This is the first time in our history that our Debt Ratio has exceeded 100% of GDP.

Not true. The ratio exceeded 100% after WW2.

It is the job of the House to write budget bills, not the President. He can send a budget outlining his wish list, but the job of funding the government is that of the House.

Instead of railing against the President, you should tell your elected Representative to suck it up and pass a bill.

Throw Grover over the cliff.

Go to the cliff, and drop off.

ROY,

[This is the first time in our history that our Debt Ratio has exceeded 100% of GDP. Obama's Budget projections indicate it will increase to 119% of GDP by the end of 2016]

Not true, it was at 120+% in1945. Seen bottom graph at ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

we give these so called celebrities -yeah that's what they think they are-politicians way too much attention...we have turned this country into a circus....we all need to stop even acknowledging them period. THE ONLY THING ABOUT A POLITICIAN I WANT TO SEE, IS THEIR WORK....not their ugly faces, not their annoying voices....THE WORK...that is it...you were not elected to show your face...you were elected to show me your work!!! END of Story....YOU ARE NOTHING to America AS A PERSON, it is the work you do as A WHOLE that got you where you are...not your personalities, not your lies, deceit, contributions, or "fancy foot work" aka slight of hand....the work.... I don't know you and I don't want to..it is the work you do, not your FACE!!!

roy

under G W Bush it was only 62.6% of GDP (yes, it WAS lower under Bush than under Clinton).

hmmm, lets see, under bush. The national debt over doubled and gdp went to negative numbers. Yet he had better numbers. Please give a reference for you numbers. They seem to stink. Maybe it's because where you pulled them from?

ROY,

[PS - When the Republicans took over control of the House in 2011, they DID immediately pass a Budget as required by law, but Harry Reid (Democratic leader of the Senate) refused to even allow it to be debated, so we have actually not had a timely Budget for the last 4 years - THANKS TO THE DEMOCRATS.]

Again, BS on your claim …

(06/25/2011) Senate votes down Paul Ryan budget plan, 57-40

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55721.html

Times-Running-Out

Eric-913730

Obama has done a budget each and every year

How many of them were passed (Even by the Democrats?)

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

I believe 11 of the 12 CR have been passed out of the Senate Budget Committee, but have not come up for consideration by the [full] Senate because of a standoff between Senator Reid and the GOP House on spending.

So yes, a full fiscal year budget has not been signed into law in 4 years, but the Budget Control Act was passed setting levels around the 2008/2009 level.

If you want to consider the Ryan Budget that passed the House strictly along party line vote as representing the values of the Country, you can go ahead...but I'm not there.

sharky.

This is the first time in our history that our Debt Ratio has exceeded 100% of GDP.

Not true. The ratio exceeded 100% after WW2.

You are talking about two very different things. Government debt v Public debt.

Yes, the US Public Debt Ratio exceeded 100% during and after WW2. This was due to the fact that the Government sold War Bonds to its citizens. In total $185 billion was raised through the government selling its debt to the people of the US. Once the war was over many countries (not all) paid money to the US government for the war effort and the bonds began to be retired. Also, because the US was the only major industrialized nation whose factory output was unscathed by the war, it became the industrial maker or bread basket for the world. Salaries and wages rose significantly during this time in the US and with salaries taxes collected by the government also grew significantly. When you look at a chart, you will se a giant bubble in GDP per Capita from 1945 - 1951. So much so that the government actually had to slow the rate of growth down to prevent massive inflation which would have began another financial crisis in the US.

Are there any moderate republican left in the Party of No and Do nothing? I voted for Nixon, Goldwater and Reagan and today I feel they would be rated as Liberals by the extreme right turn taken by the republican party that no longer represents me and my views or gets my votes! They don't represent America or Americans views only to protect the greedy rich!

No budget in 4 yrs and a waits until the last second to address the "fiscal cliff"

Obama didn't leave town until the House adjourned because Boehner had lost control of the nuts in his party.

Actually, Obama shouldn't have to do anything. It is the job of the House to write spending bills. They should be proposing measures that satisfy the Senate and the President, not the other way around. I love how the GOP has been demanding big spending cuts, but won't detail where it wants them made, even though that IS the job of the House.

Obama is talking to republican'ts who left town and want to continue to be inflexible for the millionaires and billionaires tax breaks. where is cry baby Bonehead? Stuck in a drift in Ohio. It can't always be the President taking the first step and then have the republicants walking out or going home. "Negotiation" and "Compromise" need to re-appear int he republican'ts vocabulary! Get rid of the Norquist clones!

Allan, NO budget bill is ever signed into law, because they are NOT bills...they are resolutions. Only APPROPRIATION BILLS get signed into law (with or without budget resolutions), and both houses of Congress (the House is NOT Congress...a gross misnomer by so many posters when they say Congress and Senate) have failed to pass appropriations bills for most federal agencies for years now (not just during the Obama administration.) Continuing Resolutions to fund the government have become the common Congressional practice for over a decade now.

There HAS BEEN NO Federal budget in almost 10 years. Neither side want to pass one, because it will mean looking at things like entitlements, Obamacare, all government spending and then the other side of the coin Taxes...

@Barry...They don't need to satisfy congress or the president. They need to satisfy their employers and that is we the people ....you know the employers they are elected to represent.

I'm not ravingly pro-Obama & Democrats on many issues, even on this one. But I have many, many more problems with the Republicans regarding their stance on bailing out the wealthy and their donors by using funds generated by working people, retirees, and the disabled. The average middle class family has seen their income plummet a good 30-50& over the past ten years due to increasing prices, taxes of various kinds, and stagnant wages. This past Depression hurt working people the most--the wealthy, including members of Congress--actually saw their income rise dramatically--yet the wealthy got bailed out, even the criminal banks, with trillions while working people got an extra $20 a week payroll tax cut and extended unemployment benefits that barely covers rent or a mortgage.

Of course, the Republicans blamed unemployment on the unemployed, suggesting they were all drug addicts and the govt should pay for drug testing.

Really. The Republicans are both ridiculous and terrifying.

The simple fact is, the Republican party has lost it's honor, it's principals and it's mind! They want to take from the poor and already hurting, to give to the richest people in the country, who already have more than they will ever need. That is the simple fact. It is NOT going to hurt someone making $250,000 a year, or more, to pay 2 to 4% more in taxes. It IS going to hurt the people making $50,000 a year or less, WHICH IS THE REAL MIDDLE CLASS!! Social Security does NOT create one penny of the debt! Not one!! Medicare could be fixed to limit waste, but does not NEED to be cut! Medicaid helps old people, mentally ill people, children with horrible illnesses or born with life long problems, and should not be cut. They should be strengthened. That is, if we can really call ourselves humane! Taxing the richest among us, is not the problem. Greed is the problem!! If the richest, so called job creators, paid decent wages, provided decent benefits and cared about their workers, most of this would not be necessary!! If you want people to take care of themselves, give them the means to do it!! Health care and education should not be the first things to cut!! Anyone who can call themselves a Republican or Tea Party loyalist, is shooting themselves in the foot and the rest of the country in the back!

lnobody "roy.....under G W Bush it was only 62.6% of GDP (yes, it WAS lower under Bush than under Clinton)........hmmm, lets see, under bush. The national debt over doubled and gdp went to negative numbers. Yet he had better numbers. Please give a reference for you numbers."

The National Debt did NOT double under Bush - it went from $5.629 Trillion at the end of fiscal 2000 to $9.986 Trillion at the end of fiscal 2008. GDP could not possibly be a 'negative' number - did you earn less than $0 in any year under Bush? Perhaps you are thinking that the 'growth rate' was negative, but the GDP actually increased in every one of Bush's years, but it did drop slightly (-2.06%) in Obama's first year (not exactly like the 'Great Depression, where GDP dropped by about 30%).

The GDP and National Debt figures by year for Clinton, Bush and Obama can be verified at the following official Obama White House link below;

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

Dennis - Debt exceeded 1945 at the end of WWII. Do we have WWII today? Do you think it is wise policy? Do you want to go back to "V"ictory gardens and rationed gas, meat, rubber, etc.?

Seriously, how mismanaged can a country be that its financial situation is as bad as after a World War and we only took on Iraq & Afghanistan.?

This is pathetic. It shows how poorly managed our financials have been managed. You can't raise taxes enough to pay for all the spending or we would be in a second great depression. Bottomline is that spending must decrease or there is no solution. That is a financial fact. Not GOP, Not Liberal...It's a financial fact.

And "we the people" can't agree any more than those we elected. That is one of the problems of a "democratic republic" which is what the US is. I've yet to see anyone (including me) take time to do a line item assessment of the entire federal income/expense ledger and determine what can be cut where and still maintain the services required to keep this country moving. We failed to listen to the ONLY good GOP president since Lincoln (well, maybe one other one, TR) when he warned America to beware the military/industrial complex. We have paid that price now for the past four decades. If we really want to start to improve the future of America, we MUST address that problem and start to reduce the M/IC control of the economy. It will take the citizenry to do that because Congress is owned/controlled by that same M/IC.

I have made a suggestion many times here on Newsvine and submitted the same proposal to the WH for resolving the income side of the ledger. The expense side is much more difficult to deal with because of all of the laws that have been passed over the past century that affects each of those expense items.

Our tax system needs to be totally abandoned and replaced with a simple Gross Income tax system where all sources of income (yes any source of income is income, including capital gains, dividends, alimony, and any other means of putting cash in your pocket, not just the wages/salary you earn at your "job".) All filings would be as individuals. There would be NO deductions, credits, subsidies, etc., no "married" filings, no dependents. The first $25K of an individual's total income would be tax free. All income above $25K up to $250K would be taxed at 15%, all income above $250K up to $750K would be taxed at 30%, and all income over $750K would be taxed at 45%. The filing form would be very clean and simple. Each individual would determine what percentage of his/her wages would be withheld each pay period to meet that annual taxation responsibility. Dividends would be likewise taxed at time of pay-out. Pensions/401K's/IRA's would be taxed only on the gains over what the individual paid into that fund (already taxed as income). Stocks and any other investments would be taxed in the same manner at the time of cash-out. Estates would be handled in the same way.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio "ROY, Again, BS on your claim …(06/25/2011) Senate votes down Paul Ryan budget plan, 57-40"

Perhaps you are ignorant about the budgeting process - The House passes a Budget (which they did), and then the Senate discusses that Budget and amends it to their liking, and then any differences are reconciled in a Joint Committee and again passed by both Houses and then sent to the President for signature. Harry Reid in the Senate did not even attempt to amend the Budget passed by the House, and didn't attempt to pass his own Budget either which would have allowed the House to amend it, so it is stuck in limbo because of Harry Reid's intransigence.

The fault lies with Harry Reid in the Senate - The Republicans have done everything they can to comply with the law - The Democrats in the Senate are ignoring their constitutional duties.

Perhaps a high school Civics primer would help you understand the process better.

@ Berry It would be nice to write a bill pass it and the president signs it no matter if its good for the country or not that a really stupid way of thinking on your part you must be a low information voter Berry. Obama cut his vacation short not to come back and work on a deal its raining in Hawaii can't play golf. Obama wants to go over the cliff he needs to blame someone in the GOP for this mess. Do you think think Obama going to take the blame I think not. Obama has own this mess since 2010 when he done his victory lap on TV clamming the recession was over but here we sit talking about the same old thing. How many budgets has Obama gotten passed the last one his own part voted it down who gets the blame for that Barry?

We seem to forget how many times the Tea Publicans, used the filibuster! Or how Mitch, stated, their main goal was to make Obama, a one term President! A 1,3 trillion dollar budget deficit, banks crashing, Real Estate , motor co,S, two unpaid for wars, job loses at the rate of around 750,000 per month! Come on, Let's be real! No one could have done a better job getting the country back to a growth level, with the stock markets rising, wars winding down, banks becoming stable, growth in housing and a lot more without spending any money! Then the Democrats, managed to pass The Affordable Health Care Act, which, is proving to be the best thing to happen since Apple pie, and will save a trillion dollars over twenty years if not more. These leaders need to stop fighting the President and work with him! Im saying the country is recovering!

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio "ROY, This is the first time in our history that our Debt Ratio has exceeded 100% of GDP. Obama's Budget projections indicate it will increase to 119% of GDP by the end of 2016]...Not true, it was at 120+% in1945. "

Perhaps I should have said 'recent' history, because we did increase debt temporarily in the emergency of WW2. That was quickly reduced as soon as the War was over - not something likely to happen in our future.

Thanks for the link.

Gotta go get some work done now - I'll check back later for any responses - Bye

dale-763548

We seem to forget how many times the Tea Publicans, used the filibuster! Or how Mitch, stated, their main goal was to make Obama, a one term President! A 1,3 trillion dollar deficit, banks crashing, Real Estate , motor co,S, two unpaid for wars, job loses at the rate of around 750,000 per month! Come on, Let's be real! No one could have done a better job getting the country back to a growth level, with the stock markets rising, wars winding down, banks becoming stable, growth in housing and a lot more without spending any money! Then the Democrats, managed to pass The Affordable Health Care Act, which, is proving to be the best thing to happen since Apple pie, and will save a trillion dollars over twenty years if not more. These leaders need to stop fighting the President and work with him!

I really wish people would quit cheering for their "side" and start demanding that these clowns work for everyone. If they are using a filibuster to stop what we need, then let's get together and find what both sides can agree on and help the people at large. I don't believe that Boehner and Reid can't find things they both agree on to get passed that benefits everyone.

They wanted a leadership job that involves making tough choices. We elected and gave them the job. It's time for them to get to work on something other than posturing and pointing the finger.

Any other questions for Roy Wilson? Logic is fun.

Any other questions for Roy Wilson?

Yes,....I have one: How much more Republican debt do you people expect Obama to pay off? After all you don't expect the party of personal responsibility to shirk responsibility for wiping out the Clinton surplus do you?

There. That's how I like my Pubbies,.....nice and quiet.

Jon R

Figure it out. Norquist said it was okay to vote for "Plan B". Republicans didn't. The pledge is actually pretty worthless.

Sharky

You ARE correct about exceeding the GDP during WW II and actually took place in 1946. But that is as far as the comparison goes. The war debt was a temporary expendature that was decreasing. What we have today is social spending that is expected to continue to increase.

The trajectory is the polar opposite. That's a big, big difference.

Dale

The unemployment rate peaked in April of 2009, three months before the first round of stimulus money actually was spent on the street.

There is huge difference between approval and receiving.

Budgets are developed to help guide individuals, companies, civic, and private groups in an effort to help provide accountability and financial control to prevent over spending or under spending. Why is it that the legislators in both parties seem to think they are immune to the very laws of our country that demand a budget? Principal among them is Harry Reid and Nancy Pelousi. Just who's money is it anyway? It is the American Tax payers and we demand a responsible budget. One that balances the revenue with the expenses. One that returns us to prosperity as a nation. Anything less is criminal and an affront to the Tax payers who have to live with in their means.

"Obama is expected to turn to a trusted Democratic ally, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to help craft a quick deal."

Since when has the country or the President trusted Harry Reid to craft a budget? In the last four years he is just as responsible if not more so for the lack of budget constraints. Harry Reid should be stripped of his postiton and released from his Senate seat for failure to lead anything.

Next

Republicans, Conservatives, Tea Baggers, so so sooooooooo sick of them. They are going to be the most hated party in America if they don't stop their bullsh*t. For once why can't they just give in to the majority of the American People, maybe because they are greedy, self-serving and don't want to do the right thing, only interested in what's good for them.

usa1967- stated on budgets not being passed:Oh sure, even though they have been so ridiculous that the dems wouldn't even vote for them."
You are correct usa1967 the REPUBLICAN/CONSERVATIVE budgets that were reworked by the House of Represenatives and were actually nothing more than the Ryan Budget Plan with a few minor tweaks were indeed "ridiculous". Which is why the Senate rejected them. There was not attempt at compromise, no attempt to work with the Democratic and Progressive minority in the House and no attempt to actually work with the Democrats in the Senate. The party of "NO" got back a "NO" from the Senate. Which is EXACTLY what their budget deserved.

Maybe when the President and his party controlled Senate get back to work they will propose the "plan" that got him elected. Quoted from his campaign website under issues/taxes - " His plan includes $2.50 in spending cuts for every dollar in revenue increases, while bringing annual domestic spending as a share of the economy to its lowest level in 50 years".

Until the president and his party propose this plan to fulfill his campaign promise, the fault for going over the cliff will be soley his...the Senate needs to bring his plan to a vote and if it fails (when and if he actually proposes it), then the dissenting party can be blamed for not fulfilling the voter's wishes. In addition, a gallup poll taken on Nov 14 show that 45% want a balanced approach, 40% want an emphasis on reduced spending and 11% (yes, 11%) want to primarily use tax increases to reduce the federal deficit. This again proves what the public wants and the GOP controlled House is waiting for a proposal that reflects the people's wishes, not the two that have been sent their way so far.

No, this is a Republican disaster!! They could have solved this in 2011, when Boehner made a deal with the President and then went back on his word. THAT brought us to this point! It was their idea for the sequester. They agreed to it, hoping the President would lose. He didn't. Now they are faced with what they wanted. I hope we do go off the cliff. Everyone's taxes will go up, including mine and maybe, just maybe, we can get better roads, schools, bridges, police, firefighters, teachers, road workers and public needs back to where they belong. This is not Obama's fault!! Not by a long shot!! He even compromised again on the limits and still nothing!!! I say, let the bill passed in the Senate come to a vote. Stop wasting time trying to protect the rich. They are doing just fine!!

By the way, the Presidents approval rating is now at 57%!! When was the last time a Republican President had that kind of number? Maybe the Republican party, before it becomes irrelevant, should start listening to the people who voted for him and are standing by him now. Unless, they WANT to lose the next elections, too!!? More than half of their own party thinks taxes should go up on the rich!! They aren't even listening to their own party!!

GOPisextinct, how much of that debt do you believe will get paid off by creating even more debt(printing even more money)?

By the way, something for you to ponder. Both parties create bills that get passed by both the House and Senate, it's not just a one sided thing(show me when the Democrats never came up with any kind bill to be passed during the time in question). And the "Clinton surplus"? I'm neither a Republican or a Democrat, and the only surplus I can recall that Clinton ever had, were cigars, and plenty of time to use them. And the only way ANY political party or even those who follow them are likable, is when they are rhetoric free, and that goes for both sides.

Anti-Trust

We need so many federal systems streamlined.

I think there should be a graduated tax system based on and based on increments of 5's. You get a personal exemption and beyond the total number of exemptions you pay taxes starting a 1% of the excess of the exemption then for brackets of 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, and possibly a 40% tax rate on those AGI's over $1,000,000.

Interest, dividends, and capital gains for individual returns limited to $12,000 per year each.

If you want to lower your taxes Itemize.

Limit capital losses to a percentage of income before they can start being counted.

Cap Mortgages by limiting the number of mortgages and total mortgage interest deductible

Still have local tax deductions

All medical bills are deductible unless cosmetic surgery is not related to an accident or a birth defect.

Charitable deductions should remain unchanged.

Extra exemptions should be given to the disabled, elderly, and children and for those students enrolled as at least a half time student in a qualified college or university.

Unless Obama comes up with targeted spending reductions, there will be no deal; the fiscal cliff is real, both sides know it; however without specific cuts , it will not get past the House; Obama has expanded entitlements(not social security) beyond any possibility to fund them, including the farm bills for the large mega farmers; yes we are now a socialist nation, (for at least the last 12 years), but we can also be a socialist capitalist nation, however it is not in the plan; if we do go over the cliff in 2013, we will have a inflationary depression that will make the 1930's look like boom years.

Obama is expected to turn to a trusted Democratic ally, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to help craft a quick deal.

Obama's job is not to create law, his job is to enforce existing laws. Social Security was promised to be off ANY fiscal cliff negotiations by Obama and Reid! Bernie Sanders can Filibuster any deal in the Senate that is a benefit cut. Remember it was the Democrats saying,... "No deal is better than a bad deal."

The WORST President at the WORST time.

*He makes James Buchanan look like a visionary.

*He makes Herbert Hoover look like a great steward of our economy.

Obama has NEVER made a deal before of any substance in his life! He had the 2700-page Obamacare bill rammed through without ANYONE reading it. The most partisan bill in our nation's history. The effects will be devasting and long-lasting to our economy.

Maybe electing and re-electing a rigid idealogue, whose only private sector job was as a 6-hour-a-week law lecturer wasn't such a good idea after all??!

Wait until all your taxes go up next week!

SUCKERS...!!!!

I've yet to see anyone (including me) take time to do a line item assessment of the entire federal income/expense ledger and determine what can be cut where and still maintain the services required to keep this country moving.

This was an Obama promise that was broken, He has not only not reduced the government bureaucracy he has increased it adding thousands of pages of government regulations and restrictions, Tens of thousands of new government employees(Temporary census workers not included).

No more money printing!!

Like sands through the hour glass so goes the days of our lives!!

I vote for the cliff!! : ) Lets go!!

No money printing!

Correct me if I'm wrong, it seems to me that the President, gave around 18 tax breaks to small business in the first years of being in office! Now the President wants to raise taxes, along with spending cuts in a balanced way, so as not to derail the economy ! It sounds reasonable to me!

As I read the posts of Republicans and those of the Tea Party Mentality, I am reminded of two very important FACTS. First, "Figures don't lie but liers can figure"! Second, never pay attention to 90% of any GOP'er comment, as they have now relagated themselves to the 'dust-bin' of irrational thinking and propositions. In short they are less meaningful as each day passes; it is best to basically ignore them! Fact is they just don't GET-IT!

@THERESA-532036. To answer your question, the first term AVERAGE for bush was 62%. The highest he had was 90%.

Source - Gallup Poll, Presidential Approval Ratings -- George W. Bush

ROY WILSON-336103

lnobody "roy.....under G W Bush it was only 62.6% of GDP (yes, it WAS lower under Bush than under Clinton)........hmmm, lets see, under bush. The national debt over doubled and gdp went to negative numbers. Yet he had better numbers. Please give a reference for you numbers."

The National Debt did NOT double under Bush - it went from $5.629 Trillion at the end of fiscal 2000 to $9.986 Trillion at the end of fiscal 2008. GDP could not possibly be a 'negative' number - did you earn less than $0 in any year under Bush? Perhaps you are thinking that the 'growth rate' was negative, but the GDP actually increased in every one of Bush's years, but it did drop slightly (-2.06%) in Obama's first year (not exactly like the 'Great Depression, where GDP dropped by about 30%).

Actually, the debt did technically double (in nominal terms) under George W. Bush. Debt went from roughly $5.7 trillion to about $11.2 trillion (minus Obama's share of the 2009 deficit). Secondly, GDP did drop in 2008 by 0.3% and later by 3.5% in 2009, although I'll attribute only half of it to Dubya as I gave him responsibility for the first half of the 2009 deficit.

This is just a bunch of bull@!$%# on the part of Republicans. Pure, unadulterated bull@!$%#. They had the best deal they could possibly get in 2011 and a relatively good deal last week that would give them massive spending cuts for a few tax hikes. All they had to do was agree and the deal was done. Unfortunately, Boehner couldn't get his caucus together in 2011 and chickened out in 2012 with Plan B, and now we go off the fiscal cliff. And that will be solely the fault of the GOP, because Obama has twice offered a deal that favored them and they backed away at the last moment. Now we are going to get a deal that will favor DEMOCRATS, and you Republican @!$%#s will have to sit back and just let it happen.

While we are discussing reforms to the tax code, I don't think we are realizing our true revenue potential or rational limits. Everybody seems to say that we need to "broaden the base" and "lower rates" in order to achieve rational tax reform based off of the 1986 model. What they fail to realize is that (A) this is just a recipe to make the tax code regressive instead of progressive and (B) it is pure bull@!$%#. The 1986 tax reform deal did SQUAT to help the economy; all of the benefits of the Reagan economy died away in the Bush 41 recession when Reagan's debt-fueled boom collapsed on itself. Lowering rates is just stupid; we have the lowest rates in nearly two generations, and what do we have to show for it??? Economic growth has been low for the past 30 years; economic inequality is high; economic mobility is declining; and we are as healthy fiscally as a smoking diabetic. Lower rates is off the table for me: period. They do nothing to improve the economy and are just another way to cut taxes for the wealthy.

What America needs is a progressive, economically-rational, and revenue-positive tax reform proposal. We ought to have between 12-15 brackets, ranging from as low as $25,000 to as high as $5-10 million, and rates ranging from 8% to 70%. Businesses can no longer apply under an individual tax form and must apply as a corporation and pay the corporate tax. The corporate tax would be 18% for most companies; manufacturing companies pay 15%. There would be a cap and trade regime installed and a 6% VAT put in place. The mortgage deduction would be phased out, along with the deduction for high-risk medical expenses. Deductions for those making up to $250,000 would be limited to 19% of AGI; deductions for incomes between $250,000 and $800,000 would be limited to 15% of AGI; and deductions for income over $800,000 would be 12.5% of AGI. Capital gains would be taxed at 25%; dividends at ordinary income. Corporate depreciation would be extended; deductions for extractive industries would be eliminated, and a global corporate tax code would be put into place. Any income repatriated to the United States that goes for domestic investment will not be taxed; any income going to dividends and stockholders will be taxed at 25%. And any corporation that outsources American jobs without any reasonable justification (i.e dramatic profit declines or cost increases) will have a onetime tax of 45% and eventually go down to a 38% rate.

Conservatives are the Worst!

Where is the compromise? Bonehead Boehner is still stuck and the $1,000,000 tax not applying to those with over that income. Why has the republican't party become so extreme in favor of only the rich and then practice warmongering on the side!

mdud,

And when bush left office and the American public knew what they have mistakenly got it was 17% for bushwhacker bush.

clwyd-2621393,

*which* Bush?

I want to know which past President you're blaming for Obama's failures.

Ha, I love it. Cons keep posting comments making claims that such & such was Obama's fault, or the Dems fault. Then someone else comes up right afterwards and kicks them in the teeth with the actual facts debunking those claims.

Then the next day yet another political story gets posted and those same cons run in and begin posting the same dumbass claims again. I'm finding it highly amusing but I feel bad about that. It's like laughing at some special needs kid as he tries to ride a bike and keeps falling.

Saxon,

This cliff may or may not be as bad as the one crossed in 1920. Republicans cut the Federal budget from 18.5 Billion to 6.6 Billion from 1919 to 1920. They did not stop the scheduled 30% tax increase that developed only about 25% more revenue.

We are a little different here. We are pushing to have a 38% tax increase and only cut the Federal Budget by about $100 billion or barely 3% of the Budget. The tax increases is going to be a bigger problem than the budget cuts.

I'm hearing employers keeping withholding at 2012 for one or two pay periods. Then if no change, you pay to make up the difference, probably in the first quarter. Regardless, we won't see the full effects for more than 3 months.

Why is it that people who have nothing and don't want to work for it are demanding that someone else pay for it? People on these vines are posting that it is Republicans who bear the blame and saying the Democrats are stupid.

Republicans do bear some of the blame (bear, not bare people) for not trying to do things rationally. Go over the cliff, please. That is rationality to me. Those entitlements that Republicans want cut never will go away. Like a dog with a raw piece of bloody meat, the persons who make the most from entitlements will battle you to the death for them. This includes subsidies for farmers, "green" energy kickbacks, and tax loopholes- not just the obvious soul-sucking medicare, social security, and welfare. These will never go away. GM just screwed the taxpayers and the government let them- but that's ok, right?

Democrats also bear some of the blame- not one can give a logical reason why some of these entitlements still eat the funding away when you can show that if all individuals in the US bore a bit more responsibility, such as: NOT maxing out credit cards and then griping when they have to pay 23% interest so they cry to the government to demand regulation on something they shouldn't have done originally; buying a home or car they cannot afford; taking better care of themselves physically to prevent may things like obesity, heart issues, or teeth issues; but my favorite is taking care of your family, like parents and brothers and sisters when times are hard.

Please give me a reason why someone who chooses NOT to educate themselves or to expand themselves or work 2 to 3 jobs to support themselves (like I did and many people I know still do) should benefit from someone who DID do the above and is now making $5M a year? Because that person makes more money, they should HAVE to give to someone else? I don't see the logic in that. I see myself, making a decent salary, not buying things I can't afford so I have more money. I grow a garden to have cheaper food. My children HAD to get good grades to go to school for free or go to a local college so I didn't have to take out loans and neither did they.

The people who benefit from the "entitlements" and the "handouts" far outnumber the people who pay for them. If a company hires someone as a CEO and pays them $5M a year, you have the right to NOT buy their product and then the company fires that person and hires someone cheaper. But the American people should not create laws to punish or provoke them into taking care of personal responsibility- you can't demand higher wages when you are too lazy to work in the first place. You cannot expect regulation of people when you aren't willing to get your own affairs in order.

move along...nothing but to see here but...cliff dwellers...get it Cliff Dwellers...duuurrrr...i made a funny...what you have here is a...Illusion of Choice...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS-3u3JHOhU

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

WOOOHOOOOO Barrack is going to fly in on his white winged horse (hmmm, is that a racist remark?) and save the economy from his first 4 years of incompetence.

He and the little smurf, Hairy Reed, are gonna come up with an economic miracle to fix all this incompetence. I can hardly wait. I see a stop-gap measure decided on to just keep the can rolling down the road of cowardice from the Democrats.

This is all because 4 years of no budgets, no solutions to our biggest drivers of debt--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--and no reforms of the social programs that could easily be cut by 25% without significant effect, even per the governments own auditors, has done nothing to help America.

Liberalism/Progressivism and its dysfunctional Keynesian nonsense wrapped around the even more irrational social and economic justice delusion will put us over the cliff. Until the Libbies finally admit that the economy is now Barrack Husseins and our nanny-state is unsustainable we will continue this backwards economic growth.

But then again Barrack Hussein doesn't want our economy to improve. His incessant promotion of mediocrity by telling American's the best they can become is middle-class should even insult the most rabid Liberal/Progressive. But I guess when the best you can aspire to is the "Life of Julia" cartoon advocated by this administration, your expectations are typical Liberal.

It's a shame that so many once hard working Americans have decided to just become dependent on us real Americans to support them and their families through life. I remember when Democrats were proud, ambitious contributors to the American Dream. Today they have devolved into a burden on our great Republic.

In the 1960's Democrats proudly proclaimed, "Ask not what your country can do for you". Today that has become, "Give me more free-stuff paid for by the real Americans".

You've come a long way Libbies!

Arthur 666,

GW. bush! The worst president ever! He left office with us losing 800,000 jobs a month, the president who had an approval rating of 17% when he left office, ran up $4,000,000,000,000 in war debt on lies about WMD, the one president that has the World Court in the Hague have a warrant out for his arrest on War Crimes. Isn't obvious! Oh, the guy who screwed up our banking system with his repeal of laws that controlled banking. The member of the same party who says there is too much regulation to save the environment. Disgusting that my former party is such a disgrace! Remember, bush hasn't been hold up in his ranch for 4 + years for nothing! We are being held hostage by the new republican Taliban!

clwyd2621393....Bush did what with the banking system? The banking system went haywire when the housing bubble broke...that was due to the following...WJ Clinton set out to give everyone a home, whether they could pay for it or not...Bush told Frank and others to better regulate Freddie and Fannie, Frank in so many words told Bush not no but hell no...home were financed and went to sub prime lending rates, and when a bank collapesed the rest followed...the rest is history...

This fight over baselining is such a ridiculous game. Who cares if you pass tax rates now or after Jan. 1? It's the same either way, except some fear if they do it now, it will be spun as a tax increase, whereas after Jan. 1 it can only be spun as a tax cut. They are wrong, political opponents will spin anything regardless of the reality. Then they bicker over what should be considered a cut and what shouldn't, again each side arbitrarily drawing a baseline wherever it benefits their political case most. It's ridiculous, and we should not tolerate it. Not from Paul Ryan, not from John Boehner, not from Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell or from President Obama.

Just figure out the optimal policy going forward that will start paying down the deficit without throwing us into an austerity recession and pass that. It's really not nearly as hard as you make it out to be, Washington. Just take politics out of the picture and do your real jobs instead. Just this once. Next week you can go back to your posturing and bickering on the manufactured issue du jour. Unless you really think that congressional approval polls are actually a limbo contest.

the one president that has the World Court in the Hague have a warrant out for his arrest on War Crimes

There is no warrant for GW Bush from the World Court, You are a liar

Disgusting that my former party is such a disgrace! Remember, bush hasn't been hold up in his ranch for 4 + years for nothing! We are being held hostage by the new republican Taliban!

Bush just recently returned from a humanitarian aid trip to Africa, He is not holed up anywhere and the only Taliban I see are the extremist like you spouting your lies,hatered and bigotry.

Freshieee "ROY WILSON-336103 Actually, the debt did technically double (in nominal terms) under George W. Bush. Debt went from roughly $5.7 trillion to about $11.2 trillion (minus Obama's share of the 2009 deficit). Secondly, GDP did drop in 2008 by 0.3% and later by 3.5% in 2009, although I'll attribute only half of it to Dubya as I gave him responsibility for the first half of the 2009 deficit."

How nice of you to 'attribute' half of Obama's $862 Billion 'stimulus' bill to Bush. The government operates on a FISCAL basis, not some imaginary date that suits your 'spin'. The National Debt at the end of fiscal 2008 was $9.986 Trillion - per the Obama White House historical figures, not the figure that you conveniently 'attributed' to Bush. Since the Democratic Congress decided not to give Bush a Budget for 2009 to sign or veto, the 2009 spending Budget was all by Obama - and he signed it in early March 2009 - AFTER he passed his 'stimulus' and 'porkulus' bills that dramatically increased spending by 18% over the 2008 actual spending under Bush (including war costs).

As for the official government GDP figures (again, from the Obama White House, they were reported by Obama as $14.394 Trillion for 2008, an increase of $502 Billion over the GDP of $14.892 Trillion for 2007. It dropped to $14.098 Trillion in Obama's first year (2009), a drop of 2.06%.

Your attempt to 'attribute' Obama's big spending to increase to Bush is laughable. Bush only allowed spending for 2009 AT THE SAME RATE AS IN 2008. Here's proof;

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

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

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

clwyd-2621393 "GW. bush!.....the guy who screwed up our banking system with his repeal of laws that controlled banking."

That would be Bill Clinton - try doing some research.

lol

Is America DUMB ENOUGH to believe that EITHER BOUGHT AND PAID FOR POLITICAL PARTY or the MEDIA cares about mainstream America?

Keep the masses divided, keep the "standard of living acceptable for the masses (prolonged unemployment, welfare, food stamps, government subsidies to the corporate) and the RICH (both parties) keep their fiscal status.

These bought and paid for political crooks are content to "kick the can", come up with a "emergency band aid" and ignore the true needs of America's long term fiscal health.

You REAP what you Sow America = stupid is as stupid does!

Let be honest at least once,Obama has not returned to have an agreement with the Republicans, he has returned to ask the Democrats, who control the Senate approve its demand and then require the Republicans who controlled House of Representatives , to accept the proposal of Obama and the Democrats in the Senate, in which there is an increase in the tax expenditure without having solved any problem of indebtedness , otherwise will hold Republicans accountable for let the Sequestration Law signed for Obama, take effect .

Obama was elected president at his own request, on the basis of its offer to solve our economic problems, foreign debt, unemployment, energy, education, transportation, and two fronts of fighting, Iraq and Afghanistan. From the first day of his government Obama has only been past blaming Bush and promoting its agenda for social affairs, instead of solving the greatest problems of our country. Blame the Republicans for being obstructionist is only a pretext for being inept to reach agreements with the opposition, as other Presidents have done , Clinton among them. Obama has a history of not doing a bipartisan work and receive scores 100% by groups of left, during their stay in the Congress as Senator for the State of Illinois maintained an attitude completely radical and partisan . It is not surprising that this same attitude hold now that he is the president.

Chzhead2004 (#1.63)

BRAVO!!!!!

Excellent post.

Theresa,

"The simple fact is, the Republican party has lost it's honor, it's principals and it's mind! They want to take from the poor and already hurting, to give to the richest people in the country, who already have more than they will ever need. That is the simple fact. It is NOT going to hurt someone making $250,000 a year, or more, to pay 2 to 4% more in taxes. It IS going to hurt the people making $50,000 a year or less, WHICH IS THE REAL MIDDLE CLASS!! Social Security does NOT create one penny of the debt! Not one!! Medicare could be fixed to limit waste, but does not NEED to be cut! Medicaid helps old people, mentally ill people, children with horrible illnesses or born with life long problems, and should not be cut. They should be strengthened. That is, if we can really call ourselves humane! Taxing the richest among us, is not the problem. Greed is the problem!! If the richest, so called job creators, paid decent wages, provided decent benefits and cared about their workers, most of this would not be necessary!! If you want people to take care of themselves, give them the means to do it!! Health care and education should not be the first things to cut!! Anyone who can call themselves a Republican or Tea Party loyalist, is shooting themselves in the foot and the rest of the country in the back!"

Ignorant rants like this is exactly why our country is in so much trouble. Liberals would be smart to take a simple math class. There probably wouldnt be so many liberals if they could do simple arithmetic. Even if you taxed the wealthiest 2% at 50% and completely cut out government spending, we would still have a deficit. That is mathematical fact. Entitlements have to be on the table to cut the debt. Not believing this just shows that you cannot do simple addition and subtraction. And simple Theresa, why do you think all of France's billionaire have left? Or why so many wealthy people are leaving California and setting up jobs out of state? Its because if you keep taxing the wealthy (small business owners) they will go somewhere else where the leeches wont be trying to suck them dry. And also simple Theresa, Social Security does create debt my ignorant friend. Government simply doesnt put it on the books so democrats can lie to your face, and you blindly believe them. On average, social security recipients get back 200k more than they put in through out their life time. That is a FACT. And yes, that factors in inflation. It use to be 35 people working for every one on SS. Now it is about 3 working people to 1 recipient. We cannot afford this. It doesnt take a math major to figure this out. Just someone who took math in elementary school. Social security was put into the general fund thanks to your beloved demoncrats. Then they lie to you and say it doesnt affect the debt. hahahahahaha. It would be funny if ignorant people didnt believe them. This is not a partisan thing. It is so simple a grade schooler can see that what the libs are trying to do will not help the debt what so ever. We already have our government spending more money per person that France. We already have a socialist government, we just dont want to be taxed for it, unless its those evil 2%ers (2% now, not 1%. When did that happen? When Osama felt like it) who actually contribute to the economy. And those wars that you libs love to throw in people's faces, you realize that the dems supported them as well right? Hell, Biden voted for both wars. Then lied to you guys again, and you believed him because you are already drowning in the kool aid. Its easy to see if you are not blind to facts. Sadly, the entitled leeches still want to suck as much as they can out of the government before it goes belly up.

DB, why do you want to keep all of the deductions and exemptions? That is the point of my simple tax system. You get rid of ALL exemptions, deductions, credits, subsidies, etc. ALL income is treated equally, no matter what its source is. If a person wants to get married or have ten children, then that is that individual's responsibility to support them, not the rest of the taxpayers. Since the SCOTUS has ruled that corporations are "people", then they MUST be taxed the same as individuals. That is the ONLY fair way to tax.

MrBurns

Ignorant rants like this is exactly why our country is in so much trouble. Liberals would be smart to take a simple math class. There probably wouldnt be so many liberals if they could do simple arithmetic. Even if you taxed the wealthiest 2% at 50% and completely cut out government spending, we would still have a deficit.

Quite naturally, we are a debt based economy. I have seen no one on either side suggest the way to fix the economy is simply to raise taxes on the top 2% and say "oh, forget about the rest."

Many would like to see cuts to entitlements. I'd personally like to see cuts to the military as many would like to see cuts to entitlement. A large bulky fighting force was great for the conflicts that require it, but war isn't fought in that fashion anymore. Large troop movements are becoming antiquated as you can do much more with a small efficient strike force. We are learning quite a bit about the modern combat force Rumsfeld envisioned. Leaner and more efficient, and less involving the hardware we continually waste money producing. As long as we're detailing what we want, might as well get that off my chest.

That is mathematical fact. Entitlements have to be on the table to cut the debt. Not believing this just shows that you cannot do simple addition and subtraction. And simple Theresa, why do you think all of France's billionaire have left? Or why so many wealthy people are leaving California and setting up jobs out of state? Its because if you keep taxing the wealthy (small business owners) they will go somewhere else where the leeches wont be trying to suck them dry.

There are more billionaires in France than Arnault. Well, he was the one who made headlines trying to leave and the french told him to get lost. Amusing. Others have remained in France. People will leave California if they like, but the wealthy and elite often still make their homes and businesses there. I don't believe California can classify as a world power economy if all the small businesses are leaving, can it?

And also simple Theresa, Social Security does create debt my ignorant friend. Government simply doesnt put it on the books so democrats can lie to your face, and you blindly believe them. On average, social security recipients get back 200k more than they put in through out their life time. That is a FACT. And yes, that factors in inflation. It use to be 35 people working for every one on SS. Now it is about 3 working people to 1 recipient. We cannot afford this. It doesnt take a math major to figure this out.

This is a central point. One point that is also easy to overlook is that when social security was enacted, people weren't expected to live 20+ years after starting their collection. I think the 3 to 1 number might actually be much nicer than the reality is. The ugly part of the reality is going to be when most of our boomers are set to retire and start collecting social security. I wouldn't be surprised to see the number jump to 5 to 1 or higher.

Just someone who took math in elementary school. Social security was put into the general fund thanks to your beloved demoncrats. Then they lie to you and say it doesnt affect the debt. hahahahahaha. It would be funny if ignorant people didnt believe them. This is not a partisan thing. It is so simple a grade schooler can see that what the libs are trying to do will not help the debt what so ever. We already have our government spending more money per person that France. We already have a socialist government, we just dont want to be taxed for it, unless its those evil 2%ers (2% now, not 1%. When did that happen? When Osama felt like it) who actually contribute to the economy.

I was following this and nodding until it turned into impolite labels and questionable representations. Socialist government? Sweet! Can we all be bumped to the same scale of living with all healthcare costs paid for and all of us receiving the same amenities? You work the fields, I work the desk job and we both take home the same amount of cash? That's socialism. It would do quite a bit to eliminate income disparity. Quite a few people would be on board for that, but it isn't occurring.

This argument is similar to one I've heard from single and married property owners with no children not wanting to pay the school tax portion of their property taxes. It's easy to distort the situation and say "but I shouldn't have to, they are taking all my money!"

Additionally, our President is Obama, not Osama, but I can understand how that can be overlooked and I'm sure it wasn't intentional.

And those wars that you libs love to throw in people's faces, you realize that the dems supported them as well right? Hell, Biden voted for both wars. Then lied to you guys again, and you believed him because you are already drowning in the kool aid. Its easy to see if you are not blind to facts. Sadly, the entitled leeches still want to suck as much as they can out of the government before it goes belly up.

Biden voted for the Wars, we should not forget that. We also should not forget that quite a bit of evidence was "misleading" in terms of going to war and quite a bit was coming from the administration. When Clinton tried to go to war the very same people who were for this war accused him of wagging the dog. Turns out he should have had better liars apparently, because if he did, we can play the "you guys did it, so it's okay" side.

It is amusing to see the parties have the citizenry attack each other. It's a lot easier to do that rather than actually have to govern and make difficult choices for the good of the nation. Point the finger and let the citizenry handle the rest. More circuses while we run out of bread.

ROY WILSON-336103

How nice of you to 'attribute' half of Obama's $862 Billion 'stimulus' bill to Bush. The government operates on a FISCAL basis, not some imaginary date that suits your 'spin'.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

This is still the incessant nonsense from the Liberal/Progressive cabal that insists that everything from Barrack Husseins first year spending spree should just be added to Bush's tab.

This is from the convoluted calculation of Rex Nuttings wet-dream last year that claimed magically after repeated trillion dollar deficits that Barrack Husseins spending is the lowest in 60 years.

LMAO!!!!

Here’s how they manipulated TARP.

TARP wasn't a spending program. It was a loan to troubled banks that those banks were supposed to pay back, with interest. Nevertheless, when the government handed out TARP loans in fiscal year 2009, they showed up in the budget as regular outlays, adding $154 billion to the official spending number that year. And when banks started paying the loans back in 2010, the money was subtracted from spending that year, making federal outlays look $108 billion smaller than they actually were. In 2011, TARP artificially subtracted another $38 billion from spending, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Typical Liberal smoke and mirrors.

In addition, Nutting failed to account for the fact that the government was also busy bailing out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, with the bulk of the bailout money going out in 2009, and then quickly tapering off in 2010 and 2011. That, too, artificially boosted spending levels in 2009.

Remember, Liberals just like to make numbers up when they don't fit their propaganda.

Look at the ridiculous way Brown University calculates the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at over $4 trillion, whereas the Congressional Research Service calculates it at between $1.3 trillion and $1.5 trillion. Just more and more lies and confabulation by the Liberal clowns.

The sad part is the unwashed masses believe it all.

The funny thing (in a sad kind of way) to me is the link that I clicked on said "moderate Republicans eyed as a path to avoid plunge off fiscal cliff". What about moderate Democrats? Why can't they be counted on to help avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff"? Oh yeah, I remember...the Democratic Party has been co-opted by the liberals, thus the moderates, if there are any left, are afraid of being attacked by their own if they even think about compromise. Notice how all of the talk, thanks to the lame-stream media, is always about Republicans compromising and never about Democrats compromising.

I say we bring on the "cliff" and go ahead with the necessary reset that needs to happen. Then we can finally move to a system where EVERYONE pays their fair share. That means everyone who benefits from the system has to pay into the system. That right there is the definition of "fair share". It is not having the top 2% or whatever pay even more, when they already cover their share, your share and my share, as the system is currently setup. I'm not anywhere close to being in the top 2% but I will continue to work my ass off and make smart decisions with what money I do EARN, just as they did, in hopes of eventually reaching that level. It's called the AMERICAN DREAM and I still believe in it, in spite of the efforts of the liberals to demonize and destroy it!

How about you guys talk about what is best for the long term health of our country?

Dale, the ACA, is not going to save us money. They have raised the cost at least three times since it was voted on and they are still not right. It is going to be another drag on our economy. Instead of doing things that would have created more competition for our insurance dollars. We have a plan that will in the end replace all of our insurance companies with a federally run program. If you think that the federal government is going to run it better than a for profit company you would be incorrect.

I never supported the wars, and war is such a loose term here. Most of the money that we have spent has been in rebuilding projects or silly improvements that will not mean anything to anybody as soon as we pull out. My son served 1 tour in Afghanistan and in talking to him, they like anyone else want something for nothing.

Look at the budget, if all of the tax rates go back to the Clinton tax rates we still would not have a balanced budget. We would be over 500 billion dollars short.

As far as taxing the Rich goes, well they will have several tax increases this year as it is. One of them is for the ACA.

these people that make the big money off other peoples labor...are required to push a pencil...and make a political contribution...i mean look what they pay people to make movies and glorify some body like Honey Boo-Boo...yupp the value of a dollar...we live in a corporately controlled society...i think they should off shore honey boo boo...make the sponsor give us a little savings on the cost of their product...and the dugans an those 50-11 kids too...kat von dee and jessy the cardashians...all that corporate glitter we pay for...yupp...crazy money that was stolen from the working class...

Repojam,

Dude, I pointed out that completely cutting out military spending (that means a military budget of zero) plus taxing the wealthiest 2% at 50% (over 10% more than Obama wants) will still have us running a deficit. Again, a simple elementary education shows this to be true.

Who are these billionaires in France. They are moving abroad. And yes, many small businesses are staying, but over 100k people have left California than have entered it, and most of them were middle class and wealthy. And the ones that stay are incorporating in other states.

Yes, I know that they didnt factor that in. But what Im saying is that it does affect the debt, and blindly believing libs when they say no it doesnt will only hurt us. And if more people are going to retire in the baby boom, it will actually get closer to 2 to 1, not 5 to 1. Im sure that was merely a brainfart on your end.

That is not socialism, that is communism, but good try. France is by and large socialist in their government programs and healthcare. We now have about the same, but people only want the wealthy to pay for it. We pay more per person on average than socialist France, and we're not socialist? Again, good try.

And when did the Afghanistan war become the cons war? That was widely supported on both ends. But now its unpopular so libs want to abandon it. And the call to go to war, and the believe that they had weapons of mass destruction started with both Clintons, Gore, the democrat congress leaders, etc. There are many quotes for you to look up and be surprised with.

Again, everything I've said can be checked and proven with mathematical fact. People who dont accept it simply want to bury their heads in the sand and blame it all on those evil rich people. Obama has done more to divide our country than any other president before him, yet libs still worship him like Jesus.

plain bob

these people that make the big money off other peoples labor...are required to push a pencil...and make a political contribution...i mean look what they pay people to make movies and glorify some body like Honey Boo-Boo...yupp the value of a dollar...we live in a corporately controlled society...i think they should off shore honey boo boo...make the sponsor give us a little savings on the cost of their product...and the dugans an those 50-11 kids too...kat von dee and jessy the cardashians...all that corporate glitter we pay for...yupp...crazy money that was stolen from the working class...

As much as it may sicken you (and me) since there is a market for it, it will continue to be produced.

This is the nature of business. If there was no demand then likely this stuff wouldn't be on television. Reality TV is pretty easy to create and film and tends to be cheaper than a scripted television show. Add in the fact that many people watch it and call it a "guilty pleasure" or watch it so they can say "thank goodness i'm not that trashy" and you have a pretty successful model for profit.

Donahue, Oprah and Geraldo really pushed the trend and look at where it is today. We act like we've forgotten about Oprah and Geraldo doing a lot of that. Donahue even had a run at "look at me, I'm a credible guy with low ratings that got canned by MSNBC in 03."

roy wilson..........get your facts/lies straight...........

the Senate passed a budget June 2012. The House has refused to bring it up for a vote.

Obama's stimulus package was needed because of the bush administration's economic policies.

the banking laws that screwed up the economy were passed by a republican controlled congress.

the bush administration did leave President Obama a $9 trillion debt. But remember bush was left a surplus. and the expense of 2 unnecessary wars was not included in that $9 trillion. Obama put the wars on the books to reflect our true debt.

Riiight, I cut back on Christmas shopping because I'm worried about next year's tax rates. NO nitwits, people aren't spending money because they don't have jobs, or if they have jobs, their wages have been stagnant. What does it take for the media etc. to reach the most obvious conclusion?

The same goes for Obamacare. Folks aren't going to see their tax rates go up, because this is NOT how Obamacare is funded. What people are seeing is no more discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and getting a refund for 80% of premiums that are not used for actual health care. What people are going to see is improved accessibility to health care starting in 2014.

Rightwingers, your fear-mongering is misplaced. What you should be concerned about is how popular Obamacare will be once folks see it is something good and not bad. Then the Teapublicans will be even more in the toilet in coming elections, and rightfully so. It's bad enough the GOP platform sucks, but non-stop lies are the worst.

@Barry...They don't need to satisfy congress or the president. They need to satisfy their employers and that is we the people ....you know the employers they are elected to represent.

And, according to various polls, the majority of Americans are fine with raising taxes on people making more than $250K/yr. So, by your definition, the House GOP is not working to satisfy their "employers." Unless, of course, you consider their employers to be the country's millionaires.

MrBurns

I'm not going to chop apart your post, mostly because the XML editor is more work than I feel like putting into a post while I wait for this spreadsheet to save and leave for the day.

I still haven't seen anyone suggest we do nothing for the economy other than tax the wealthy. I know people believe we should, but that is obviously not going to work. People who suggest just raising taxes will fix our problems usually aren't looking very far for a solution.

You can do a quick internet search for billionaires in France. I found a total of one leaving (the story you likely heard) and others who are staying put. Perhaps the information I found was old. Can you share what you found so I can see about an exodus of the rich?

In regards to the 5 to 1, I meant in terms of 5 to 1 working to pay for the benefits of the recipients (financial terms) rather than actual workers to recipients (in terms of people), which troubles me since I expect social security will create an extreme amount of debt while we continue to prop it up. The idea that people suggest SS is solvent until 2030 seems beyond off to me.

Socialism appears to have many definitions; from anything believing in zero private property to what is similiar to what Europe is experiencing. I guess what we're doing is American socialism, which is just an expanded version of our tax policies and things we all pay in for and expect to get out of the government.

Afghanistan being the conversative war? I have no idea. Typically the war that people love to point and say "So... about that?" to the conservatives with is Iraq. Afghanistan is the war that should have likely been our primary focus, but that is living in hindsight. I think in many cases suggesting a war belongs to someone or a political belief is disastrous. It doesn't matter who makes the choice, it's the people in uniform who fight it and they and their families are often left to deal with the consequences.

I'm still not sure what exactly the president has done to divide us, perhaps my mind doesn't work that way. I will certainly agree that we are extremely divided. I honestly think the biggest part of the division comes from blame tossing rather than actually focusing on results.

Longer than I thought at this point, should have just done it with notepad. Oh well.

Thank you for the reply.

TruePatriot,

Im not worried about the 2%. They'll always be fine. But even if you dont accept the truth, they create the jobs. Obamacare is making them not want to hire that 50th person, or cut back on everyone's hours. I know people who this has happened to. And they are taking their business elsewhere where they wont be leeched off of by the lazy and entitlement junkies.

Repojam,

I dont know what it is, but I like you. lol.

What do you mean you havent seen people say this? Look at the countless posts her or on first read. Yes, I know its not the best place to find economic minded people. So I direct you to the liberals in the Senate and our Comrade and Chief Obama. What cuts have they proposed to entitlements? Hell, some have been flat out asked what cuts they are willing to look at and many of them didnt name one thing. They simply said they wanted to cut tax breaks for the wealthy, which is not a cut. One congresswoman that comes to mind is from Texas. I forget her name, but she was asked numerous times, and never gave a single answer. Actions speak for themselves, and libs continue to only push for tax increases on the wealthy. What cut has Obama or any liberal push for? What's one?

Here is the info on Billionaire leaving. Id like to know which ones are staying. It takes awhile for people to leave their country. No, I dont have the source on all billionaires, so I may be off. But again, which are staying?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214595/More-400-1million-euro-homes-Paris-market-millionaires-flee-Hollandes-socialist-tax-hikes.html

http://rt.com/business/news/france-tax-homes-sale-989/

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47599766/The_Mass_Migration_of_the_SuperRich

http://www.prisonplanet.com/gerard-depardieu-is-latest-refugee-from-french-millionaire-tax-escapes-to-belgium.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/mayor_rich_french_lesson_iwfHnOx8WEs4mPpEShURwM

Im still not getting your five to one thing in regards to financial over people. Can you please explain this one?

Socialism does have many terms. But Frances accepts that its socialist, but pays less per person than we do. Obamacare and medicade are two socialist programs that come to mind. Actually, in economic terms, Obamacare is Fascist since it forces you to support a corporation. And no, I dont mean Nazi. I dont think Obama is going to start killing Jews or anything, but in economic terms, it is Fascists, which is only a skip away from socialism. Especially since our Corps and Gov are in bed together.

And I think you are confusing a lot of what Im saying. Im saying liberals are now saying that Afghanistan is our war since it is really unpopular. People like Biden said that we were the ones that put it on a credit card, yet they all supported it. Now you have liberal politicians blaming conservatives for both wars and liberals believing them. Even though liberal politicians supported and actually pushed for these wars before conservatives, including Biden (he didnt push for it before).

The president has divided us by class. Making it seem like the wealthy dont pay enough, and if we could only tax them more, we'll be better. He has made a lot of things based on race, sex, and social standing. And libs just follow the leader.

It doesn't matter Roy! It happened on GW.Bush (the worst President Ever" watch. Just like Obama gets blamed for what started under bushwhacker. Yes, there is a warrant out for bush's arrest for War Crimes from the Hague!

MrBurns

Repojam,

I dont know what it is, but I like you. lol.

The feeling is mutual. :)

What do you mean you havent seen people say this? Look at the countless posts her or on first read. Yes, I know its not the best place to find economic minded people. So I direct you to the liberals in the Senate and our Comrade and Chief Obama. What cuts have they proposed to entitlements? Hell, some have been flat out asked what cuts they are willing to look at and many of them didnt name one thing. They simply said they wanted to cut tax breaks for the wealthy, which is not a cut. One congresswoman that comes to mind is from Texas. I forget her name, but she was asked numerous times, and never gave a single answer. Actions speak for themselves, and libs continue to only push for tax increases on the wealthy. What cut has Obama or any liberal push for? What's one?

Thankfully the people on FirstRead (including myself) aren't involved in setting tax policy. I can't find the congresswoman from Texas, but I can find one from Illinois who stumbles and stutters about that, think it was Biggert. Many of these politicians remind me quite a bit of Louie Gohmert (who represents the district I lived in before) in that they will say anything for attention since it's a soundbite without thinking if it's actually a credible plan. As far as what either side is pushing for, I find that we can see remarkably little from either side, outside of what was agreed upon for the cuts in the Fiscal Control Act of 2011. If someone believes that simply taxing the top 2% is going to solve this problem, they are being dishonest. I think one of the reasons we are seeing so little in terms of dialogue on this is that no one wants to upset their base with any "proposed ideas". The rest is speculation. I'll throw in my own: I actually believe there is something in the budget plan that Obama offered that keeps people from seriously wanting to vote on it. Otherwise, I can't see the hold up.

Here is the info on Billionaire leaving. Id like to know which ones are staying. It takes awhile for people to leave their country. No, I dont have the source on all billionaires, so I may be off. But again, which are staying?

links removed for purposes of formatting

When you look at the number of billionaires in France compared to who is leaving the list shrinks. Two wealthy are listed as leaving, others as trying to leave. I don't believe mass exodus is occurring, but with the nature of the real estate market it's difficult to figure out. Billionaires saying "I HAVE HAD IT I AM LEAVING" will make better press fodder. If you take the list of top 10 according to Forbes french net worth, 1 shows to be leaving the country. He is also the largest of the billionaires, close to double of #2 (Liliane Bettencourt) and #3 (Francois Pinault). I am going to digest as much as I can out of the links shortly.

Im still not getting your five to one thing in regards to financial over people. Can you please explain this one?

I'll try to declumsify this and see if i can explain it better. With the amount of people we have in social security now, you could say 3 people pay in to the benefit that 1 would receive. As costs go up and benefit amount will go up based on a cost of living, I can see the contribution amount 5 people put in being required to pay for 1 person to receive the benefits set by social security. To kind of explain the idea bit simply, say you and I are working, we pitch in $20 on our check to make sure that person #3 gets their social security. I can see with increasing costs it would be you, me and 3 others pitching in $20 to make sure someone gets their benefit amount as costs only seem to go up. That is why I am rather concerned about the longevity of social security and what it will do to our economy as the boomers retire.

Socialism does have many terms. But Frances accepts that its socialist, but pays less per person than we do. Obamacare and medicade are two socialist programs that come to mind. Actually, in economic terms, Obamacare is Fascist since it forces you to support a corporation. And no, I dont mean Nazi. I dont think Obama is going to start killing Jews or anything, but in economic terms, it is Fascists, which is only a skip away from socialism. Especially since our Corps and Gov are in bed together.

I wasn't going to take your fascism quote out of whack. Our corporation and governments are definitely in bed. I don't like the decision Roberts made in regards to how he could hedge not striking down Obamacare by dancing a line and redefining the payment structure to make it okay. I don't remember the idea of it initially being put forward as a tax. Medicade, medicare, property taxes, social security and most other government "services" or entitlements fall under socialist by that definition. I can see the point of concern but if we are to do away with them, what cost does it come at to us as a country?

And I think you are confusing a lot of what Im saying. Im saying liberals are now saying that Afghanistan is our war since it is really unpopular. People like Biden said that we were the ones that put it on a credit card, yet they all supported it. Now you have liberal politicians blaming conservatives for both wars and liberals believing them. Even though liberal politicians supported and actually pushed for these wars before conservatives, including Biden (he didnt push for it before).

This is a side of parties being unreasonable and seeking to score political point. Sickening, but true. If someone wants to be against the origin of the Afghanistan war and the reasons we went, I honestly think they have a screw loose. We can disagree on how the Afghanistan war was prioritized or prosecuted, but anyone who believes we shouldn't have done anything at all defy my ability to understand.

The president has divided us by class. Making it seem like the wealthy dont pay enough, and if we could only tax them more, we'll be better. He has made a lot of things based on race, sex, and social standing. And libs just follow the leader.

I can understand where he feels the wealthy don't pay enough, particularly with millionaires marching on DC demanding taxes to be raised and people like Warren Buffet stating that they pay a higher effective tax rate than their secretary. In the case of the taxes raises and people "following the leader", I actually think quite a few people have felt this way before and it's the leader listening to his base. It isn't always a good thing, but I don't see it as Obama saying "This is my idea!" and being the first to mention or even propose it. I think it's him responding to things that his party and people have already been saying for quite some time. How I feel about that could be another novel.

Thank you for your reply.

Afghanistan is Obama's war, now the left want to disassociate from Obama's support toe the "right" war (Iraq was the wrong war according to this Administration, so the cost of war and accusations of the cry baby liberals against Bush should be shared with the actual occupant of the White House.

The Nation editorial board, composed of liberals, ex-leftists and opportunists of various stripes, expresses the interests of a section of the American upper-middle class. Their collective superficiality, self-delusion and impressionism have a social basis. The Nation writers speak for a highly privileged, complacent section of the population, largely insulated from the consequences, military and economic, of the Obama administration’s policies.

The American “left” to a prominent man or woman endorsed Obama in 2008, or greeted the victory of an African-American candidate with enthusiasm as a “historic” moment. Individuals with the reputation for opposition to the status quo, such as Moore, professors Zinn and Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein and many others, lined up behind the Democratic candidate, misleading the American population.

Words and political endorsements have consequences. The Nation has thousands of readers, the individuals just referred to have a large audience. This “left” shares responsibility for Obama’s policies, including the bloody results of his decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

The escalation in Afghanistan vindicates the perspective of the World Socialist Web Site and the Socialist Equality Party: uncompromising opposition to the Obama administration and the Democratic Party. We base ourselves on a class analysis of this administration and the Democrats.

The old “antiwar” movement has collapsed, as serious protest against the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia cuts across its support for Obama. Resistance to Obama’s wars can be based only on socialist opposition to imperialism as a global system and a turn to the working class, the only social force that can do away with the source of imperialist war and oppression.

@JimSpence

everything from Barrack Husseins

The moment you posted that, it made everything else you you might have said absolutely worthless. Just more of the typical racist birther bullsh*t. Oh I'm sure you'll reply back with "It's his name, dumbass". If so, let me ask you. Did you call the previous Presidents George Walker, William Jefferson, or George Herbert?

Nope, I didn't think so.

Chris from Yucaipa

Oh I'm sure you'll reply back with "It's his name, dumbass".

Awwwwwwwww did I upset your sensibilities Chrissy? Want me to get you a WAAAAAMBULANCE?

Yes I did use those names when I addressed them quite often. Why, is that a problem? You see Chris, I do give them credit for being elected but each one of them have been an embarrassment to our great Republic. H. W. Bush lied about raising taxes. Clinton, well, let's just say he was the ultimate embarrassment with all the red flags that went up around him and Hitlery. George "Dubya" was just another Progressive RINO spender like Barrack Hussein.

I refuse to put anyone on a pedestal that is elected into office because I still remember that they are supposed to look up to "We The People" NOT vice versa. You nor I are supposed to deify these simple men or women in office. They wanted our precious vote to allow them to represent us they need to prove to me that they deserve it. With a divided nation, massive deficits, debt and unfunded liabilities NONE of us should trust anything they say until the problems they all created are fixed completely. I have no tolerance for crooked politicians, not in the past, not today and not in the future.

You know what though, I remember all you little limp-wristed Libbies calling Bush all kinds of pejoratives, remember?

Lemme see, how did some of them go?

Dubya, Bushie, Shrub, Chimp, Smirky, Bu@!$%#ler, Chickenhawk One, Hitlerburton, Chimpowitz, Rove's Puppet, Cowboy Hitlerstein, AWOL McPsycho, Bushollini, Cheney's Sock Puppet, Chimpy McDrunkard, Darth Moron, Toxic Texan, Dim Son, Drinky McCokeSpoon, Emperor Chimpatine, Fearful Leader, Herr Bush, Moron-in-Chief, and Satan's Monkey.

So, I guess when you all thought you were being so clever and cutesy you thought it was OK, right?

Besides, Barrack Hussein IS his name isn't it?

Are you ashamed of it? More importantly, is he ashamed of it?

You or he shouldn't be, it is his name. Well, at least part of it.

Here is some interesting information from the U S Treasury Department;

For fiscal 2012, the National Debt was $16.07 Trillion, and the estimated Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will be $15.24 Trillion, for a Debt Ratio of 105.4%. This is the first time in our history that our Debt Ratio has exceeded 100% of GDP.

Rule #1. When you have to lie to make your point, you don't have one. Not only that, but now I will discount everything else you post because I don't feel like fact checking every point of someone who posts blatant lies. As I'm sure you know the debt reached over 120% during WWII and any idiot with google and 15 second to spare can check that.

Oskar,

You are an fool with your reasoning. Afghanistan has never been Obama's or America's War. It is the Worst President Ever War. bush lied about WMD to get us involved and the $4,000,000,000,000+ price tag is his gift that has been added to our deficit. The lost war in Iraq has had another cost, 7,200 American body bags. Obama has gotten us out of Iraq in his first 2 and 1/2 year term. Time to stop and shut up the other republican warmonger, McCain, who has tried to get us into wars in Syria, Iran and Libya.

It appears all the republican can do is cry and go home, tell Reid and Obama to solve it, and then watch and wait for their outcry for abuse of power and they never asked us! You keep walking out Bonehead Boehner!

Jim Spence is worthless?

Swan, I really don't care. As long as millionaires and billionaires are paying 14% tax rates and GE pays nothing in taxes!

With every day that passes, the Republicans get more blame. It is they who put a damper on Christmas shopping because of this dreadful fiscal cliff, a scenario of their own making. This may end up with Republicans losing seats and less of their nonsense about how we can't tax the rich. Rich people are learning that it is better to pay taxes and have a vibrant economy than a dead economy. This, I think, they have had to learn the hard way.

Appears the GOP is determined to commit suicide and to take the American citizens down with it.

Swan37

Read post #1.35.

Try to keep up Spanky.

Read post #1.35.

Try to keep up Spanky.

So he admits he's lying after he's caught. Well I guess that makes it OK for you then or better yet maybe he shouldn't have lied in the first place. Oh and BTW you must have me confused with someone else, I was never in "our gang" which I'm sure you watched first run since your mind appears to be old and addled.

Here is the problem, the Republicans in my opinion is trying everything possible blaming the other side for the Fiscal Cliff... It is simply an attempt at media war instead of actual problem solving. In another words, the same group of people is telling the the other group to eat @!$%# and die, because they have the majority. So they pass their Bill in their likeness and Fuch the rest.... Of course now it is up to the rest of them to not to pass.... Well people are not stupid, eventually they catch on... Because they ate @!$%# for the past 8 years!!!

So the Republicans' solution, give more @!$%#, because this way it will make the earlier @!$%# look better!!!

Give me a break... then you get idiots in the media and bloggosphere repeating these lines and then add in facts that are completely irrelevant to the current situation, because they know that if they repeat it enough times that we will believe President Obama is a muslim form Kynia, not an real American Christian.

RoyWilson, I see you're at it again... blowing smoke because there is a wind. You proclaim the following: "In comparison, the average Debt Ratio under Bill Clinton was 64.2% of GDP, and under G W Bush it was only 62.6% of GDP (yes, it WAS lower under Bush than under Clinton)." What exactly is your point? GWBush had a better ratio???

Here are the problems with that simple analysis;

1. It is pointless, because the with your supposed ratio analysis. Your GWBush's better ratio still resulted with him crashing our economy.
2. The critical portion are bad data in and bad data out. If you actually know about our deficits, then you would have known that neither the RX supplement program nor our cost of wars went on to the books during his term. So if they never went on the book then how can the ratio be accurate?

As for shifting the blame onto Harry Reid in regards to budget voting... hahahaha... Nice try, becuase here is the reality.

"With the exception of reconciliation legislation, it effectively takes 60 votes to consider any legislation in the Senate so it really does not matter whether the resolution has been adopted; if you have 60, you can consider the legislation, if you don't, you can't.

The bottom line is the budget process set out in the Budget Act works pretty well when the Congress can agree on budget policies. When they cannot, no process in the world can make things work smoothly, but Congress muddles through and does what absolutely has to be done (like keeping the government from shutting down or defaulting on the debt). Not having a budget resolution in place is a symptom of the inability to reach agreement – not the cause of Congress not being able to accomplish things." according to Mr. Jim Horney, a specialist in parlimentary procdures.

I believe Mr. Jim Horney explained it best "

It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate.

But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.

Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation.

But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement. And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to."

I see Barrack Hussein and the pathetic limp-wristed Liberals economic and domestic policies have caused the worst Christmas retail sales since 2009. Of course the complicit brain-dead lamestream media was predicting it was going to be a great because they are desperate to make his abysmal record look a little good.

Of course now Barrack Hussein will try and fix the economy that he's been "focused like a laser" on for 4 years. I guess playing president is a lot harder for Barrack than having a few picnics in Chicago as a community organizer. But hey, he did write a couple books, ABOUT HIMSELF!!!!!

Real men aren't that vain.

I can't wait to hear what he and Hairy "Smurf" Reed come up with. We'll probably have to pass it first so we can find out what's really in it, like Nanny Piglosi said about PPACA.

God Bless and help America, you may be our only real hope for change.

depraw "roy wilson..........get your facts/lies straight...........the Senate passed a budget June 2012. The House has refused to bring it up for a vote.....the bush administration did leave President Obama a $9 trillion debt. But remember bush was left a surplus. and the expense of 2 unnecessary wars was not included in that $9 trillion. Obama put the wars on the books to reflect our true debt."

What nonsense, but at least you admit that I was right about the National Debt being 9.9 Trillion at the end of fiscal 2008, not the $11.2 Trillion you fantasized about, but about $5.8 Trillion of that was from when Clinton was in office. The TOTAL cost of the wars under Bush WERE included in the Deficits and Debt under Bush - it is handled by Obama in the same manner as under Bush. It's a total fiction that the wars were not included in the monies spent under Bush.

Perhaps you should learn how the Budgeting and accounting is actually done by the government. By the way - those so-called 'Surpluses' under Clinton (with a Republican Congress keeping spending low) was a fiction - Clinton 'borrowed' hundreds of $Billions from the Social Security and Medicare 'Trust Funds' and then spent that money while claiming that he 'used it to lower the Deficit'. If you look at the total National Debt at the end of each fiscal year under Clinton, THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE YEAR WHERE THE NATIONAL DEBT WENT DOWN - There was NEVER any money paid down on the National Debt under Clinton.

By the way - To clarify my Post #1.70, the GDP for 2007 was $13.892 Trillion, and it increased to $14.394 in 2008 (Bush's last year), and then dropped in 2009 to $14.098 Trillion in Obama's first year, which was the first year to year decline in at least the last 42 years for which I have detailed records.

JimSpence, I see you're resorting to finger wagging, changing the subject, and name calling again... lol. Real men aren't that vain... but you're...hahahahaha

You did get one thing right, the real hope for change is to get more people out there and study the subjects themselves. So, absolutely right, keep up with your BS, and get people to figure out the real facts.

BTW, according to you Libs have a limp wrist, please share with the rest of the world how did you develope them strong wrist? Now, didn't your Mom tell you that you go blind doing that????

MrBurns

TruePatriot,

Im not worried about the 2%. They'll always be fine. But even if you dont accept the truth, they create the jobs. Obamacare is making them not want to hire that 50th person, or cut back on everyone's hours. I know people who this has happened to. And they are taking their business elsewhere where they wont be leeched off of by the lazy and entitlement junkies.

Well gees it's a relief to hear you aren't worried about the 2% like the majority of Americans, but despite your narcissism, you don't know WTF you're talking about -- and proliferation ("diarrhea of the mouse") does not make you correct either. The richest 1% do NOT create jobs, and the small business owners that do create jobs WILL actually benefit from Obamacare. Please do the homework!

In the meantime, the ignoramuses crying about taxes and Obamacare are people like you who are neither the richest 2% nor job creators, rather only parroting rightwing squawking points. The richest 2% know how good they have it here in the USA, and aren't planning to move anywhere. They may put their money offshore, or take advantage of current tax breaks to move operations offshore, but that's nothing new.

Business owners like Papa Johns or Denny's learned a lesson real quick with threats of cutting hours to part-time, etc. (though they are on my permanent boycott list along with Walmart, Chick-fil-a, and now I've added Hobby Lobby). Temper tantrums from insanely rich douchebags are never good marketing. Costco, on the other hand gets all my business now!

This BS is the same crap from Southerners threatening to secede from the Union. Go to the White House website and sign the petition to have them deported, because they sure as hell don't deserve any US soil. In the meantime, labor (that you patronizingly and stupidly refer to as leeches, lazy, and entitled) is organizing and striking because workers are fed-up with the rip-off. The pendulum is beginning to swing...

ROY WILSON-336103

You're wasting your time explaining any of these issues to the Libbies. Especially if you provide a reference to Barracks own web-sites.

They don't believe in real facts, only the facts propaganda they're told to believe by Barrack Hussein, Debbie Whatsername Slutz or the lamestream media.

It's just amazing so many Americans that were once decent, hard working, proud people have allowed themselves to be manipulated and made so dependent and insignificant by a political party. I remember Democrats were once proud to support JFK's position of, "Ask not what your country can do for you". Today they are an embarrassment to American exceptionalism and the greatness of our Republic.

We can only hope that Barrack Hussein and the Liberals/Progressives don't do any more damage than they have for the last 4 years.

Barry didn't cut his vacation short to try and solve America's budget problems...... he fly back to attend the Kennedy Center Honors in NEW YORK.......... great importance to our country to listen to a bunch of LIBERALS pat each other on the back...........

It's good to be the King............ and 51% of you out there can't even see the reality of his actions...........

One day...... you will remember the days when we had a great country.... a great economy..... and freedom.............

Heya, Mr. Obama.....how many BILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS are you going to sneak into the Fiscal Cliff "backroom" deal to give away to FANNIE AND FREDDIE for HAMP #5 ???

You know, HAMP #1, #2, #3, and #4 worked so well, might as well throw BILLIONS more at the housing problem.

BTW: WHERE IS MY BAIL OUT ???????

The problem with this whole situation is that the socialist Bozobama WANTS us to plunge off the cliff, so he can try to spend his way out of that, too, just like the failed porkulus and other bailout BS he's tried and failed at. But, once a failed demlib, always a failed demlib. It's all he knows; spend and tax, tax and spend............

JimSpence, .... and now you're resorting to talking to your hand again? secret to your strong wrist, secrets revealed! Man revealed!!!!!

Ido, your bail out was when you didn't loose your job during the past 4 years while not working...

Kraussk, you knew the solution to our problem... so why are you not telling???? Are you holding out to a higher $$$. Geez, we had no idea that you're so freaking smart all this time, cause all we hear from you is bitch, bitch, bitch... So again, what is your solution(s)?????????? Now, you're not mad at the socialist Bozobama for having the solution of pending his way out like failed porkulus and other bailout BS... because we know bridge to nowhere, farming subsidies, oil subsidies, and federal handouts to the red states don't work right.... Hmmmm, I wonder where the F will the red states be today if the blue states are there to give their surplus taxes to support them through the Feds..... gasp!!!!

Let's take up a collection for Chris from Yucaipa, so he/she can get his/her GED, and at least have the critical thinking skills of a high school senior.

Roy Wilson doesnt need REAL fact;s he just dazzles with B.S.!

40 empty chairs 40 empty yrs of Rep rule "Roy Wilson doesnt need REAL fact;s he just dazzles with B.S.!"

I gave links to the official Obama White House for the 'REAL facts' that I posted, so I guess you're one of those people who subscribe to;

"Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's already made up".

lol

@Jim Spence

You know what though, I remember all you little limp-wristed Libbies calling Bush all kinds of pejoratives, remember?

Ah, so because some other idiots came up with cutesy nicknames in the past, you've got to do the same? Feel free to click through the last 5 years of my postings and pull out any examples where I nicknamed any of our elected cons.

Please sir, at least be honest with yourself. You know the only reason you use the 'Hussein' is for the connotations it evokes. There are a few of us here on Newsvine, Dem and Rep who are not stupid. Yet to claim you're using his middle name simply because it's his name is to treat us as such. Add in your remarks such as 'waaaambulance' and 'limp wristed libbies' and what you end up with is a bunch of people skipping over your posts like they are the rantings of a retarded kid. We'll pat you on the shoulder, shake our heads sadly at you, and walk away hoping you don't @!$%# on the carpet.

Regardless of how this fiscal cliff debacle works out, there are a couple of things everyone can take to the bank. First and foremost that beginning in 2013 taxes will be going up for everyone. Second, that nothing Obama does will keep him from leaving office after his second term with our national debt less then 20 trillion dollars. Obama will leave office having added more to our national debt then all previous presidents combined. Nothing Obama has done or talked about doing is going to keep this country from an eventual financial collapse. When history writes of these irresponsible times, the picture of Obama will be accompanied by the theme song Hey Big Spender.

Which Obama will return from this latest vacation? And will this Obama stay away from courtside seats at Bulls games to get a deal done before the fiscal cliff begins?

Will we have the Obama of the 2011 fiscal cliff deal? Or the 20122 version who moved the goal posts after his election- and demanded more and who pouted when Congress did not kiss his ring and approve it with a unanimous vote before his coronation?

Will 2013 bring an even more arrogant Obama? Does he really think winning a election equates to a mandate or a coronation?

Get a clue Obama, you are NOT the only dog in this fight. Nobody will blindly follow you and give you carte blanche with the debt ceilling. Not only are you untrustworthy, but it sets a bad precedent. Man up, swallow your bloated pride, accept reality, you are the President for all the people- not just the low class. Man up, negotiate a deal...and let everyone know this is the first pebble to drop- that higher taxes are coming for everyone at some point. We all know you cannot continue to kick the can down the road to someone elses Presidency. Man up, accept responsibility. Let low class know their days of lower taxes are numbered. Stop acting as this will only affect the top 2% anytime soon...when anyone can see that higher taxes loom for all.

Man up Obama.

what a stupid article and stupid people trying to lay this one on the president. all he needs to do is sign it. He can't make the house do anything. And all revenues must be started in the House, then to the Senate, then the president either signs or vetos it.

And the whole thing is BS. Congress isn't "waiting" on the president to return. The house isn't even in session!!!!