The only way Washington is going to change is if the threat is real and on their doorstep. Otherwise, we have too many lemmings in this country who fall for their BS and vote them in.

To paws93, If we want the gov.t to spend less on entitlements, then let's get the super
rich & their large corporations off of government welfare, take away all
their tax breaks & tax loopholes & other entitlements & let our American Capitalist FREE MARKET determine their fate.

We are in this predicament "BECAUSE" of the Bush Tax cuts! They are not supposed to be permanent ...despite what the wealthy want.

As for the wreckless spending??? Now we really dont need to go into that again now do we? Get serious!

You notice how the subject of spending never comes up when the repubs are in office???

a plaque on both their houses; since 1965 both party's have relied on the golden egg of social security taxes to fund all the social programs, pay for the entire Viet-Nam war; and later the Medicare tax on all working people, to also pay for Medicaid, pre-natal,birth control, and all other medical services for the poor.

They were told by the actuary's that unless they raised very big on SS taxes and Medicare taxes, their giveaway program could not be sustained; they just ingored the facts, getting re-elected was much more important.

@guylittle - How productive of you. Come online and write a post that insults over half of the American people. Your name wouldn't be Willard by any chance, would it?

Honestly. This whole "blame the other party" BS is starting to get old. Stop posturing and get the damn thing done already. Or you'll ALL be out of a job - Democrat and Republican alike.

guylittle did not write that post - it's a cut and paste without rendering the appropriate citing of the source. It was probably originally written about the GWB presidency and he merely substituted Obama for Bush.

KarlRover: It fits with the vulture capitalist tactic of raiding pension funds to pay for their incompetency.

guy: Wisdom of the Ages, or simple hatred for the (elected) President and the majority of Americans that voted for his viewpoint?

Why did America not clean house with the existing GOP when the elections were going on? I know I tried (but failed being outvoted.)

"You can't play the game and hide," he said on ABC's "This Week." "Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid, if those aren't fixed..."

In republican talk, "fix" means cut. Of course during the election, repugs were screaming about Obama cutting medicare.

Yep...Obama and the liberals are lying left and right and the liberal posters will blame the GOP for everything.

Unfortunately, that's the name of the game, isn't it? . . . Guess the GOOP doesn't like it so well when the shoe is on the other (more humane and sane) foot now, do they? . . . it's laughable that you would zero in on only one side when speaking of "lying" . . . the whole government is based on lies and deceptions. The GOOP just has a whole lot more experience doing it is all. They're not in the driver's seat anymore and the poor, pathetic souls can't deal with it. They should all drink the "cool-aid" and spare politics the DIS-pleasure of their company.

your right elaine-2138913 let it go over the cliff. To hell with Obama care cause there will be no money for it. Oh I am sorry there is no money for it now.

Suds-

Because 47% of America is still prat of the Republican Party (yeah, I get the Irony). And rightly so too, since not ALL Republicans are bad. It's only the ones who refuse to work with anyone about anything that need to be replaced. Thankfully, these people were voted out in SPADES this last election cycle (in both parties, actually). I'm certain they'll nearly all be gone next cycle.

The only thing that interests either side of this debate is to protect THEIR interests and benefits at all costs. They could care less what they do to the voting public as long as they are largely unaffected by the result of their negotiations.

None of the usual posters here today. That's fine. Everybody's saying the same things anyway.

I'm the crowd who thinks the "rich" have had it pretty good over the last 30 years, and it's time they pay the piper. They've lived and benefited from the country's productivity and tax structure--to the tune of 3x their income, while the 99% have basically stagnated (+10% real income).

Time to pay the piper. An extra $1T over 10 years is both a drop in the bucket (for them) and totally fair.

guy: If you take a look in the mirror, you'll be confronted with "the danger to America". Let's not confuse arrogance with wisdom or reason.

Rocky, Obamacare is paid for, dolt. It saves the government money. It may not save you money, but it terms of fiscal responsibility, it is a saver for the government.

Hey, Pie,

You might look into the causes of our current deficit situation. It's not Obama. It's a crashed economy (#1 cause), along with unpaid-for spending like the wars and Medicare Part-D. Obama has only spent about $1.5T in "new" expenditures--and most of that was tax cuts. Don't you guys love tax cuts?

I live in a total republican state and the first things out of their lieing mouths this week is we need to add a gas tax and, raise your auto registration up another ten bucks!! I already pay over 140 dollars on a 10 year old vehicle! Nothing but two faced scum!!!!

pie, civics 101, Congress controls the purse strings not the President and stop with the nasty name calling, sick of this stuff from folks like you, just being a low down right wing speak regurgitater. Stop it or go home with your bs rants!

Gee, Senator Durbin, the "rich" pay the same monthly premium for Medicare as the rest of us; so why, exactly, should they receive fewer benefits. Oh, that's right; your Dem base contains most of society's losers, so you and President Obama Claus have to keep those freebies coming.

We should make if equal across the board (business or not) Let the first $100,000 be tax free then everything after that be taxed at 50% until the deficit is paid in full. No tax loopholes and it doesn't matter where your money comes from. Also, everyone pays into FICA and Medicare on all of their income.

After all, fair is fair for everyone.

Well, you can raise taxes on corporations and small business Arch, but they will simply pass them along to the final customer; you know, like the middle class and poor. Is that what you really want?

Tim, if you "take in" $250K (revenue) in your small business, you're not going to be taxed more at all. Even if you "earned" $250K (profit as opposed to revenue), you wouldn't be taxed more, so get over it. Do you even know what you paid in taxes last year? Go look at your 1040 or whatever you file. I earned $238K last year (AGI) and paid about $40K in taxes. That's $16.8%. Who the "F" can complain about that?

Wolfhound,

Whatever they tax the "rich", it's more income to the government than if they don't tax them. The 2%-ers have got that huge tax break for the last 10 years, what's wrong with making them pay it the next 10 years. That's 1/2 as much as if they had been paying it the whole time. I'd call that a good deal. Don' you?

spider, one of the few times I agree with you on who should pay. If somebody pays, they should get the benefit.

If you take away the benefit, it's really a stealth income tax. It also creates an enemy of the system, which is good for everybody who gets it. I sure plan on Medicare and SS in my retirement. I don't want a handful of billionaires set to drown those entitlements becuase they get taxed for it but receive no benefit.

I don't agree with you on the country's "losers" though--as if all we're arguing about is getting "stuff" from the government.

Don't you think having a fit about raising taxes is also about "stuff"?? The rich people having a tax increase is not getting a fat tax return. That's someone being greedy about what they're going to get too.

i would rather pay for defence than pay foreign aide to countries that use the money to buy the weapons to kill us.

guylittle, your name fits you to a tee. Blaming the president is as dumb as the vitriol you posted. That belongs squarely on the shoulders of the Republican led HOR, which counted on the president being defeated in the election. Now the chickens are coming home to roost and they've been caught flat footed. Oh how it must suck to be one of them now.

piegan, you SHOULD be disgusted...with yourself, for being a low-information gathering historic revisionist. You didn't have a problem with Bush raiding the Social Security Fund of $1.8 trillion. You didn't have a problem with Bush NOT paying for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. You didn't have a problem with Bush and a GOP congress passing a Medicare Part D drug plan that has caused billions in unfunded liabilities. You didn't have a problem with 10+ years of Bush Era Tax Cuts that LOST $1.6 trillion in revenue, which HE touted was cuts to create jobs for the middle-class, but DIDN'T, only MORE $'s back to the rich. Of course the opposite happened; 6 million lost jobs including 3+ million in his last year in office. Millions of jobs shipped OUT of the U.S. because of Bush trade and outsourcing policies. A continuation of job losses in Obama's first year in office because of a SET BUDGET and policies by Bush. I know, you'll fail to believe any of these things, because you fail at REALITY, and wouldn't know a real spending-drunken sailor unless you woke up beside him in the morning, with the name 'Bush' tattooed on your backside.

Oh, that's right; your Dem base contains most of society's losers, so you and President Obama Claus have to keep those freebies coming.

Still believe the myth that Faux News repeats over and over again I see. Well, that confirms that you can't fix stupid.

Rex,

If I could just "pass all of those costs" to the customer, I'd be a rich man. Sales don't work that way, you can't just raise prices because you feel like it, or your costs go up.

You don't understand how the political class and corporate media operate:

It doesn't matter what the public want or need or what the facts are.

It only matters what elite consensus is, what most rich and or powerful people think or want.

In reality (and with historical experience) deficits, even large ones, are not that big a deal. We have had bigger before, for instance in 1946 our deficit was 150% of GDP (its about 100% now) and yet we didn't cut social programs or even seriously consider it. (But then the tax rate on the top income bracket was 90% and corporate contribution to revenue was 42% unlike today when it is single digits and many big companies don't pay any income tax)

Because most people don't understand this, the deficit is used as a hammer to pound down the living standards of most people in the U.S. (and world, look what's happening in Europe).

Elite consensus is that everyone but them, the rich, need to suck it up and have a lot lower standard of living.

Both political parties buy into this because they are both funded by corporations and the rich.

This is why both Romney and Obama put forth "exports" as america's savior.

They want to turn the U.S. into a low wage "export platform".

And along with the lower standard of living will come less civil liberties and more domestic spying and beefed up, brutal police,etc. because the authorities lose "moral authority" which has to be replaced with brute power and fear.

Hey Tony,

They're out in force today.

IT's amazing how these guys don't know how economics even works. That guy taking about taxes on his $250K small business. I bet that guy doesn't even know what's in his tax return.

ArchStanton

You are missing the point how taxes work, when the company looses billions of dollar during the 2008 down turn that loss carries forward to the next year and offsets those profits after the upturn started march of 2009.

Please educate yourself on simple tax structure and take off the class envy liberal colored glasses.

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

Obama already got his 4.6% tax hike on people making over 200/250K per year in the form of a 4.7% increase that will hit Jan of 2013. This tax hike is part of Obama Care. Yep lets pass ACA before reading it ** eyes roll **

Just shows Obama's greed and class warfare mentality. If Obama had his way his Jobs bill would add 5.6% + ACA 4.7% + bush taxes expiring 4.6%= 49.9% or an additional 42.5% increase in the top tax rate.

Since the jobs bill failed 44.3% is still an additional 26.5% increase.

We should just go off the cliff and start sharing the pain across the board and rein in the spending. If 4 trillion dollars in spending a year can't withstand a 120 billion in cuts something is wrong with America.

Arch, yes, the deficit panic is a fabrication. During WWII we spent the present-day equivalent of $10T in 4 years. The huge stimulus was paid down over the next 30 years with barely a hiccup. Interest rates are even lower now.

This is the deal the Republicans agreed to in exchange for extending the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy. They demanded it while threatening to put our nation into default. Let's go over the cliff. It'll clear up our deficit lickity split. A bunch of rich guys will go out of business along the way and they'll scream, but who cares. They didn't mind as the middle-class was losing their jobs and home. These talks should be suspended until after January so the Republicans and Tea Party can reap what they sewed.

The tax to the upper 2% is nothing more than symbolic. It won't make a dent in the Obama/Bush deficit. If the Dems like the symbolic move of raising taxes on the rich, then lets get real symbolic and take away all the political entitlements of the politicians: Presidential, Congressional, Senatoral,and Judicial. While we're at it, let's ask, no, let's TELL, the "Govt. sucklers of the Govt. teet" to take a pay cut.

Now do you feel our pain??!!!!

Randy,

If it was about class warfare, the rich have already won. From 1945 through 1980, all classes gained wealth about equally as a percentage of GDP--in other words, the whole population gained as the country. Form 1980 to today, the upper few percent have gained 300% income growth while the bottom 95% have gained 10%. What's the difference? Tax rates. It's the only equalizer. You have played Monopoly haven't you? Eventually the richest person "wins." But in a country, there is no winner. We're truly in it together.

I think there really sin't anything wrong with high tax rates. You just reinvest to avoid taxes. In fact, corporations and individuals are incentivized to reinvest with higher tax rates. If tax rates at 50%, the net cost of the new hire is 50% because of the deduction of the wage expense. If the marginal rate is 75%, the net cost of hiring the new guy is 25% of paying him. conversely, if taxes are 20%, the net cost of that new hire is 80% of his wages. Hiring costs more, when taxes are lower.

EdMcT,

Nobody's going out of business with a 3% tax increase. I know personally that small businesses have revenue and profit fluctuations MUCH greater than that. That number is in the noise.

Additionally, tax is only on the profit. To go out of business, your profit has to be negative already, which means you're paying no taxes anyway, so the 3% doesn't make ANY difference in that case.

Republicakes your King George W. kiss his ring and do anything for your worthless party my Social Security is not an entitlement you I can';t say it on here!

jbird,

It's more than symbolic. It's $1T over ten years. If you think it's a drop in the bucket, then the rich should have no problem shouldering that, right?

Randy,

Further, Obama's tax increases are paying for his programs. Tax increases to pay for Obamacare, right? That's better than Bush's spending without the pay-for, don't you think?

I actually think the redistribution of tax burden under Obama is pretty smart. It's REALLY hard to increase taxes directly on only rich people, but indirectly via Medicare taxes, or SS tax cuts to lower income brackets does redistribute the tax burden of the country as a whole in the long term. For the last 30 years the burden has been shifted down toward lower income dramatically. He's just moving the needle back the other way. My bet is that you shouldn't complain (I assume you're not a millionaire).

The "800lbs. Gorilla in the room", military spending, has mysteriously vanished into the corner! These "drastic cuts" can be minimized by a thoughtful and adult restructuring of the military! Do we need to spend $1 Trillion/year on the death machine? Don't you think that American can remain safe on half that much? The cuts to entitlements can be minimized by several means. Those who are well-off need to pay more for their entitlements. The systems need more oversight and prosecution of fraud! The BALANCED approach hasn't been given consideration, by either party!

You know what I find odd is during the Bush admin. until now the Republicans have been trying to privatize Social Security. The Republicans have been screaming about how fiscally responsible they are. The Facts?

The Bush Admin. took 1.4 Trillion from Social Security and borrowed 1.6 Trillion from the Chinese. But you never hear peep about it from the Republicans. Not to mention the almost 20 Billion in missing money from the war.

Why is it that Republicans always want to point a finger instead of looking at themselves? Because looking at yourself requires being honest.

MOM & POP INVESTOR RAGE!

(RTTNews.com) - Chinese-owned auto-parts company Wanxiang America Corp. won a
bid to acquire the of bankrupt battery maker A123 Systems Inc. (AONEQ.PK), the Wall Street Journal reported, citing a person familiar with the matter. NASDAQ

INVESTORS FLY OVER THE CLIFF

We LUV the 'Fiscal Cliff' because what lay beyond is certainty. Cuts will be made, and taxes will go up.

Our future could have been different, if it were not for politicians who govern like a ball and chain fastened around the necks of investors.

Political obstructionists used America's homegrown alternative energy future, in a failed strategy to unseat President Barack Hussein Obama.

BACKFIRE! China will benefit from lithium battery technology, that was developed with the help of U.S. taxpayers.

We can't let obstructionist politics hurt us again. Fly Over The Cliff, and deal with certainity on the otherside.

UNSEAT BOEHNER!

I want to reiterate a dummycrat talking point. How do you pay for a tax cut? DUH! offset spending maybe?

Tax cuts cost nothing! NOTHING!. If anyone believes a tax cut needs to be paid for, they must live in fantasy land. Look at it this way if you have $500 to pay your debts and you choose to lend that $500 to your brother in law. Then you are going to be late in paying your debts. Agreed? This is how the government twists the truth to all of us. We on the other hand are in charge of our finances. We must pay our debts in a timely manor or we must go without. Government in their line of thinking says that not being able to lend that $500 to your brother in law is a debt that we have to pay for via taxation.

Just like the infamous Obama phones. I don't mind helping people with basic needs, but luxury items should not be any part of any government give aways.

The real problem lies with the democrats willing to give away any and everything to secure votes. While placing more and more burden on those paying taxes.

The cart is at a tipping point people. Taxing the upper income earners will accomplish very little. Although if this happens, it will likely be the consumers who suffer paying higher prices for goods and services. So go ahead tax the top 2% you wil only be hurting yourselves.

someone here who earned $235,000 paid $40,000 a year in taxes? Equalling 17%? Good for them, but thats not my situation at all, not even close, in fact that sounds like fancy deductions or possibly time for an audit. I know what my taxation rate is, I dont need anyone chastising me for exaggerating how much i pay in taxes. Which is my point lets make taxation fair and equal across the board, and we wouldnt be having this interestingly annoying discussion because we all would pay the same? Right?

So here it goes a quick education in taxation for those enough lucky or not lucky enough to pass the $250,000 k per year in salary

my marginal rate is 35%, next is 5.25% state income tax, plus 6.2% social security tax (temporarily reduced by 2 percenatge points for the past 2 years), and the 1.45% medicare tax, and my total taxation is 47.9%. Do I take deductions? Of course, but I still pay very close to 47.9%. A return to the Clnton era rates would push my government tax obligatinos well over 50%, I will be working more the benefit of the government than for myself.

Why is anyone arguing against a fair system of equality in taxation? to me it is nonsensical. especially if you arent super rich, and you dont derive your income from capital gains which sits at 15%? Perhaps that is how this individual on this board only pays 16%

Most people in the US are completely economically illiterate:

People don’t seem to understand the fact that ending the bush tax cuts for families making over 250k isn’t going to make a dent in the deficit without serious cuts to Medicare/Medicaid, social security, and military spending (roughly 61% of federal spending when combined).

They also don’t understand that taxing people does not bring an improved economy. Furthermore they do not grasp the concept that profits (yes dirty evil profits) that successful people make is either spent or reinvested; those “evil” investments allow companies to grow and employ more people.

The worst of it all is people tend to think that government intervention in business is going to cure the economy. Government intervention in business is responsible for the housing bubble, shipping jobs overseas, corporate welfare, and high unemployment. Yes there need to be some basic regulations for business. However, each time the government adds another regulation, the never remove the older ones or reconsider tweaking the bad existing ones.

Tim,

That $40K in taxes was after being excluded from being able to take child tax credits, and even forced to take the Standard Deduction rather than itemize because of the AMT. 17% is about right for $235K in income. I think all of you guys have it wrong when you think tax rates are crazy high. My marginal rate was just into the 31% bracket at my income level. Most of my income (obviously) was taxed at 10%, 15%, 25%, and 28%. Remember, the marginal rates apply to income OVER a certain amount. Look at your own tax return and calculate it.

tim dog:

I'm calling BS. You say you make more than 250,000 and pay 51%. That is not possible unless you include your FICA contribution, your state income taxes, and your local income taxes. More than likely you are also including sales taxes, which are typically exempt from income taxation.

The tax rates are progressive and any one who wishes will find that the current 35% ceiling only applies to income in excess of $250,000 (if married).

You simply are not telling the truth.

Garcher,

What are you talking about? If you tax less, it costs the government something close to that amount of money in lost revenue.

$A-$B is less than $A-$zero

You don't need to be a CPA to understand that.

David,

Yes, Tim must be including all taxes, but probably even then he's exaggerating. 51% could be his marginal rate for total for money he makes over that amount, not on the total.

Even then I don't think so because SS cuts out around $110K, so he wouldn't be paying that a $250K.

The latest talking point from the Right is that it's a given that Democrats will receive tax increases on the wealthy from these negotiations, so Democrats "owe" Republicans entitlement reform so they can have a "soft landing" with their base. I don't see it as President Obama's issue that a huge portion of John Boehner's caucus is mad as a hatter.

Why all the talk about cutting Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit and debt ? Why penalize average, Americans when all we have to do is reduce foreign aid to terrorist producing countries, reduce corporate welfare and all the loopholes which allows the rich to hide money from taxes ? Why does Congress always make the cuts to the bottom tier who can afford it least ?

Ellis,

The President's plan does what you suggest.

It's only compromise away from his plan that would do anything to SS, MC or taxes to those with income under $250K.

Hey, Government, keep your hands off my Medicare.

Paul Ryan's loss in November is perfect lesson to aLL of you.

As far as I can see it's a win win for President Obama. If the Republicans cave in and finally come to their senses to allow the taxes to (go back to normal for the top 2 percent) then the President wins, fiscal cliff is avoided and Republicans look like fools for making us wait this long to concede.

If the Republicans do not come to their senses and allow the fiscal cliff to happen, then President Obama gets what he wants by default and the taxes go up to what they where supposed to be anyways. Republicans are to blame for the tax hikes on the middle class and poor, plus all the other cuts. President Obama can then say that he wants to lower the taxes for the middle class and poor. If the Republicans try to hold those reductions hostage for the reduction on the rich as well, then they take the fall for being the bad guy.

Either way, Republicans are going to be voted out in 2014 and Speaker Boehner will be no more in the House. This will pave the way for Hillary Clinton to continue with President Obama's fight for the people and put the middle class on top and the rich in their place.

As a "lefty redistributionist liberal," I am in complete support of entitlement reform. Social Security and Medicare are going to go bankrupt in the near future, endangering both our economic/fiscal and our political health. But I refuse to believe that all we have to do to reform entitlements is "cut spending." All that does is hurt beneficiaries and delays the oncoming crash. My personal belief on entitlement reform is that is should be exactly like broad-based deficit reduction: a mix of cuts, reforms, AND revenue increases. Take Social Security, for example. It is the easiest program to solve; all we technically have to do is increase the payroll tax cap to 90% of earned income and reform the indexing formula used to adjust benefits to inflation. For Medicare, I would take a more bold approach; keep the Obamacare cuts, raise the payroll tax to 3.5%, increase Part B premiums to 35%, limit malpractice torts, reform Medigap, give Medicare the opportunity to negotiate drug prices, and have all payments to providers structured under a pay for performance system by 2025.

While I mostly agree, Fresh. Why limit to earned income? Unearned income is WAY undertaxed right now. The modestly wealthy are the ones who are subject to the most unfairness. The 5%-ers to the 0.1%-ers bear a big burden, losing tax credits, subject to AMT and other tax rigging that high earners just aren't bothered by.

Fonze11-/Ending tax cuts to the 1%+ percentage of our population will not end our indebtedness. I agree, but if taxing the 1+% of super rich doesn't do it then why tax anyone any amount? There is no logic in that as an argument. Taxing our population on a sliding scale is a normal way of taxing the nation and no-one with any sense or logic means taxing the least income the most has any logic whatsoever. Ending entitlements for big business that is making huge profits is not only logical but not cheating the nation as a whole. I can not understand any one advocating that solution to our economic problems, unless they are paid to suggest that as a reasonable solution. That is not a solution that any normal person would consider either sensible nor fair . I.O.W. stop wasting your time with illogical solutions to our problems.

LET THE FISCAL CLIFF FALL AND LET SEQUESTRATION FOLLOW!
The typical irrational Liberal/Progressive arguments continue about their indoctrinated belief that the government can take care of their hard earned tax dollars better than they can. This is the result of our dysfunctional government run public education system.
For 100 years we have tweaked the tax rates from 1% on the lower class to 97% on the upper class and we have consistently collected revenues of about 18% of GDP. By some mythical fashion they refuse to admit that any increased revenues that did occur are when the tax base was dramatically broadened by increased growth of the economy.
Even their sacrosanct Clinton era growth was driven by a massive dot-com bubble. When the Clinton tax rates were increased the economy was already in a growth phase because of the Reagan tax cuts. From 1992 to 1996 growth was at an anemic 3.3% (wouldn't we love to have had that rate of growth for the past 4 years?) and wage growth was stagnant. Not until Clinton dropped the capital gains rate from 30% to 20% did the economy truly accelerate. Once that happened growth increased to 4.4% and wages grew by 1.7%. Of course, this was during that venerable "irrational exuberance" created by the dot-com equity growth, artificially low interest rates by the Federal Reserve and dramatic cuts to welfare and government. Revenues grew to 20.6% of GDP but more importantly spending decreased to 18.2% in 2000 and 2001.
Of course poor Billy "Blue Dress" Clinton was given his marching orders this year to support the dysfunctional Barrack Hussein class-warfare/envy meme for purely political reasons rather than valid policy. It's a shame Clinton has allowed his achievements to be minimized so much to promote Obama's statist nonsense.
Why do Liberals/Progressives allow Barrack Hussein to insult them by telling them the best they can achieve is middle-class status. Why doesn't he promote the same level he and most of those in Congress have achieved? Could it be because they are corrupt and just keep throwing more "Bread and Circuses" to the unwashed illiterate masses?
Most real Americans understand. It's a shame Liberals don't.

Social security and medicare programs fit in with the conservative idea of compassion perfectly. It's really not entitlement, anyway. Government just serves as a trustee to manage the money against fluctuations of the market; once a while, the government even borrows from it for some temporary unauthorized use.

People have saved their money for retirement when the retired have some measure of security against poverty and sickness. Thus there is the extra benefit of social order preserved, which also fits well with conservatives' concern for social order.

.

But some of today's conservatives have forgotten about their core principles, that's so sad. It's the Democrats who have performed this conservative duty, in addition to their liberal ideals. So we don't need the GOP any more. Time to end the GOP as we know it.

At Jaque - Ok...and I'll say hello to your mother.

@altalks21 - I agree...why should corps get special tax breaks... The system is all corrupt as politicians used the tax codes to buy votes.

Obama gave tax waivers to unions and McDonalds (probably the richest out there) and many other corps. I'm sure the GOP are just as guilty.

If you want to set a tax limit without deductions, the IRS would be 1/3 its size and I wouldn't have to pay an accountant every year.

I'm amazed at the number of people on this thread spouting off about how the economy was in the immediate post WWII era. From their comments, I doubt any of them were around during that period. So lets be clear about this, The entire world economy was different in those days. Europe and most of Asia was in shambles, and the U.S. was the only country with any manufacturing capability to speak of. Of course we prospered! It would have been near impossible not to. We live in a different world now, and as much as I miss the 50's, we have to do business differently. Here's a fix for "entitlements", (I'd like to kick the crap out of whoever came up with that term!) the federal government is the largest property owner in the U.S., if not the world. Do what many of we seniors have to do every day, sell some assets! Pay back the money you borrowed (stole) from Social Security and Medicare.

One last thing, David Walker, learn to read the entire post before you slam others for what they didn't say! Your posts aren't exactly brilliant, so you don't have much room to talk.

QUESTION ????????????????????????

How can congress count Social Security , Medicare & Medicade as an entitlement program When we paid into them ??? Lord love a duck if they cut their salaries and benefits . If they do then surely the world will end. We pay into these programs and therefor are entitled to those benefits. Congress should be looking for the fraud and mismanagement of those programs to save money. Yeah I know ( to many fingers in the pot ).

@JimSpence - First you say economic growth under Clinton was due to the dot com bubble. Then you say it was due to the cut in capital gains taxes. Your last paragraph, however, makes it all clear: you are, in fact, too stupid to understand what you are saying.

Reagan was the worst thing that hit the US since Pearl Harbor. The steady decline he initiated continues, and if we keeping going down Reagan's rotten road, we will end up like Mexico or Russia: as a neo-facsist oligarchy with chronic social instability.

As demonstrated by the recent Senate vote in which 38 right-wing, neo-fascist senators killed the most innocuous UN treaty imaginable, and killed it for reasons which were all lies, the American right-wing is after islamic-jihadists the most dishonest and the stupidest group of people on earth.

@JimD- Do you always start drinking early on weekends?

Good place to start is to take away all the Entitlements from the Tea Loonies in the GOP !!!!!!!

Dick Durbin knows the Progressive Caucus stand for those that have no voice at the table. Those that gave the Democrats a victory on November 6th. He knows the plans for austerity cuts to social earned benefit insurance programs, going on behind the backs of Americans, is selling out the Democratic voters. The Democrats are openly aligning themselves with big corporate interests. Last week Claire McCaskil said Congressional leaders should stop playing to the cheap seats; a reference to the 47%.

Dick Durbin should be talking about how Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security Benefits are off any negotiating table and that defense spending cuts are taking their place. No reform of deductions for those earning under $250,000, is going to happen. Removal of Bush Tax cuts for all is going to happen.

Democrats won the election, don't you dare sell out your base to the corporations and military-Industrial. You are neither hot nor cold, so you are spewed from the mouths of the 53%ers!

Am I mistaken. Didn't the Repuklicans looooose the election. I'm not living till I'm 67 to get medicare while the bastards in office are fully covered after a few years of service. BS. Obama don't you let them redneck,toothless bastards touch what little s.s. we end up with. Wake up Americans it's your future that's being pushed into oblivion, unless your to oblivious to care.

Hey piegan

You seriously need to take a civics class so you can learn the legislative process and how money is allocated. The President doesn't spend a dime you dolt! Why don't you know that? Congress spends the money, that's it. You accuse him of spending like a drunken sailor. Pal the only drunk around here is you.

Man, I think ignorant people like you are going to spell the end of the rest of us.

O'Bama has got to get SERIOUS about the impasse and stop the campaigning. O'Bama is now and remains a deceitful and untrustworthy President who has done nothing but cover-up, lie and use scare tactics since his 1st day in office. He has set himself up as the 1st. Socialist Dictator in American History. He refuses to reduce his out of control spending because to cut ANY Entitlements would mean his base of Black Americans and Latino's would see a reduction in their FREE MONTHLY Government Check. Like Similar Dictator's of History, he needs removed from office NOW before he can do more harm!!

And again, David Gregory couldn't do the job he is supposed to. He constantly interrupted Dick Durbin but let McCarthy rattle on and on without providing a real answer to any question. Oh, I forgot, David did that for him. At what point does MTP just tatoo the "R" in the middle of Gregory's forehead since it is clear he is on the Repubican payroll. What an absolute joke of a comentator. Is this really the BEST MTP could do?

The RepubliCONs haven't learned a lesson from Paul Ryan whose voucher plan definitely contributed to Mitt's loss last month.

I remember those angry seniors in Florida who booed Ryan during a campaign event even after repeated assurance to the retired seniors that his voucher plan would not affect the already retired. The campaign event happened right before the election.

It's sad that some never learn. These republiCONs still want to change these entitlements...which are not really entitlements. The working folks have saved for social security and medicare benefits in their entire working career - to only see some elected conservative wolves drooling all over such programs.

say - olddog - is the 47 your birth year or age? You are mistaken if you think that the gummint took money from SS - they BORROWED IT - it's DUE to be paid back, but the income from the taxation doesn't cover the addition of the "members".

SS was once referred to as the world's largest gummint sponsored PONZI SCHEME (the reason being simple - the ONLY WAY THEY CAN CONTINUE TO PAY IS WITH INCREASING PARTICIPANTS (or increase the taxable BASE to be "unlimited" - right now it's capped at 113,000 or so) And, of course, most criticisms of SS seem to FORGET (conveniently) that it is supposed to be A RETURN FOR MONEY PAID INTO THE FUND - at least I OWN my 401k)

JimD-406742

ROTFLMAO!!!!

I was going to try and explain my post to you but after reading yours again I realized how futile it would be. Your indoctrination into the Barrack Hussein mediocrity camp is complete.

Why do you Liberals/Progressives submit so easily to his irrational belief that all you can achieve is to be middle-class? Have you no pride or self-esteem left? Have you been so brainwashed by the little cartoon existence he promotes, "The Life of Julia", as the best you can do in life? What convinces you that a junior senator whose only accomplishments prior to being elected were arranging a few picnics in Chicago as a community organizer and writing a couple books, ABOUT HIMSELF, can be a real leader?

It's sad to see so many Americans become so dependent on a cabal of criminals in our government who can't even present a reasonable budget to run the largest economy in history. I'd try and explain more but your stupidity is only surpassed by your insignificance.

Try to keep up Spanky.

@SeekingSanity:

I cant stand David Gregory. Why does NBC have him in this chair? His work is schmucky, creepy and republican.

Put a fork in it,

SS is insurance. you get a check if you are disabled, or over 65 (or 67 for us younger people). If you die before that, you get zip. You're wife kids might get some if you have either. But the bottom line is that it it not a Ponzi scheme. It if fully funded until 2035 or so, and even then it it set to pay 75% of all benefits. Small tweaks will fix it to 100%.

My problem with the changes they want to make are that they DON'T apply to current retirees. My feeling is that they "got" all along--government overspending these last 30 years. Now they get full SS too? Why should ONLY the younger generation have to bear the benefit cuts and tax increases? I'm feeling ripped off.

Jim Expense,

Quit ranting and say something.

Wow! How Dick Durbin has a say in this is just crazy! This a$$hole presides over one of the most financially corrupt states in the union. Let Dick "Dick Durbin before he dicks you" Durbin clean his own house here in Obamaland, before he gives any financial advice!

Ben,

Chuck Todd is just as bad. Him and his red tie.

Fender,

As if ANY red state would be a financial model. You do now that the Red states are net TAKERS by far. Illinois, New York, and California provide 20% to 40% more then they get from the Federal Government. Smoko

Ben - they could have taken someone off the street with NO experience and they would be better than Gregory! He's useless.

Jim Spence - your post is your typical BS. Liberals have more people in the top 2% than conservatives so my guess is your post sums up your jealousy and inability to actually achieve much. The difference is that liberals want everyone to be able to achieve - to have the same opportunities. And, we don't want to take so much away from people that they can never go from poor to middle class - something conservatives have no problem with. It appears to make you guys feel better if you can look down on someone - even though clearly you can't.

But, go on with your ridiculous posts. They say more about you than you know - none of it good!

Jim spence,

Everyone can't be rich. Dismissing those that do believe "all you can achieve" is middle class isn't too realistic. Figuring 15% of the population is downright poor, middle class is a good goal.

QUIT CALLING SOCIAL SECURITY ENTITLEMENTS.we paid for it we deserve it

Entitlement - The High Pay & Benefits Public Servants Get..... Lets start with a 50% cut in Pay & Benefits for Congress..... They sure as hell have not earned a penny of it.....

Ah social structure rich are born rich poor born poor middle class born middle class all can buy Boardwalk and Park place or they they can just keep passing go and collecting their free money which i herd is alot of people in this country.The poorer the country the more control you have over them poor education system pis poor goverment backed colleges it's just amazing no college went under guring the fiscal problem they keep getting goverment money and no return on that investment.Lets just drive over the cliff we have to sooner are latter lets just do it now.Know money for the out of work jerks for 3 years get off your ass.

OOOOHHHH NNNOOOO, the rich are being asked to pay the same tax rates the middle class has been paying for years and years........ooohhh NNNoooo. Wouldn't that be a shame?.......Let's see...the rich get special tax rates on capital gains taxes because of investments......saying....taxes were paid on the money by corporations already mbefore they paid the investers......HHHmmmmm...my employer already pays taxes on the investments and profits...so therefore my investment in working payments should have the same capaital gains tax rates the rich get.....why not? My employer already paid the taxes before he gave it to me...just like the rich get paid!

Sad to see that in all this posturing, no one seems to be mentioning defense. Unless and until they address the skyrocketing, wasteful, defense spending, they are all just p*ssing up a rope.

SmBusOwnerinNY

While I mostly agree, Fresh. Why limit to earned income? Unearned income is WAY undertaxed right now. The modestly wealthy are the ones who are subject to the most unfairness. The 5%-ers to the 0.1%-ers bear a big burden, losing tax credits, subject to AMT and other tax rigging that high earners just aren't bothered by.

Well, it's just that I don't really know the fiscal impact of including capital gains and dividend income in the FICA tax. Chances are it would increase revenues significantly, although I'm not sure by how much. Plus I have to be fair to the bastards on the right who think capital gains and dividends should be taxed at a far lower rate than earned income. I admit that they should be preferred, but not by a huge margin. If it were up to me, capital gains would be taxed at either 25% (average during the postwar economic boom), 28%, or 35%. Although I have been espoused with the idea of another commentator's capital gains plan, which would have an initial rate of 50% which would be subtracted by 2% each year that a capital gains asset is retained, so as to encourage more efficient and productive long-term economic investments rather than short-term financial investments that cause investment bubbles.

JimSpence

LET THE FISCAL CLIFF FALL AND LET SEQUESTRATION FOLLOW!
The typical irrational Liberal/Progressive arguments continue about their indoctrinated belief that the government can take care of their hard earned tax dollars better than they can. This is the result of our dysfunctional government run public education system.

Finally, you and me can agree on something. Let the fiscal cliff happen and then offset some of it from there. Deficit is eliminated, and focus can go on long-term economic growth and tax/entitlement reform.

For 100 years we have tweaked the tax rates from 1% on the lower class to 97% on the upper class and we have consistently collected revenues of about 18% of GDP. By some mythical fashion they refuse to admit that any increased revenues that did occur are when the tax base was dramatically broadened by increased growth of the economy.

Actually, the 18% of GDP stat is only an average over the past 50 years, with a 30 year average of roughly 19%. And technically we only got that amount after the "massive socialist progressive expansion of government" in the post-World War II era, which was followed by immense levels of growth and prosperity for ALL Americans. And finally, many Western nations live on tax revenues far north of 18%, including our Canadians neighbors with their 32% of GDP. The reason why is because they tend to focus more on corporate and consumption tax systems along with taxes on wealth in addition to the standard income tax. If the United States created a consumption/wealth tax system that worked in coordination with the current income/payroll tax regime, revenues would be well over 25% of GDP; yet that would be an enormous burden on the economy if you include state and local shares. And tax revenues have two factors: the tax base and the tax rate. If the tax base of nation A with a flat 20% rate was $8 trillion, the country would get roughly $1.6 trillion in revenues. If nation B had a 35% tax rate had a base of $6 trillion, that nation would get $2.1 trillion. If the tax bases were equal for both countries country B would make more; if the tax base of nation A grew to perhaps $11 trillion, it would make more.

Even their sacrosanct Clinton era growth was driven by a massive dot-com bubble. When the Clinton tax rates were increased the economy was already in a growth phase because of the Reagan tax cuts. From 1992 to 1996 growth was at an anemic 3.3% (wouldn't we love to have had that rate of growth for the past 4 years?) and wage growth was stagnant. Not until Clinton dropped the capital gains rate from 30% to 20% did the economy truly accelerate. Once that happened growth increased to 4.4% and wages grew by 1.7%. Of course, this was during that venerable "irrational exuberance" created by the dot-com equity growth, artificially low interest rates by the Federal Reserve and dramatic cuts to welfare and government. Revenues grew to 20.6% of GDP but more importantly spending decreased to 18.2% in 2000 and 2001.

Technically the Clinton boom was driven by a technology boom, which eventually mutated into a bubble around the year 2000. Low interest rates (and historically low capital gains rates) helped cause the mutation. But the boom was also caused due to increased innovation in computer and Internet industries; I personally think the boom became a bubble when interest rates remained low when they should have been raised to check a bubble and when capital gains taxes were cut down to 20%, along with subsequent deregulation of the financial industry. As for your supposed reliance on the Reagan tax cuts for "true" economic growth, you would have to explain the Reagan recession in the late 1980s and early 1990s, due in part to the collapse of Reagan's debt-fueled economic expansion. You might want to check back on the 1980s, which were actually a terrible time if you were a blue-collar worker or a white-collar worker who despised loans but a wonderful time for "paper investors" who made cash without making any productive investment in the economy. And the reason for extraordinarily low spending rates were a COMBINATION of the welfare reform's impact on spending AND the fantastically low unemployment rates under Bill Clinton, which reached 3.9% late in his term, which subsequently lowered social spending on the unemployed and those in poverty.

And by the way Jim, liberals/progressives don't tell people that the best they can achieve is middle class status, even though most people will eventually hit that status if they evade sinking below the poverty line. Liberals and progressives may seem like the anti-rich, but in actuality we demand that those who prosper from society (including the wealthiest Americans) contribute to the maintenance of the economic and political structures that enabled them and many others to succeed in this great land. In short, we simply want the rich to pay more money in taxes as a "gift" to the nation and the people who enabled them to become so successful. Since when is asking those who have profited from this nation's greatness to pay more in taxes as their debt of gratitude to this nation's greatness a moral sin in the eyes of society??? Apparently it is in the eyes of an Ayn Randian Social Darwinist such as yourself, but not in the eyes of mainstream American opinion.

Fire them ALL! Your representative, my representatives and this administration. Can't be any worse. They give billions away, spend trillions of OUR money and the only answer they can come up with is GIVE US MORE. And why did they exempt themselves from Obamacare if it so great?

Thank you,ArchStanton and SmBusOwnerinNY .I always find your posts well stated and insightful.

SmBusOwnerinNY, I think "put a fork in it" is talking about what SS was initially intended. It was basically an IRA for those who paid in. Earning simple interest over time but because the fund grew so large that it paid a higher interest rate like an annuity. There was the problem, a $hitload of money and a bunch of special interest groups and the politicians who need their votes. I know a woman whose husband was killed in a accident on a motorcycle in'81. He was 22 and his daughter was 8 months old. His wife got a 1.4 million settlement in a trust paid annually. His daughter recieved $1300. per month from Social Security from the time she was 8months old til she was 18? The father paid in 2 yrs of his life, which would have been fine if was life insurance. The problem I have is when Social Security became an insurance company. The breakdown of the womans settlement was 75K up front, 18,500 a yr + 13K 1 yr in CD's for the daughter, and a $400K split between the Mom and Daughter on her 18th Birthday. Keep in mind this was 1981, $75,000 bought one helluva house and Z28 Camaro in the garage,which is what she did! You gotta ask yourself would you throw Grandma and Grandpa under the bus,our the rich widow who didn't need the free Social Security money in the 1st place?

Yes indeedy. The right wing lunatic fringe is whining and sniveling about "entitlements" while it assiduously ignores the GOP's favorite entitlement, the Military. The fact is, America spends nearly as much on its defense budget as the rest of the world combined. A 25% reduction in our military spending would still exceed the spending of the next ten countries put together, most of whom are our allies. Why don't the cry-babies of the far right whine and simper about that? Is it because they are simply weak-minded followers of Rush and Glenn or is it due to the fact they cannot think independently? Who knows? Who cares?

Clinton in 2016! She is clearly our only rational choice!

GuyLittle (1.7): since you didn't provide an appropriate and truthful citation for the paragraph that you copied; I will....

"The danger to America is not Barak Obama..."

It's a quote from an article in the Prague newspaper; Prager Zeitungon 9/17/11 (there was no author listed)

I say sit back, give the President and the Democrats everything they want to "solve" the problem and see if they can actually do it. Then when the government can't borrow anymore and people don't get their monthly checks, continue to sit back and let them take their lumps.

Bush's last budget ran from Oct. 2008 through Oct. 2009 with a deficit of 1.2 trillion. Had Obama simply ran Bush's last budget his 4 years the deficit would still be 15.7 trillion. The reason most Americans blame Bush and not Obama for our massive deficit is simple. Bush built it. Right wingers scoff at Obamas job record over his 4 years that averaged around 120,000 a month yet ignore that Bush averaged around 32,000 a month over his entire 8 years. Clinton averaged 375,000 a month over 8 years. Bush gave the 1% over 3 trillion in breaks during his presidency to create jobs yet he had the worst job creation since WW2.

The hardest thing to understand in the world is the income tax. ~ Albert Einstein

Let US get it over with already! If the Demo-Republo-Bureauc-RATS can't agree on their latest round of Tax & Spend let US jump off of the Fiscal Cliff and let the Automatic Tax Increases and Budget Cuts kick in!

Do any of you actually believe that any of these Corrupt Wall Street Political Minions in Washington DC work for US or are looking out for ANY OF OUR best interests?

Maybe there are still a few Intentionally Delusional Corporate Sponsored Demo-Republo-RAT Supporters out there who cling to their Hopey Changey Nonsense, but I cannot believe any "Real American" could or would be that Intentionally Naive in 2012!

Admit it folks...9/11 was a False Flag Operation.....Still Don't believe? Watch General Wesley Clark Connect the Dots for You and then watch this new PBS Documentary about the 9/11 the Wall Street Plutocracy who seized control of our Country and still refuses to investigate....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw&feature=g-all-f

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l-8PFk8j5I

Say what you will but after watching these two Documentaries if you still do not understand the truth....You Obviously choose not to!

So let US hurry all of these Wall Street Corrupted "DC RATS" Right Over the Cliff....The sooner they go over better for ALL OF US life will be!

Impeach Obama in 2012 and Imprison Clinton for Criminal Conspiracy to Cover Up the Murder of an American Ambassador, Intentionally Lying to the American People Secret CIA Prisons and Supporting Al Qaeda in Benghazi-Gate and now in Syria!

None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes.~Johann von Goethe

There is what, 3 working days left after this 5 day weekend for the house? We are going over the cliff!

Reid has his plan set up and ready to go on January 1st.

Pelosi has her plan all ready to go too.

President Obama has his pen out and is ready to sign his program into law.

Ok republicons, whatcha going to do? They are coming for you.

I've read the whole thread down to you SactoJD, bingo on the defense budget. America is being taken by its own defence contractors. It is about time that we start paying fair market value for products and services. Set the price and see who wants it. Pick the best candidate, we hire these people, we should get to decide who gets a contract based on the set price. We need to pull back some over sea's bases also. Establish bases here in the U.S. Especially along both borders. Protect our own borders but more importantly, pump the money that spends around the world around a military base into our economy. We need to look at our military, create more of a strike force rather then an occupier. Cuts the cost of war considerably. Next suggestion I almost hate myself for. Declare war on war. The reason why is all our other wars have failed miserably and spent a lot of money in the process. The war on Drugs is a complete failure, I witnessed the war on poverty starting to take hold when the Republicans stepped in and caused a recession that hurt a lot of people. Not the rich, of course but the working man and woman that made them rich. But we need to stop being the world cop. For one thing everybody that isn't us is not evil. Lets take care of our own people. JOBS not welfare. JOBS. At this time I am announcing my candidacy to be Hillary's Vice President. 2016

miklkit ..... How about starting Impeachment proceedings immediately in the House Of Representatives against President Obama!

http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/

Gee it is NOT like Obama hasn't already done plenty to Warrant the Charge of High Crimes & Misdemeanors like providing secret Aid & Comfort To Al-Qaeda!

When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal. ~Richard M. Nixon

At least Republican President Richard Nixon Had the "Honor" To Resign Afterwards!

Don't get the impression that you arouse my anger. You see, one can only be angry with those he respects. ~Richard M. Nixon

Yee-ouch Sailcat! Glad to hear you have moved on from your messiah Obama and onto Hillary. Those like yourself of weak minded ilk should keep your minds occupied. In your case for whatever reason,however you do realize the size of the nation you currently reside in is? And if so splendid, you can't help but compare the ratio of our allies homeland to our own,can you? You still there? OK,we have more area and population than our so-called allies,and we're sort of our brothers keeper. You can follow the jist of that old bean,right? It's the Democratic way! A pity that your party didn't stick with Hillary in '08 don't you think? Here she could have entered in her "rationale" to this fical clusterf^^k and all this would have been avoided? To bad your party didn't think she could have defeated McCain/Palin.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla..for this senator to be making statements saying everyone will feel the hurt from the cuts the republicans are pushing for seems to be not a true statement. Consider..all the cuts envolve the middle class and those who are fighting to remain afloat today..yet not one of the republican ideas hurt themselves in any way. Consider the cost to the tax payers for the insurance that all politicans are allowed...think also of the money they are all paid to do what little they have done in just the past 4 years. IF these and all other politicans want to start cutting what they call entitlements..lets let them start with their own pay..and also cut their insurances...if the ones on social security will have to fend for themselves then congress can do the same. Also as for social security..I have to wonder why there is a cut off amount and not all funds charged that particular tax...except for the fact that the wealthy do not want it to effect them...which by the way includes all of congress. IF cost are to be cut then cut them all for everyone...no exceptions at all..including those in congress..which can draw "retirement" from an elected position...which I admit I do not see how they get away with that. That alone is a cost no tax payer should have to cover.

Social Security and Medicare are something people pay into, it is not an entitlement. Defense contractor CEO ten and hundred million dollar salaries is entitlement. The Federal Reserve gave the international bankers 16.1 trillion dollars. We do not owe any national debt. Congress, we the people, are supposed to own and regulate the monetary system according to the US Constitution not international bankster war profiteering monetary system monopolizing criminals. A real president would declare the national debt void and start printing money based on the worth of government property, the gold in Fort Knox and the work, goods and services that we purchase as a nation, government and people. President Lincoln printed green back dollars as well as President Kennedy. Bankers have done a terrible evil job of controlling our money and owning our nation. We can over throw the infinite greed cabal.

Conservatives care only about themselves. Sink or swim is their motto. The funny thing is that while they are not interested in helping anyone, they are not trying to steal either. If they can outsmart or out work you, they'll take your shirt.

Do they think that the playing field should be level? Nope, they want the spoils to go to the ones that work the hardest or that is the smartest. History has shown that they continue to get more and more until.... yep, that's right, they are killed off. Then we have the great equalizer, otherwise; known as the dark ages. How soon is the next one coming? I hope it holds off for a few years! I sort of like all these modern conveniences.

To help fix Social Security and Medicare.-Lift the cap off of Social Security. You pay taxes on each dollar earned. $ 2.00 luxury tax on each ticket sold. It could be a movie, sports, etc. $ 1.00 goes into each fund. Don't raise the age on future generations again. You Republicans won't be happy until we have to be 100 years old to get social security and medicare.

SeekingSanity
The difference is that liberals want everyone to be able to achieve - to have the same opportunities.
So, just what obstacles do those that can't achieve have to hurdle that the rest of us don't?
Is it a good education? If it is you need to take that up with our criminal government run primary and secondary education system that has created more illiteracy than anything.

Is it poverty? The poverty we have spent over $17 trillion on over the past 45 years and improved nothing? You may want to reevaluate your sacrosanct entitlements and social programs that have been such abject failures in the wars on crime, drugs, poverty and illiteracy. Or maybe we should just keep using the same adolescent Liberal policy and spend a hundred trillion dollars on all these failures. I'm sure that will work, right?

The problem with you Libbies is you want to make poverty more comfortable rather than eliminate it. Our criminal public education system that you so covet is an embarrassment. Out of wedlock pregnancies create more poverty than anything, yet you condone it. Keeping a job, any job, is the best way out of poverty but you'd rather just create more dysfunctional unsustainable "social programs".

Your Liberal/progressive ideology has failed, you're just too much of a coward to admit it. It's easier to blame all the bogeymen you create than to be accountable.

Your insecurity is only surpassed by your ignorance.

SmBusOwnerinNY

Figuring 15% of the population is downright poor, middle class is a good goal.

It may be good enough for the mediocre Liberal goals, we real Americans would prefer you aspire to be rich.

It does happen.

JimSpence - I'm a liberal and I don't think anywhere near the way you think I do. If you want to know in a nutshell - look at the prosperity of the 1990s, or 1960s. That's what I want. Higher tax rates to cover our spending and drive more business investment (that's right - investment is a great way to avoid paying taxes). I also want constitution-abiding government (no "papers please" law, or automatic filibuster) and no government control of my life telling me who to marry and what to do with our bodies.

But here is a serious question for you: Data out this week shows that businesses not only have record profits as %GDP, they also have record profits per dollar of sales (while paying record low wages per dollar of sales). The wealthy few own more of America than ever before, heck, over half of all capital gains goes to 0.1% of the population. Does the fact that America is moving towards a third-world wealth distribution bother you at all?

Michael-4273928
Removing the cap would have very little affect on the destiny of Social Security.

The sad truth is Social Security was doomed to bankruptcy long before Ronald Reagan publicly called it an intergenerational Ponci Scheme. It was known by anyone who cared back in the late 1970's that nobody currently under 50 today has any hope of receiving retirement benefits from Social Security. Social Security was doomed for all post boomers even BEFORE George Bush added the prescription drug benefit to the program.

Michael

The best reform for Social Security would be to scrap the entire system and put the seniors who are actually destitute on Welfare along with other destitute people.
Social Security in its current form is taxing the young poor (forcing more children to grow up on Top-Ramen)
in order to subsidize the middle class and rich Seniors. Social Security in its current form is actually shortening the lives of the young in order to lengthen the lives of the Boomers.

Tweaking and adjusting will fix nothing.

Speaking of social security, I got a letter yesterday, that said my check was going up 1.7%. The funny thing is that since I retired a couple of years ago, my net worth has been steadily increasing, without an increase in my income. Something about my expenditures being less than my income. There is no way a liberal could understand that, is it?

I wonder,

Once again you underestimate the intelligence of us liberals, their superior education and thinking skills! The fact that your social security didn't go up for a year before must also have slipped your mind? Just make sure you can keep spending less each year and you won't have to worry about being over weight either!

Well, I am 5' 10" and weigh 140 pounds. I could stand to lose a few more. And yes clwyd, exactly my point, my social security did not go up for two years and yet I didn't need to rob anyone.

Believe me, I do not underestimate your intelligence. Why, when I was a lad, I was a liberal myself.

Jim Spence you are the dumbest rock in the pile. Liberal policy's do work, and republicans don't. Look at Clinton. Or rather his achievements as president. Unemployment was near nil. Full employment is when everyone that wants too has a job. Every single time in my life and especially since Ronald Reagan doubled down on stupid a republican was president and his policy's have been enacted in congress there has been a recession. Bush l l was the worse. The absolute worst. I go back in my working career to Johnson, and in life and memory to Ike. There is nothing worse then a republican president for the American people. With the exception of Ike they were all for the rich. Nothing for those that actually make the rich. The income disparity in this country since Ronald (Iran/Contra) Reagan has been awful. Now you S.O.B.'s want to give the death nil to Unions which are working class middle America. Its time for you azzholes to get a good thumping and it will happen. Promise you it will happen.

So IW you go from a young liberal to an old fool. What is your point?

Whatever.

My point was clear enough, my net worth has increased over the last two years, without any increase in income. Sorry, if I could make it any simpler for you to understand, I would, john.

Ever since the Reagan years the Republicans have preached that low taxes on the rich bring jobs. And over and over history proves them wrong. Maybe they should see a doctor.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein

Too many on here are confused. We have a long post telling us about deadbeat corporations. Corporations and S Chapter or sole proprietorships are not the same and are not taxed in the same manner. raising taxes under Obama have absolutely zero to do with those companies. Their taxes will not change. In many cases the CEO's of those companies will most likely not see any changes because they too are paid differently. Many times with stock options and company benefits.

What Obama does do is raise the taxes on those with S Chapter and sole proprietorships. Those would be the job creators. They are not hiring because the cost of hiring has become far too expensive. Obamacare is already a huge tax on small business. Now you want to increase their taxes also. In business $150,000 or 250,000 is not much when you have to reinvest in your company. Warren buffet for which Obama has quoted many times says the low limit should be $1,000,000.

To Johninbattelecreek. We had a far different economy when Clintion was president. So it is absolutely stupid to try and make any comparision. Everyone was making money and so they did not mind so much. Right now small business have lost a lot of their previous worth.

For those that think we should scrap SSN. You should rethink the stupidity behind that. People have paid into it and should be able to draw on it at retirement. Otherwise it is another welfare program. You also then have a lot of regular people that would struggle to work their entire life.

IWonder-932455

My point was clear enough, my net worth has increased over the last two years, without any increase in income. Sorry, if I could make it any simpler for you to understand, I would, john

Your explanation is simple enough for a 3 year old to understand, unfortunately you’re trying to rationalize to a Liberal/Progressive who can’t understand how anyone can succeed without the government being intimately involved. The unwashed masses on the left think you used some secret handshake or one of their delusional bogeymen like the "corporations" or the "Military Industrial Complex" somehow just gave you more money.

They don’t understand self-discipline or responsibility, they feel all of their dysfunctional personal faults should just be forgiven by society and their poverty subsidized by the successful.

You may as well try to explain yourself to your Christmas tree, at least the lights are bright.

Social security is a very important and vital program and should NOT be scrapped and is actually not in serious financial trouble. Without it millions of handicapped and ill seniors in poor health would literally become broke and homeless and die in the streets. What a gruesome America that would be to see our elders after they had paid 15% of incomes for 40-50-plus years, robbed by the government of their sustenance and tossed out to die in the streets.

Think of the burden that would also be placed on the education system with 10% to 20% less people paying property taxes because they were old, homeless and destitute or dead, and how much that would impact property taxes for younger people and even benefits for public employees which would be forced to be massively cut.

Congress must stop raiding Social Security, and save it for its very necessary purpose of sustenance to the old and feeble who have paid 15% of their income over a lifetime into it.

If there is a crisis in the Social Security budget sometime after 25 years from now, the most just and fair cuts that should be implemented FIRST are to pay SS recipients the average percentage of their Social Security benefits promised as they paid on their income they paid SS on throughout their working years--if they paid on 100% of their income (always less than $110,000) over all their working years, they should get 100% of their promised SS benefits; if they paid SS on an average on 50% of their income, they should then get 50% of their promised SS benefits; if they paid SS on an average of 1% of their income, they should then get 1% of their promised SS benefits, etc. Social Security is after all a very vital and necessary safety net for seniors and genuinely handicapped people and not an extra bonus for the mega rich who paid into SS on less than 1% of their incomes! Because of the ever continuing inflation of all the costs of the essentials for life--food, clothing, adequate shelter and healthcare, most seniors will desperately need this 15% of their incomes they have invested in this very vital safety net all their working lives.

I still wonder, JimSpence, if the shift in wealth and power to the handful of people at the top bothers you. Again, 0.1% of the population gets more than half of all capital gains - we work so that they can thrive.

Presumably, if a corporation came in, took your kids, and sold them to work in a field (or worse, force you to pick cotton for room and board under penalty of whipping), you would stand up and say this is not right. There is some point between here and complete slavery in which you would be willing to fight for your rights. But wherever it is, it is a point of way more subservience than I am willing to put up with.

"My point was clear enough, my net worth has increased over the last two years, without any increase in income. Sorry, if I could make it any simpler for you to understand, I would, john."

You actually live on less than social security alone? That must be about $15,000/year. You must be very frugal, but do you enjoy life?

I guess you are the corporate world's dream citizen. You worked hard all your life, so they could be rich. Now you live on peanuts, and even defend them on chat boards. You are what the GOP is all about - people should be good servants, have no excessive desires, do as they are told, live cheap and die quietly, preferably quickly so that medicare can save money.

Republicanbs

Not taxing the rich is one reason we went bankrupt in the first place.

Clearly you did not read the article today about the UK. They raised taxes on the Rich in 2010 and the results are they are getting LESS Revenue.

Four years ago, Maryland added a millionaire tax. They also expected an increase in revenue. What they got was a decrease in revenue.

Same thing for New York City.

Clearly, you never followed how the domestic spending is the part of the budget that is exceeding the average annual revenue increase of 7.5%. IF I got 7.5% annual raises I would be living like a king and have millions in the bank in my 30+ years of working.

Clearly, you have never studied the 1916 - 1920. Annual 20+% increases in taxes with runaway government spending resulted in a Depression from 1920 - 1923.

elane #1.5

You notice how the subject of spending never comes up when the repubs are in office???

Clearly, you never read a conservative blog, or listened to a conservative talkshow. Some of the extreme right wing were ranting daily about Republicans passing democrat-like polices (prescription drug program, no child left behind).

Returning to Clinton era tax rates would be a good fix, be it over the cliff is fine...

We need to force our public owned corporations to pay our minimum wages wherever they go. This would show a little regard for workers and bring back many jobs. When the CEO of Disney made 600 million in salary and God knows what in bonuses he had children in Haiti Working for 12 Cents an hour. This is the cold blooded evil that is destroying America.

Also, why is the capital gains tax where most giant money is made be only 15%? This is insane unless you are a wall street billionaire with short vision. In the one year I know about the Saud royal family made 250billion off our rigged market while 401ks were tanking. Is this why we spend billions defending them and the Emir of Kuwait, who has several hundred billion in that same market.

Our corrupt to the bone corporate and financial systems along with their bought government will soon have us in depression and chaos if we don't demand real change.

Sm Bus Owner

Rocky, Obamacare is paid for, dolt. It saves the government money. It may not save you money, but it terms of fiscal responsibility, it is a saver for the government.

The 900 Billion was Paid for

-After taking $716 billion out of medicare - in a combination of further reducing payments to medical providers who are underpaid by medicare in the first place AND cutting more services, procedures that will be paid for

-After adding taxes to medical devices that are installed mainly on people age 50 or older

-After adding new taxes to businesses

Now, where are they going to get the other $1.8 Trillion that the CBO now projects the ACA to cost?

And you are a small business owner?

Um clwyd, did you notice noncoms post? Did I say, in any post, how much my income is? Did I at any time say that I was only receiving social security?

Every thing that I said is true. My net worth has increased since my retirement, not as fast as it was before I retired. If I had not known that I would do alright, I would not have retired. What was it you said about underestimating intelligence? You might want to practice it.

Yep db, moonbeam is raising millionaire taxes in cali, I'm sure it will help Texas. Just like rain, we can always use some more.

To noncoms, I want for nothing, I eat at a restaurant at least six times per week, I treat my son and his family to a restaurant every week, the same for my daughter. How about yourself?

if you raise the taxes on any body at this time then later down the road the taxes can be lowered again. that's a given. but if you cut social security, medicare and medicaid that is permanent. so i say raise the earnings caps on social security and medicare. then nobody has to get any cuts. work on the hospitals to save money. the payouts can be cut to them. why do the republikans ALWAYS want to cut things to the citizens? leave the people alone. and senator durbin be very careful. your playing with fire. you will lose your seat if you keep talking and act in this way. your starting to sound like a right winger.

Dan M

Clinton never passed a budget, but he did sign 8 of them. Two budgets were written by democrats (fiscal 1994 & fiscal 1995. The remaining 6 were written by Republicans he vetoed a number of them because they were cutting domestic spending more than he would allow. Republicans were cutting both domestic and defense spending, but Clinton wanted to be seen as the defender of the poor, so he fought them and won. Regardless Republicans and he negotiated changes.

Obama really doesn't want to negotiate. Negotiation seems to be my way or the highway, and when you give on a point I will demand even more. That is actually why part of the "fiscal Cliff" exists. Republicans to apeas the credit agencies were told to get $200 Billion in spending cuts or face a credit rating downgrade. Republicans could only get the Democrats to agree to $100 billion and only if over half of the cuts came from Defense spending. The result was the credit agency still downgraded our credit rating because they wanted $200 billion in cuts or revenues increases.

When the super committee couldn't resolve the differences, Obama was dragged into the negotiations. To avoid the defense cuts, Boehner in a 11:00 PM cave in to tax increases, Obama then demanded even more concessions from the Republicans. Boehner and the Republicans walked.

It is 50-50 as to if the Republicans will cave in to Obama's demands for tax increases. For Obama he wins whether we go over the cliff or if the Republicans agree to his 2% tax increase. He still is going to get more revenue (actually will be less revenue as history shows).

I'm back after a long spot away....

DB, yes I am a small business owner. I don't know ALL of the details of ACA, so I can't refute every nickel, but the plan was for it to be a new saver for the government, while at the same time insuring 30 million Americans that previously didn't have heath insurance. That is a benefit for everybody.

I wonder, how hard is it to see an increase in net worth? Pretty easy when the stock market goes up 12% this year. Who needs a SS COLA (or thriftiness for that matter) when you've got a stock portfolio? You do have one right? Can't imagine someone retiring without one.

Sorry, got work in the am, so I'm going now, but will check follow-ups in the morning.

Cheers everybody

Frank Morton

Corporations on the NY Stock exchange or even Nasdaq ARE publicly owned and traded.

ah, DB

It's Obama who has been caving for years. You may see a slight backbone right now, but it's the first time I've seen it. You know it's been the Republican's playing hardball for 4 years.

I really gotta go now.....

cheers

Arch

Super rich hold $32 trillion in offshore havens

This is a gross mischaracterization. The money is not hidden overseas. It is invested overseas. If it was "hidden" you would never be able to find it.

A more appropriate characterization of the situtation is the money it trapped overseas. Some of the money is about diversifying a porfolio, but most is companies building facilities overseas to avoid serious 20 - 50% tariffs put onto products we produce. They also avoid the huge transportation costs to get the products there, and if they build in those countries, they don't have the high salaries and benefits that increase the costs of our products over those in other countries.

If they want to compete in those countries, they have not choice but to invest over there. Where we get hurt is once over there, they corporation could shift all production (like Apple) and import to the USA at a lower price than they have to charge over here if the product is made over here.

There profits are aready taxed at a 20 - 25% rate in the other countries. If they bring the money back to the US they will be taxed at at least another 35+%. Now, if you were a stockholder in one of those corporation, you wouldn't be re-electing the board of directors for this kind of waste.

And Arch, the total cost of the wars is $1.5 Trillion.

Jimspence and IWonder,
Thank you great posts,it's rare to see real logical thoughts on here,It is fun to see some here try,And yet a very sad state of affairs for America,We let the Gov take over the schools and that's what we get I guess.
Again thank you and keep telling the truth,and maybe some here will let Pride aside and investigate for themselves instead of letting the Gov and Liberal News be their guide.

RB

We should make if equal across the board (business or not) Let the first $100,000 be tax free then everything after that be taxed at 50%

I had an uncle who refuse to make too much money because the government would get more money of a share what he earned. From experience, there are plenty of people who do this. I have run into people on unemployment and welfare who would only work so much, because if they earned more than what those systems would permit, those systems would deduct dollar for dollar any amount the recipient earned over the limit.

Nice try, but FAIL!

Pigotry,

I don't know where you ever came up with the Bush tax cuts causing a recession, but that is patently false. What caused that recession was in two parts, the first part was the drastic increase in fuel costs. Our country moves on wheels, so to speak, so, gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and marine oils affect just about every segment of our economy. When it costs more to go to work, to move goods, or for those to travel on airplanes in the course of business, it's pretty simple, something has to give. If that is profits, then there are two choices, either raise income, or reduce liabilities. If you are like many businesses, it's difficult to raise income in a competitive global economy, so, you reduce liabilities. Which means someone will get their source of employment reduced or eliminated, there are other sources, but that is normally what happens. Another way to reduce liabilities that has become popular, is to move to a country that has preferred trade status, and incorporate in that country, shipping product back without tariff.

The other cause you can blame on Clinton. That was making housing easy to finance, that created the housing bubble, and it burst. When people were allowed to buy houses they couldn't afford, and banks to control variable financing rates, that was a disaster waiting to happen. It increased the cost of building, the cost of land, and just about everything associated with ownership of real estate, because of increased demand. Many people were buying for investment or rental property. When fuel costs increased, this left a deficit in disposable income which created defaults. Which in turn, created liabilities for financial institutions.

It had nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts, as a matter of fact, those tax cuts made more disposable income for everybody that paid taxes. It had everything to do with energy policy and financial management.

Fantomdog

#1.38

The "raiding" was made possible by the passing of the "Great Society" legislation in 1968. That was Democrats in both houses and a Democrat president. The whole purpose was to hide how much the all-new entitlements were really going to cost. The problem is that from that point on, any Congress/President was going to use it because there is no way they want to have people understand how bad the spending was. If the people understood, there would be no Democrat or Republican re-elected.

Roadkill #1.53

If you were the Doctor rescued this weekend, I think you would have a lot different opinion about what we spend on the military.

Why? #1.54

You know what I find odd is during the Bush admin. until now the Republicans have been trying to privatize Social Security.

The senior prescription drug program, though no revenues were raised to run it, has been 40% under projected costs since it was passed. What is that 6 or 8 years ago. It is a voucher system that relies on private companies. I don't know about you, but a reduction of 62% of the 2013 budget by 40% would reduce our borrowing from 40 cents on every dollar spent to about 16 cents on every dollar spent.

David Walker #1.60

According to the IRS, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are taxes. For a person with a $250,000 AGI to pay only the payroll rate, he is being paid by someone. The Self employed pay even more in those "taxes".

To understand the politics of today, it is really very easy. The Dem position is "yes, you are entitled to everything." The repub leadership position is "yes, you are entitled to everything, but we can't quite come out and say that." If you are an American, your position is "who represents me and the values that made America great and why are so many so willing to destroy this country?"

JimD

A large part of the Growth was the expansion of the value of stocks in those companies. Some of the Growth from 2000 - 2007 was also was from the housing boom caused by federal policies making banks give loans to those who don't qualify.

Also Reagan took over, double digit unemployment, double digit interest rates and double digit inflation.

What he left was the basis for economic expansion that continued through the Clinton Era.

You are listening to some people who are twisting the good to look bad and the bad to look good.

Seeking

David Gregory is a moderate democrat. But, according to the left a moderate democrat is a right wing conservative.

As the canoe drifts ever closer to the falls and each keeps paddling in oppositedirections. The rich have nothing to fear, they already have your money. The only thing that ever trickles down from the rich are the crumbs.

mr akron if the super rich are already manufacturing over seas then whats the down side of the republican contention that theyll leave if their taxes are raised.if theyre not hiring americans what good are they

Larry

Fiscal 2009 was a deficit of $1.4 Trillion. For Fiscal 2009 Bush only signed a continuing resolution for domestic to cover until March of 2009 and a Millitary budget for the year of $500 billion. Bush also had signed Tarp which drew $350 Billion, but he only spent about $250 Billion of it.

Obama signed The continuing resolution for 1.2 Trillion for fiscal 2009 in March 2009. He also signed an additional $50 billion bill Bush previously also vetoed, and his own Stimulus package which $175 Billion which was spent in fiscal 2009.

Obama actually INCREASED the spending over what Bush was willing to spend, but likes to blame Bush for the whole thing, when both were actually responsible. I should also note, that Bush did not tamper with Fiscal 2001, and most presidents don't. Obama did and needs to own up to it.

DB Akron

Dan M

Obama really doesn't want to negotiate. Negotiation seems to be my way or the highway, and when you give on a point I will demand even more. That is actually why part of the "fiscal Cliff" exists. Republicans to appease the credit agencies were told to get $200 Billion in spending cuts or face a credit rating downgrade. Republicans could only get the Democrats to agree to $100 billion and only if over half of the cuts came from Defense spending. The result was the credit agency still downgraded our credit rating because they wanted $200 billion in cuts or revenues increases.

Jesus Christ this is just pure bull@!$%#. First of all, if Obama didn't want to compromise, why was his healthcare plan based on conservative ideas???? He offered a grand bargain that had entitlement and spending cuts; $2.8 trillion of them, to be exact. All he asked for was some revenue, but apparently compromise is not the Republican vocabulary. Secondly, the credit rating wanted MORE than $200 billion in savings; $400 billion every year, to be exact. And they clearly stated that the gridlock was the cause of the downgrade. At least the Democrats could have accepted spending cuts; you conservative idiots couldn't even budge on revenues!!!

When the super committee couldn't resolve the differences, Obama was dragged into the negotiations. To avoid the defense cuts, Boehner in a 11:00 PM cave in to tax increases, Obama then demanded even more concessions from the Republicans. Boehner and the Republicans walked.

Technically, Boehner compromised on $800 billion, but Obama was pressured to get $1.2 trillion from his allies. Boehner initially balked, but was willing to accept until Eric Cantor came into the fray. Cantor opposed any tax hikes, and so when Obama moved his goalposts Cantor used the opportunity to "persuade" Boehner to refuse the offer. Either way, Republicans refused revenue increases; Obama could have at least passed the $800 billion to his Democrats.

It is 50-50 as to if the Republicans will cave in to Obama's demands for tax increases. For Obama he wins whether we go over the cliff or if the Republicans agree to his 2% tax increase. He still is going to get more revenue (actually will be less revenue as history shows).

Hahahahaha. What comes around goes around; you Republican bastards almost sent our nation into default, shot down health reform even when it favored you, and filibustered every damn bill in the freaking Senate. Now you are gonna pay big time. Either you cave in now and accept your just punishment, or all hell will break loose and YOU will pay for it this time. Taxes will go up either way, and Americans will blame Republicans for that happening; and I do believe that the American people will take that into account in the 2014 elections. Prepare for a repeat of 2006. Thank God for the fiscal cliff.

Democrats will never discuss entitlement reform. The lower class is the Democrats' voting base. The larger the lower class, the larger the Democrats' voting base. And, the Democrats know it. A shrinking middle class means an enlarging lower class Democratic voting base. No wonder Obama smiles.

Good times are ahead for DC Democrats for many years to come.

Not such good times for anyone else. Good luck reaching an American Dream.

Why doesn't any Democrat see the problem with a government who takes (steals) money from people who actually worked for it and then gives it to people who didn't do a damn thing to earn it? I don't care what your party is, people need to WORK for their money. Instead of raising taxes why don't they raise the minimum wages scale? And limit the amount of time people can collect their free money. We used to to help our adult children when they lost their job for whatever reason. Now we tell them to collect unemployment from the government. We are sick to death of the government taking from us so that we can't even afford to help our own family. FVCKING LOSERS who think they are owed a free life without work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I say go over the cliff already!!!!!!!!!! That way everyone has to take responsibility for this fvcking mess since both parties created it. Raise the damn taxes and cut the parasites off the titty!

Um clwyd, did you notice noncoms post? Did I say, in any post, how much my income is? Did I at any time say that I was only receiving social security?

Your post said "exactly my point, my social security did not go up for two years and yet I didn't need to rob anyone." That only makes sense if Social Security is your main income. If your social security check is only a small part of your income, you have no point. There are a lot of people out there without supplemental income, and to them, the fact that social security did not go up was a hardship. And before you say, those people are scum who don't matter, our lives would not be so easy without minimum wage workers making things and services cheap. We owe our pleasant lives in part to them.

To noncoms, I want for nothing, I eat at a restaurant at least six times per week, I treat my son and his family to a restaurant every week, the same for my daughter. How about yourself?

I do alright, but I want for a lot of things, one of them being a prosperous middle class, and a sense that even all those who are full time are earning a living wage.

freshieeee: $2.8 trillion is cuts? Really? In what language? Same with Revenues. He's not asking for any additional revenues, he's demanding tax rate increases. There's a difference. He's been in office 4 years and has yet to propose any spending cuts. Also, he has yet to propose anything designed to improve the economy. With all the libs around and everything Obama has done, no one can point to anything he's done that has actually helped the economy. Nor can anyone explain how increasing taxes on employers will help the economy. I've heard one or two say it is an incentive to hire so the government doesn't get the money. But, that obviously doesn't make any sense. If raising taxes improves the economy then every one should be thrilled to have their taxes raised. So, please tell Obama you don't want your taxes to stay the same. Speaking of Obama, if you want your taxes to stay the same and not be raised, how do you feel about Obama and the dems refusing to sign off on the House having already passed a bill to make sure your taxes don't go up? Do you like being used as a pawn in Obama's war to punish those who hire everyone else?

Raising Medicare’s age: Saves feds $5.7 billion, costs you $11.4 billion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/03/raising-medicares-age-saves-feds-5-7-billion-costs-you-11-4-billion/?wprss=rss_economy&tid=pp_widget

johnQcitizen

QUIT CALLING SOCIAL SECURITY ENTITLEMENTS.we paid for it we deserve it

What else would you call them? Have you looked up the definition of Entitlement? If you paid for something then you are entitled to it, hense the word entitlement. How hard is that to understand? This is why I am against GOP trying to take away my entitlements after I put into them for 40 years.

I worked in a construction business. We hired a new employee as a welder. Our welders made about $16 per hour. The welder quit after working one day. We asked him why he quit, and he told us that he has a lot of kids and that he was getting more money from the government to be unemployed. After that he stole some of our supplies on his way out. We then had to search for a new welder.

Does anyone see a problem here? Have you ever thought that -perhaps- we are a -little- lenient on giving out unemployment benefits?

Uh, we have an entitlement problem.

Six Trillion Dollars!

In four years our national debt has increased $6,000,000,000,000.

That is enough money to have provided 30 million Americans a job paying $50,000 for four years. And we still have unemployed Americans?

That is enough money to have written a check of $19,300 to each and every American. Not to mention that now each and every American is now $19,300 more in debt through our government.

That is enough money to have provided every household in the US $944 each month in food stamps for four years. And we still have hungry Americans?

That is enough money to have built 1500 One World Trade Centers. That is enough money to have started and ended 7.5 Iraqi wars.

That is enough money to have built 2 million homes at $300,000 each. There are about 125 thousand homes in, say, the state of Utah. That is, you could have built all the houses in 16 states of Utah. And we still have a homeless problem!?

A 2% interest rate on our debt is 10 billion each month. Each American should pay $32 a month to pay off the interest. A family of 5 owes $160 a month to pay the interest. And this is only for the debt accumulated in the last four years!

We'll have to pay that debt off one day... Right?

But first, please tell me... Where did all of that money go?

Avaguat - Blah Blah Blah Blah, and that's all I have to say about that. Did you ever stop to blame Bush for putting us in the position that we had to spend 6 trillion to get us out of it? Nah, you just want to blame the Democrat that inherited the mess.

It's time to hold class on the SCIENCE of a capitalistic society and economy... and maybe a few additional classes on logic and data analysis.

First of all, capitalism provides opportunities for "winners" to make unbelievable money in their lifetimes. But is also REQUIRES that a certain percentage FAIL in business and that we maintain a level of unemployed in our workforce... it REQUIRES both! Without a pool of unemployed, there would be no competition for jobs and wages would go wildly out of control... too many unemployed and wages go down, as we are seeing now. But make no mistake, business likes higher unemployment when they are hiring but hate the fact that high unemployment drives less demand and and, therefor, higher BUSINESS competition and less opportunity for success. The point is that there has to be a balance and that balance has an optimum level... and zero unemployment is not optimum.

So in our capitalist society the real question isn't IF we have business losers or poor citizens or some level of unemployed, it's how we treat and support these NECESSARY people while they are in that state. One thing's for sure, demonizing them is both illogical and inherently against what most think our society stands for. So we have three choices... 1) let them starve (which removes all future incentive), 2) support them at "winning" levels (which also removes all future incentive), or 3) support them at some minimum/optimum level that keeps them alive and capable without making them so comfortable that they lose incentive. We, as a society have chosen option 3. And by definition, those that "win" pay taxes to provide option 3... there is no one else able to provide it.

I believe that IF we can all agree on these fundamentals... fundamentals that automatically eliminate the extremes of business, employment, and "entitlement" rancor... that we can move the discussion much farther down the line towards solutions. Escape the science and logic of our capitalist society and we get where we are now.

And this is where data analysis comes in to play. We used to be good at it. We used to have proponents and doubters on any analysis, but eventually we came together and called logical data "facts". We're missing that step of "coming together" today. We have too many willing to distort data and "facts" towards a political direction using new-found tools of big-money and the sheer power of repetition using our vast medias of the day.

We are stuck not knowing what are facts and what are not. And without agreed-to facts, we will NEVER come together with solutions... it's just not logical.

As someone who thinks conservatively, I agree with the liberals...Social Security is NOT an entitlement. You are taxed for it.

The problem is that SS was spent by politicians....AKA SPENDING PROBLEM!!!!!

To fix it, Govt must cut spending, start paying SS back, and then sealing off the funds so that politicians can't spend it.

Essentially, the tax payers will have to fund Social Security AGAIN because of overspending. Unfortunately, SS is a prime example of why Govt can NOT be trusted with your money to take care of you. There is NO money in SS....just more govt debt.

I wonder,

Only a right wing nut would say that getting a cost of living increase was robbery! You fit the mold perfectly. Another righty out of touch with the reality of most middle Americans. I didn't have to rob anybody nor did the others receiving Social Security. I also have a retirement fund to fall back on, but know many who don't. Your comment about robbery is disgusting!

Avangaut,

Well, in the past 11 years $4,000,000,000,000+ has gone to pay for two lost wars and 7,200 body bags!

Paws - Sorry, but social security IS an entitlement ! Do you think that the govt. really gives a @!$%# whether or not someone feels entitled to something? An entitlement program is a program that someone is legally entitled to participate in if they meet the criteria; if you are denied participation, you can take it to court. A person that pays into social security and meets the age/disability requirements is indeed legally entitled to receive benefits.

I had an uncle who refuse to make too much money because the government would get more money of a share what he earned. From experience, there are plenty of people who do this.

Now that is just moronic. Nowhere is the tax rate 100%. Therefore, the more you make, the more you keep, no matter what the tax rate is! You can't tell me that anyone is turning down more money!

Oh, but there is. I used to work at a place where there were a lot of people who would not work overtime unless it was mandatory for the very same reason. I thought that that was great (stupid, but great) - meant more overtime for me!

Rick - I'm not sure I get your point....feelings and such. The people that worked and were taxed for SS should receive the benefits. There is a tax on my pay check every 2 weeks.

As I stated, the funds no longer exist. The govt stole it and spent it on tax cuts (Obama's payroll tax cut was terrible), Solyndra, etc etc etc.....

The gross spending of politicians has bankrupted SS and now the tax payers will have to fund it again. This is why govt can not be trusted. Eventually, they will spend all the money buying votes and the tax payers will end up with nothing.

For those too uneducated, stupid or brainwashed by the dogma of the FAUX ...

The reason people are upset because Social Security and Medicare are being labeled "ENTITLEMENT" programs is because Public Assistance (Welfare) is also called an entitlement program. Some of the dumbasses on here make no distinction between programs that are funded by those who will eventually receive the benefits that they have paid into the programs and those who get hand-outs for not working and contributing a damned thing to society.

For those who say we need to end "ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS", and mean Social Security & Medicare; I would have had no problem being allowed to keep my hard-earned and investing it in a manner I saw fit. BUT I WAS MANDATED TO PAY into both of those systems and I have been paying for nearly 50 YEARS! It is too fricking LATE NOW!

They already took my money for the medical insurance they GUARANTEED I would get when I turned 62 or 65.

They already took my money for the retirement program they GUARANTEED I would get when I turned 62 or 65.

What the hell are people my age supposed to do ... work ANOTHER 50 YEARS without paying into those programs?

SCREW these a$$hole Republicans. They have PLENTY of places to find to cut ... they just see these programs as an easy mark that won't offend their contributors.

Paws - my remark was in response to EEngineer saying that there can't be anyone who is turning down making more money. I should have pointed that out; but, thought it was obvious coming directly after the other post. Oh, I see - you were referring to the post BEFORE EE's.

Well, the point is that whether or not anyone likes it - Social Secuirty IS an entitlement program; because you are legally entitled to collect if you paid money into it and are of age/disability. You said emphatically that it was not an entitlement program - it is. Just making the pint since so many people think that entitlement programs are only handouts to the poor. Things like unemployment and Veteran's Affairs medical care are also striclty speaking - entitlement programs. Military and Govt. pensions would also qualify - though they are usually grouped separately.

I think that it is very important to clear this point up. Saying that SS is not an entitlement reinforces the misconception that many have that entitlement programs are only handout programs to the freeloaders. Therefore, when politicians say that entitlement programs are broken, dragging down the economy, or in need of major reform; these people may vigorously defend the idea of reforming said entitlement programs - thinking it will get the lazy to work. What they don't realize is that the politicians are almost always speaking of SS and Medicare -things that many of the people who support "entitlement reform" most definitely DO NOT want reformed.

There is a reason why politicians refer to it as "entitlement reform" instead of "welfare reform."

The "Grand Bargain" illustrated:

http://www.dropshots.com/GCaplan#date/2012-12-10/21:01:52

The Democrats function in our political system:

http://www.dropshots.com/GCaplan#date/2012-12-10/20:43:38

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla...I find it interesting that this representative makes a claim that the democrates are telling lies to the public..as though no republican has done the same thing. Just as through this past election cycle ..no lies were handed ou by republicans or representations of what someone else said not taken out of context. I have also seen no commints from any politican on the IOU's put into the social securitypipeline for money congress took out for their own use on other items. It seems that none of the money's pay by all individuals into social security was ever their money to begin with.

As for things the republicans are today pushing for..just who actually gets helped..the people or this nation in its entiretly or the wealthy ? Why does the tax on wages tat are what is called social security cut off at 100 or so thousand ? Who set that amount ? And who benefits from it ? Thoser who actually work for a living or the wealthy who actually get to keep more of their money which by the way, your congress is a huge part of. AS for entitlement..what about the insurance we tax payers cover for all of congress..that runs around 80K a year..I have not heard one politican make claims that that would be cut in any way. Nor will any of their so called retirement be cut. I for one do not understand how someone who is in an elected office gets to retire to begin with . If you are not hired how can you reirefrothat position.