculty-lounge elitists should be wealthy while the rest of the masses bow to the Bourgeoisie. Of course the Liberals/Progressives actually believe that Barrack Hussein actually gives a rats a$$ about them. They won't understand until he proclaims that his anti-rich class-warfare/envy hysterics just isn't enough and the middle class will have to pay their "fair-chare" also, so he can keep redistributing money in a big circle.

Greed isn't someone wanting to keep more of what they earn, its people demanding a greater share of money that someone else has earned.

Hey rich and jimspence, you are wasting your time here. I am too but I try to keep 'em short and I do it for laughs. It would be easier to teach quantum mechanics to a two year old.

Hey Andres,

Wouldn't it be nice if we could stop telling everyone they are liars? We can disagree, and hopefully we can do it without being disagreeable.

So, you think Mr. Clinton had this wonderful revenue trajectory. I think he did too. I think it was based upon a facade, but I agree it looked good. Remember that towards the end of Mr. Clinton's second term the nation went into recession because of the tech bubble, and so the chart you and many people looked at was, to be fair, based upon numbers no longer part of reality. This was before Mr. Bush became president. I don't think anything Mr. Clinton did, particularly, caused the tech bubble. I think it was a fairly small, by comparison anyhow, recession. At the same time I think it's pretty clear that Mr. Clinton was benefitting from a housing boom as well, one that we would later realize was, itself, a massive bubble.

So to credit Mr. Clinton for being a fiscal sage (my words) would be a serious error. He didn't even understand that in FY98, the first year of a "technical" balance, that we were headed that direction, estimating instead in his budget that year that we'd have a $200 billion defict. And not just for that year, but for every year of the next ten. It's hard to imagine how someone so adept at economic management as the left paints Mr. Clinton would be unable to recognize in the year it happened that a technical (meaning unified) balance would occur. I'd say he got lucky and got out before the you know what really hit the fan. But I'm game to play along...What did Mr. Clinton do which made the economy better?

Mr. Bush, by contrast, inherited a small recession, then we had 9/11, and later the real estate bubble truly hammered us. Bush didn't cause the first, the second, or the third of these whammies. He in fact went to Congress asking for reforms to prevent the later bubble from becoming as big as it ultimately did, but he was rebuked by liberals in Congress, some of whom are in the WH today.

I'd say our problems are more pervasive and fundamental than what Mr. Obama thinks he can do, or what Mr. Bush did. It begins with a serious and deep misunderstanding of what made our country great and continues on towards having a fantasy (as many voters do) that the government is the locus of economic goodness. We are in deep kimshee. The first step in dealing with problems, though, is to understand what caused the problem in the first place. With respect to Mr. Obama, I find him as economically and historically illiterate as he is demogogically gifted.

It seems that things have changed! When Mitt made his comment about the 47% all the Liberals screamed about him writing off all of them people, now they scream that they have won and screw the 47% who voted against Obamination!

For all the posts here that scream about the rich getting richer off of the middle class and the poor, think again! 47% pay nothing in taxes and contribute nothing to the economy. In fact most of the so called poor are riding on the backs of the middle class! If that is not enough, some of the marginal earners receive Earned income!That is right! They need them extra thousands coming back to them! Even though the never paid it in! With this money they can take their kids to Disney Land or maybe play fifty dollars in scratch offs a day. Either way they never earned it and should not be getting it!

Let's get one thing straight! I did not mate with you and I am not the Father of your children! I am told that I have no right to control your reproductive rights but it seems that the government has decided that it can enslave us through higher taxes to pay for your bad habits! Enough is enough! If you are unable to pay for your lifestyle maybe we would be better off sending you to the SPCA! Two children and if you cannot support them you are spaded and the fathers are neutered so that any farther burden to society is stopped!

Please do not give me crap about Republicans not caring because I for one do not! I've watched the bleeding heart Liberals put so many social programs in place to help perpetuate a lifestyle based on taking from others what you have no intentions of earning on your own! Get it straight! Nobody owes you anything! That whole idea was birthed by the Liberal left to buy votes!

Soon this country will be at a point of no return. With no money to pay for all of the wasteful programs , and none to pay for the necessary programs either!

It has gotten to the point where they call a program that every worker has been forced to pay into an entitlement! Guess what? I paid into it. It is my money that was meant for me. You the government have stolen it back out a quick as it went in! this started under Johnson and his great society! The origin of Welfare!

People who never paid a penny into the system are riding on this program by the millions! Another fine example of the Feds running something!

Hang in there tea party, I'll be with you 'til Texas secedes!!! :)

Yeah, I get that I'm not going to have much success. I'm just hoping that one leftist, finally, would have a serious conversation that doesn't begin and end with "Bush is totally to blame!!!"

Re-Elect Obama 2012

Neither house of Congress allows a "Present" vote.

elliot-3020456
Don't even draft any bills, let the dems come up with their own solutions and let them pass by voting present.

Re, you are lying.

A Congress member is not forced to vote Yes or No.

Wow, elliot. Hard to believe no one called you on your comment. There is no 'Present' voting option in the US Senate. When a roll call vote is called, they have 2 choices. Yea or Nay. There is no 3rd option. They do not have the option of staying quiet.

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

Before telling someone they are wrong, you should first verify that you are right.

IWonder . . .

Hang in there tea party, I'll be with you 'til Texas secedes!!! :)

You've such LOVE for your country! /s! Get a grip and embrace the norm. Your reality is one most of us don't care for.

RealAmericansFirst, re-#1.444, Romney submitted his tax returns. You are saying he underpaid the IRS by 22%, 35% compared to 13%? And he wasn't crucified by the Liberal media,let alone indicted,right? Your post indicated that the Romney's make their money from investments.And that's what you don't understand. If I buy and hold a stock that is doing OK for a year and cash out I pay 10% in taxes,if it's less than a year I'll get killed. These are the investment tax laws of America, RealAmericansFirst. It takes balls to invest in this economy and if you have them you should reap what you sew as well as suffer the loss. What did the Red Headed poet say," people who are truly successful never have to try to convince others"!

Byron, buddy, GWB's deficits were LESS than hal of ANY of the trillion dollar plus Bozobama has foisted on the USA; get a clue; Bozobama OWNS the failure of this economy, and it's just hilarious watching this economic FOOL trying to blame everyone else but himself! This fool will go down as the biggest failure in the US in a LONG time.

Don't hold your breath, rich. I was a liberal, in my youth and didn't have any more sense than these folks. Why I voted for jfk and lbj, gee, they were both worse than Obama.

Nope, it's better to seize the day. I rode my bicycle to the restaurant and ate. Stopped at a roadside park, gathered and ate some fall pecans. Stopped on the way home to play with my grand kids and again to gather more pecans from the highway department's trees. Then after I got home, I shelled some in the hope that another granddaughter will make some pecan pies. Carpe diem and praise global warming.

I doubt that you have heard of the pareto principle, Layton. Suffice it to say that I am not a member of the 80.

:)

JimSpence, #1.223- Greed is a "psycho-dynamic", just as much as "earn" is and "EXPLOIT", "RACKETEER", "CHEAT", "DEFRAUD", "SCHEME", "SCAM" AND "PRICE GOUGE" IS. I don't think enough is being looked at in terms of how "spending" is being created, never mind what it is actually made up of. How many $300 toilet seats? How many of the 15,000 who just lost their jobs will end up on Government Rolls because of it? And that includes a possible Medicaid Roll, not just food stamps, because of it. And then to a complete Government coverage of Unemployment Benefits with the first extension because there is no longer a matching "Employer" contribution to those benefits. Even for those who do manage to get a replacement job, if it's a job that pays less and has no benefits, the Person will still end up having been shifted to have to "partially" remain on a Government Roll.

Did the CEO really "EARN" his big salary for having created that? Did the Executives really "EARN" those bonuses for having created that? Did the Bankruptcy Lawyers (who get paid first and foremeost before anything else) really "EARN" their cut for having created all that? Or was it GREED, by way of the EXPLOITATION of 15,000 People? (with another 3 thousand and something still to come). And this is just a drop-in-the-bucket scenario of an example, even as to means, multipled by how many times over the past how many years to have snowballed to where it is today?

Wouldn't it be nice if we could stop telling everyone they are liars? We can disagree, and hopefully we can do it without being disagreeable.

You almost lost me here, Rich. If you read my comment and the one I quoted, I only suggested Elliot to fact-check his own remarks before calling someone a "disgusting liar," a term which I did not use. That amounts to disagreeably calling him a liar as much as Jesus' "cast the first stone" remark amounted to an angry rant about how his audience was a bunch of dirty sinners. I do get your point, but you have to understand that I'm never mean or disagreeable to anyone who hasn't already been mean or disagreeable to someone else. Whether this is a counterproductive strategy or not is something that can be discussed, but please don't think I'm out to start nasty arguments.

Remember that towards the end of Mr. Clinton's second term the nation went into recession because of the tech bubble, and so the chart you and many people looked at was, to be fair, based upon numbers no longer part of reality.

Fair enough, but that small recession was over fairly quickly, and revenue never recovered as a percentage of GDP. You can't wage two wars and cut revenue at the same time. Deficits are going to arise and, indeed, they did. Historically, other recessions did not cause as big a decrease in revenue as the one we're talking about. Before Bush, only during Reagan's era did we see such a prolonged period of rising deficits like that. So you can't exclusively blame the early-2000s recession for the revenue dip. Plus, remember, my point was that the Bush tax cuts did cost us some revenue, something somebody else was called a "disgusting liar" by Elliot for asserting.

Mr. Bush, by contrast, inherited a small recession, then we had 9/11, and later the real estate bubble truly hammered us. Bush didn't cause the first, the second, or the third of these whammies.

But he did cause the fourth, which you conveniently left out: the Iraq war. You can't ignore the fact that our military spending went out of control under W. and his neocon circle of friends. You can't ignore that military spending makes up by far the largest fraction of discretionary spending today, as it has for a decade. Those things contributed to the deficit as well, you know?

I will warn you that I don't hate W. as much as I presume you are tempted to believe. I don't think he's as heinous and out-of-touch as his circle of friends is. I also understand that he caused neither the recession he inherited nor the one he bequeathed to Obama. My image of him is actually that of a very nice guy who means well and I would love to have a beer with (marketing campaign success :p). But I do blame him for pandering to the rich and for waging costly, unnecessary wars after having cut revenue.

With respect to Mr. Obama, I find him as economically and historically illiterate as he is demogogically gifted.

Would I be wrong to assume, however, that you are as quick to point out that he inherited —as opposed to causing— an extremely deep recession and very high unemployment and other myriad problems as you are to point out that W. inherited —as opposed to causing— a burst bubble?

I think I would, seeing as you eagerly call Obama a demagogue and seem to hold the prejudice that all liberals do is blame Bush, as if the notion that Obama can point to past presidents to justify the fact that we're not experiencing surpluses and 4% unemployment were ludicrous. Experience would actually lead me to suspect that you are one of those people that has created a straw man and continually accuses Obama of saying "blame Bush, blame Bush, blame Bush" when the man hasn't said anything to that extent, at least publicly. I want to believe you don't do that, though.

But you're right, liberals do say "blame Bush" a lot, and you're also right in believing that it's a very poor choice of words. "Blame past presidents" would probably be a much more accurate thing to say, as you yourself have explain rather deftly. Again, though, I hope you are as forgiving to Obama as you are to Bush and don't blame him for the recession, the high unemployment, or even the deficit. He did not create the recession, that we know. He did not create high unemployment — whether his efforts to bring it down have been successful or not is up for debate, but most economists seem to think his efforts have worked, at least to a minimally palpable extent. He did not create the deficit — in fact, if we adjust for inflation, he has increased spending less than any president since Eisenhower.

So, yes, I'm sure you have good reasons to think Obama is "economically and historically illiterate," but if you do find the time to explain them to me, I hope they are consistent with the kind of standards under which you evaluate Bush and excuse him for having inherited a mess.

Yeah, I get that I'm not going to have much success. I'm just hoping that one leftist, finally, would have a serious conversation that doesn't begin and end with "Bush is totally to blame!!!"

Not the best closing argument to a case that began with a lesson on civility and respect, if I do say so myself :)

Larry You are a disgusting liar. The Bush tax cuts increased revenue and didn't cost a dime.

Go look at revenue levels for yourself.

Elliot: You're simply a fool. Not even Romney or Ryan claim trickle down works. If you watched the debates Romney became irate when Obama called his plan like Bush's trickle down. Revenue always increases except in a recession. Bush's tax cuts totaled over 3 trillion dollars over his 2 terms and he had the lowest job growth rate since the 50's. Job growth always goes up. Claiming his tax cuts were the reason makes you sound like an idiot. The growth rate went up no faster than under Clinton with no tax cut.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyqYY72PeRM

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg ---gotta love this one SPIN & SPIN

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

Yep its all Bush's fault ***rolls eyes***

BUSH in 8 years 4.88 TRILLION by Jan 21st 2013 I predict Obama will be at 4.88 TRILLION + 1 Trillion in only 4 years.

Shouldn't be too hard only 160 billion to go might even hit 5.88 Trillion by X-mas.

You know the old saying: what's good for the goose is good for the gander. So, if raising taxes on employers is good for the economy then raising taxes on employees is also good for the economy. Let's drive off the cliff and have a really booming economy!

ProBusiness

American Girl: And tell me exactly how taking money from those who invest in new ideas and businesses and simply give to others will create economic recovery? Newsflash: it can't. And is the reason we have this economy in the first place.

Probusiness, you claim to be an economics professor, and yet you go against basic economic theory: spending money during a recession CREATES the recovery. The policies that you are proposing are a rehash of the classical economic principles that failed during the Great Depression. The people who invest in innovation AREN'T investing. Why: because demand is too low. Although we are the crown of the world compared to everyone else, unemployment remains stubbornly high and consumer spending is too low. If the private sector isn't spending, the government must step in to make up for the gap in actual and potential output.

Interestingly we have seen this playbook before. Tax the rich. Spend on "infrastructure". New "investment". And saw the same recovery: a decade long stagnant economy and incredibly high unemployment. That was during the Great Depression. A UCLA study shows that FDR policies actually PROLONGED the Great Depression by 7 years (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx).

First of all, I cannot get to the site since it cannot be found on the UCLA website. Secondly, the problem with the Great Depression was that there were structural problems along with the obvious demand deficit, particularly the wild financial institutions and the massive wealth and income gap between rich and poor. And thirdly, the New Deal was a success, albeit limited: it did get the U.S. economy on the road to recovery, reigniting the private sector machine and allowing the economy to make a slow recovery. Had we not had the New Deal, we would have either had a long period of economic deterioration that could have lasted into the mid-1940s or lost the confidence of the American people, who would have lost faith in democracy and capitalism and possibly lead to a rise of a political extreme of either side; right-wing fascism or left-wing communism.

Jesse-Az

The President ran on a balanced approach. Yet the approach he put forth post election is nothing but a tax increase.

Not it wasn't; it was a REAL compromise, at least in mathematical terms.

He pretends cuts agreed to in 2011 are "new cuts" to the tune of 1 Trillion. He includes 800 Billion in savings from the winding down of Iraq (Ended through the Bush policy of withdrawal, btw), but this spending was never budgeted in future years, it is not a cut. The last cut he offered was a vague 400 Billion in future "increases" to Medicare with no actual policy and the cuts wouldn't come until the 8-10th years of his plans. In essence Obama offers zero cuts. Not really the "balanced" approach he ran on.

The $1 trillion in cuts scheduled in 2011 should be counted; since they were a concession, the GOP ought to know that they get a MINIMUM of $1.6 trillion, with revenues at a MAXIMUM of $1.6 trillion, a 1:1 deal. THAT is what a call a compromise. Last time I checked, a compromise is 50-50, not 40-60, not 80-20, and definitely not 98-2. Secondly, we only have about 23 days till the fiscal cliff; I don't think that we should negotiate entitlement reform when we can barely agree on how much tax revenue to raise. And by the way, since Obama already agreed to $1 trillion in cuts, is willing to cut another $600 billion, and is open to more cuts, the LEAST the GOP could do is accept the $1.6 trillion in revenues. THAT is balanced. I don't believe in using the $800 billion in war savings, but still, we get a about $3.6 trillion in deficit reduction under the president's plan, close to the $4.4 trillion goal and only a minimum if you consider the President's willingness to accept more cuts.

The Tax Policy Center has already stated capping tax deductions at 50k a year would hit the Rich 97% of the revenue (the other 3% are in the top 5%) and would raise as much as simply extending the rates. So he would still be getting the rich to pay "more of a fair share". I don't know why he is reticent.

The problem is, the revenues aren't there. Only $600-800 billion will be raised at most, not including the charitable deduction, which would reduce it to $450 billion. And that would be a 20-80 deal at best. THAT is not a compromise. A reasonable revenue and spending deal would be based on Simpson-Bowles: $2.6 trillion in revenues, and $2.8 trillion in spending cuts. THAT is a compromise. And by the way, that plan (which both parties laud nowadays) INCLUDED the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% in their revenue baseline.

Finally, Obama has asked for an increase of Stimulus spending by 50 billion next year as well as new "investments" in infrastructure. Essentially he is asking to spend the new revenue he is asking for in new tax revenue.

Even if so, that would only reduce the potential savings by $200 billion; and by the way, most economists advocate stimulus spending, which is ideally based on infrastructure spending and demand-side tax cuts.

My fellow Americans, the time for compromise has come, and the time for bitterness and partisanship is gone. To Republicans: the American people chose the President and the Democrats to be the victors of the election. You must get over that and start REAL negotiations, not the one-sided deals that have been happening since the 2010 election. If you accept the Obama proposal (even without the stimulus and the debt ceiling extension), you will get more cuts in future negotiations; at the very least, you will have a 50-50 share in the deficit reduction, not including interest savings (which are essentially spending cuts). To my fellow Democrats: remember that we cannot overplay our hand. We must agree to entitlement reform; doesn't mean we can't fight against cutting benefits by draconian amounts and proposing negotiating drug prices and raising payroll taxes or premiums, but it means that we have to be open to at lease SOME benefit cuts and possibly a raise in the retirement age, although I would prefer it for Medicare since Social Security can be solved easily via other means.

I Wonder,

I was a conservative republican in my youth. Even a Young Republican! I voted for Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan, but I'm ashamed of that fact today as these men would be considered liberals by today's Nazi like republican right! The Party is a pile of crap today!! Led by lying idiots of the teabugger style!

Obama has offered nothing in spending cuts and he has no intentions of doing so. It is shocking that so many on this forum are agreeing with what this president is doing which will affect future generations of this country and include the children and grandchildren of the very people here who are showing their support for his actions.

How stupid can people get? Obama has been a disaster for 4 years and most on this forum continue to praise his failure and yearn for more of the same.

Disgusting and unbelievable.

Probusiness doesn't know that "Trickle down economics" didn't work for bush and has never worked. I'd hate to be in his class. Kids would be failing for knowing the truth while he flunks them!

kkwilson,

No the 8 years that came before Obama were the disaster and now we are trying to pull ourselves out of it after 4 years of absolutely nothing being done by the Party of No. When you add the Keystone Pipeline to 40 or more Bills that could pass to help America and Americans knowing that it will be voted down because the people in Nebraska and Kansas don't want it going thru their land you wonder if the only ones the right wing nuts are out to help are the rich? Talk about a disaster it is the a pile of crap called the republicans. I aught to know I used to be one as I've said before!

Well clwyd, I wish I had voted for goldwater. He was a typical republican though and couldn't keep his mouth shut. I have never been a republican, being a democrat ruined me from ever choosing to belong to a major party again. I do like Ron Paul but telling it like it is never gets many votes.

clywd: Yup, bigger numbers are better! 8-11% unemployment is definitely better than 5-7% unemployment! More people on foodstamps is definitely better than less people on foodstamps. No wonder the country is in such a mess. But, I suppose that depends on who you talk to. If you want everyone to be poor, then we are definitely better off than we were 4 years ago.

AndresTM, #1.237- EXCELLENT! Nicely balanced post!!! Nice read!

:) But I still blame a lot of HELL out of W!!!!

IWonder ...

I doubt that you have heard of the pareto principle, Layton

Correct. I hadn't but I did google it. What the hell it has to do with the President is beyond me! Being a math dork, none of it makes sense as to being applicable to modern day life.

For those of you that think IWonder has something new ...

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

Nothing but BS!

clwyd,re-#1.242, Besides the obvious bull$hit, you claim Barry Goldwater would be a "Liberal" in comparison to todays Republican Party? You're nuts! Barry Goldwater, had he been elected would have H-Bombed Hanoi to end the then Viet Nam conflict! During that time JFK would have been more of a "Conservative" than Mitt Romney. And President Obama would have had the same political view as Ho Chi Minh!

Nomination for the most idiot post on the thread....

clwyd-2621393

Republican conservatives are like Nazi's today!

Au contrair Layton, it has everything to do with everything on earth, maybe in the universe. In our particular instance, you said that I was not in your group, correctly I might add. Basically, what it means is that 80% determines 20% and vice versa. Indeed, I am in the 20% that determines the 80%. Juran teaches that you can dismiss the 80 because it has only a minor influence on the end result.

I doubt that you will believe it but start paying attention and you will discover that it is true. For example, 20% of the sources cause 80% of the carbon di oxide. 20% of the people cause 80% of crime. Turn it around, 80% of the people elect 20% of congressmen. Are you saying that you are a math dork? Me too! Great, you will easily understand its validity and significance.

layton: I'd never heard of the principle either, but having read it, it kind of makes sense. The fact is that a small majority of people have to drive to succeed. Lot's of people want to be jealous of Gates, Buffet and the rest of the successful people in this country. The libs like to attribute their success to being "lucky." That's why they want to take their money away from them and redistribute it. The thing is, it really has nothing to do with luck, but the libs won't admit that. The economic principle is that the few who are willing to put in the hours, effort, money and risk are the ones that will succeed. The others sit back and act like fools spending the time that they could be spending on being successful, instead being jealous. I have heard more than one Christian complain about Jesus having said that there will always be poor. What they fail to realize is that "poor" is a relative term. Are the "poor" in this country not as well off as the rich in this country? Of course. But, are the "poor" in this country really poor in comparison to the rest of the world? I'd venture to say that 99% of the rest of the world would welcome being "poor" in this country. Where the libs fail miserably in their logic is that they fail to realize that the wealth the poor have is because of the success of those 20% who are willing to carry more of the load. The libs like to scream about greed as if it is a bad thing. The thing is that the greed that the are complaining about is what drives prosperity. If Gates behaved the way the 80% behaves, then there would be millions of less rich people in this world. Yet, that is exactly what libs aim for. In spite of the PC BS espoused by the libs, no one goes the extra mile because they just feel like it. No one would work 80 hours a week if they don't expect to gain personal benefit from it. IE: everyone is greedy and works for themselves! It's why socialism fails everywhere it is tried. The only "successes" in socialist societies are the leaders who spew the socialist society garbage and are able to hold a gun to the populace's head. If you work on a production line and are told that you won't make any more money if you are more productive than everyone else, are you really going to put in more effort than anyone else? If you are told you are going to make $500 a week if you put in your 40 hours and you are going to make $500 a week if you put in 80 hours, are you really going to work 80 hours? Socialists seem to think that putting forth the effort for the common good is incentive enough, but when faced with reality, the theory is a big bust.

Hence 80% of the land in Italy being held by 20% of the people.

Yes indeed witchrunner. When socialism is practiced on animals, providing them shelter (cages), medical care, food and protection from predators, it is considered inhumane and all the best zoos are changing. Do you get it, treating any other animal exactly the same way that the liberals want to humans is inhumane. Psychologists, sociologists, and zoologists all know it, everyone but liberals. Liberals think that Harrison Bergeron is the future utopia, never realizing that utopia was a failure.

Our poor have more than the rich in many countries.

You've probably never heard of Joseph Juran and his pareto principle but he is one of the main reasons that Japan makes the best cars in the world. Check him out, then perhaps you'll begin to understand why we have no jobs.

By the way Layton, it isn't new Juran started using it in 1939 and I think that pareto did in 1909.

elliot-3020456

Ahhhh....Your condescending idiocracy is not refreshing.....Explain to me what law forced lenders to make bad loans? I know it had nothing to do with liability and PMI.....Right? Banks making money.......No it was dems....You live in a fantasy land created by your pathetic party.....I look forward to cutting you up on the blogs....You are the definition of a little knowledge makes you dangerous.....

president obama wants to raise taxes on the job outsourcing rich and use that to hire americans to rebuild the infrastructure.THE BASTARD.thats redistriuting wealth the rich are hording for the good of our country.then that money will circulate many times over creating more tax revenue before it eventually finds itself back in the hands of the job exporters and the cycle can start all over again.as it is now they just sit on the money and used it to lie on the tv and bribe our congressmen

Considering that, according to recent polls, 60% of Americans support taxing the wealthy, why is it that republicans continue to refuse to do so? Aren't they supposed to be serving their constituents?

Oh, that's right, I forgot: They only really care about 2% of Americans (themselves included, of course).

Yes johnQ, but they've learned that 20% of the Congressmen take 80% of the bribes, control 80% of Committee Chairs, and write 80% of the laws. Peas in a pod do well (or not) based on a variety of factors.

Hey Andres,

My first sentence to you wasn't a criticism of you. It was a disheartened reflection of what "debate" has become. My last post was, I think, not just fair, but entirely accurate. Most on the left want to blame Mr. Bush for any number of things. Even in your post you edge towards this point when you mention that he went to war in Iraq without paying for it, thus driving up the deficit. To which I would reply...So what? Deficit spending cannot be the cause of recession if deficit spending, say leftists, is how a government helps to escape recession. Logically speaking, the cure of the disease cannot be the disease. So something in terms of economics of a full bubble off center.

I would have preferred that Mr. Bush spend less than he did. He did, as you and I both agree, inherit a mild recession. He was also faced with a massive attack which negatively affected GDP. Not all agree with war in Afghanistan, but most seem to think that was the "right" war. I happen to think Iraq was entirely sensible--the war I mean--given the set of conditions we found ourselves in by early 2003, and while I would prefer it was not financed with deficit spending that fact in no way explains a recession that would begin about 4 years later. Even the cumulative effect of the deficits during those years was minor compared to what we face today. Something else was at work. I think it was the real estate bubble which you didn't seem inclined to want to discuss.

Homes had been used as ATMs, investors had been speculating--more or less betting--on property values, lenders had a ready market of borrowers, and the paper could be sold in the secondary markets rapidly. All of this was ratcheted up because of decades of governmental policy which incentivized home ownership. By the end, just as the bubble was exploding all over us, we had zero-down loans, first buyer credits, shoddy risk analysis, and a government which (through its GSEs) was buying up 40% or more of the high risk paper floating around. All of which was done to help keep the bubble inflated. But the coolest thing about economics, imo, is that regardless of our best intentions the Laws of Economics are going to prevail. We over-bought, over-promised, and over-extended ourselves. The crash that ensued was massive, and it should have been. We simply can't force the market to behave as we want for decades and not expect a boat load of market tensions to unwind all at once. Did we learn?

I think the answer is "No". Which is why, in part, I think Mr. Obama is more economically illiterate as any president we've ever had. I could go into this far more if you want, but the gist of my conclusion is based on a simple fact, which is that the regulatory changes Mr. Obama has wanted will be over time ineffective (as are all financial regulations since market actors discover ways to avoid their intent) at the same time all of the previous governmental incentives to buy a home still exist. They aren't yet prevalent since so much inventory needs to first clear the market before we find firm values again, but when that happens, and when consumers gain more confidence in the market, the makings of a bubble will be ready to go.

I don't think Mr. Obama is equipped to deal with these market realities. He's not stupid, but I do think he's illiterate. With no business background, no financial background, I don't think he has the ability to smartly argue a real-market solution, and instead he falls back on what he does know--Government. Money fixes all ills, or so he might believe.

To the point Mr. Obama is or isn't responsible for our situation...Mr. Obama got a full plate handed to him. Every president does. It's what Mr. Obama has done with what he was given, and the tools he could use, that matters. I think Mr. Obama has failed miserably. Take your point that he has stanched the bleeding. Let's assume it is true that without hundreds of billions of new spending that everything would've fallen apart. The question then boils down to one of alternatives. Mr. Obama has overseen the additional (meaning more than the trend of deficits he inherited) accumulation of debt of about $5 trillion. The Fed has eased the money supply to the tune of more than $2 trillion. He claims to have created 5.5 million jobs. This amount to about $1.3 million per job created which is an amount we will never recover in taxes produced. So the question is would we have been better off if we didn't spend that additional money, even if those jobs weren't produced, or if we would be worse off. No one can know, but we do know that recessions have self-leveling consequences, so the idea that we would remain in free fall until the nation completely folded up isn't realistic.

I think the cost far exceeds the benefit (assuming there is a benefit, which I do not assume). I think the nation is far less wealthy after Mr. Obama than before. I saw your point about how little Mr. Obama has increased spending, and while I've seen the same reports they are flat out wrong. Mr. Bush did not sign a FY09 budget, but he did sign continuing resolutions until a budget was passed a few months into Mr. Obama's first term. TARP should be charged against Mr. Bush, but the repayments should also be credited to Mr. Bush. This leaves a starting deficit for Mr. Obama of about $500 billion. It then shot up to $1.4 trillion, and while it has slowly declined it remains more than $1 trillion. The absolute BEST one can argue is that Mr. Obama has merely doubled or tripled the deficit he inherited. This isn't a sign of fiscal conservatism. Mr. Obama is a spendthrift, and with more money will simply spend more money.

But, worse, Mr. Obama doesn't understand economic liberty or market economies. Couple that with an expansive view of the constitution and we have the makings for the largest increase in the nanny state in many decades. If you choose to respond to this post (it's very long, apologies) could you focus on one area for me? I'd like to know why you think (by implication) deficit spending is such an economy killer, but that much more deficit spending is an economy maker.

Look at some of those years prior to 1970 -- they have far FAR many more tax brackets than just 6. There's no reason to have just 6 brackets when we have such income disparity in this country today. We should have 20 or more different tax rates, not 6.

And we're at historic lows for the topmost tax bracket. The richest of the rich are complaining today like they were paying the 91% tax rate of yesteryear... It's that plutocratic class that has betrayed our country with all the offshoring they've done. They should have realized that sending so many jobs offshore would, ipso facto, result in their own rates going up. And let them go up! I say raise their rates 5% per year up to the 91% of yesteryear -- until and unless they bring those jobs back to our own shores. They're economic traitors in my book...

Jack in Portsmouth - You said it was stupid at the guy saying that no liberals own businesses. It was 100% true what the guy said.

If liberals owned businesses, they would offer such higher salaries and benefits that people would swarm to work for them. They do not exist.

The reason is that a liberal becomes a conservative when his hard work and rewards are involved. Steve Jobs called himself a liberal, but he still shipped all those jobs to China and told Obama to shove it, didn't he? By his actions, he was no longer a liberal. I do not care what he SAID his beliefs were.

justoneguy,

It isn't idiotic if you lived through Germany in the 30's and 40's. Although a youth there are many similar aspects to the National Socialist in Germany and today Republican Party. 1. Voter suppression using voter fraud as an excuse. 2. Getting the Supreme Court and the German High Courts to allow unlimited spending on elections. 3. The republican party representing the rich corporate world and the National Socialists the Industrialist of Germany. 4. Having the extreme element of the party in our case the Teabuggers, try to take over and run the party. 5. Having extremists spout their lies, like rape and God's Plan!

Just wait! If the republicans keep it up you will see even more things like the Nazis coming, that is if you aren't so blind as not to see it or believe. They get a mouth piece and use propaganda to brainwash the public. Oh, we have that already ! It is called the FOX rag and who's owner, Murdock, is already in trouble in the UK with many court cases against him for lies and illegal wire taps!

I wonder,

SO Ron Paul if he runs again would be 83 if elected and 87 if he lived to finish his first term and 91 if re-elected. Oh God your senile too.

I would like to see a flat tax, where everyone is taxed the same, and tax on every thing every where is the same.

our country needs 523 Billion in revenue let the cliff happen.

If the 3.9 Trillion in spending can't handle a 120 billion cut then there is a bigger problem oh wait there is Obama.

Spending/entitlement cut ideas.....???!!! Social Security has now been changed to an "entitlement" by our president. Why do you think he's doing that? It's not an entitlement, we all worked for that money and put it away for our retirement. The government was a very poor manager of our money. It's been a poor money manager for decades! Just look at the national debt, and what Obama is calling the "fiscal cliff". It ISN'T Bush's fault! We enjoyed a country full of optomism, low unemployment rates and businesses thriving! Under Obama's administration we see the Social Security, that we counted on, almost bankrupt! We see the highest unemployment rates ever! We see companies that have been stable for decades going out of business because they can't afford to run any longer, due to higher taxes and the upcoming change for the Obamacare B.S. health care package. (which by the way had so many hidden articles in that document that had absolutely nothing to do with HEALTHCARE!) What I'm getting at here is that the economy is bust, our country is in debt to another country, mostly China who has loaned us enough to keep running. What happens if China calls the loan? We are beholden to foreign administrations that would seek to destroy us! How many rich middle eastern businessmen have bought into American companies? How many middle eastern semi terrorists have come here doing business only to plot our downfall? We must look at these things and seek to have our government lessen the national debt, stop the spending and stop outrageous money give aways to Obama's favorite contributors. We were once the richest, most powerful country on the planet! Can we honestly say that any longer? Hell no! Our military is underfunded and ill equipped for the kind of fighting we need to do against terrorists. Our national debt makes us look weak. Other countries are preparing weapons that would blow us off the face of the earth! We have allies, but we have enemies as well. Obama has done an ignorant and terrible thing by not coming out strongly supportive of Israel. The bible says that anyone who supports Israel will prosper, and anyone who comes against her will be pay the penalty (paraphrased). Because of our administrations choices, and the situation in the middle east, we are coming dangerously close to Armegeddon. Have courage my friends, God is still in control and he will establish a new heaven and a new earth, and all those who have remained faithful to him will be part of a beautiful, God worshiping life in our afterlife. I must also comment on how terrible it is that one company we have all grown up with, HOSTESS, is having to go out of business. No bail outs from the government, but they are much needed. Hostess will be laying off 180,000 workers across the nation and that means another 180,000 unemployed! Where will they get jobs? How many of those individuals will lose their homes? How many will have to go on welfare? Is it a plot to make sure we have a majority of U.S. citizens on welfare? Then I find out that Citi-group is laying off another 11,000 individuals to be back in the job market competing with recent, young, college graduates with great degrees, and there are still no jobs! Our administration is failing us big time! It's not about a fiscal cliff, it's about purposed decisions made to weaken our country in order to make us vulnerable for a takeover. Muslim takeover perhaps? That's Obama's religion you know, even tho he said he was Christian to get elected, we see him calling off the National Day of Prayer year after year, no event at the White House, yet at the Capitol he calls muslims in and has a muslim day of prayer where he, and all the other participants, all muslim, throw down their prayer matts, take off their shoes and hit the floor in prayer to Allah! Is this what you all want as a gift to our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren? It's not my choice, I'd love to leave them a 1950's America where the American dream is still alive and we can buy houses and live in friendly neighborhoods with support from neighbors, friends, family AND our government. If you actually think that Obama's administration and his agenda is to support you, then you are mistaken and you will pay the high price if you voted for him. The sad thing is that those of us who actually saw the evil in this man and did not vote for him, will have to be punised right along with those of you who voted for him. Good luck to all, I'm praying God will deliver us from this evil before we are destroyed as a nation!

Hi Clwyd,

I think your comparison of Republicans to NAZIs is hideous. And not just because the "facts" you present are each, in turn, entirely wrong. You are hideous because on at least some of those "facts" it is you have have committed them. And isn't that really one of the most insidious facts about national socialists? That just like the Bolsheviks they accused their opponents of the very things they themselves were doing.

There is no voter Republican voter suppression, there should be no limit on campaign spending, there is no support for corporations over small business (just the opposite in fact, which if you want I will explain to you). Your list is patently false. And of the three things here I mention it is you who favors them most. Again, if you want I will explain it to you. But even though you do all of these things, plus the one thing I added to the list, you are not NAZIs. They were truly evil, you are just narcississtic and bad. Hardly evil.

Dian-3567477

Spending/entitlement cut ideas.....???!!! Social Security has now been changed to an "entitlement" by our president. Why do you think he's doing that? It's not an entitlement, we all worked for that money and put it away for our retirement.

Unless you paid into it for 40 years and then die right after you start collecting Social Security, you'll never have paid more into it than you got back. The average person pays $100-$300 a month into Social Security yet the average monthly benefit check you receive is around $1,100. So yes, it pretty much is an entitlement. You a pay a little and get back a lot.

yo plumber - you have any SUPPORTING DATA for that 1.4 billion claim or is it just BULLS HIT HOT AIR?

dian get your head out of your posterior. SHRUB started 2 military activities - UNFUNDED activities then was behind the removal of controls from the banking "industry" (which STARTED the fiasco of the recession thru collapse of the housing industry) As least try to be more "correct" - we know you are right (wing-nut)

what we NEED is to cut the military budget by 50% and STOP TRYING TO BE POLICEMAN TO THE WORLD

Thanks for a thoughtful reply, Rich.

Thanks for the clarification regarding your first paragraph. Yes, I completely agree with you. I blame the Web and the mindset it creates: you don't know me and I don't know you, so I can be mean to you. I think people on Newsvine are actually quite courteous by Web standards!

Even in your post you edge towards this point when you mention that he went to war in Iraq without paying for it, thus driving up the deficit. To which I would reply...So what? Deficit spending cannot be the cause of recession if deficit spending, say leftists, is how a government helps to escape recession.

We'll, I'll explain the difference: we liberals are fond of investing money in our country meaningfully (the way Scandinavian countries do, for example), not of turning money into explosives and dropping them on another country. I'm not of the school of thought that we went to Iraq to get the oil (oil exports by country before and after the war show otherwise) as some of my liberal friends might be, but I do think that we didn't have a good casus belli and, certainly, we couldn't afford to go to war with Saddam. As you point out, we had many other problems to worry about and other things to pay for. There's a big difference between that an investing in our own education, our own infrastructure, our own energy, or our own health.

I happen to think Iraq was entirely sensible--the war I mean--given the set of conditions we found ourselves in by early 2003, and while I would prefer it was not financed with deficit spending that fact in no way explains a recession that would begin about 4 years later.

I don't blame the Iraq war for the recession. Mea culpa for having switched topics so liberally. What I blame the Iraq War for is for contributing to our deficits and, as a result, to our debt, with little to no tangible benefits for us Americans.

Let's break it down, so you can see where I'm coming from:

The overall cost of the War on Terror and the Iraq War (I treat them separately, as I happen to believe the former is a very legitimate war that both Bush and Obama have conducted properly) has been estimated to be from $2.4 to $4 trillion. The Iraq War alone was $1.9 trillion to $3.2 trillion — that means it's been costlier than the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act AND the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act together. It alone accounts for anywhere from 11% to 20% of our national debt: I repeat, that's Iraq alone. Per the lowest estimate, we could pay off our debts to Japan and China if we could somehow get all that money back. Per the highest estimate, we could relieve ourselves of our obligations to our 10 biggest lenders. (I know it doesn't work that way — I'm just comparing magnitudes.)

In comparison, for example, a nationwide investment project to bring ultra high-speed internet to every corner of the country (I mean speeds beyond 100 Mbps), which would greatly enhance our competitiveness and hence benefit our economy, would cost about $50 billion.

I think it was the real estate bubble which you didn't seem inclined to want to discuss.

It's true. The main reason is that, if we're going to try to pin the recession on anyone, we'll find ourselves choosing from a list of hundreds of people spanning at least four decades. Clinton is hardly even the top contender.

If we want to talk about the subprime crisis, for example, we might talk about Alan Greenspan's tenure as Fed Chairman. We might want to take into account that it was he who opposed the regulation of derivatives like mortgage-backed securities, which were a huge factor in creating the recession. It was also under Greenspan that the easing of credit availability occurred in the early 2000s, as a response to the Mild Recession (as we both seem to have christened it). This was, as you point out, a big part of this scheme to keep inflating the bubble. We might also talk about the deregulation under Bush 41 of Fannie Mae and Fredie Mac or the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

Overall, I think you're trying to convey the idea that too much government caused the subprime mortgage crisis, but I don't see much to that argument. All I see is lax monetary policies, deregulation, easy credit, and greed fueling the crisis, not active government. If the government erred, it was in encouraging high-risk lending, not in creating too regulated or government-controlled an environment. I emphasize this because I just don't agree with your takeaway that "Obama sees government as the solution, therefore Obama is illiterate."

Remember, though, that regulation and monetary policy are not the only ingredients to an economy. We might also talk about wealth concentration which, if not a huge cause of the Great Recession, was certainly a central kindling factor for the Great Depression. Wealth concentration has no doubt been aided by the kind of trickle-down economics that Republicans support. At least Obama has the intent to end the trend of a shrinking middle class and a surging 1%, and I don't think I have to remind you again of what the Republican stance on this issue is.

I'll also dispute your figure of $1.3 million spent per new job created. First, as I'm sure you know, you can't just combine money from monetary policy and money from fiscal policy in one lump sum and say we "spent" it or it "cost" us like that. But let's take your $5 trillion in deficits: second, not every penny out of those $5 trillion is attributable to Obama's job-creating or government-expanding policies. For starters, approved revenue minus mandatory spending yields such a low figure (in the neighborhood of $200 billion, as of FY 2012) that even if Obama slashed all non-defense discretionary spending to zero, we'd have deficits — clearly, deficits are as much a revenue problem as they are a spending problem. About 50% of discretionary spending goes to the DoD, so that's that. Seeing as Mitt Romney ran on increasing defense spending by a trillion dollars, while Obama has pledged to cut it, in a world of alternatives, Obama comes out winning on that front. Whatever money Obama has spent on cushioning us from the ongoing repercussions of the recession can mostly be talked about in the form of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, which will add a cumulative $831 billion to deficits over the next ten years in the form of spending increases and tax incentives (but not to the tune of $831 billion a year, as some have suggested here on Newsvine). This is much lower than the figure we'd started out with. But yes, it is a lot of money for 5.5 million jobs. My problem with that figure is that it assumes that, ceteris paribus, inaction by the government would have resulted in net job losses of zero per month, as opposed to whatever job gains we actually had during those months. But who guarantees us that we would have had a stagnant, static job market, as opposed to one losing jobs? After all, we lost almost 800,000 jobs in January 2009 alone; who's to say that we wouldn't still be losing jobs at this point in time? If that were the case, then ARRA could be credited with saving a lot of jobs, on top of helping spur the creation of some others. The converse may also be true, and we might have net job gains in the absence of ARRA, but I don't have many reasons to think this would have been the case. After all, ARRA included almost $300 billion in tax incentives and no provision that would hinder job creation.

I think the nation is far less wealthy after Mr. Obama than before

See, this is what I was referring to when I talked about differing standards. I don't think you meant anything with this sentence but to blame Obama for our alleged decrease in wealth — but didn't you explain before that Bush was hardly to be blamed for the decrease in wealth in the early 2000s? I blame the recession for any decrease in affluence (which, if anything, has taken place in the form of lower annual income, not wealth), not Obama. Case in point: income has dropped among virtually all OECD nations during the same period, most of them having a head of government different from Obama.

It's also important to note that no, the nation isn't "far less wealthy." There was a bubble in 2008 and early 2008, so yes, if we compare ourselves to those years, maybe we're less wealthy. But the nation is wealthier today than it was in 2009, and this is a fact. Median household incomes may have declined (see above), but wealth hasn't.

TARP should be charged against Mr. Bush, but the repayments should also be credited to Mr. Bush

But that's not how budgets are measured of calculated. It's also worth noting that it was under Dodd-Frank (signed by president Obama) that the total sum authorized was reduced (and, consequently, nearly matched by the repayments), so, no, I don't think it's at all fair to completely exclude TARP from W.'s budget.

But let's say he is responsible for the increased deficit, from $450 billion to $1.4 trillion: may we also consider that this was, in large measure, due to receipts being $600 billion short of the projected value (i.e., the recession caused a large decrease in revenue, larger than W.'s budget predicted)?

The absolute BEST one can argue is that Mr. Obama has merely doubled or tripled the deficit he inherited. This isn't a sign of fiscal conservatism.

No, the best we can argue is that, since 2009, Obama has not increased spending any more significantly than any other modern president has. Your argument that 2009 must be held against him necessitates that we (1) completely pardon W. for TARP and disregard the fact that the total sum was reduced under Obama and (2) ignore the fact that, in 2009, revenues fell $600 billion short of the projected values (even though I said "spending," not "deficits" when I made the comparison to previous presidents, something you forgot). A big stretch, my friend.

Mr. Obama is a spendthrift, and with more money will simply spend more money.

Hyperbole does not help your case. Why should I think that with more money he will simply spend more money, when during the last three years revenues have increased during his presidency and spending has barely kept up with inflation (something, again, that we hadn't seen since Eisenhower)? Why aren't Bush and Reagan spendthrifts by your standards, seeing as during their eight years they kept increasing spending handily beyond inflation?

Couple that with an expansive view of the constitution and we have the makings for the largest increase in the nanny state in many decades

If you mean "expansive" as in, "it also applies to homosexuals wanting to marry" or "its first amendment clearly establishes that religion has no place in government policy" or "more Americans have exercised their right to purchase guns under his presidency than ever" or "it also applies to states like Arizona and shouldn't be dismissed by Gov. Jan Brewer and her racial-profiling laws" or "it also applies to gays who want to serve in the military," then, yes, Obama has done a swell job at expanding the Constitution and making sure that we all enjoy the rights it gives us.

This is already an extremely long reply, so I'll end it here. Thanks for reading!

Rich,

Think whatever you like, but unless you've lived the history and watch it unfold like it did in Germany and now here the similar things happening, I don't think you should pass judgement so easily! History does repeat itself!

Hey Andres,

Yes, a longer reply than my own! No worries though. Without ceding any ground on those things I do not reply to (because I want to shrink the size of the post more than anything, and also because we are never going to agree on most points anyhow) I just want to make one or two basic points. First, most of the deficit spending by Mr. Bush wasn't on defense, and wasn't for the War On Terror, however we want to define those parameters. And so, from a simply economic point of view held by most liberals today--Keynes is right--those deficits (and here I do disagree that defense spending doesn't produce positive economic outcomes, but the explanation is far too long) nshould have benefitted GDP rather than induce a recession. But simply read above the dozens upon dozens of posts by liberals who make a different claim.

So either deficit spending produces improved GDP or it doesn't. The degree might be a debate, but the general effect shouldn't be at issue. I happen to think that Keynes is generally wrong. That deficit spending, in most cases, isn't stimulative as claimed. It doesn't necessarily mean to cause a recession, but I think it does retard GDP growth.

Where I really agree with you, and I think people of similar minds could make great progress on this, is how for decades we tried to influence the markets and the effect was for us to be economically spanked. You didn't say as much, but you must at some level reject your other claim that government action wasn't at play, or certainly wasn't much of a player, in this entire mess. I would sharply disagree on this. Incentives, to have their desired effect, do not need to be overwhelming, or even pervasive. The 40% of paper being bought by Fannie and Freddie on the secondary markets was far more than necessary to inflate the bubble. It was only as the market began to falter that purchasees of this paper reached these levels. In other words, the much smaller activity had the desired result--a manipulated market--but as all markets over time must obey the laws of economics the government's policy had to adapt to the coming failure. So, rather than cut loose early, as Mr. Bush asked Congress to consider, policy remained the same.

And so it is in this area we most sharply disagree. Government perfection of the market, relative to the millions of private actors involved, in every case has exactly the opposite effect or gaol that is desired. Had there been no market manipulations, for instance, all those derivatives would have had more scrutiny, all those risky borrowers would have faced more scrutiny, all those bankers willing to make risky loans would have had more difficulty selling them and so would have had to internalize more risk. Without a doubt the bubble, to the extent it would have otherwise occurred, would have been minimized. Instead, it was maximized but the very government geniuses far too many people in the USA today look to for rescue. Mr. Obama is one of those geniuses. Hence my conclusion about him.

If I misspelled much I apologize. I've misplaced my other glasses.

Regards.