E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
There are a few different cast members, but the dialogue of the fiscal cliff drama is the same as it was yesterday. And the day before that. And the day before that.
Progress on the negotiations remains deadlocked, with a plunge over the cliff looking more and more likely as the remaining hours wane before the looming tax increases and spending cuts are set to take effect at the beginning of next year.
Recommended: Reid: Fiscal cliff failure looks likely due to Boehner's House 'dictatorship'
With House members away from the Capitol until Sunday, Senate leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell spent the lawmakers' first day back after the Christmas holiday mostly rehashing the same rhetorical salvos launched by their House counterparts before the break.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid condemns House Speaker John Boehner for not calling representatives back to Washington as the fiscal cliff deadline looms.
"I have to be honest — I don’t know, time-wise, how it can happen now," Democratic leader Reid lamented on the Senate floor earlier today, lashing House Speaker John Boehner for ruling the House by "dictatorship" by failing to bring compromise measures backed by Democrats to come up for a vote.
McConnell, the chief negotiator for Republicans in the Senate, also held firm Thursday, slamming Democrats for failing to push measures that could garner sufficient support from Republicans.
"Republicans aren't about to write a blank check for anything Senate Democrats put forward just because we find ourselves at the edge of the cliff," McConnell warned. "It's not fair to the American people."
A cosmetic bright spot in today's gloomy prognostications came with the announcement that Boehner has summoned House members back for votes on Sunday evening, instructing that they may be needed for votes through Jan. 2 to deal with the impending crisis.
Related: Boehner calls House back to Washington on Sunday
But without a possible deal to vote on, their mere presence may be mostly for theatrical purposes, as both sides seek to divert voters' ire away from their party if they are hit with the fiscal cliff's automatic tax increases.
Boehner, for his part, insisted to fellow House Republicans that the Senate must act first after his caucus failed to pass a 'Plan B' measure that would have hiked tax rates for earners making over $1 million annually.
Susan Walsh / AP
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid during a ceremony for the late Sen. Daniel Inouye in Washington on Thursday, Dec. 20.
"We've done our job, it's up to the Senate to act," Boehner told Republican House members on a conference call today, according to a participant. "We'll see if they do anything."
With prospects for a last-minute deal looking bleak, attention has turned to what impact a tumble over the fiscal cliff would have.
With five days until the Bush-era tax cuts expire, House Speaker John Boehner has essentially removed the House from final negotiations, telling the Senate it's up to them to come up with a deal that his chamber will pass.
While some financial pains would be felt right away -- and the markets would likely react sharply -- many of the longer-term tax rate changes and spending cuts triggered by the cliff would be reversible if a deal is reached early next year.
Recommended: What happens if we go over the cliff?
But that may well end up being the job of the 113th Congress, which convenes for the first day on Jan. 3.
Leave a Comment:
The republican tea bag party knows if we go off the cliff it will be them that are blamed by the American People. Are these republican tea bag party people just stupid or crazy?
The solution is so simple, yet the republicans act like this is rocket science.
I just don't think it's right to starve 2,000,000 Americans and put them out of their homes, which is something the American People would not to any of the people in foreign countries, so why do that to our own people.
Your entire post is based on the assumption that they care!
I care, you may care, and the American people care, but give some concrete evidence that Congress cares.
That's the problem.
Why blame the Republicans when some of them will see it as a victory! If we go over the cliff let Obama recognize it as a national holiday.
TO: Disabled Voter who wrote:
Well then, maybe it's time that the American People receive some foreign aid from say, Cuba, or Russia, or even China wouldn't that be an embarassment.
But if Republicans try to starve their own people, I doubt if other countries would stand idly by and watch it happen.
alan
What an absolutely silly statement. President Obama is attempting to get Congress to pass a bill that reflects exactly what he told the American public he intended to do. He will not gloat or celebrate if that is not accomplished. It is balanced and fair. Now it is time for the Republicans to do their part.
Well Alan when the economy cliff dives into the crapper let's see who is happy then. This isn't rocket science e have been raising the debt ceiling for ever with no issues but the sore losers in the GOP Congress just cannot accept who is in the White House. This isn't about more debt it's about paying the bills we have already made and that these idiots agreed on. If we just decided not to pay our bills any longer what would happen to us. They are not just playing with our economy they are playing with the entire world economy.
The Chicago Tribune had the answers about the Progressive in their political cartoon page in 1934, and HERE IT IS:
Note the "young pinkies" from Harvard and Columbia. Amazes me they aren't smoking pot.
Progressive agenda:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Girl-724855.....Yep, and just think....this administration is having Chinese build our bridges and roads and you are now saying "Republicans try to starve their own people". You are TOTALLY uniformed, illusional, and just a plain old Progressive who does not care about America.
2 million starving citizens? So the fiscal cliff is now taking away the citizens' hamburgers and trips to KFC's. What if I wanted to start my New Year's resolution by going on a diet and not eating?
This country was founded on the principle that if people want to starve, let them starve, the government will not impede or restrict their liberties.
I wont be blaming them I blame all of us. All U.S. citizens.
There's 435 Representatives in Washington and they are all elected by "We the People". We are the reason that we are in this situation. Instead of holding all our representatives accountable you only want to blame the "other" party.
We elected them to represent us and they are just a reflection of us. They are doing a Damn good job of it.
The fiscal cliff is exactly what the country needs to balance the budget. It was actually a really good idea.
The solution isn't simple at all...... We can't just keep on the same path of spending and raising taxes. The federal government is VERY inept ... There has to be improvement and both sides have to work together.
Been there, done that.
For the past 4 years Republicans have had their fun stalling our Economic Recovery by saying NO to everything the President proposed.
So now Boehner wants to play "Lucy" again, while President Obama acts like "Charlie Brown" continuing to go for the big kick at football, while Republicans continue to move the ball!
Boehner's problem is that his wacko Teagaggers are once again out of control and he can't do a darn thing with them, so he wants to give the wackos another target, President Obama, so Boehner can get the Teagaggers off his hands, because Boehner darn sure ain't having no luck trying to Lead his own caucus!
Considering the fact that the Republican party can not even come together and vote for THEIR OWN PLAN, I have little faith in any of them. Keep in mind, this is also the party that proposed a bill... then filibustered THEIR OWN BILL.
So the typical pubs will come on here, and complain about Obama and the progressives, like they always do. But at the end of the day, at least the progressives don't filibuster their own bills.
How did the Republican "Plan B" work out? Oh that's right... they could not even get enough Republicans to vote for it. Pathetic. And the right-wing nuts on this board expect us to support THAT type of incompetence?
Stupid or crazy? How about both. And they relfect back on the stupid crazy people who elected them.
McConnell: "we're not going to write a blank check." WTH? They can't even pass a tax increase on those making over $1M. DAMN IT. Quit lying. I want to hear Eric Cantor say "I am willing to raise taxes to help this country out of this crisis." He won't. He can't. Because of a worm named Grover Norquist.
I've been hearing that Social Security is going bankrupt since the 1970's. It's problem, I know. But it's not what is bleeding the country dry. Quit using it as an excuse to "oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and to oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates." This is what they signed and this is what is keeping this country from moving forward. It is %&$#ing treasonous.
Ido, you might want to educate yourself on some of that. Or did you forget that the Irag war (Spend) was started when republicans had a majority in both houses and a republican president? As for the redistribution tell us how much you hate redistribution when you are 65 and on medicare, or when your area gets hit with a disaster and federal funds are used to pay for it.
Oh and the Chinese bridge comment and calling American girl uninformed is priceless!
Major infrastructure and some small infrastructure is REQUIRED to be American made. Deal with it all the time.... So please keep talking because people like you with your total lack of knowledge or the brains to properly look anything up make it all the more fun for the rest of us!
Okay, "adults"... I might as well be the one to say it...
Blaming is counterproductive. Do not engage in blaming. Be part of the solution. Avoid adding to any existing problems.
BUT... if you wanna blame the actual offenders in this issue:
All politicians, and their Yes Men, who did not collaborate with Pres. Brock Obama and who left Washington D.C. without attempting to put their best foot forward to resolve Fiscal Cliff issues -- those are the people to Blame. Nothing anyone can say or do will change the Absolute Truth of that statement.
Both the Dems and the GOP are to blame.
We are GOING OFF THE CLIFF courtesy of BOTH the Democrats and the GOP because the cliff was put in place because neither the GOP or the Dems in congress could do their job over a year ago and both sides played politics to see who they would get in office instead of voting what was best for the country they stuck with party lines, or as Fiesty Redhead said in her own words: It is the job of a congressman to vote according to their constituencies' wishes that elected them in in the first place. Not to vote freely with their own intelligence or free though what is best for the country.
That is exactly what the GOP is doing, and exactly what the Dems are doing, and is exactly why we are in this mess in the first place.
We NEED A THIRD MODERATE PARTY BADLY
All members of Congress, both the house and senate, should be absolutely ashamed of themselves not only for playing partisan politics but for coming to no consensus on the economic mess that they allowed to happen. And yet here they are doing more of the same. Why the hell do they think we elected them for? It wasn't just to give themselves more pay and more perks than the average American could possibly dream of, it's to be leaders who take all citizens into consideration not just corporate america.
Looks like the Dems need to get to work and
pass something. Obama said he would veto a bill that would raise taxes on
anyone making over $1million while the taxes for everybody that makes less than
stay the same. It was exactly what Pelosi asked for...They are only trying to
make it look like the Rep when the Dems have not even brought the last bill to
the floor. The Dems need to pull their head out of their a88 and get to work.
Obama wants us to go over the cliff it fits his agenda; that is to put America
in its place as he said. This president is a disaster. The worst in our history
and will be the downfall of the USA.
Looks like the Dems need to get to work and
pass something. Obama said he would veto a bill that would raise taxes on
anyone making over $1million while the taxes for everybody that makes less than
stay the same. It was exactly what Pelosi asked for...They are only trying to
make it look like the Rep when the Dems have not even brought the last bill to
the floor. The Dems need to pull their head out of their a88 and get to work.
Obama wants us to go over the cliff it fits his agenda; that is to put America
in its place as he said. This president is a disaster. The worst in our history
and will be the downfall of the USA
Yes, you hold the line tea party and I will continue to vote for you; otherwise, I will vote independent. Keep it up!
The taxes you want will let you spend a little over a month. It is no solution to the problem.
Gutting defense is the only cut you want to make. Those two facts and your voting record proves your ignorance.
Blame who you want liberals. Truth is that it is your fault.
The 112th Congress, with John Boehner as Speaker of the House and Mitch McConnell as filibuster leader of the Senate, will go into the history books as the worst Congress of all time.
It all began in January 2009 when the black man took control of the White House. The Republicans in the House did not get the memo, they lost the White House again this November. They don't have to keep trying to destroy the entire country.
The "Obama wants a blank check" is a conservative myth.
We all have to realize that our global situation is not a very common one. In business you give incentives only to create more business. Obama had to approve incentives in order to rescue our failed economy from a total collapse. The inevitable fact is that when you do this, some unethical businesses use this revenue the wrong way and we had to pay the price. The alternative was to forget about it and let the whole economy collapse to the ground.
The reality now is not any more rescuing the economy, but let it repair by itself without making a regular recovery impossible.
The GOP is trying to harm the economy. Sure, we will blame the GOP nationally, but right now, GOP congressmen are more frightened of the conservative entertainment industry than they are of voters as a whole. A failed economy can always be blamed on Obama, even if it is the House's fault. Look at rukidding's post: "Blame who you want liberals. Truth is that it is your fault."
The conservative base is dirt stupid, and the GOP representatives know it. What is their incentive for doing the right thing and being fiscally responsible and preventing a recession? That would just make Obama look good, and make them the target of every conservative pundit out there. So the GOP is basically intentionally harming America at this point, because they are scared to do the right thing.
obama is worse than bad. The liberal press will blame the republicans no matter what, so they should stick it to that bastard as hard as they can. Then do it again on the debt ceiling in March.
Collaborate -- or go home.
"Obama is worse than bad."
Don't you understand? What Obama wants to do, common sense tax policy and modest cuts, is almost guarranteed to make America prosperous in 2013. The GOP is obstructing not out of any sense of duty to the nation; they are obstructing out of pure fear - fear that even people as stupid as a conservative talk show audience will see, Obama is a hell of a lot better at running the nation than anyone they've got.
Conservatives are not taking us over the cliff because they are afraid Obama will fail; they are taking us over the cliff because they are afraid Obama will succeed. And that is politics at its worst.
Hold your ground Republicans.
You can't negotiate with a snake.
American girl...
Still on a kick blaming republicans? I noticed that legislation was passed with little support from the republicans during 2009 and 2010. I also note that the democrats lost senate seats in 2010 and they lost the majority of house seats as well. You remember, obama called the democrats getting a shellacking during the midterms.
One would have thought that such a shellacking would have been considered a "mandate" from the populace, yet obama and company simply wanted to continue doing business as usual (spend, spend, spend). Majority leader reid not creating any type of senate budget plan for what is now going on 4 years and enjoying CR's, thank you very much leader reid.
I laugh at obama thinking his re-election was a mandate for only his ideas... especially when he still issuesw veto threats. Obama is no friend of the middle class. If he was, he would be promoting tax increases across the board, tax reform and spending cuts that are cuts and not just slowing the rate of spending.
I would rather see our GDP take a hit in 2013, rather than see the kids and grandkids lose everything in 20-30 years. Heck I wanted the bush tax cuts to expire jan 2011 across the board, now all libs want to do is kick the can further down the road. Let everyone pay their "fair share".
@rukidding,
You can't negotiate with a snake.
You mean like the one on the Tea Party "Don't Tread on Me" flag?
American - HAve you forgotten the 1990s? A modest tax hike, limited spending growth, and guess what? We balanced the budget in 7 years.
What you don't understand about the cliff is that suddenly taking $600billion out of the economy is like a -4% hit in GDP. That causes massive layoffs, reducing the number of those who pay taxes, and less consumers to spend money, and lower profits, and more unemployment, and what you end up with is an increase in the deficit and more borrowing for our kids in 20 - 30 years. This is conservatives failing to understand simple arithmetic and logic, and failing to remember history.
noncoms, that's exactly what they want. The working folk need to know their place and stay their.
Noncoms...
You don't get it do you??
Obamas narrative (if he really wants America to prosper again) is that all taxpayers need to have skin in the game. His narrative needs to be that taxing the 2% more goes more to income equality than it does to provide revenue for more spending. He should be more of the attitude of everyone having a stake in economic growth. At least we know that he thinks JFK's inaugeral speech has no meaning as long as he gets only what he wants. Obama is still playing the divider (like a jr senator from illinios would be) rather than a unifier like JFK or reagan.
As for his cuts, why does the media not share with us his specific cuts? Anyone who has ever had to balance their household budget understands that their individual spending habits have to change. Even obama in one of his first term SOTU addresses likened Federal spending with a household budget.
Keep electing Republican Teabaggers into Congress and that is what you'll get.
God Almighty, you "liberal lemmings" are really DUMB !! The House has submitted more than 30 bills to the Senate, and Harry Reid has not allowed ONE to be voted on !! Yet, he has the audacity to try and put all the blame on Boehner !! Yeah, I think Reid IS the snake Republicans can't negotiate with. He is the most corrupt and weasily member of Congress - may even be worse than Pelosi.
The media makes sure Repubs get the blame no matter what. Pisses me off.
The closest thing to truth I've read here all day.
Our system is broken when half the representatives are not representing their constituencies.
American,
you're wrong.
JFK and Reagan did not have a media opposition that creates hatred of the man by a third of the country.
It's not Obama that's divisive, it's the conservative media. They hate him, they undermine him, the foment more hatred of the easily-led.
Here we go again, the Republican dog and pony act is back in Washington. When will people learn the Republican/Tea Party doesn't give a damn about average Americans.
Chuck,
The bills Harry Reid is ignoring are bills that wouldn't pass, or the President would veto anyway. What would be the point?
The bigger question is why the House bothers to spend time passing bills that they know are going nowhere. That is a waste of taxpayers' time.
Speaking of waste of time, is that a Confederate flag in your moniker there? Sorry I wasted my time trying to educate you. Secede, please.
american
It was the Republicans who COMPLAINED when they "only" got 98% of what they wanted. Yes, they actually complained about getting 98% instead of a full 100%.
It was the Republicans who stated they would "never" compromise and that they did not believe in compromise.
It was the Republicans who said their ONLY GOAL... their one and ONLY GOAL... was to make Obama a 1-term President. Not to improve the economy, not to pay off the debt, not to create jobs... no, their ONLY GOAL was to make him a 1-term President.
Now tell me again which side only wants to get what they want?
Great divider? Your own party is divided. Your own party can not even vote for their own bill. The leader of YOUR OWN PARTY proposed a bill, and YOUR PARTY is so divided that they could not even vote together on it.
So now you... a member of the divided Republican party... actually wants to call someone else a "divider", when your own party is completely divided and can not agree on anything?
So are you the kettle or the pot in this situation?
nocoms: the thing is, it isn't a hit to the economy next week, its OVER 10 YEARS. The sequester cuts are over 10 years. Through Sept. 30 (the fiscal year end) defense has to cut $54,667,000,000 and Non-defense (Social Security is exempt BTW) $54,667,000,000, or a total of $109 1/3 billion each year for 9 years, plus interest savings for a grand total, over 10 years, of $1.2 Trillion.
When you consider the deficit, THIS YEAR, is over $1.327 Trillion, this only cuts 10% of the amount of increase.
This is like you earning $24,690 and spending $37,960 and next year you say you will cut back on your spending so that you will only be spending $37851 instead.
The US Government needs to increase taxes more AND spend less, or we will never eliminate the deficit, let alone start to eliminate the debt.
The reality is, the way the Congress works, we will NEVER eliminate the deficit or cut into the debt and the only way to eliminate the debt is for the country to go broke.
Once again, there is no leadership. 1 month after a national election gave them the pulse of the nation, no one has the guts to make a tough call and get something done. It's shameful. Just more gamesmanship and brinkmanship. It makes me lose faith in professional politicians. Haven't any of these people played pickup sports. Sometimes you lose or you get chosen by the side you'd prefer not to play for........and you have to play through to the end just for the pride. Make a call and move on. Cowards. I hope allegiance to Grover Norquist makes them happier than their duty to serve and make hard choices.
Sorry, decimals off: second year you spend $36,870. You are not digging your hole as fast. Its getting just as deep, just not as quickly.
What Obama wants is to make radical changes to this country, the only way ia taking back the House.
He has his plan.
1....Demand Democrats in the Senate to pass a bill in the way he wants.
2...Send the bill to the Republican controlled House , without any bipartisan agreement, no amendments , expecting a rejection from Republicans.
3 ...Let Secuestration bill go into effect.
4.... Blame Republicans with the help of the media
5....Made changes to the sequestration bill, giving tax exception to certain groups to gain political support.
6 ....Let the economy go bad blaming Republicans, continue with his political electoral campaign promoting left wing ,Democrats candidates for the house ,in 2014 mid term election get the house back
7 ....2015 Re-start with his radical changes of the country.
Obama and Democrats are playing politics.
Let's just remember - we did fight down the deficit monster in the 1990s. It is possible.
But it cannot be done overnight, or even in 4 years. If you try to fix it too fast, you will drive us back into recession. Remember, post WW2, we had 117% of GDP in national debt. It took Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter to get it down to 36% of GDP. But that was okay. Those were mostly very prosperous years. We don't need a fast solution, just a good solution. We don't need a surplus in 4 years. It can take us 4 presidents, or even 7 presidents, to get back to 36%, and we can still be a prosperous nation.
All we really need to avoid are the Reagans and Bushes with their horrible fiscal irresponsibility and completely nonsensical economic theories that are proven to be failures time and time again.
Oskar - if all the GOP is worried about is "being blamed," then let Obama's common sense solution go into effect. We all agree it will make America prosperous and healthy. Why not stand aside and let it be?
It's "The PotParty"......not the teaparty.............they must be on drugs...........
they can't be that dumb.
Let's go over the cliff
It's the end of the Bush tax cuts once and for all
All Obama has to do than is propose A middle class tax cut let THE LUNATIC TEA Party say NO to that!
THE END OF THE GOP ONCE AND FOR ALL!
They dont even care about what happens to the American people. They just dont want to be blamed for it. What cowards.
Yes, the solution is simple....lower taxes, cut spending, no more sucking off the gov't teat, duct tape harry reid's mouth shut.
Problems solved.
I was going to ignore the non-common sense in this string of posts, but I can't. Both parties are to blme for this, they have to compromise to move forward. The voters are to blame, they failed to vote out all of the people who have spent the last 4 years doing nothing. Vote out the weasels and elect people who care about more than themselves and their buddies wallets. There will be no turn around in this country until they get jobs back in this country. You cannot do that without making other countries pay higher import taxes and upsetting them. Do what is right for the country, not big businesses pockets.
"Fiscal cliff": Automatic spending cuts and tax hikes desgined to PAY for the government that the VOTER VOTED FOR.
The only people who would see an issue with this are those that think government is free. Based on the voting patterns over the decades, those people are in the vast majority.
LET'S go over the fiscal cliff!
IT WILL BE THE END OF THE GOPee ONCE AND FOE ALL!
oskar
At least Obama and Democrats are playing politics. Boehner and Republicans are still too busy enjoying their holiday to have anything to do with politics.
Gee the President flew back early from Hawaii to deal with the problem, the Senate returned to Dc to deal with the problem and then Bonehead Boehner tells the House not to come back till Sunday. Sort of fits the republican pattern doesn't it! More do nothing, protect the rich and protect the corporate world only!
Nearly out of time, lawmakers brace for blame on fiscal cliff
That's the headline at this moment in time. Who cares about blaming? Really? That's the best we can come up with? Blaming? Fingerpointing? Sour Grapes? We are no better than our legislators if that's all we are worried about--blaming.
Here--let me clarify the subject: Congress--get off your butts and get to work! That's what you were elected to do, and you haven't been doing it. Either get to work or resign and we'll find someone who WILL do the work. We haven't got the time, nor the inclination to put up with anymore of your belly aching, sob story, obstructionist, BLAMING EXCUSES.
And going on vacation when the country is in a fiscal crisis? Who do you think you are? What do you think you are supposed to be doing. If I had the power, I'd fire every single one of you. You haven't earned one dime of your paychecks, and frauding the American taxpayers out of their money to pay you sorry excuses for "leaders" is an insult to all of us.
Blame?--fine--you are ALL to blame. Now, GET TO WORK.
Iwonder,
Yup, keep voting for the tea party and your own greed. Taxes are the lowest they have been since the 60's with the bush cuts that have helped create the deficit. Greed takes many forms, mostly int he republican party and the millionaires and billionaires being protected!
No way Josei
Obama wants the best for the country base on his Socialist ideas of wealth redistribution, base on his ideas that the government is the solution, the big provider, creating a government-dependant-population, where the only choices are the ones that the big government provide. That is not what most American wants. He should stop borrowing money, reducing the fiscal deficit, promoting jobs in private sectors , instead to put more road blocks with regulations, reform entitlements, lower the taxes to bring back capital from American investors, stop printing phony money, have a real energy independent policies instead to put tax-payer money choosing winners and losers .
How dare Reid use the plural 'WE'. If the privileged yokels in Congress were involved, it would be another story and none of this would be happening. I've absolutely had it and ALL of them should be recalled, immediately!
oskar, I think you are confused about the way things work. Obama can only do what congress allows. You people seem to think that Obama is sitting in the White House with the government checkbook in hand.
And if Obama's policies are Socialist and he is so bad for businesses, why has the private sector unemployment gone down while public sector unemployment gone up? Why are a number of businesses bringing the jobs back?
When we go over the fiscal cliff, We the People of the United States of America, will finally no longer be held hostage by the majority of the majority in the House. How so few can mess things up for so many is unbelievable. Once we break this no tax for the rich rule they have, then we can bring legislation to reduce taxes for the 250k or less thereby avoiding the fiscal cliff for most Americans. Then we will have to start all over again on avoiding the national debt issue with the House. Maybe some day you Republicans will get the message that the House Republicans need to be voted out.
Harry Reid is a horse's @ss and he and Obama have not even TRIED to come up with some kind of budget for over 3 years now- the blame is totally on the president- he is a meglomaniac who fooled half of America, mostly the weak minded system suckers. Way to go morons.
don97524
The public actually maintained the status quo.
The Republicans kept the House, the Democrats the Senate and the White House. Exit polls show that it isn't Obama's policies that got him re-elected, It was the "I like you better vote." Every policy domestic and foreign, gave Romney over 50% in every category.
The real message is that we want Spending Cuts, but not to SS and Revenue raises. If so, why is the only concrete thing the democrats are driving at is tax increases? Why is it the Republicans have given on tax increases, and defense cuts?
All I'm seeing is we will accept cuts, which ones would the Republicans Propose.
What a bunch of cop-outs and disingenious politicians!
Alan
Clearly you don't understand how indoctrinated the general public is.
There are three (3) obvious ways to fix the present problem with Congress:
1). Toss the entire leadership; all of them. Boehner, Pelosi, Cantor, Reid and McConnell ALL need to lose their leadership posts in the House and Senate. They have failed to meet their responsibilities to our nation and to the American people. If any of these rascals are reelected by their Political Party caucuses in January, we will just have two more years of stalemate, obstruction and complete failure to govern ahead. We each need to write to our own state Congressional delegations and demand that they vote for different leadership from among their ranks in January, and select individuals who are proven consensus builders and disposed by personal nature and character to finding compromise.
2). The legislative assemblies of the several states should act under Article V of the U.S. Constitution to convene a Constitutional Convention, dissolve the U.S. Congress - throwing out the entire kit-and-Caboodle of rascals currently 'infecting' those chambers - and rewriting the rules of that institution; fixing the current rules and procedures which are inhibiting the processes of governing, and outlawing all political contributions and outside sources of funding for the support of personal political fiefdoms.
finally, and what just might be the most practical and expedient ...
3). Roll out the guillotines, and park them at the exits from the U.S. Capitol building. Heads rolling down the steps of the Capitol Building may be the only long-term solution for the American people reclaiming the grand Representative Democratic Republic envisioned by the founders of our nation, presented to us by their great wisdom, ... but fumbled by the present pathetic cadre of pretenders in Washington, D.C.
Just my tuppence ...
American Girl
Sorry, not only does the left talk about republicans and conservatives like they are Charlie Brown, they keep come our way, then like last fall when the Republicans cave and give Obama everything he asked for, then made new demands on the night the deal was supposed to be sealed.
The democrats are much more qualified
Take the cuts to payments to doctors some years ago. Every year since the democrats propose and the republicans typically go along with funding the restoration of the cuts with supplemental spending bills. Why? This year is a prime example. The supplemental spending bill to restore the 27% cut to doctors is still on the house unfinished work list. I already hear the left crowing that not restoring this shows that the republicans want to hurt senior citizens.
Restoring the cuts is Lucy pulling the fiscal football from under the American public every year.
Spending cuts in DC mostly are not real with the exception of to the military.
Dirp
In the exit polling, Romney edged Obama on foreign affairs and beat Obama on Domestic affairs. Obama won on who was more likeable.
Lilirocks.
Obama requested that he be given the Houses authority to raise the debt limit. That is called giving someone a "blank check".
noncoms
I'd give this the laugh of the day. In the end neither wants' to harm the economy, unless they can pin it on the other.
You want to put an end to the bickering, Fire Reid, Pelosi and Obama. They have made very successful careers of playing pin the tail on the Republicans.
don't laugh too much, DB. the republican's hurt the country by voting against a nuclear treaty that everyone wanted, but the GOP was busy trying to give Clinton a black eye. they made America suffer in order to try to hurt a democrat. again, mitch mcconnell was quite clear that his only goal these last four years was to make sure obama didnt get re-elected. in other words, his goal was NOT to help the country (or at least, he might eventually get around to it... AFTER ending Obama). the worse they can make it, the sooner they can get back in power. just blame obama. remember the supreme court decision on obamacare? they were CHEERING that obama had failed. everyone was lining up before the election... "this truly shows how much a failure his entire presedency has been... (giggle giggle).... oh CRAP." so while you laugh at the notion of the GOP hurting our country for personal gain, you shouldn't. they do it quite often. dating back twenty years now.
Boehner failed because he wasn't able to get enough votes from House members of the GOP Tea Party. The House's Tea Party has said they truly want the nation to go down the tubes, just to prove how uncompromising they are in their rigid position that they absolutely do not want taxes raised on wealthy conservatives, no matter what price the nation must pay.
2012 Fiscal Cliff: Anti-Tax Conservatives Say No To Tax-Increase Deal
Excerpts:
On Capitol Hill, some Republicans worry about the practical and political implications should the GOP block a compromise designed to avoid tax increases for most Americans and cut the nation's deficit.
"It weakens the entire Republican Party, the Republican majority," Rep. Steven LaTourette, R-Ohio, said Thursday night shortly after rank-and-file Republicans rejected Boehner's "Plan B" – a measure that would have prevented tax increases on all Americans but million-dollar earners.
"I mean it's the continuing dumbing down of the Republican Party and we are going to be seen more and more as a bunch of extremists that can't even get a majority of our own people to support policies that we're putting forward," LaTourette said. "If you're not a governing majority, you're not going to be a majority very long."
It's a concern that does not seem to resonate with conservatives such as tea party activist Frank Smith of Cheyenne, Wyo. He cheered Boehner's failure as a victory for anti-tax conservatives and a setback for Obama, just six weeks after the president won re-election on a promise to cut the deficit in part by raising taxes on incomes exceeding $250,000.
Smith said his "hat's off" to those Republicans in Congress who rejected their own leader's plan.
"Let's go over the cliff and see what's on the other side," the blacksmith said. "On the other side" are tax increases for most Americans, not just the top earners, though that point seemed lost on Smith, who added: "We have a day of reckoning coming, whether it's next week or next year. Sooner or later the chickens are coming home to roost. Let's let them roost next week."
It's not just tea party activists who want Republicans in Washington to stand firm.
In conservative states such as South Carolina and Louisiana, party leaders are encouraging members of their congressional delegations to oppose any deal that includes tax increases. Elected officials from those states have little political incentive to cooperate with the Democratic president, given that most of their constituents voted for Obama's Republican opponent, Mitt Romney.
Jack Kimball, a former New Hampshire GOP chairman, said he was "elated" that conservatives thwarted Boehner. He called the looming deadline a political creation. "The Republicans really need to stand on their principles. They have to hold firm."
Conservative opposition to compromise with Obama does not reflect the view of most Americans, according to recent public opinion polls.
A CBS News survey conducted this month found that 81 percent of adults wanted Republicans in Congress to compromise in the current budget negotiations to get a deal done rather than "stick to their positions even if it means not coming to an agreement." The vast majority of Republicans and independent voters agreed.
Overall, 47 percent in the poll said they blamed Republicans in Congress more than Obama and Democrats for recent "difficulties in reaching agreements and passing legislation in Congress."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/24/2012-fiscal-cliff-anti-ta_n_2358905.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
That is called responsibility. The House decides on the budget, the President can sign it or veto it but only the house can make it. While I, along with most other Americans, don't want to see the debt ceiling raised anymore, it isn't a case of raising it so we can spend more. It's a case of raising it to pay for what we already spent. They decide the budget, then raise the ceiling to cover it. But they have now decided they want to spend the money without raising the ceiling. That is irresponsible. They need to cut or slow the spending so in the future there will be no need for raising it.
The Tea Party is all but over! Take heart and remain courageous all just and honorable people! The selfish agenda of the Tea Party and Far-Right is surely coming to an end. They, as do all selfish people or groups, end up only with THEMSELVES, languishing in self pity. Oh, I almost forgot, remind me to say a prayer for them as I flush the toilet!
You know what? None of this matters:
Dec 27, 2012 The Fiscal Cliff: Poll Shows Americans Blame Republicans More Than Democrats
Dec 27, 2012 More Blame Republicans for Fiscal Cliff Crisis
Dec 27, 2012 POLL: Americans expect 'fiscal cliff' fall, blame Boehner, Republicans
Dec 27, 2012 Americans blame Republicans more than Democrats for 'fiscal cliff'
Dec 27, 2012 Rasmussen: GOP to Blame If No Fiscal Cliff Deal Is Reached
Dec 27, 2012 No ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Deal? 44% Blame GOP, 36% Obama
You can see right here who takes the blame... Good-bye GOP!
EEngineer, you're forgetting, the right doesn't believe poll results.
Clearly there is only one mindless retard here. I would say who it is, but then I would get banned for several days. I guess if you call compromising with Boehner by going from 250k to 400k on taxes and from 600 to 840 billion on spending cuts as a no budget plan, then I guess you are the mindless retard I was talking about. Boehner did just what he did the last time this came up and he almost gets to a deal and then backs away, blames the President for everything, and comes up with a Plan B that even his own house majority couldn't pass and you say the President is at fault? WOW, fox news has a fist up your &*&^.
The fiscal cliff is nothing but media hype.
I'm sure most of you remember the Reagan and Clinton tax rates. Our economy was quite good back then.
And as for the cuts - well we are winding down the Afghanistan war, why not? Don't cut the logistical support for our men and women in uniform, cut the fat, lazy underbelly of the defense department - the bureaucrats who decide our tax dollars should buy $800 toilets, etc.
I can see why the scumbag neo-con Republicans tried to remove the defense cuts - Lindsay Graham, Eric Cantor and the other slimeballs need the pork barrel defense spending in their southern states to get re-elected, and of course they want to drag us deeper into debt to start their next war.
As for the taxes......no reason they can't be cut back again first week of January. No Republican would ever vote against a tax cut.....even the dumb ones and there are plenty of those.
Jungleboogie, I believe you are underestimating our congressmen and women. True no republican would vote against a tax cut, but these people can't agree on anything. Boehner will come up with a plan to cut taxes for those making less than $250,000 per year. Reid will counter with a plan to cut taxes for everyone making less than 100,000 per year. Obama will chime in that he won't agree to cuts for anyone making more than cuts $400,000. Then we get into what to cut them to (keep them as they are now, cut them more?). And nobody will move the bar more than a an inch or two.
I do agree with you that the cliff is mostly hype. Yes it will hurt us individually and yes it will definately hurt the economy in the short run, but I think even if nothing further is done it will start to bottom out after a year or two. It's just sort of a tough love approach. Unfortunately the only ones who won't be hurt by it are the ones who are deciding our future.
noncoms
You are grossly misinformed!
The modest tax height you promote was not signed into law until August 1993 and was retroactive to all of 1993. It was adding two higher tax brackets to people with taxable incomes over 89,000. Most people in that range of income pay estimated taxes and did not pay the difference until April of 1994. After getting stung, then they make adjustments.
Under Bush 43, unemployment peaked in June 1992 at 7.8%. From that point the economy was expanding and unemployment dropped to 6.1% by May 1994. That's a decrease of .70 points per month over 24 months.
After the tax increase unemployment continued down to a low point of 5.4% in February 1995 or a drop of .7 points over 8 months for a .88 decline, BUT then unemployment rose hovered in the range of 5.4 - 5.8% saying mostly between 5.5 and 5.7% for the next 16 months except for the last month it dropped from 5.6% to 5.3% in June of 1995. Basically the economy was expanding only enough to maintain that level of unemployment.
At that point the unemployment slowly dropped to 4.8% in August of 1997 or at a .015 point per month drop over 26 months.
I got curious and did some digging. There were no rate changes from August 1993 until August of 1997, BUT starting in 1995, bracket indexing was returned by the Republicans. Apparently, reducing taxes from bracket creep allowed some growth to occur.
I cut off at August 1997, because the Capital Gains was cut from 28% to 20%. Again, this is something republicans fought for and won. From August 1997 to April 2000, unemployment dropped from 4.8% to 3.8% or at a rate of .031 points per month.
Your belief that tax increases is what caused growth is the actual myth. Tax increases takes money out of the hands of people who know how to use int efficiently. Doing so harms growth, and does not promote it.
As for the spending, although democrats did cut spending in fiscal 1994, they did not so much for fiscal 1995. Republicans lead by Gingrich in the House cut the growth in spending by 1/2. They cut the Clinton budgets by 40 - 50 Billion per year. The fights between Clinton and Gingrich were over how much domestic vs military spending with Clinton protecting the domestic programs and forcing more cuts in the military.
Remember. A President Proposes policies and spending, it is Congress that writes what the actual spending will be. A President never can spend one nickel unless Congress first approves it.
It took me all of one hour using search engines on legislation approvals, Actual IRS Tables, The BLS monthly unemployment rates to show that the left is very good at teaching people things as fact, that really didn't happen.
Never be afraid to question everything you are taught. There are loads of false teachers ready to take advantage of people. Do more than a look from 30,000 feet. Things look a whole lot different closer up.
Happy New Year!
I think this fiscal cliff will destroy the Republicans forever. Over we go....
Such a thought is so appealing, but unfortunately, real people are going to get hurt. I initially did not like this game of dare. Since we are stuck with it, I want victory. I think the Republicans have more to lose than the Democrats when things smash, even if they do not realize it.
Republicans suffer from a delusion. They see life in terms of monetary figures rather than flesh and blood. They think everyone will rejoice when a set of figures looks better on the ledger. Regular people do not think that way. They will judge what happens by whether or not their lives are better. Those two million persons that will lose their unemployment benefits after the first of the year will judge the situation by their lives more than some arbitrary ledger.
If our government willed it, the debt could be waved away with a wand. Governments have power. Businessmen only think they do and keep up an illusion. With the wave of a wand, their assets could be confiscated and their companies nationalized. This is how some countries solve economic disasters. Businessmen only have power because we let them have it. Think about it. They are 2%; we are 98%. We can tell them what to do. We just have to realize that we have this power.
This is part of the basic Teapublican "strategery." To make citizens hate government. To make voters stop participating in democracy. This, and gerrymandering, filibusters, election fraud, etc. is the GOP's only hope to retain power, which they feel they are entitled to.
Ultimately Teapublican's goal is to become an oligarchy (on behalf of the Plutocrat 1% donors), controlling the military, benefiting from corporate welfare, education reserved for the privileged few -- all dependent on the public being in servitude to them. Though in reality it is short-term thinking since a strong middle class benefits businesses and everyone including the rich.
Getting back to the entitled part, the right-wing believes they should always have majority control (regardless of merit), and in particular should always have a Republican in the White House. Because they have a superiority complex, which is now spoon fed to their supporters 24/7 by the right-wing propaganda machine of FOX, talk radio, websites and viral Emails.
This, as well as race, is why Teapublicans are willing to throw the American people under the bus. Why they are willing to sabotage the economy -- even secretly to hope for a double-dip recession. What ever it takes to get that black Democrat out of the White House, to take back power, the power they think only they should ever have.
This is what right-wing lemmings always say when they know their Party is WRONG but can't own up to it. The old false equivalency BS. You can say the Dems aren't pure as the driven snow, but there is NO comparison especially in this manmade and unnecessary "crisis." The fact is, Teapublicans bet on Romney winning, and they lost the bet.
Only the Teapublicans have engaged in pre-meditated obstruction, resorting to hostage-taking, blackmail, politics of division, tantrums, lies, you name it -- they've broken all records. They are so bent on preventing the president from having any success, they have become borderline treasonous.
This behavior must NOT be rewarded, just like negotiating with terrorists, if the Dems/president cave, and most of all if the voters don't throw their sorry arses out in 2014, the pain and suffering will go on much longer. The fiscal curb will hurt the extremes of the rich and poor the most -- the stock market for the rich, and assistance for the poor.
But off the cliff we will and can go -- The Teapublicans hold a gun to everyone's heads because they think if they don't get 100% of their extreme position, they aren't being "true to their principles." Damn Manichean Puritans -- The truth is always shades of gray, not black and white.
From the producers of "The Credit Rating Downgrade of 2011," comes the Republican/Tea party co-production of a holiday blockbuster action movie for the whole family: "Fiscal Cliff!"
You'll laugh! You'll cry!! You'll scratch your head and think "WTF were they thinking???"
See what others are saying about "Fiscal Cliff!":
"Brilliant... insightful..." - Karl Rove
"Chock full of plain, honest truth..." - Lee Atwater
"I laughed 'til I stopped..." - Newt Gingrich
"...cheese... bunnies... ironing board..." - Ronald Reagan
"Fiscal Cliff!" See it now, while you can still afford the price of a ticket!
President Obama should have stay back in Washington and work with members of the Congress to resolve the fiscal cliff issues instead he chose to holiday in Hawaii. If we have a president who can lead, more effective and stop playing the blame game less American will suffer.
And just who was he going to "lead"? Boehner and his cronies packed up and left town. It's not the President or the Senate that has the issues, its Boehner and his GOP House buddies. Even the Democratic House is willing to vote and get it done. Wow, Fox has really got you guys snowed. Why even post if you can't read all the news and not just Fox or Rush. I realize they have closed down their comment section because they are afraid of what will be said in there and all you Republicans have to come over here to post instead, but realize that we know what time it is and the GOP's time is up.
McConnell should name the Democrats who he states are asking for a "blank check."
For this nation, the Democrats are seeking a humane and a balanced approach to U.S. budget.
Since 1980, the GOP has written blank checks to the gilded.
Its time for our elected officials who are committed to the common good, to level the financial ground.
The Republican viewpoint is that our government should only be concerned about the rich. At the negotiating table, in bad faith this party bargains, its agenda is deadly and this political faction has wrapped itself in recalcitrance. The GOP that has put America into a financial rut.
The Republicans have brought this country to this ruinous economic cliff.
Mitch is playing games. He thinks that all of our citizens are stupid.
It is not fair for the Republicans to financially batter millions of our citizens to protect 1% of the population.
Obama, stand firm. Let the Republicans continue to make memorable political blunders.
The right is handing another presidential victory over to the Democrats, 2016.
America...The bill has come due for all the spending. Taxes about to skyrocket for everyone. Deep cuts coming.
The fiscal cliff is exactly what America needs.
Liberals and their class warfare....LOL!!!! You thought you were going to stick it to the rich. Ha Ha...you stuck it to yourselves.
And the spending cuts....Good...It's the only way that govt will ever cut spending. Raising revenue, as the liberals chant, is not sufficient because govt has never found a dollar that they couldn't spend. Therefore, until cuts - - REAL CUTS - - not 10 year in the future cuts....there is no need to raise taxes.
The recession will come and liberals will learn what it truly means to be financially conservative. Americans are so stupid these days. You can't tell them anything. Like little babies...they must touch the red hot stove to understand that it burns.
@ Paws93
Agree. The fiscal cliff, as coined in the press to produce fear in the voter, is merely a forced exercise to pay for government.
The voter wanted a benovolent and kind government. Do they think it comes free? Are they going to whine and blame republicans?
Republicans are not responsible for paying for goverment.
The taxpayer is. It is time they pay.
Mark McKinnon - All I Want for Christmas Is a New GOP
w
w
w
thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/24/all-i-want-for-christmas-is-a-new-gop.html
Increasingly, it is becoming clear that the Conservative party is against everything and for nothing.
Nothing on taxes. Nothing on gun control. Nothing on climate change. Nothing on gay marriage. Nothing on immigration reform (or an incremental, piece-by-piece approach, which will result in nothing). It’s a very odd situation when the losing party is the party refusing to negotiate. It may be how you disrupt, but it is not how you govern, or how you ever hope to regain a majority.
And so, we have a Republican Party today willing to eliminate any prospect for a decent future for anyone, including itself, if it cannot be a future that is 100 percent in accordance with its core beliefs and principles. That’s not governing. That’s just lobbing hand grenades. If you’re only standing on principle to appear taller, then you appear smaller. And the GOP is shrinking daily before our eyes.
We do receive massive amounts of foreign aid from China. We get it every time they buy our overvalued treasury notes.
The Republicans should be making sure they are still around as a brand in the future so they can rebuild what the Dems are collapsing...our economy. Republicans, let them have it and then make them "own" it.
The reality is from the bottom to the top, city councils right on up to the white house, we're dealing with corrupt narcissistic leaders that are only looking to do two things - line their pockets and stay in power. If you think our leaders really care about you or anyone else you're living a fairy tale.
Listen up -- NEITHER PARTY CARES!!
When they put forward legislation remember their goal isn't to help the people, its to pay back their buddies and weasel their way into another term. And they know that the only thing they have to do is sell their sh&t idea to you dopes with a bunch of clever lines, a flashy dumbed down ad, and some pretty speeches on TV. They realize it doesn't take much to rope you guys in. What a throng of idiots we've become.
Mike,
From 2000-2008 and not completely resolved, Republicans own the financial collapse of America.
As Romney said, "we built it."
What we have right now is a collapse of governing in our nation.And we have 2 years until we can save our nation. We need to start working to get ready,right now. The Republicans have shown in these last years that they are willing to destroy democracy in our country if they can gain and keep power. We as the voters need to throw them out before they destroy what's left of the United States.
We need to gather signatures starting today, in all the different states, to put on ballots measures to ensure non-partisan electoral commissions.That would eliminate voter suppression. And that would be in charge of drawing all electoral districts, undoing gerrymandering.Those two measures alone,would bring fairness back to our electoral process and remove advantages from any one party. We Democrats are the Party that doesn't need fraud to win elections. So any return to fair elections helps us to win.
Starting in 2013 we need 18 votes in the HOR to making the country governable again. The results of the gerrymandering of election districts in 2010,has brought the government to deadlock,and was a body-blow to democracy. We need to organize starting now,to defeat every Republican candidate in a Blue State in 2014. The Red States are lost unless there is true redistricting,allowing everyone's vote to count.
The Republicans have clearly shown that they can't be trusted with power in any state. And they're enough Republicans in normally Democratic voting states for us to regain the HOR in 2014. That and restoring statehouses like Michigan,Wisconsin, Pennsylvania,Ohio,and New Jersey to sanity, should be a top priority for us in 2014. The days when you had moderate Republicans,that would put the nations good before their partisan interests are long gone. Today,moderates are an endangered species in the Republican Party. The "new" Republican Party is made up of,religious zealots,racists,gun nuts,and the no science crowd. That leadership have sold their souls to anti-American 1%ers like the Koch's and their minions.
2014 may appear a long way away,but its really not. The Republicans planned through 2009 and 2010,to win the 2010 mid-terms.And used that victory to subvert democracy through gerrymandering. If we want to restore real democracy in our country. The time to start working for that is today,and keep working until we reclaim victory in 2014.
Uncle Bob,
Great Post!
If the GOP ever wins the White House and are the majority party in the Senate, Democracy in America is gone. The right will not allow the people to have an economic, political and social voice. The right wing hopes to rid this country of "undesirables" such as the sick and the poor and create a caste system. The Republican's caste system will permit only those that are born with silver spoons in their mouths, to enjoy "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If the right had not Gerrymandered many county districts, on November 6, 2012, probably Democrats would have won additional congressional seats.
Yes, we need to start planning for 2014 and 2016 now.
If not...America is forever gone.
Boehner says "we did our job"..Really, what was that?
What??
Sinking his teeth in, and be willing to go down with the ship to protect his very well heeled campaign donors, at the expense of middle class America.....
Duh....
I'm against whatever Republicans come up, but I do support whatever President Obama presents.
American Girl-724855......
Nice Progressive trooper....just follow the smell of the roses. BTW, the social welfare line opens shortly, so you better get in line quick.
"I'm against whatever Republicans come up, but I do support whatever President Obama presents."
American Girl, it's your thinking of the "My Way or the Highway" theory that got us in this mess in the first place. Obama wants everything to be Pro-Democrat and the Republicans want everything thing to be Pro-Republican. Well, it's time to face reality. Nothing can be 100% your way or 100% my way. There needs to be a middle-road action.
American Girl... I have read you from one thread to another. Everyone's views are not similar. There are even some that are radical. You have said that you don't understand people that want to watch 2 million people go hungry and how un-American that is. By that same stance, wouldn't the same be true of your post...? (2.2)
There will always be bickering and haggling of some kind. It is a matter of addressing situations in a timely manner before being pushed against that teetering edge.
Why do they wait till the last minute on everything? Why can't they agree on anything like adults? Why do they get paid so much for doing so little? I am utterly disgusted with the lot of them. How about we withhold their paychecks until they actually do some work.
American Girl-724855
"I'm against whatever Republicans come up, but I do support whatever President Obama presents."
Exactly what is wrong in Washington. Both sides have dug in and will not move. The Republicans did attemt some compromise but it was vocally rejected without any real consideration fro obama or the Democrats. Because the White house simply ignored a step in the right direction and actually condemed it the whole deal is off the table.Compromise is when two or more sides give a little and take a little until a full agree ment is reached. The positon of the White house has been for the last 4 years is , You do what "I" say or your waisting your time. I will veto. That not compromise nor is it leadership. As a leader you have to do what you have to too get things done not stand in the window with your arms crossed with blinders on and earplugs in.
TO: Random pennsylvanian who wrote:
What got us into this mess in this first place could best be stated with 7 simple words: "George "Curveball" Bush and his Republican rubberstampers" and there's not an economist in the world who would deny that FACT.
Avenger, you got it. This problem was 60 years in the making. One could argue that Bush helped to make it worse and now Obama is finishing it off..but the big picture which American Girl and Fiesty do not realize or are unwilling to admit going beyond party lines and insullts, is that it was Congress's job, both Dem and GOP alike, to prevent both Bush from carrying out his crazy agenda and Obama's impractical academic exercise.
We are GOING OFF THE CLIFF courtesy of BOTH the Democrats and the GOP because the cliff was put in place because neither the GOP or the Dems in congress could do their job over a year ago and both sides played politics to see who they would get in office instead of voting what was best for the country they stuck with party lines, or as Fiesty Redhead said in her own words: It is the job of a congressman to vote according to their constituencies' wishes that elected them in in the first place. Not to vote freely with their own intelligence or free though what is best for the country.
That is exactly what the GOP is doing, and exactly what the Dems are doing, and is exactly why we are in this mess in the first place.
We NEED A THIRD MODERATE PARTY BADLY
American Girl -
"I'm against whatever Republicans come up, but I do support whatever President Obama presents."
Wow...what a totally unbiased, researched opinion. Seriously?? Just...wow.
American Girl, you just proved another thing. If a Liberal can't come up with a good argument, they say what you are saying right now... It's Bush's fault!
American Girl -
"What got us into this mess in this first place could best be stated with 7 simple words: "George "Curveball" Bush and his Republican rubberstampers" and there's not an economist in the world who would deny that FACT"
When in doubt, blame the previous. Man, this game has gone on for 4 years, and I have no doubt for 4 more. Look, I am not happy with EITHER party at this point, but I suppose that Bush is also at fault for Obama spending twice as much in half the time. Can I use the blame game, too? If not, why? I personally see no difference.
Да товарищ. Hammers and Sickles OH MY!
Idiots Like Ido act like the irresponsible spenders are democrats when actually it's republicans. Bush cut revenue 400 billion with most going to the wealthiest while starting 2 wars and a 100 billion dollar drug plan none funded. The talk about the record number of people on unemployment since Obama was elected but ignore that Obama hasn't made any of those programs easier to get other than extending unemployment which was also done under Bush and most republicans support. And those getting these benefits such as food stamps also hit record levels under Bush. As the CBO determined it was the great recession that caused the massive increase in food stamps and social program spending. Bush's great recession.
Romney would have continued the Bush insanity by cutting revenue another 500 billion a year while starting a new space program and increasing military spending 200 billion a year, in what world is that responsible. At least Obamacare is fully funded which is the true test of being responsible.
Look - all you conservatives are saying "don't blame Bush, let Obama take responsibility."
But the House, right now this week, is not letting Obama fix the problem. The House is harming America by refusing to do what Obama wants and the country needs.
You cannot blame Obama, you cannot blame Democratic policies, if you elect people who obstruct everything that Obama tries to do. Which is the real crux of the matter.
The GOP knows it is doing harm to America. Why? Because they are afraid that if they let Obama have his way, and the economy responds positively as everyone knows it would, then even the stupidest conservative is going to start thinking, hey, Democrats run the nation better than Republicans can.
but but but Obama on HIGH! How say ye! AVE OBAMA, Morituri te salutant!
I thought your Imperator was the bestest ever!
Non coms...
Read my previous post on this board and you will learn something.
Any president can come in with an Agenda. It is congress job to balance that with reason and what is best. And yes, Bush screwed up, and it was both the Dems and Reps in congress that gave him a meal ticket to do it. This budget is just a long lline of failures and brings to light the true problem.
Obama is not an emperor, Caesar.
But can't you understand this: What Obama wants to do, common sense tax policy and modest cuts, is almost guarranteed to make America prosperous in 2013. The GOP is obstructing not out of any sense of duty to the nation; they are obstructing out of pure fear - fear that even people as stupid as a conservative talk show audience will see, Obama is a hell of a lot better at running the nation than anyone they've got.
Conservatives are not taking us over the cliff because they are afraid Obama will fail; they are taking us over the cliff because they are afraid Obama will succeed. And that is politics at its worst.
American girl, you are embarrassing us in the face of international people reading this board.
You cannot say "I am against anything anyone one group says while unconditionally supporting another". Both sides may have good points and it the the foundation of being an educated American to consider this. Please put some consideration into what I just said, or change your user name.
Glen - Third party dreams have been unrealistic for the last 180 years, and in this day of Citizens United they are of even less value.
In the real world, your best choice is common sense Democrats who have lowered unemployment from 10.2% to 7.7%, raised GDP from -7% to +3%, lowered the deficit from $1.85 trillion projected to $1.1 trillion, and raised the DJIA from 6600 to 13,000. All economic indicators show that we should be prosperous in 2013, unemployment claims are down, profits ups, etc. The GOP is the only obstacle to prosperity.
And, jeez, Glen, come on. We've got 36% of our nation believing that global warming is the sign of the endtimes, that the earth is 6000 years old, that evolution is a lie from the pit of hell, and you are worried that someone supporting Obama over the morons in the GOP is an "embarassment"??? I'm afraid our dirt stupid conservative base has long ago made us the laughing stock of otehr nations. Have you ever been to Europe and watched TV? Rent the movie "In Bruges"
noncoms -
"Conservatives are not taking us over the cliff because they are afraid Obama will fail; they are taking us over the cliff because they are afraid Obama will succeed."
Just like American Girl...a PERSONAL opinion if I ever heard one. There is no fact to your statement at all. If so, please enlighten me on where I may find which conservative senators, representatives, governors, etc., stated this. I doubt very seriously that you are going to find even one.
I have never heard anyone of any stature who (a) doesn't believe we are in a recovery, and (b) expects 2013 to be better than 2012, predicated only on a good resolution to the fiscal cliff.
That is not a personal opinion, that is the established conventional wisdom.
So you tell me -- why is the GOP sabotaguing our national prosperity? Why do they want to harm America? Why do you want to hurt America?
"So you tell me -- why is the GOP sabotaguing our national prosperity? Why do they want to harm America? Why do you want to hurt America?"
Personal opinions, again...
Yup. Typical. Deflection. Blame Bush, blame even me, for hurting, or wanting to hurt, America. You truly have no idea, in what you say, who you are talking to, anything. If you actually took the time to research, not only what you post but in who you are posting it to, you might learn a few things, but your mind is so completely closed off to that way of thinking. For the life of me, I cannot fathom how people who think like you do are called progressives. There is nothing "progressive" about your thought process at all. And that is the real tragedy here.
They do not want to harm America. They want to keep their jobs just like the dems do, representing their parties ideals and those who put them in office. Big problem.
They also believe that spending is a huge problem in the federal government and no matter how high you raise taxes, you cannot fix it. On that, I believe they are 100% correct.
In 1929 the richest people in America could have paid off the national debt. Now they cannot even keep the fed government running for a year, never mind the debt.
This debt grew under both Dem and GOP watch for the past 70 years. Yes the Clinton years were good, but because the rich businesses that are now considered evil took the investment from the baby boomers (timing and luck here) and created taxable jobs and growth in a period greatest in 75 years.
Oh, and Clinton deregulated the internet and the banks, which helped a lot and then contributed heavily to the finance crises later on.
And it was congress's job to prevent Bush from carrying out his agenda that drove us further into debt, both sides failed their job there.
Oh and employment numbers are BS, everyone knows that . The IRS could tell you the exact state of the employment in the country based on the filings, but you will never see the government reveal this.
I have never called myself progressive. I am just smart, and aware of what works and doesn't work, and capable of logic. It is not a personal opinion that we are in a recovery, and likely to do quite well in 2013 if the GOP is not successful in their sabotage. Look at any economic forecaster, any corporate forecaster - this is the general opinion, not my personal one.
So then I ask a question - why does the GOP want to go against that near certainty, and harm America? I notice no conservative will answer that.
Don't deflect, don't hide. Tell me on what basis does going over the cliff help America - or tell me why the GOP is harming America. Don't accuse others of having a closed mind, if you are unable to open your mind enough to answer that.
Glen: on what basis do you make the claim that "spending is a huge problem?" Subtract off social security and medicare, and tell me where spending is too large as percent GDP. And moreover, note that as soon as the recovery really kicks in, GDP will rise, unemployment and foodstamp costs will fall, and spending will be less as %GDP than it was in the past. It is a huge myth, unsubstantiated by any examples, that spending is our problem. Discretionary spending throughout the 1960s was about 12% of GDP - it has been less than 8% since 1993. I wish for once one of you guys who thinks he is so smart would actually look at the data, instead of repeating crap.
"This debt grew under both Dem and GOP watch for the past 70 years"
The debt as percent GDP is all that matters, and it fell under every presidential term from WW2 to Reagan, falling from 117% of GDP to 36% of GDP. We owe all of our current debt problems to Reagan and the two Bushes (Clinton lowered debt, Obama hasn't had a chance to yet, because (a) he inherited a worse situation than Clinton, and (b) the GOP won't let him fix the problem).
You are correct in that the debt was never fixed but always allowed to seems smaller as a result of GDP AND inflation dwarfing it. THAT is what got us into this mess in the first place, because in a global economy, the US GDP does not necessarily grow. I am glad you mentioned this, because that is why we need a 3rd party that understands this for the 21st century
"Don't deflect, don't hide. Tell me on what basis does going over the cliff help America - or tell me why the GOP is harming America. Don't accuse others of having a closed mind, if you are unable to open your mind enough to answer that."
I will answer you clearly and directly: Going over the cliff satisfies both parties agendas while making the other guy look bad without either side giving up to make tough decisions that goes against their party. Cross the board cuts will cut the spending, raising taxes will increase revenue. Problem solved (I do not agree with this, but that is the way it is and from a political standpoint it is a good move and it will hurt us long term but it is the path of least resistance)
Any year in which the government shows a deficit is a year in which the government has been a failure!!!
When was the last year that we did not?
If we, as voters, do not elect responsible congressmen, it will never change and sooner than later, this country is going bankrupt. This is merely a common sense fact. To argue, is denial.
Any administration that went to war and CUT taxes showed ultimate irresponsibility. It's NEVER been done until the last 2 wars. That's right 2wars. Both unfunded. The most irresponsible move made by any administration EVER.
@IWonder,
The year was 2000. Bill Clinton left a surplus. George W. Bush squandered it... and created a hole that we are still trying to climb out from.
Amen depraw, and it was congress that let him do it.
American Girl was only stating what is so obviously the way most people on here think. How many of you wait to hear who said or did something before deciding whether you are for or against it. That goes for both sides. I myself admit that I've either softened or hardened my opinion depending on who said or did it. And it is very clear from the posts here that most of you would have to admit the same, even if only to yourself.
LA... the ideals that we grew up with as kids has gone right out the window. It is that same facet of ' think before you speak as it will reflect upon you ' which was instilled by our parents. Simply because this is a thread by MSNBC makes that same reasoning no different. Right?
There are many on here that react before they think and to call one approach Un-American versus another NOT is hypocrisy.
Goddamned republican and tea party Terrorists. Yeah, I think we need to reform entitlements...for the congress and senate. We pay for ours, they don't pay for theirs!! In fact the son-of-a-bitches don't even do their jobs. The people have already reformed Social Security once before in 1985 and now the do nothing congress wants to do it again. How about they reform their goddamned entitlements of lifetime retirement, lifetime medical, insider information in the stock market and slipping money in their pockets from lobbyists. You're goddamned right we have a problem in this country and it's the republican teabaggers and congressional as*holes!!
Greatly, I think the problem is we are no longer responsible for what we say. We are all basically anonymous as most of us don't use a real name or even our own picture. This allows us to say whatever we want without concern to how it makes us come across. If we really embarass ourselves we can just create a new identity. I imagine the majority of posters don't actually say any of this stuff when speaking in person.
You are absolutely right about the hypocrisy. I think that's why things get so heated. We are all passionate about our beliefs and we all consider ourselves true Americans. The problem is, we tend to see America differently. One side sees the properous America where immigrants dream of coming to make it big. The other side sees the compassionate America that is always willing to help those in need. Both sides are important sides and it wouldn't be America without one or the other. But each side can't seem to see the other side's view.
LA... that is the truly charade of them all. I agree with you, however, I have not said anything on these threads that I don't say to normal people in my everyday life. Perhaps it is that cloak that covers most in order to say or convey a stronger message. I simply do not understand why the duality of it. One should portray themselves here as they do in their daily lives.
Hope you had a nice Christmas.
I did, thank you. And you as well. I admit, I am more outspoken on here than I am in the real world. My demeanor, however, is pretty much the same. I try to be respectful of the other side but I confess I sometimes get a bit overzealous if someone starts in on the talking points that I know are untrue. I try to avoid politics with acquaintances as it tends to get too heated and I find it's rare that anyone is actually swayed anyway, so it's rather pointless.
...and a safe and happy New Year to all
Guess again, bali bob, that is just another liberal prevarication. You are not even close.
The national debt increased in 2000, just like it did in every other clinton year.
American Girl-724855 said:
Oddly, I agree with President Obama AND the right wing Republicans, let's go over the cliff - then get a deal done.
I'm just happy neither side caved to Eric Cantor, John Boehner, Lindsay Graham and the other Neo-Con idiots and their plan B.
American Girl-724855 said:
"Whatever" better translate into total victory against these Republicans. To compromise with them would be wimping out. It is about time someone stands up to them fully. I hope Obama will be the one. It would be noted in the history books and define his presidency.
I'd like to see him break them, break them to pieces. As the slow motion fiscal cliff crash occurs and the middle class people start screaming, the Republicans will lose all their middle class supporters and only have a few rich people and a few nuts. Their voting base can go down to 20% or less....I'd like to see them thrown out of both houses of congress in 2014, never to return. The Democrats then return to the policies of FDR and LBJ with no resistance. The rich pay a 90% tax rate and the deficit and debt disappear without any cuts. In fact, programs for the needy and the middle are increased. Our national security returns to the strength we had in the 1940's an 50's.
Then I would salute Barack Obama as the greatest president of all time.
Is there any more doubt as to the length US House Taliban teabaggers will go to protect their corporate puppet masters ?
Glen-1484791 -- The Republican Party has gone so far to the Right, the Democrats ARE the Moderate Party. And this has happened most recently because of Republican gerrymandering to create solid red districts. But the threat to these "safe seats" now comes from the far-Right instead of being truly contested per our Republic form of democracy. In my state it's disgustingly sad that I can't even vote for many offices because there isn't a Dem on the ticket at all.
In regard to the destruction over the last 40 years, read "Who Stole the American Dream" and you'll see it is rightwing capitalism gone awry that is the problem. Socialism, ha, once again President Obama did not attempt single-payer health care. No, we still have the insurance middlemen and private sector profiting from the sick, because the Democrats ARE the Moderate Party.
In follow-up to noncoms post about Citizen's United, even if we went to multiple parties (like evil Europe), a majority party still must be formed via a coalition of two or more parties. In other words single-issue voters would join the NRA Party, and the Pro-Life Party, but the NRA and Pro-Life folks would still join under one tent.
Mark McKinnon - All I Want for Christmas Is a New GOP
w
w
w
thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/24/all-i-want-for-christmas-is-a-new-gop.html
Increasingly, it is becoming clear that the Republican party is against everything and for nothing.
Nothing on taxes. Nothing on gun control. Nothing on climate change. Nothing on gay marriage. Nothing on immigration reform (or an incremental, piece-by-piece approach, which will result in nothing). It’s a very odd situation when the losing party is the party refusing to negotiate. It may be how you disrupt, but it is not how you govern, or how you ever hope to regain a majority.
And so, we have a Republican Party today willing to eliminate any prospect for a decent future for anyone, including itself, if it cannot be a future that is 100 percent in accordance with its core beliefs and principles. That’s not governing. That’s just lobbing hand grenades. If you’re only standing on principle to appear taller, then you appear smaller. And the GOP is shrinking daily before our eyes.
American Girl, it's way past time for you to return to first grade and finish your education where you obviously left off. Geez, my 8-yr. old is far more informed than you are.
Conservatives want Boehner removed and a Conservative elected by the House to replace him
We do want the fiscal cliff to occur to slam the door shut on the uncontrolled spending by Comrade Obama and the rest of the marxists.
We also demand that the House Republicans not only hold firm on no tax increases, but propose further tax cuts along with reducing spending.
Freeze spending back to the levels of FY2008 and then limit annual increases to 2%, except when a state of war occurs.
We don't want to freeze levels back to FY2008 , because we spent more money that year than 2012.
The bottom line is taxes are going up on the top 2% one way or another and there is nothing anyone can do about that.
Marxists? Comrade Obama? That's really helpful rhetoric when you are trying to negotiate a deal... It's people like you and labels like these that will be the death of the USA.
Besides, have ever BEEN to a Communist country? Because I have and there is nothing even remotely socialist, communist or marxist about either Obama or the Democrats. In fact, in most of the rest of the world Obama & company would be considered right wing or at least quite right of center. Perhaps you should travel to some real Communist countries to understand just how good you have it in the US....
TO: Larry Robinson-1323081 who wrote:
Oh WHEN war occurs, not IF.
I wanna puke!
Chris- yes I have. I've been to China and Cuba. Furthermore I've studied communism for over 50 years and enlisted in mid 60's to fight communism. I'm a proud disabled Veteran who loves my country and have been battling the communism of the Democrats since 1960.
There is NO difference between the Communist Manifesto's transition steps from capitalism to communism in Section II Proletariats and Communists and the Democratic Party Platform (and much of the laws they've passed over the past 100 years)
I've read enough of your posts over time "anti-American girl" to realize that the concepts of responsible govt and following the Constitution are alien to you.
Larry
You are apparently not bright enough to understand that if your wish comes true millions of people will lose their jobs in both the public and private sectors and we will go into a depression which we will be able to remedy only by MASSIVE spending programs.
By the way, the "Comrade" reference are childish and inaccurate. You will never win anyone over to your side with such obviously biased and insulting garbage.
TO: Larry Robinson-1323081 who wrote:
Excuse me but it was Republicans who jacked everything up under a Republican Administration.
Democrat President Bill Clinton is the one who had paid all the bills, reduced the deficit, replenished Social Security, balanced the budget, and left surpluses in Social Security AND the Treasury, until Republicans arrived and tore up everything and left us flat broke and bleeding a million jobs per month!
These GOP Cult members aren't the smart ones. Hopefully, conservatism will continue to die out.
Larry Robinson,
Where were you during the 2 year election? Obama campaigned on raising taxes on those that enjoyed the most success. He didn't hide what he wanted to do. The American voters re-elected him based on what he said he wanted to do. So, why do the Republicans think they know better?
Job1.....
You really need to get a job. Those vacations, trips to the golf course, and lack of leadership are eating up your image.
BTW: Did the kids claim they were Senior White House Staff on this last Christmas trip to Hawaii ?
American Girl-724855.....
You really need to do some research before you post your bogus statements.
Don, I think that's exactly what people like larry want. He and people like him think that the rest of us need to be beat into submission because we aren't super rich.
wrong Don- this country has undergone 100's of economic growth and recessionary cycles. What makes the recessions worse is when the Govt tries to manipulate the economy by adding debt.
The so-called Great Recession officially ended in June 2009 before ANY govt "stimulus" spending had occurred.
Massive govt spending has NEVER remedied a recession. In order for the govt to spend a dollar, it must first TAKE a dollar out of the economy.
As to being bright enough; I was bright enough to run corporations in the US and overseas during my career. I was bright enough to work with members of Congress, NASA, the Pentagon, and Presidents and their Staff from 3 different countries during my career.
But I realize that the debilitating disease of liberalism hampers liberals like yourself from understanding how open market economies function. The only thing you know is the socialism in this country from the past 100 years that has destroyed our country
Stimulus plans can NEVER be successful in ending a recession
All of you leftists ignore (as do the idiots from the CBO) that in order for the Govt to redistribute money to "stimulate" the economy, it must first take money from citizens and businesses.
Spending-stimulus advocates claim that government can "inject" new money into the economy, increasing demand and therefore production. This raises the obvious question: Where does the government acquire the money it pumps into the economy? Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed: Therefore, every dollar Congress "injects" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another.
Spending-stimulus advocates typically respond that redistributing money from "savers" to "spenders" will lead to additional spending. That assumes that savers store their savings in their mattresses or elsewhere outside the economy. In reality, nearly all Americans either invest their savings by purchasing financial assets such as stocks and bonds (which finances business investment), or by purchasing non-financial assets such as real estate and collectibles, or they deposit it in banks (which quickly lend it to others to spend). The money is used regardless of whether people spend or save.
Government cannot create new purchasing power out of thin air. If Congress funds new spending with taxes, it is simply redistributing existing income. If Congress instead borrows the money from domestic investors, those investors will have that much less to invest or to spend in the private economy. If Congress borrows the money from foreigners, the balance of payments will adjust by equally reducing net exports, leaving GDP unchanged. Every dollar Congress spends must first come from somewhere else.
This does not mean that government spending has no economic impact at all. Government spending often alters the composition of total demand, such as increasing consumption at the expense of investment.
More importantly, government spending can alter future economic growth. Economic growth results from producing more goods and services (not from redistributing existing income), and that requires productivity growth and growth in the labor supply. A government's impact on economic growth is, therefore, determined by its policies' effect on labor productivity and labor supply.
Productivity growth requires increasing the amount of capital, either material or human, relative to the amount of labor employed. Productivity growth is facilitated by smoothly functioning markets indicating accurate price signals to which buyers and sellers, firms and workers can respond in flexible markets. Only in the rare instances where the private sector fails to provide these inputs in adequate amounts is government spending necessary. For instance, government spending on education, job training, physical infrastructure, and research and development can increase long-term productivity rates-but only if government spending does not crowd out similar private spending, and only if government spends the money more competently than businesses, nonprofit organizations, and private citizens. More specifically, government must secure a higher long-term return on its investment than taxpayers' (or investors lending the government) requirements with the same funds. Historically, governments have rarely outperformed the private sector in generating productivity growth.
Even when government spending improves economic growth rates on balance, it is necessary to differentiate between immediate versus future effects. There is no immediate stimulus from government spending, since that money had to be removed from another part of the economy.
However, a productivity investment may aid future economic growth, once it has been fully completed and is being used by the American workforce. For example, spending on energy itself does not improve economic growth, yet the eventual existence of a completed, well-functioning energy system can. Those economic impacts can take years, or even decades, to occur.
Most government spending has historically reduced productivity and long-term economic growth due to:
Taxes. Most government spending is financed by taxes, and high tax rates reduce incentives to work, save, and invest-resulting in a less motivated workforce as well as less business investment in new capital and technology. Few government expenditures raise productivity enough to offset the productivity lost due to taxes;
Incentives. Social spending often reduces incentives for productivity by subsidizing leisure and unemployment. Combined with taxes, it is clear that taxing Peter to subsidize Paul reduces both of their incentives to be productive, since productivity no longer determines one's income;
Displacement. Every dollar spent by politicians means one dollar less to be allocated based on market forces within the more productive private sector. For example, rather than allowing the market to allocate investments, politicians seize that money and earmark it for favored organizations with little regard for improvements to economic efficiency; and
Inefficiencies. Government provision of housing, education, and postal operations are often much less efficient than the private sector. Government also distorts existing health care and education markets by promoting third-party payers, resulting in over-consumption and insensitivity to prices and outcomes. Another example of inefficiency is when politicians earmark highway money for wasteful pork projects rather than expanding highway capacity where it is most needed.
Mountains of academic studies show how government expansions reduce economic growth:
Public Finance Review reported that "higher total government expenditure, no matter how financed, is associated with a lower growth rate of real per capita gross state product."
The Quarterly Journal of Economics reported that "the ratio of real government consumption expenditure to real GDP had a negative association with growth and investment," and "growth is inversely related to the share of government consumption in GDP, but insignificantly related to the share of public investment."
A Journal of Macroeconomics study discovered that "the coefficient of the additive terms of the government-size variable indicates that a 1% increase in government size decreases the rate of economic growth by 0.143%."
Public Choice reported that "a one percent increase in government spending as a percent of GDP (from, say, 30 to 31%) would raise the unemployment rate by approximately .36 of one percent (from, say, 8 to 8.36 percent)."
Economic growth is driven by individuals and entrepreneurs operating in free markets, not by Washington spending and regulations. The outdated idea that transferring spending power from the private sector to Washington will expand the economy has been thoroughly discredited, yet lawmakers continue to return to this strategy. The U.S. economy has soared highest when the federal government was shrinking, and it has stagnated at times of government expansion. This experience has been paralleled in Europe, where government expansions have been followed by economic decline. A strong private sector provides the nation with strong economic growth and benefits for all Americans.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/11/why-government-spending-does-not-stimulate-economic-
Larry,
Let me ask you 2 questions..Who was the President that is credited for creating our last budget surplus? And what party did he belong to?
Simple 2 part question that requires only 1 word per answer..
American Girl- there is NOT ONE fact in your lie of 3.7
1. I'm not a Republican- I'm a libertarian
Doing what I've been doing for over 50 years, battling the Communist Democrats and the Socialist Republicans.
Conservatives kept the Republicans in control of the House to act as a check against Obama.
History always proves itself correct
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves, at will, money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority votes for candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, usually followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through certain definite sequences. From courage by revolution to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency, from complacency to apathy, and back to dependency."
-Alexander Tyler, 18th Century English Professor, writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic
well Brad- the last balanced budget was 1957 and the president was Eisenhower, a Republican
Let’s remember the bigger the Government the better we will all be. This talking point of smaller Government was a talking point that President Reagan started, and we all know how much expansion happened in the 1980s. So, don’t get in to the Republican argument of smaller Government. It’s a myth and a big lie that will never happen.
So, let the Government grow and expand, because that is how jobs and opportunities come about. Remember the expansion started by FDR that created GREATNESS?
Larry,
During the Clinton Administration this Country had a budget surplus, and he was a Democrat. Then Bush became President, a Rebuplican, and we went through our entire surplus, and then some.
TO: Larry Robinson-1323081 who wrote:
3.7 TO: Larry Robinson-1323081 who wrote:
Excuse me but it was Republicans who jacked everything up under a Republican Administration.
Democrat President Bill Clinton is the one who had paid all the bills, reduced the deficit, replenished Social Security, balanced the budget, and left surpluses in Social Security AND the Treasury, until Republicans arrived and tore up everything and left us flat broke and bleeding a million jobs per month!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Larry, I'm going to have to consider you as having lost your ever-loving mind.
Every word of my 3.7 post is absolutely true, and the whole world knows it.
American Girl, Just what economic recovery are YOU talking about? Oh yea Qauntitive easing.You know the one where the fed turns the printing press on full tilt? Lol. You sound very immature young lady!
TO: Larry Robinson-1323081 who wrote:
Well, rather than call you a "liar", let's just say you don't know United States political history.
No- the "talking point" of smaller govt is what the Founders ALL stated.
James Madison who wrote most of the Constitution stated in Federalist #45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
"A wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."
-- John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.
In the state of nature men may, as the patriarchs did, employ hired servants for the defence of their lives, liberties, and property; and they should pay them reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence, and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable, natural right to an honorable support from the same principle that " the laborer is worthy of his hire." But then the same community which they serve ought to be the assessors of their pay. Governors have no right to seek and take what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honorable servants of the society, they would soon become absolute masters, despots, and tyrants. Hence, as a private man has a right to say what wages he will give in his private affairs, so has a community to determine what they will give and grant of their substance for the administration of public affairs. And, in both cases, more are ready to offer their service at the proposed and stipulated price than are able and willing to perform their duty.
In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.
Samuel Adams The Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772
Larry Robinson, there are a lot of conservative economists that would disagree with you on the taxes and social programs.
I will agree that there is a lot of inefficiencies in government but keep in mind that it was the law makers that placed the inefficiencies there.
sorry Brad, but there was no surplus under Clinton and I've already provided a quote from a Senate Democrat at that time who was honest enough to admit it.
Furthermore as I've already noted, Bush took over in 2001 during a recession that began in 2000 and further escalated the deficit; and combined with the economic effects of 9/11 put us into the hole even further.
American Girl-724855.......
Here is the answer to YOUR MYTH on President Clinton's surplus and balancing the budget:
Get a clue before you make ridiculous statements. Wait a minute.....the Progressives will take your words as FACTS since they cannot think for themselves.
Coodaloop- I read virtually every conservative economist and I've yet to ever read one cite taxes and social programs as beneficial.
Cite one with a link
hey Larry thanks for your service. I noticed alot of our Trotsky friends love to use Patriotic or American in their monikers. Something about telling the lie long enough, you believe it type of scenario. The Proletariat Gracchi Mob is in full force today.
Larry Robinson: apparently you don't read the budget from your hero, Paul Ryan. Did you know that he plans to cut 13% from veteran's benefits ?
He is also planning on ending health care for Veteran's, except for the very poor who have direct, service related injuries. On top of that, he will be making cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.
You won't be getting your government checks or your government medical care.
So, I guess you, " ...a proud disabled Veteran who loves my country and have been battling the communism of the Democrats since 1960" want to see cuts to all the wasteful programs there can be.
I, for one, can't think of anything more wasteful than keeping disgruntled old farts like you around.
Larry -- going over the cliff is no way in hell going to lower the deficit. You don't lower the deficit by imposing a -4% GDP (which is what the spending cuts amount to). What will happen is massive layoffs, factories close, benefits cut off (to you in particular), less revenue, more unemployment, more welfare, more foodstamps, and when all is said and done, an increase in deficit borrowing.
You can cure a disease by killing the patient, but the end result is worse than the disease.
It is physically not possible to end deficit spending on a dime. The only thing we can do is what we did in the 1990s - tax increases, mild spending increases, and wait for the economy to grow. Incidentally, total revenue in 2000 was 2,025 billion, and total outlays were 1,789 billion. That's a fine surplus by my definition. I'd be happy with that.
Maybe that's your problem limiting to that supported by conservatives. I imagine if you ask those receiving benefits they'd disagree. Not everything is about what makes or saves the most money. Do you refuse to feed your children because it doesn't make you any profit? As for the biggest social programs which are social security and medicare they're self funded and not general revenue. What was Bush's 100 billion a year unfunded drug plan?
Sorry Larry, The facts are according to the numbers from the Fed the we had a surplus of 307 Billion in the year 2000.
Larry Robinson: Then why did both Bush and Romney support such plans. You act like democrats invented stimulus spending to get out of a recession. Below is a comment by Romney chiding Bush and republicans to support stimulus.
not True JOB1, Clinton borrowed more than his claimed Surplus and it wasnt 307 Billion. there were accounting tricks to make it appear to have a surplus. IOUs DO NOT EQUAL SURPLUS
What got us into this mess? 2 wars totally unfunded and tax cuts at the same time. Totally irresponsible. No war had been fought without RAISING TAXES. NONE. The Federal Income Tax was created to fund the Civil War. Lincoln even DOUBLED the tax rate on the highest income earners later in the war to increase the needed funding.The bush administration showed the ultimate in irresponsibility by not funding the wars and by cutting taxes at the same time.
Larry,
History does and will always disagree with you..
Larry the hypocrit is BACK.....................
Larry who knows the constitution, who knew and predicted the Scotus would OVERTHROW Obamacare.
Larry who due to Scotus failure to understand the constitution would now be forced to vote for a Republican. And if that failed Larry would be forced to flee the country to avoid Obama;s reign of terror.
Larry who is an Expert of the founding fathers and a Keen understanding of history.
Hey Larry which founding father got it right. Was it George Washington or was it Madison. Tell us oh wise one.
Larry doesnt understand that fascists and marxists are opposites. A fascist believs in the state. Marx wanted the state to wither away.
But then Larry knows all....... just ask.......
eh larry why did that marxist fascist socialist Obama not nationalize the banks when he had the opportunity but instead just gave them free money......... he does have an answer
ask him why he cant name a country anywhere in the world that used reduce deficits first and it succeeded and he does have an answer...........
hey larry- your side lost the Presidency. Hey Larry your side lost seats in the Senate. Hey Larry your side even lost 8 seats in the House.
What part of MINORITY view do you understand?????????????
I know you're addressing the other Larry but I'd point out TARP which bailed out banks and financial institutions was passed under Bush on Oct. 3rd 2008. 1 Month before Obama was elected. Obamas stimulus was directed to the states to save 3.5 million state jobs after the biggest revenue drop for states since 1929. Even some republican governors stated Obama saved them from collapse. Obama worried about lost jobs while Bush worried about mega banks and financial institutions.
Larry- but it failed to pass the House the first time and it took Pelosi and Obama to get enough dem votes to get it passed. What I am actually referring to is allowing the Fed to open the discount window where they could borrow unlimited sums for a 1/4% turn around and buy a t bill and earn a 1% guaranteed profit.
But then the fed is independent so maybe Obama was helpless. Remember it was the sec of the Treasury, Geitner and Bernancke of the Fed, Sommers, et al who preached and believed(as I do) that with a full blown financial meltdown the economy would have CRASHED.
Larry Robinson
And you're a disabled vet and you studied communism for 60 years. You forgot to mention that you personally ended WWII, tore down the Berlin Wall and freed Nelson Mandela from captivity. I guess you're too humble to mention that.
NO LA- but I have had a very successful career in multiple fields; I believe in being the best you can be and realizing the fullness of all your skills and talents.
My accomplishments are public so I don't worry about sniveling little liberals and their envy of those who succeed in life.
Larry Robinson-1323081 said:
Not if it's another Neo-Con moron like Eric Cantor or Lindsay Graham. Neo-Cons are more marxist and free spending than your pal Obama ;)
Larry, if you are as successful and talented as you claim to be, then you must be pretty intelligent and well educated. I don't understand how someone as accomplished as you could be so paranoid and uninformed. It seems as if you are stuck in the McCarthy era, looking for any sign of communism, leaving no stone unturned. Perhaps it's just the rhetoric that has you caught up in it, but you sound like one of those guys we've heard of that was stranded alone on an island and has no idea that the war ended. I think we all are concerned about the future, and we probably all have differing ideas on how to get out of this mess, or even whether or not we can. But the entire communist, marxist, socialist thing are just scare tactics invented by the right to keep people from voting for Dems. I assure you, there is absolutely no truth to it.
Wow! How the mighty have fallen! Larry Robinson has gone from globe trotting to Cuba and China, running corporations around the world, rubbing elbows with Congress, NASA, Pentagon and Presidents, to posting long winded diatribes on the Internet, as well as, living on Uncle Sam's dime as a disabled veteran. I will begin to believe, when the political right refuses Social Security and Medicare benefits for themselves.
The Wall Street Journal Get's It- NO Deal with Obama
A Bad Budget Deal
Higher taxes now for notional reform later is worse than nothing
Wall Street Journal December 19, 2012
It's clear by now that the budget talks are drifting in a drearily familiar Washington direction: Tax and spending increases now, in return for the promise of spending cuts and tax and entitlement reform later. This is a bad deal for everyone except the politicians who want more money to spend.
Mr. Obama has agreed to nothing else that is serious and specific. House Democrats have already declared that increasing the benefit age for Medicare to 67 from 65 is off the table, and the White House won't negotiate on Social Security or even, according to the latest leaks, Medicaid. Even if Mr. Obama agrees to income-testing for affluent Medicare recipients, this means another tax increase if it comes in the form of premium increases.
None of this is anywhere close to the reforms that might slow the pace of health-care spending, which everyone agrees is the biggest fiscal problem. Look for Mr. Obama to pocket the immediate tax increases, then next year demand another tax increase in return for token entitlement reforms.
The biggest insult to the public's intelligence is Mr. Obama's demand for more spending now. We thought this exercise was about deficit reduction. But as always in Washington, the method is to put deficit "savings" into the future as part of a fanciful 10-year budget estimate while adding to the deficit in the near term by spending more now.
Mr. Obama wants an extension of jobless benefits worth $30 billion a year, plus $50 billion for public works (at union wage rates). He also wants to lift the sequester—the automatic spending cuts set to hit on January 1. And he wants the debt limit increased for at least two years, if not permanently. Oh, and he wants a permanent fix for the Alternative Minimum Tax that Democrats invented but now threatens blue-state middle-class voters.
Remind us again what achievement the Tea Party Republicans could point to in all this? A smaller tax increase than Mr. Obama wants, as long as Republicans put their fingerprints on it too? Congratulations.
By Tuesday afternoon, even Mr. Boehner seemed to be throwing up his hands. His plan seems to be to pass a House bill extending the current tax rates for everyone who makes less than $1 million and tossing that to the Senate. Democrats will then have to decide to accept or pass their own bill that extends the rates only for those making less than $200,000. Either way we get a tax increase without tangible progress on the spending problem.
Let Mr. Obama own the tax increase and its measly 7.5% annual reduction in a $1.1 trillion deficit. Let the sequester take effect as planned, which at least means some spending restraint. Then engage Mr. Obama next year in trench warfare over spending and the debt limit as voters figure out that soaking the rich doesn't begin to solve the problem. A bad budget deal is worse than no deal at all.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323723104578187091789698654.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Actually, the President wants to cut spending. The Republicans are pretty good in their continued lies.
Obama has NEVER proposed a single penny of reductions in the budget. He has only proposed some reductions for some programs in the INCREASE ON THE RATE OF GROWTH IN SPENDING.
His own budget projections call for increased spending every year. If you have evidence of a single budget reduction- provide it with a link- because that would be headline news.
Obama and the Democrats have NEVER proposed a single penny in spending cuts. All they have proposed is reducing the rate of growth in spending from 7% annually to 5%.
The Federal Govt has NEVER reduced year to year spending.
as shown in the Obama budget proposal, there are NO cuts in spending over the next 10 years, only cuts in the rate of growth
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf
Nobody ever proposes cuts to spending, ever. Neither side does it, it is always reductions to future increases and they label it spending reductions. It's all about who they "cut" less from. Democrats prefer to spend in social programs, Republicans like to spend in military. SSDP.
If you are really the age you imply you are (from your previous post) you should know better by now.
Larry
You are willfully ignorant of the facts. As an example, the conservatives were very critical of President Obama's defense spending cuts last year. How soon you forget.
I wonder why so many under-informed people are so obnoxiously sure of themselves. It must be some diseased contracted from Rush, Glenn and Fox.
Let’s all think back to September 2008 and the financial storm that had developed and the whole government and the rest of the world that was unraveling in financial markets. The jobs were going down so fast that and the United States had suffered the worst crisis sense the great depression.
Then Obama takes over on January 20, 2009, and suddenly it’s his fault. No way! Obama stepped into this storm on the brink of depression, and Obama has done a GREAT job of turning the country around.
I honestly have to say anyone that doesn’t recognize this fact is pretty out of touch with reality, and living in “Rush World.”
Job1,
You are wrong. Why would you demand an increase in the debt ceiling if you were going to cut spending? That alone should speak volumes. There would be no need to raise the debt ceiling with less spending.
don- I can tell you factually and I'll link for you again the Obama budgets and budget forecasts- He only proposes cuts in the rate of growth
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf
BTW- I have never heard Beck speak, nor read anything he may have written; Rush is an entertainer who is skilled at reframing what those who actually propose new ideas come up with. And I don't watch Fox. Unlike liberals like yourself, I actually rely upon the source materials in most cases for my documentation.
The Peoples voice, "In the absence of sufficient revenue, a failure to raise the debt ceiling would result in the administration being unable to fund all the spending which it is required to do by prior acts of Congress. At that point, the government must cancel or delay some spending, a situation sometimes referred as a partial government shut down."
Ah, I was going to come in and say a few things, but it appears Larry Robinson has things well in hand all by himself. I see quotes, citations, everything in those arguments. I see emotional party bias in most of the others. Bravo, Larry. Gee, one against so many. They don't stand a chance.
Larry, "liberals" don't watch fox. And he has actually proposed budget cuts to the tune of 340 billion to social programs. The rest are considered "savings" by reducing items that we are spending more on right now but will not be in the future like defense spending for the wars overseas.
Larry -- going over the cliff is no way in hell going to lower the deficit. You don't lower the deficit by imposing a -4% GDP (which is what the spending cuts amount to). What will happen is massive layoffs, factories close, benefits cut off (to you in particular), less revenue, more unemployment, more welfare, more foodstamps, and when all is said and done, an increase in deficit borrowing.
You can cure a disease by killing the patient, but the end result is worse than the disease.
It is physically not possible to end deficit spending on a dime. The only thing we can do is what we did in the 1990s - tax increases, mild spending increases, and wait for the economy to grow. Incidentally, total revenue in 2000 was 2,025 billion, and total outlays were 1,789 billion. That's a fine surplus by my definition. I'd be happy with that.
As to the conservative cheers for Larry from azdr - just because you like what you are hearing doesn't mean it is actual or true. Larry is regurgitating crap that you can find all over the net - but it is all wrong and false. It is the sort of thing that leads to the Bush collapse, 700,000 jobs lost/month, a surplus turned into a projected $1.85 trillion deficit (CBO estimate at the time Obama was sworn into office), and so on. It is all great sounding , but a proven total failure in practice. Now Clinton's approach - that works. Nitpicking and trying to say "Well, Clinton wasn't as perfect as he could have been" is silly. Clinton and Democrats bring us prosperity, time and again. Republicans and conservatives bring only failure.
coodaloop.
Agree with you on most of what you said except the required spending. Sending tax payer money to other countries is not required spending. We should be using that money to fix problems here instead of cutting or reducing domestic programs. I'm sure most people would agree that any cuts should start with the money being sent to other countries.
Many Republicans just don't understand Basic Arithmetic.
We don't send that much to other countries, at least, not that much compared to our deficit. But what we do send to other countries is smart money, that saves us in the long run. Nothing costs more or is more wasteful than foreign wars. If you can prevent a $2trillion war for $100 million in aid, that's a good deal. Heck, even the USSR at its most evil spent a lot on foreign aid - it is not just for the sake being generous, it is important and valid diplomatic wisdom.
Republicans accuse democrats of being tax and spend but ignore republicans usually spend far more just don't worry about paying for it. How is spending without funding anything responsible? Bush ran 2 wars off the books, started a new drug plan that had a democrat began it would have called it a socialist program again unfunded. He cut revenue by 400 billion turning a surplus into the most massive deficit in history up to that point. Bush's drug plan costs around 100 billion a year which is almost as much as Obamacare. In what world was Bush a responsible president because he simply put it on the Americard while Obama is blamed as being irresponsible for actually funding what he created?
Romney proposed continuing that tradition by cutting revenue another 500 billion while increasing military spending another 200 billion a year that the military wasn't even asking for and beginning a new space program at a cost of untold billions. Instead of bashing democrats how about you right wingers explain how this is better. In the real world paying for what you spend is responsible not the republican way.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/05/09/government-spending-decreased-under-obama/
Larry- quoting the WSJ is the equivalent to quoting current TV to support one of our positions.
Larry, try reading something like the Economist Magazine- a English conservative publication that calls Cameron's policies a LOON, that says the Stimulus program in america WORKED.
It isnt what you read but who you read. Your reading Sowell and the like just makes you more of an idiot.
which founding fathers got it right Larry- washington or Madison? Different views, both founding fathers. Differences existed at the beginning. No one approach Federalists and Republicans were as different back then as democrats and republicans are today. So quote away and it proves NOTHING. Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers also
Larry Robinson
I disagree with you completely. You are a proud Libertarian. I am not. I believe in community and although I admit there is some waste in government, the basic programs that you would dismantle are a major aspect of my quality of life. Older people are much better off today than in past generations due to Social Security and Medicare. I believe in providing temporary assistance to people who are out of work. I want the government to take a lead role in food and drug safety and I embrace the improvements that the EPA and OSHA have provided in the areas of safety and health.
I believe in many government programs in spite of the fact that I do not benefit directly from those programs. The quality of life of other Americans is important to me and I am willing to have my tax dollars fund those programs in the interest of a strong education system, a functional judicial system, quality law enforcement and help to people who are unable to help themselves.
To me, your politics is mean and lacks any sense of community. In addition, your grasp of economics principles is so pathetic that you are proud to disagree with even the most conservative of the main stream economists. People like you fail to recognize that you have benefitted substantially from the efforts of other people and, yes, the government.
I was a Libertarian while I attended college, but I outgrew it. The real world is much better.
The People's voice
Actually, it is possible to cut spending and still need an increase in the debt ceiling. Imagine if you were working a job for $100,000 per year. Then you were laid off, but managed to get a job that only pays $70,000 per year. You would have to cut spending, but you may find you also have to borrow more money to fill in the gap until you can either cut enough to cover expenses or earn more money. That is pretty much what happened. The economy collapsed and so there was much less revenue coming in. The government still had to pay their expenses, but the money coming in didn't come close to covering it. Don't get me wrong, there was more money spent with the stimulus and very little cut, but by most accounts, other than Larry Robinson, it was necessary to keep from going into a depression where it would have been worse still.
LA...you are correct. The link below supports your argument.
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9
Tax and Spend, Tax and Spend. Raise the Federal Debt limit. Yeah. That sounds like a recipe for success.
The debt limit was raised 18 times under GW Bush with a simple one line bill..
Where were you then? Grade school?
And raised many times under Reagan.
Because Bush did it that makes it okay, junior league?
At least that recipe includes some revenue generation. Republican recipe is tax less and spend even more, blow up the debt limit.
Prove it. What was the National Deficit when Obama took office and what is it now? We can't afford this guy unchecked.
What were the tax rates now compared to when Obama took office? oh wait, they are the same... So why are you bitching about taxes?
I agree we need cuts in spending, but nobody wants to give an inch, because it's going to hurt them; so they all throw out temper tantrums cause they can't have the extra candy. In the end, everything is going to collapse greek style if people don't give up their tax breaks, and their handouts. And BTW, Greece didn't just collapse out of too much spending, they collapsed out of tax evasion as well.
You prefer the republican way of spending without worrying about paying for it? Two unfunded wars and a 100 billion drug plan for Bush after cutting revenue 400 billion. Or Romneys revenue cut of 500 billion while starting a new space program and 200 billion more on the military. Bashing democrats only makes sense if your actions are more responsible and clearly republicans aren't. As for the debt limit it was raised 18 times under Reagan and seven times under Bush. Three times for Obama.
The debt limit is raised after the fact. It is done so we can pay the bills that we've already incurred. And, contrary to belief, it is congress that drives the debt up. The President can't pass bills on his own. He can suggest and come up with plans, but he can only sign them or veto them. So to allow the President to raise the debt ceiling as needed wouldn't make any difference, except it would give congress more time to accomplish nothing on another bill rather than fighting over the debt ceiling.
Here we go again taking it to the 11th hour. If Boaner is compromising, why does he always run away from the media after a press conference and not answer any questions. Obama at least takes the time to answer questions.
The Orange Boner's "Plan B" was sure an abortion pill to his own party! How can anything happen in the House if the Boner can't control his own tea stains???
So what was chocolate milk Obamas plan or milk toast Reids plan, Neither has addressed spending and we do not have a revenue problem we have a spending problem, Obamas and Reids plan of simply taxing the rich does not pay for anything consiidering Obama already plans on spending more than the tax increse would bring it.
LostInThePineBarrens...respectfully your argument lacks substance and we do have a revenue problem creating income inequality. If you doubt my argument then review the following link for a full accounting of your ill fated stance.
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9
Blame? I won't blame anyone but sending out thank you cards.
Why blame anyone for balancing the budget?
Last time there was a balanced budget, Clinton was president, and it only happened because the GOP was shamed into it! (that was also when Newtron GingGrinch got booted as speaker by his own party!)
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.
Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:
As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.
Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
“So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false. This reporter ought to do his work. This crowd never has asked for or kept up with or checked the facts. Eric Planin--all he has to do is not spread rumors or get into the political message. Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000. - Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999
And Clinton also left Bush with a Recession
Clinton’s Chairman Of Council Of Economic Advisors, Joseph Stiglitz, Said Recession Started During Clinton’s Tenure. “It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton Administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by President George W. Bush’s economic team for this seemingly sudden turnaround in the economy, which coincided so closely with its taking charge. But … the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier.” (Joseph Stiglitz, “The Roaring Nineties,” The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02)
Larry, there was more calculated because of SS but even without SS there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000.
This is all easily looked up.
Do not confuse larry with facts.
Sorry Larry, The facts are according to the numbers from the Fed the we had a surplus of 307 Billion in the year 2000. People can spin it however they want, facts are facts.
Larry Roblnson: Clintons last budget was passed Oct. 1st, 2000 and ran through Oct. 1st 2001 and had a surplus. Just because Bush cut taxes and spent more after elected doesn't change what he was left. From Factcheck.org.
FULL ANSWER
http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
Let's use the US Treasury figures for the Debt- It increased every year Clinton was in office
1990-1999
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
2000-2010
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Larry, respectfully your argument does have holes. You might want to reveiw the link below for some fact checking. I might add that FactCheck.org has also been considered a right leaning source not very balanced. You would know that if you did your homework rather than find any source that supports your logic.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/05/the-three-best-charts-on-how-clintons-surpluses-became-bush-and-obamas-deficits/
Regarding your argument about the debt specifically under Clinton... I suggest reading the following link as it is considered a fair and balanced source. Plainly one can find any number of sources to support their view it's those that put forth a balanced view that carry the credibility. Do a little more research using those without bias to support your arguments. You'll find more merit behind your comment.
http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statements/2012/jun/08/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-touts-fiscal-record-president-during-/
larry- crackerjacks anyone? his box will not come with a prize because he thinks it is a handout! gop sucks and smells of loss!!!
Obviously, they haven't been able to agree on anything for years. They're not going to agree on anything in a rush. We're over the cliff and need to work with the fact.
There is a big war going on in our country, and it includes a lot of bigotry and race, unfortunately.
The way I see it is, if Reps are so eager to criticize our president, then by all means let our president act so you're able to, later.
If all of these so-called law makers fail to resolve this fiscal cliff problem that they generated, the voters will blame all of them; Republicans and Democrats alike, and hopefully this will show up in future elections.
I say, vote them all out, and/or fire all of them, without any golden parachutes.
Also, is it just me, but if the Republicans are so against raising taxes, does it seem strange that they would raise taxes on 98% of the American people just to hold out on 2% of the billionaires? Seems like it is just a game as to who is going to loose the bet.
It's a game to wash their hands off from raising taxes. Once taxes are higher, they can lower them and make believe they are heroes.
Ripped off.....it is just YOU, because Democrats are so desperate to raise taxes on just 2% of the nation that if they don't get their way, they'll raise taxes on EVERYONE.
And do you know what raising the taxes on those 2% would do? Why it would lower our deficit spending from 1.2 TRILLION dollars a YEAR to a "paltry" 1.15 TRILLION dollars a year. With NO CUTS to the spending.
And you are demonizing the Republicans?
Why don't you wake up to what's going on? All this is in the end is POLITICS by Democrats that accomplishes absolutely NOTHING.
And its been the Democrats that have been saying that "going over the cliff" is actually "good", because THEY get the revenue they want without having to make cuts to their sacred cows, and people like YOU will actually go along with them blaming the Republicans for it happening.
And the WORST part of it is that you will actually believe them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Republicans are holding out because Obama is not proposing any spending reductions. I am a middle class taxpayer and don't want to see my taxes go up. But I will gladly go over the cliff and temporarily pay more in taxes before I agree to giving Obama his tax increases without any spending reductions like he is proposing. He basically wants a blank check.
If it's such a minimal thing, why the temper tantrum then?
Ripped Off, If the tea baggers got their way, the top 2% wouldn't pay any taxes at all, because the poor working class need to pay up.
I am puzzled yet again. So raise the taxes on the 2%. We are talking Income Taxes right? That then means that it is NOT 98% that pay income taxes will be raised on but 51%, least anyone forget. Added into that will be all the new tax regulations and laws that are going to hit EVERYONE regardless of any cliff.
Ripped Off in Seattle...I agree if the proposals put forth by Dems and the POTUS are deemd such a failure then let them fail. They all should just let the plan fly or crash based on it's merits. The House failure to support any bill reflects the huge divide within the GOP party. Boehner needs to just sever the TeaParty from the Republicans. Let the rebel rousers stand on their own allow those who have worked together in the past get the job done.Voters will do the rest come 2014.
If the American government accumulates too much debt, the economy will crash. This happened to Greece and it happened in Germany during the 1920s/1930s. And if the economy crashes, people will get desperate and start turning to radical beliefs. When the German economy crashed in the 1920's, people turned to 2 extreme political parties: The Communist or the Nazi party. If we get too much debt, and if the economy will crash, people here are going to go nuts, especially the OWS protesters.
The US has been in debt since they borrowed money from France to fight the Revolutionary War.
Not true, Andrew Jackson paid off the national debt near the end of his first term and wanted any suplus in the future to be returned to the states
Herron
Cool, So we don't reduce our spending, tax the wealthy a little & just keep raising the debt. Sounds like a real good recipe. That should really set us all on the road to prosperity.
So the goof-offs are coming back to work. (sort of) They can start running for reelection right after the new year. That's what the do best. Maybe that's the only thing they do!
They never stop running for reelection. That's why they need Lobbyists to give them their bribes.
Here we go again taking it to the 11th hour. Obama always trying to negotiate (campaign) using the media instead of working with Boehner directly. There has to be some give and take on both sides for a valid compromise. Obama says $250k and Boehner says no limit then Obama wants $400k and Boehner wants $1 million - why not split the difference and pick $700k?
Simple answer. Boehner and the tea party would not accept anything but the $1 million. And, if Obama agreed to that Boehner would still not be able to seal the deal with his caucus. He is impotent when dealing with his ultra right wing that dominates the GOP. The tea party cares nothing about compromise and will not make a deal with Obama. Just wait and see!
The only way a deal will be made will be if the Democrats and a minority of Republicans pass a deal. It won't happen until after Boehner already has won the Speaker's seat for the last 2 years of his political career.
Harry Reid REFUSES to bring anything passed up by the House for a vote, debate, or even to committee for negotiation, and he's whining because Boehner won't allow DEMOCRATS to bring bills up in the House?
What a hypocrite this man is.
And the worst part is that the left, KNOWING that Harry Reid has stopped EVERY piece of legislation passed by the House in the past TWO YEARS, including THREE BUDGETS, actually backs this denigrating, demonizing, LYING, piece of garbage.
The SENATE passed a bill on this. a BIPARTISAN bill. Boner refuses to consider it.
Boner's own PLAN B got aborted by his own party!
And can I mention Turtleman McConnoll filibustering his own bill lat week?????
The House passed bills too and Reid has not brought them for consideration on the Senate floor - imagine that.
JJRA. The House puked ALL OVER Boner's Plan B. What have they passed in connection to the cliff? List the bills!
Herron.......And the House has already passed THREE BUDGETS and Harry Reid refuses to consider them. And the House has already passed a bill that doesn't raise the rates, raises revenue and CUTS SPENDING that Reid and Obama both REFUSE to do, even they BOTH called for "balance" on this.
And can I mention that OVER 30 bills have been tabled by Harry Reid, and people like YOU don't give a dam but instead think you are being "intelligent" by simply name calling?
And can I also mention that ALL budget, tax, and spending bills are REQUIRED to come out of the House, go to the Senate for ACTION, and then they are negotiated between both sides? The Senate is NOT there to write bills, they are there to CONSIDER THEM, and then VOTE on them. Did you also know that Harry Reid is BREAKING Federal Law, written by his own Congress that REQUIRES an annual budget?
And do you even KNOW that Obama has demanded that he be given the UnConstitutional "right" to raise the debt ceiling WITHOUT Congress being involved?
But since you simply don't know, or apparently don't care to know that, you talk about how the Senate wrote a bill that they are NOT supposed to and denigrate the the House for doing what they are LEGALLY bound to do.
And the House refused to pass Boehner's plan because it raised tax RATES, which Republicans refused to do all along.
Why don't you do your OWN research and find out what is REALLY going on instead of just reading the left wing morons from MSDNC or being just another liberal and demanding someone do the work for you?
It's very simple. None of those House bills had any Democratic support and none stood any chance of passing the Senate. So why waste the Senate's time and the tax payers money voting on them. Every one of those House bills as written would have caused serious harm to some portion of the US population. Those bills are far better off in the dust bin.
Cheryl...
I doubt you even know whats in those bills. The pubs can bring in all the budget proposals they want, but if they have a bunch of crap in them, then whats the point of approving them? Then they can sit back and say "We sent proposals to the Congress but they wouldn't accept them " waaaah. I agree we need some cuts but c'mon. The rich have been getting major tax breaks for years and now it's time to pay the same rate as I do. Why should some jerkoff rich guy pay only Capitol Gains at 14-15%, and I have to pay 28-29%? Do you think the extra 14% is going to wipe him out? I know alot of ppl working 2 jobs and they would love to pay only 14%. Oh. Forgot. They aren't qualified to get that rate. They are poor. They have to pay 28%. And to all you losers crapping about welfare lines... God help your mom if she has to ask you for any help to get by in life.
mark- you would pay 28-29% if you are making over 700k per year. Is that the case with you?
I'm a tax professional and I receive the stats from the IRS
middle class tax payers pay between 5-8% depending on where they fall in the middle class scale.
Larry Robinson: OH, you are a tax professional and receive stats directly from the IRS, now.
Here I thought you were a "Furthermore I've studied communism for over 50 years and enlisted in mid 60's to fight communism. I'm a proud disabled Veteran who loves my country and have been battling the communism of the Democrats since 1960."
On the vine, we call your type RWNJ trolls. Truth, facts and reality don't really have to be part of your world, do they ?
dirp- I own several businesses including a tax business..
My resume accomplishments are publicly available.
Larry Robinson...your ownership of several businesses makes you insulated to most of America. You have given merit to your arguments above as being biased. A well respected gentlemen I know who is a former Special Forces member and Green Beret summed it up best when he said that bull@#$^walks and money talks.You have given real meaning to that service related motto. Your arguments are porous and less than slim.
Get the posters ready, listing all the past republican policies that the current far right went against recently, especially Reagan's, Nixon/Ford's, Bush Sr's - they would have told Grover Nordquist "Who the hell are you?" Even some of their pundits (usually more educated) are washing their hands of the far right now, leaving only the college dropout pundits like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity to support the far right. Wonder where their true braintrust Karl Rove, another dropout...yes their leader never finished bachelors degree even, thinks of all this?
Well, don't forget, the darling of the far right extremist, said "College is for snobs."
Of course, no one who is at all educated would vote for a Republican in the first place.
Nothing is ever going to get better for the bottom 99% as long as the tea party relishes the thought of their boot on the throat of everyone they despise.
I hope the tea party will be as vocal at the top 1% to buy stuff to keep the economy going; since they obviously want everyone else to sit at home with only a lump a coal. So go ahead, write to your congressman and tell them to sock it to us. When the average person isn't out buy goods and supporting the businesses of the super rich that cherish; keep in mind that is exactly what you want.
Time to go over the cliff. The gov. has been for many years, cutting taxes and increasing spending to keep the economy going and get reelected! and it has brought us to this point, cannot keep going. Go over , we have put off a recession about this for decades, take the hit, and reset the clock, get max. revenue and spending cuts, and lets see whose ox is getting gored, and then vote in 2016!!! we will know then which side has the best approach.
It seems that neither side wants to do the responsible thing. Cut spending and raise revenue to meet the commitments that they have both made over the years. And now they'll begin squabbling about the debt ceiling. Which really means asking if they'll pay the bills they've incurred in the past or not. Doesn't sound like the America that the founders figured on creating to me.
You blokes need to cut spending and raise revenue or you'll be history soon enough. Too bad about dragging the remainder of the world down with you.
I know some three year olds who are better at making sound choices than these f*cking morons.
Stone the b*stards!
Please don't even try to suggest Obama and his administration plan to cut anything after we paid for a 4 million dollar Hawaiian vacation. And thank you Cheryl for pointing out how Reid has done nothing but sit on all the legislation the House has proposed concerning this crisis - while he whines about the House not presenting the senate's proposal for vote. Its amazing how he forgot that point.
Did you cry like a little baby when GW took vacations too? How about when Ronny Raygun did??
no, but i cry when I have to pay for Barry, and then pay AGAIN for his wife and kids, his carbon footprint equals that of Mt St Helen!
Bullsh1t!! No worse than cheney going hunting all the time and shooting his buddies.
Yeah, he should walk to his vacation home. Who does Obama think he is, President of the United States?
/sarcasm.
I'll bet the GOP can't wait for January 2017, when the black man will finally be out of the White House.
We are a country run by idiots, incompetents and habitual liars and drama queens. I'd like to say more but it won't be published.
And that's just the people who write on the vine.
Just think how bad the Congress is.
Political posturing from either side should not be tolerated. We can't continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on wars. Democrat, Libertarian, Republicans alike. Why are we paying companies like Haliburton to provide "security" for our armed forces? Why is my neighbor's daughter signed up for $175,000 a year to provide security and we pay our troops 1/8th of that? And to top it off, we beg our citizens to put together care packages for our troops because we can't afford it after paying Haliburton et al. Before we sign over $800 billion to the pentagon, let's see what that money entails. I'd hate to think that the Republicans would want to see some elderly person die because of lack of treatment under medicare for want of a shiney new car for a five star general.
For those of you who claim that Social Security and Medicare are an entitlement, you are using the wrong word. It isn't an entitlement if you have been paying into it. We have a contract with the US Government. As long as we pay into it, we should get something out of it. I get a new contract about 6 weeks before each birthday telling me what SS will be for me when retired. I HAVE IT IN WRITING. No entitlement there. It is a CONTRACT. I give them money, in return they promise me money.
Entitlement would be better served for someone who hasn't paid into the system. Stop making it look like every liberal is a greedy gobbler of entitlements. Couldn't be further from the truth.
Go for the cliff and starve some Americans is fine with me.
The welfare rats will bitch but who really cares, really really
not me. I want the cliff so we can have spending cuts and tax increases.
Let's just get it over with. I'm so tired of both parties waiting to the last
minute to strike a deal. F'em all...............rich, poor, left right.......
I'll make it because I can and those that can't????
Tough loves a bitch Huh?
The republican cult members spewing hate.
The biggest welfare "rats" are the congress. These men and women , our employees, are on the dole, spending our money and not really bothering to work for us. Their main program is their own re-election, getting the best healthcare,perks and retirement for themselves. They are the true kings and queens of welfare. If these laggards pulled this on any other employer they would be fired and have to fine a real job.
I really don't care for the word 'negotiation' being thrown around in the context of this financial problem. The Teabags made it clear that there will be no negotiation on taxes. Either they get everything they want or they will pass nothing. $250K and up wasn't good enough, $400K wasn't good enough, and neither was $1 million+. Their only counter offer was that there isn't a counter offer. That isn't negotiation. Even Boehner negotiated, but the minority in their own party is acting as if they are the majority in all of the legislature. That isn't right for America, and it isn't right by the voting public. These people are not patriots, they are simply selfish morons.
There will be no deal and much of the right seems to be OK with stopping the economic recovery and hurting us all. As Americans, we want them to come together. Farewell, whatever is left of the GOP...
Throw the childish adolescents who have not figured that they can't have everything their way out of government and bring responsible adults in that learned that everything is give and take. We need to increase taxes and cut spending. Otherwise we will follow the path of the Greeks to bankruptcy. Examples are;
1. We can't keep on increasing life expectancies and keep the retirement benefit age the same as the 1930's when the life expectancy was 64.
2. We can't keep the wealth disparity between the rich and poor from spreading even more. The top tax rate is now the lowest since it has been since WW II. The rich did very well even with higher taxes.
3. Our military spending is more than the next 20 countries combined. Who appointed us as the world policeman and why do we need troops in countries that can defend themselves like Europe.
Wake up, the math does not add up.
Couldn't say it better than you did, MMS1.